Rating: 
Summary: Best video game ever!!!
Review: If you liked the earlier versions of the Civilization series, you should love this one, too. It is nothing terribly new, but there are plenty of small additions that make this an absolutely wonderful update. First of all, the graphics have been given a complete overhaul and look many times better than they used to. However, graphics are not the reason that people (well, me anyway) play this game. It is the completely addictive gameplay. The addition that I found the most intriguing is that fact that there are now luxury and strategic resources that you MUST have in order to build certain units, make more people happy, build railrods, etc. You can get them by either having them within your territiory or by building colonies. This is an extremely welcome addition to the game, and extremely realistic. You now have an incentive to actually get luxuries and resources, unlike the earlier games. Diplomacy options have also been expanded, with many new features. The only quibbles I have with this game are that: 1) there is no "cheat" mode like in Civ2, 2) there is way too much pollution happening near the end of a game, 3) there aren't a huge amount of different civilizations to choose from, and 4) there is too much corruption, making colonization of another continent almost nonsensical if it weren't for the need for resource and luxury colonies. But, really, this is my favorite video game ever, and I can't stop playing it. I highly recommend it.
Rating: 
Summary: Great game, but can repeat itself.
Review: Civilization 3 is probably the most addictive game I've ever played. Overall this game is very good. The first time you play this game it is great. One game can last probably over 5 or 6 hours. Game play is probably a 4.5 out of 5. The game does a very good job of controlling you civilization. The game gets in depth into controlling your civilization, which some things can get frustrating. Another Bad thing is that if you dont start off on a good start, you wont do good for the next 6,050 years. Overall I would suggest this, although the replay isnt that good. It is a great game idea and It is carried out pretty good.
Rating: 
Summary: How the mighty have fallen...
Review: When I first started playing Civilization, I was hooked. It was such a great game concept. World conquest, turn-based, strategy... it became my favorite game. I thought it couldn't be topped. Then came Civ II. With better graphics and AI, as well as new units and game concepts, it easily replaced the original. And I never looked back. I still play Civ II to this day. But Civ III does not thrill me. I realize that I might be suffering from high expectations, but I was hoping that this game would follow the lead of Alpha Centauri with its new concepts and unit options. Instead, it made ordinary things unnecessarily difficult without much improvement anywhere else. Example: in Civ II, I finally learned to be the infrastructure dynamo. I learned the best ways to connect my cities and improve the landscape so that I could out-produce, out-research, and just plain out-muscle my competition up to at least Emperor level. Unlike the original, where I just conquered like mad. But playing Civ III made me feel like I was learning all over again. Why in the world should an experienced Civ player have trouble connecting his oldest and most powerful cities with railroad well until the 1900's on Chieftain level?! It's not just that I had to learn the new game concepts (such as, rivers don't work the same way they used to), it's also that the workers themselves seem to improve too slowly. They seem to be just as slow in the modern age as they were in the beginning of the game. Maybe I'm just missing my Engineers from Civ II. But other problems mentioned in these reviews also ring true. There's nothing quite so frustrating as watching an Elite Cavalry unit get KO'd by some conscript level axeman fighting for the barbarians. Unless maybe it's a tank I'm losing. And the lack of resource availability when I own 80 percent of a continent is outrageous! If I can go coast to coast with my roads, why can't I find coal or oil when I need it. Or worse yet, why is that one resource you need so desperately can only be found in your enemy's territory. And whoever set up the AI for trade and diplomacy deals should get a job doing hostile takeovers. Talk about unrealistic. Also this game suffers from what I call the "gang up on me" syndrome. Against all logic, AI civs will abandon long-standing rivalries with each other just to start cutting my civ out of trade deals and getting me into wars. It makes no sense, and it detracts from the game horribly. Some of the new game features are cool, some are even overdue. But they don't make up for obvious flaws in the gameplay. Civ III has fallen way short of the mark set by its predecessors. My recommendation: stay with Civ II.
Rating: 
Summary: if you could get it to install
Review: after six months, a new monitor, removing everything from hard drive, consulting the web page, emailing support, and getting tech support finally on the phone, even tech support can't get it installed. they blame install shield and say that i need the latest update - there is no update to install shield. fortunately, a lot of people at the computer store have had trouble with it so they let me return it, beyond the normal return period.
