Recycle Old Threads Drive Canceled!

[Fyron]

Well... I really meant Space Opera, which is a Category of 4X, in my first post about it...

[raynor]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
So? You get the exact same thing in the Civ games. Units with high attack and low defense, and units with low attack and high defense. It all boils down to the same thing. The unit design choices are not much of a choice at all in SMAC.

Don't forget Clean Reactor, Bombard, Nerve Gas Pods, ECM, etc. There were a significant number of extra design choices to make. Once again, given the limitation of Strategic Combat only, I was pretty happy with the relative plethora of design choices.

I have heard that the primary reason for Civ III was to create a Civ game with absolutely astounding AI.

Master of Magic. I remember playing that game before they disemboweled it trying to give it decent AI. It was fun at first but, oh well...

[Cyrien]

I have heard that the primary reason for Civ III was to create a Civ game with absolutely astounding AI.

If that was the purpose of Civ3... they failed.

The only times I have ever found the AI in Civ3 or its expansion difficult are when they get massive "cheat" style bonuses. Even then it is pretty darn easy to get them to do stuff that is just retarded.

[Xiodos]

I have to disagree Cyrian... The AI of CivIII is actually really quite good, and it doesnt cheat at all. (ok, im sure it does, but not in a large way)

Im gonna go out on a limb and publically disagree with Fyron tho... Civ ToT sucked. Man It sucked. It was awful. I own every Civ game, and every Civ-like game (MoM was good... But Colonization? Man, that game is STILL installed) CivIII was in my eyes a great game, but fell because of its predefined units, which Fyron has spent so much time argueing about.

In my opinion, SMAX was the be-all-end-all of 4X games. Actually, for me, its is the only game I need. You know how people always ask "If you were stuck on a desert island, what would you have?" Mine would be SMAX, although SEIV would be duking it out for the spot. The only other game even close to those 2 would be Jagged Alliance 2, and thats completly different.

So theres my total fanboy opinion... and remeber, Opinions are like noses... everyones got one, and they all smell.

Im gonna go play Colonization now...

[Fyron]

Why is Civ2 ToT a bad game? It had everything Civ2 Gold had, plus lots of cool new features that Sid's ego axed for Civ3.

The Civ3 AIs cheat as much as the AIs in other Civ games do, actually. Maybe even more so. And either way, Civ3 is still the worst thing to happen to Civ games ever...

[Xiodos]

You know what, I went back and checked, and turns out I was complaining about the wrong game. You're right Fyron, Civ ToT WAS a great game... I was talking about Call to Power. Sorry.

As for CivIII, I still stand by it. Certainly, it wasnt my favorite Civ game, but the worst? Not at all. The engine is very good and the graphics are crisp, and the political model is unparalled. As for the AI cheating, I can only assume you're talking about the differences between the difficulty levels. Just like SEIV, the higher difficultly you select, the more "Bonuses" the AI gets... but aside from that, there isnt any cheating. My stealth units stay hidden, comeplete with enemy units wandering by. I didnt see anything to say the AI cheats, and certainly nothing to the extent that you obviously believe it does.

[Fyron]

The AI in Civ3 cheats exactly as much as the AI in Civ2 does (plus more, because the AIs freely exchange their techs at low cost with each other, while charging you an arm and 2 legs).

What engine in Civ3? The graphics engine? Fah! Graphics do not make a game. In fact, graphics are the _least_ important factor of a game. Crisp units = irrelevant.

The political model of Civ3 is much weaker than in a fairly large number of games, actually. It is certainly not unparalleled. And a decent political model means little with rampantly cheating AI.

The difficulty level of the AI in SE4 does _not_ cause them to cheat. The bonus does, but the difficulty level does not. This is the crucial difference between SE4 AI and Civ AI: SE4's AI can be played on high difficulty levels without any bonuses given to it. In Civ, you have to suffer with rampant AI bonuses at higher difficulty levels.

But the AI cheating doesn't really matter. Civ and Civ2 were still very fun games with their rampant AI cheating. Civ3 is just a poorly designed game overall, and has many inescapable flaws (which I don't care to enumerate again at the moment), in addition to miserably failing to carry on the Civ legacy. Instead of building upon Civ2, it destroyed nearly all of the improvements that had been made in the Civ2 series (esp. the expansions). And then they have the gall to release the game in a rather early beta stage, and charge us for the rest of the game later on!

Civ3 represents the first Civ game that is all about flash over content. I certainly hope that if a Civ4 is ever made, it takes nothing from the abomination that is Civ3.

And overall, you haven't really given any reasons as to why Civ3 is a good game. Anything other than crisp graphics or political structure?

[ April 23, 2003, 09:00: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]