OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic

Xiodos · #1 April 24th, 2003, 03:40 AM

Evidently that post was directed at me...

I don't know... I'll be honest when I say that Civ3 wasnt my favorite, but I had to disagree with Fyron when he said that it was awful. I find that I cannot argue for Civ3 anymore, simply because I guess I know you're right in what you say. Civ3 had its problems, and was put out to soon without proper time allowed for development.

Nevertheless, I stand by it as a good/ok game. Certainly, it was a dissapointment, especially after SMAX, but its not the antichrist.

Fyron · #2 April 24th, 2003, 08:19 AM

There is a huge difference between saying a game is awful and saying it is the antichrist (an unfairly biased term anyways...). Civ 3 had 1 or 2 good features, and 30+ horrible ones. The bad greatly outweigh the good.

Xiodos · #3 April 24th, 2003, 09:16 AM

stop over analyzing everything I say.

I stand by my view that Civ3, while not a great game, is certainly a good game.

You obviosly have a different view.

oleg · #4 April 24th, 2003, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cyrien:
...Colonization was a great game, SMAX was a great game, Civ2 was a great game.

Civ3 is at best an OK game.

Is it a coincidence all three have been made by Brian Reynolds with S.M. name on it for marketing purpose only ? Civ3 was the first game by S.M. after Brian left...

Xiodos · #5 April 24th, 2003, 07:25 PM

I think oleg hit the nail on the head there...

Fyron · #6 April 24th, 2003, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oleg:
Is it a coincidence all three have been made by Brian Reynolds with S.M. name on it for marketing purpose only ? Civ3 was the first game by S.M. after Brian left...

And this is exactly why SM needs to be forcibly retired. He has lost his ability to make good games.

Cyrien · #7 April 24th, 2003, 08:17 PM

SM never made good games. Brain Reynolds did. SM just put his name on them.