Rating: 
Summary: Give it back to Activision
Review: I wish Activision still owned the Civ name. Then we would have a new game that goes past the year 2050 and explores what the civilization you have might accomplish under water and in space. All water is in this game is a void with a few food squares. I miss the animated advisors from CivII and the battle views, wonder movies, number of civs to choose from, and future tech from the CTP games. Sure the game is beautiful, but it lacks in imagination. The new features of the game are riddled with problems that really stack the deck against the player. This game needs more than patches to fix it, an Expansion Pack could make it a truly enjoyable game.
Rating: 
Summary: Caveat Emptor - this game is a disappointment!
Review: I am not faint of heart nor am I unschooled in playing pc games - there was a time when I played Civ II so much I could barely get to work the next day. This incarnation of the game looked and sounded fun so I bought it based on the raves I heard.... The graphics are fun, its nice to have everything in 3D but that is about the only upside to this game. The things that I was looking forward to the most, new trade and diplomacy options, are a bust. Trade is easier now but you just really cannot get anything useful out of it. Trade does not function well. You have to have a sea route or a land route to an AI country to trade with it. Once there is a sea route you and the AI need harbors. But the AI's don't build harbors for centuries, even when they can. For a land route, you have to build a road. You can expect that the closest AI will also always be your enemy so good luck trading with them or though them (you can but you lose the route when you go to war with your neighbor. All the AI's almost always demand more than the trade is worth. Then they are very happy to drop trading with you and trade amongst themselves, cutting the human player out totally. Trade and diplomacy are inextricably linked now. This gets to the biggest disappointment - diplomacy worked much better in Civ 2. Diplomacy is a misnomer in this game. AI's demand, you basically have to give in. You ask and MAYBE can get what you want by giving up everything you have, only to have the AI become annoyed or furious with you anyway. This is not because I do not know how to negotiate - I do it for a living, you just cannot get anything but a bad deal in this game. So that leaves just waging war mostly. Here, the game has picked up one of the more unfortunatel traits of Civ 2. The AI's do not have to build any city improvements BUT YOU DO TO KEEP YOUR PEOPLE HAPPY. The upshot is that they have the time and the money to spend building armies that you MUST devote to building other things. A few good tactical victories during the inevitable war usually gets the AI to the peace table but you have to start rebuilding everything destroyed from scratch wasting more time and money. The AI just goes back to building Wonders and military units and then blitzes you with dozens of units the next time around. It becomes dull and repetitous. I would have been happier if they had just taken Civ 2 and improved the graphics - that would have been enough. Instead they ruined the game. Now, I am mostly just bored by Civ 3.
Rating: 
Summary: Be amazed.
Review: There are some authors who are worth buying just to see what they've done. My short list includes Tim Schafer ("Grim Fandango" and "Full Throttle"), Peter Molyneux ("Dungeon Keeper", "Black and White"), Trevor Chan ("Seven Kingdoms", "Capitalism") and, of course, Sid Meier. I got Civ III when it first came out--sprang for the tin, even, which didn't have much to commend it on the inside--and I played it. Then I played it some more. I lived with it for a while. This is a good game--a great game, even. It's polished, simple, deep, varied, compelling and downright fun. (And, look, if you're not interested in the slow, deliberate pacing of a turn based strategy, go back to Jedi Outcast. This is more akin to chess than jai alai.) I've played a lot of sequels to a lot of classics lately--and have been playing microcomputer games for about as long as they've been around--I've seen changes made to classic games for better and worse (and completely tangential). My advice is to be amazed. Not that the game accumulates stupid comments comparing it to real-time strategy games, or that fault its "accuracy" or "realism". Don't be amazed that one reviewer says the graphics [stinks] while another says the game is nothing but eye candy. Or that one says it's a marginal modification to Civilization 2, while another says it's so radically and fundamentally different they destroyed the playability. No, be amazed that =anyone= liked the game at all. Civ is possibly the proudest lineage in PC gaming; the developers wisely sought to maintain the play mechanics, streamlining some aspects (such as caravans) which had been tedious in earlier versions, adding some extra strategic decision-making, forsaking some military realism (which in history often means a complete "game-over" situation if you're unfortnuate enough to be caught with bows and arrows when guys with guns come by), and dramatically improving the AI. Every single change made invited a criticism--and every change NOT made invited a criticism that the developers were riding on Civ 2's coattails. People criticize for lack of realism on the one hand, then complain that they couldn't hold on to their distant colonies, just for instance. Beyond the criticisms of those who just plain don't-get-it, who really should be playing "Empire Earth" or "Return to Wolfenstein", I have a theory as to what underlies the fan criticism: Most of the abuses and mechanical playing styles one could apply to previous Civ versions are gone. Even people who were really good at Civ II had to scale back a few difficutly levels to win Civ III. In other words, I think some people who considered themselves to be good at Civ II got their hands slapped, and responded by criticizing the game mechanics. The corruption factor is a big one. A lot of people are just dead set against the game's high corruption factors. Yet this realistic feature (corruption goes up with the size of the civilizaiton) which prevents the most heinous abuses of earlier games (pell mell expansion gave you incredible power in previous Civ games, down to an abuse called "the barbarian horde" in Civ 1). Does it make the game less fun? Only if you're dead set on using old strategies with a new game. And it is a new game. It plays very similarly to the old games. But it feels very much different. Perhaps the difficulty has made it less accessible to some fans. But I suspect a lot of new players are going to like it a lot more.
Rating:
Summary: The best yet.