Rating:
Summary: Expanded version builds on strength
Review: Civilization II is one of the greatest PC games ever. So when Infogrames decided to market a sequel, they were careful not to tamper with what made the game so absorbing and addictive: A winning mix of turn-based play, resource development and military strategy. The most notable change is the expansion and improvement of the game's graphics. Instead of the sometimes bizarre sprites (what exactly was the Engineer supposed to be?) of Civ 2 we have carefully rendered 3D figures that move about in convincing animation. When a worker mines, for example, he swings a pick-axe with a convincing thud. A horseman moves with the clomp of hooves and the jingle of his harness. The landscape is a subtle map of grasslands, hills, mountains, forest, jungles and steppes. There are a few adjustments here a there -- some new units, a few old ones removed -- but by and large the gameplay is the same (thankfully). You begin with a settler, a character you convert into a city. A city's production allows you to create new units -- military units (from club swinging warriors to jet fighters), workers or city improvements. The fact that you don't ever get quite get as much as you need is the hook. Should you create a warrior to defend the city or a worker to build roads? Do you need a harbor for productivity or a library for culture? I think the biggest change to the game (besides the look and feel) is the addition of a stronger national identity. In Civ 2, your nation was really a group of cities; in its sequel your nation has actual visible, if changeable, borders. The territory your nation (or despotism, kindgom, republic, etc.) controls is based on the presence of cities and the strength of your culture. Civ 3 has greatly expanded the role of culture in the game. Culture is the effect of intangible benefits of civilization generated by temples, libraries, cathedrals, etc. As your city creates more culture, it's territory expands. A recurrent challenge through the game is whether to add territory by creating cities or building culture-generating improvements. Culture can even conquer -- cities will rebel and join your nation if the culture differential is great enough. But beware -- if you ignore your own culture, you can lose cities as well. Civ 3 has made some changes in the map, most of which are reasonable. Engineers are gone (workers just get more efficient), so you can't change terrain anymore -- no more turning steppes into deserts, then plains, then grasslands. Rivers run along the borders of grid squares rather than a center. You can't irrigate from the ocean anymore (darn that salt-water anyway), but you can pump from wells (i.e., irrigate in non-water spaces) after you develop electricity. Gone too are the zones of control. In Civ 2 if you had a military unit in place, you controlled all squares directly around it. No longer. This reduces the importance of fortresses, as enemy units can simply bypass them. The trading aspect of the game is weak, I think. Gone completely are trade routes and trading units like caravans and freight. Instead you trade directly with other nations. When one nation offers to sell you an improvement, you'll get the same price from every other nation. An advisor tells you if a bid will be successful or not before you make it. And the game could really use some kind of slider to increase or decrease monetary amounts; the interface as it exists is clumsy. Civilization III is not a complete improvement. I think the endgame of Civ 3 is slow and duller than its predecessor. In Civilization II you could always count on one kamikaze nation to attack you, just to keep things interesting. The 'improved' AI doesn't do that, so there can be long, peaceful stretches that are a bit dull. Even worse is the fact that as the game progresses, enemy turns take longer and longer. If you leave the animation on, you can count on turns which take tedious minutes to complete, as armies march back in what seem to be pointless and interminable manuevering. Even switching such animations off doesn't completely cure it. Late in the game, if you aren't fighting, the going can be pretty slow. Overall, Civilation III is a fine PC game. The slow progression from a nomadic tribe to a globe-straddling superpower remains a fascinating experience. The turn-based play feels thoughtful and -- well, civilized -- compared with the frantic speed of real-time simulations. If you were a fan of Civ 2 you should probably move on to Civ 3 ... just to watch the workers work, if nothing else.
Rating:
Summary: A giant step backward!
Review: This game is an order of magnitude more frustrating than Civ II.
It is nearly impossible to win at the Chieftain level without replaying moves. And that is ridiculous. Civ II is the ultimate strategy game and subsequent versions just don't measure up.
Rating: 
Summary: Wish they had worked longer
Review: I am a big fan of the first two installments in the Civ series and was eagerly awaiting the third game. However, when I began to play the game I started to feel that it was thrown together without the needed polish to make it a good game. So many of the new features like cultural rating, trading for resources, and strategic resources, felt rather like they were from a beta version of the game. Cultural ratings failed to have any effect on game play after about the invention of gunpowder. The Computer will often refuse to trade for resources if it feels that you are in a better position than it is, regardless of how sweet the offer you are making is. Strategic Resources will sometimes never appear anywhere near your territory, at one point while playing with large landmasses and controlling about half of the world I was unable to build anything more than spearmen for almost an entire age of technology because all of the Iron deposits were located in one tiny corner of the map. Thanks to the fast pace of my research I had Oil before I had Iron. The research is another problem. In an effort to streamline the game the designers gutted the tech tree; whereas, in the past, every advancement provided some social benefit or allowed for something else to be built, now the tech tree is filled with advances that provide no benefit other than allowing you to research something else. The worst part is that these advancements were once very useful in Civ 2 but now the discovery of things like chemistry does nothing for a culture. I could clearly see how much fun the game would have been had they continued developing it but, as is, the only fun part takes place before the development of steel when the new features are at their best, after that it is all downhill.
Rating:
Summary: Best Civ version EVER!
Review: ... This one improves upon the previous versions, and puts Call to Arms to shame! I've played every single Civ game released and haven't gone back to the others. Just waiting for multiplayer mode!
Rating:
Summary: Don't waste time and money on this joke of a game!!!!
Review: Worst Civ game i've ever bought,played it 3 times and smashed it into about 5 pieces and threw it in trash.Will never buy another Sid Meier game again,Hope there happy how they ruined A good game.Civ II test of time is my game they can keep civ3.
Rating:
Summary: Keep Your Money
Review: I, Have to Admit, Infogrames did a great job with civilization 3. But you should keep you money, there is no multiplayer feature in this game, save your money and buy the multiplayer addition when it comes out. If you cannot wait BUY THIS GAME.
It will change your gaming experience
| 
