I'm totally disappointed with Civ3

[dc]

lol, resorting to name calling already. i in no way intended to insult you or start a flame war. i was just amused that you expected a ton of new wonders.

lets see, civ2 based on human history, civ3 also based on human history. ok, lets expect a wild difference in wonders. historic innovation? yes, there's plenty of it thru out history, but which ones are fit to be labeled "wonders of the world"? who is to determine that? most of the included wonders are fine, a few lame ones i agree.

give me a nice list of what you would include then, i'm sure some would make suitable wonders.

 

[Heraclitus]

<< lol, resorting to name calling already. i in no way intended to insult you or start a flame war. i was just amused that you expected a ton of new wonders. >>



I'm pretty sure I didn't call you any names, but anyway...



<< historic innovation? yes, there's plenty of it thru out history, but which ones are fit to be labeled "wonders of the world"? who is to determine that? most of the included wonders are fine, a few lame ones i agree. >>



I'm not sure what this has to do with anything; I didn't say, for example, that "Shakespeare's Theatre" shouldn't count as a Wonder of the World (though I do wonder why they didn't call it the Globe theatre, which was its name).

What I said was that I was disappointed that they used the same Wonders as Civ2, when they could have used different ones. It would have added something new and different to the game. As it stands, you can research Newton's University, Michelangelo's Chapel, etc....we've seen these already. What's the point in making a third game without at least trying to introduce new content, even if it's just to surprise fans of the old games?



<< give me a nice list of what you would include then, i'm sure some would make suitable wonders. >>



Eiffel Tower, Rodin's Thinker, Babbage's Computer, The Arabian Nights, The Telegraph...

The point isn't whether I can think up suitable Wonders, just as the point isn't whether the Wonders they included are really wonderful or not.

I said that I was disappointed that they didn't even try to shake up the Wonders part of the game with new content. I really liked getting Wonders in Civ2, and I was looking forward to see what they would do with it in the sequel.

If you really find that so funny, then I suppose I should just be happy knowing that I brought a little laughter into the world, rather than trying to puzzle out why.

 

[Captain4]

I was pretty much sold on civ3 until I tried combat last night. How can units with spears and bows and arrows beat cavalry with rifles? If the real world played by the rules of civ3, the British would have been defeated by the Zulus in Africa and the Aborigines in Australia and the Russians would have won WWI. What a crock. Maybe I just need to play it more, but my initial impression is that it sucks.

 

[WillyF1uhm1]

More people have complained about the combat system. (What about a galley (ok a bunch of them) sinking a battleship?)
If you're feeling up to it, you could try to edit it.