Review: I dont know why everyone is having problems with lowerclass units destroying tanks and what not. I have not seen this to any great extent (this happened ocasionaly in Civ 2 as well, its know as ambush?). Any way I'll keep it short, this one is the best yet. The new cultural feature takes the game play to a compleatly nother level. The only sort of problem I found with this game is that it requiers much more effective stratagy that previosly wich can discorage the faint of heart.
Rating:
Summary: Good graphics, bad game
Review: Excellent graphics provide real enjoyment, but unfortunately, the new features of trade and resources result in bad science. If this game were to be believed, the most advance culture will develop advanced technologies such as gunpowder without any access to saltpeter, therefore cannot have musketeers. How is that? Trade routes cannot be developed without constructing a road to the others capital. And if trade is purely based upon resources, then insufficient resources are available early in the game. The early Vikings traded heavily in furs and hardwood lumber and became some of the greatest controllers of trade in the Baltic in the 8-10 centuries. Worse, with the advantage of iron and technology, it is overly difficult to attack other civilizations. Does anyone want to buy a game?
Rating:
Summary: Impeccable. The best strategy game of all time
Review: I got into Civilization 2 sort of late. Quite late. I thought it was cool, but a bit slow and not so great. But then, last Christmas, I was reading a bunch of rave reviews of Civ III, so I asked for it for Christmas. At first, I was into it, but not addicted. The addiction took a few weeks to set in. But then, WOW! This game is so amazing. The graphics, while not great, are clean, crisp and well thought out. You can easily tell what's what(with the possible excapetion of trying to find coal). I'd give the graphics around a 7.5/10. The sound is good, but I found myself usually turning it off. It's not that it's bad, but just a little distracting. 8/10. The gameplay is where Civ III really shines. Every aspect has been polished so much that the shine blinds you. The trade and diplomacy have been streamlined, and are now completely intuitive. The new victory conditions are fantastic, and I make it a personal goal to win a different way every time. 10/10. The replay value is very good. Though there isn't a multiplayer at the time, I suspect Firaxis will release a Multiplayer expansion. The map editor is good, but could use work. The single player has almost infinite replayablity. Firaxis often puts out patches, and one can always find user made mods and maps.10/10. This game is a true work of art, and needs to be bought by every fan of strateg games. If initially put off by its slow speed, just keep at it. It's well worth it. Overall: 10/10
Rating: 
Summary: Good, but Civ 2 WAS better
Review: I really enjoyed this newer version of Sid Meier's all-time masterpiece. Simply the fact that he is back in the saddle and on the market with this game was enough to make me purchase it. However, with this game - although his reputation remains untarnished - Sid falls below the standards of Civ 2, effectively consecrating Civ 2 as one of the greatest strategy games, if not THE greatest strategy game, of all times. Whereas the graphics are literally breathtaking in Civ 3, and whereas the dimplomatic and trade options have been improved to irreproachable heights, there is a very real problem with unit imbalance. Horses and knights regularly defeat Panzers and tanks, and a single spearman unit can wipe out several infantry units. Whereas that may be comforting to the down-and-outers, when you've spent billions to develop a combat-ready army and you're invaded by a weaker civilization, the initial losses can be rather discouraging before sheer numbers turn the tide back in your favor - and then only at a terrible cost that might turn you into a down-and-outer yourself on the diplomatic scene. And speaking of war, you might as well try to play without resorting to warlike acts as any offensive automatically triggers riots and revolts among your populace - effectively shutting down production and, in the case of a long-winded war, causing the destruction of city improvements. On the other hand, the aerial units are very much improved - and the bombing runs are simply fantastic. Too, the concept of an expanding border around each city based on cultural achievement is one of sheer genius. Together with those improvements, the diplomacy alone - being able to talk with allies and enemies alike, and to have increased flexibility in those conversations - makes Civ 3 worth playing. All in all, Civ 3 is an enjoyable game. Civ 2 may still reign supreme, but there are still quite a few good reasons to keep Civ 3 installed to your PC. - Benjamin Gene Gardner
Rating:
Summary: Best Version of Civ yet!
Review: I'm not sure what the rest of these reviewers are talking about. I've played every version of Civ and its expansions and Civ3 is the most playable and enjoyable. The AI is much better than the previous versions (who always got annoyed at you by the end of the game) and the diplomacy options really make it more than a building/war game. The addition of culture, cultural boundaries and various ways to victory give you many ways to play. Yes the Persians attack you, but thats what the Persians do. With solid diplomatic tactics, you can actually get them to attack someone else.
All in all, this is the best version of the game and I think some of these other reviewers just haven't figured out different winning strategies.
Rating: 
Summary: This game is as stiff as cardboard!!!
Review: First things first! I own and play earthly consuming amounts of time with Age of Empires 2, and love it! It has strategy, mixed in with great graphics and gameplay, as well as a sense of unique civ. individuality! The best PC game ever! Civ.3 has none of the above listed, there are many down right quirky unit inaccuracies in this game. More so, it needs a much looser feel, kind of like you're the emperor, or king themselves...commanding all! But no, you're up in the sky about a mile playing a bad game...within the game. It needs more realism etc., etc. I do not recommend this game even if used to break someone's fall.
Rating:
Summary: It could have been a contender
Review: Sid is a great man. CIV/CIV2/SMAC just a few games to mention. He has revolutionized computer gaming. But sadly CIV 3 is a graphic make over. It is CIV 2.5. Even additions of the resources, unique civ specific units, and culture do not make this game stand on its own.
AI is lacking and very annoying (cheating too). Useless advisors. Slow game play (lag between turns could take up to 2-3 min). Constant warfare. No real scenario support. Editor is buggy. No multiplayer support.
I got this game the day it came out. I don't regret it. I like it. I play it once in a while. Upgrade immediately to at least patch 1.21 if you get it. Anything before that is rubbish.
| 
