Rating: 
Summary: I'm so lonely I could cry
Review: Ok, so in eager anticipation of the release of the third installment of the best, and most time consuming, game in computing history, I went ahead and did the logical thing: I dumped my girlfriend. It would have happened eventually I figured, the choice being the game or her and I figured I might as well make a clean break of it-lest it interfere with the countless months of fun that lay ahead. I eagerly installed the game. A short while later I watched breathlessly as a warrior with a stone axe defeated my conscripted infantryman armed with a modern firearm. Then he defeated a second infantryman and then a third and a fourth. Later on still, I tried to exhale slowly as my hardwon accumulation of ironclads were ambushed and sunk to their last rivet by a lessor fleet of aggressive wooden galleons. Appealing to my neighbors for aid I discovered that it was too late, if only I had accepted their earlier diplomatic proposals-but I had foolishly found their requests for the entirety of my treasury and the secrets of Engineering, Masonry, Conscription, Physics, Combustion, Communism, Democracy, Chivalry, Flight and Gunpowder to great a price to pay.
Now my long empty nights are not filled with the chirpy soundtrack of civ 3 but of the lonely ghostly ballads of Roy Orbison as I cry myself to sleep.
Rating: 
Summary: Its ok, but Civ 2 is still better.
Review: While the graphics and new units are great, the game play is not all that great. its certainly not better than Civ2. Probably the one thing that really bothered me more than anything else was the fact that a unit on horseback could defeat my TANK! Are you kidding me?! The game is so-so. It is definitely not 4 or 5 stars like these 12 yr olds say it is. Get Civ2, its cheaper and better.
Rating: 
Summary: Lovely to look at, not so great to play
Review: I have played only Warlord and since that's next to the easiest, I thought, no sweat. There are few big problems to enjoying the game and lots of little ones. First, the AI seems to put the races with early power units next to YOU no matter what race you play. Ask for a huge world, and you'll run into the Aztecs or Persians pretty fast and they have no qualms running over you. I often start with one of the races with scouts so that I can get a jump on science. There appears to be a penalty for this because even when every city has a library and I'm playing with a science advantage, I'll still arrive the next era behind non-scientific races. I looked at each city in a civilization that was ahead of me and only one had a library. In fact, each city may have had only one building in it. They kept paying me for stuff, my maps, my communications, so they did't have the money to buy this from others. Because they keep me in money, I have the allocation at 10 to science. Another big problem is that none of the WONDERS work across the sea no matter what your culture rating. NEVER play anything other than pangeas. Achipelogos are only for games where you don't want WONDERS at all. Another big problem is attack/defend AI. I frequently lost submarines to triemes(galleys) and often lost tanks to pikemen. Lots of small things too. The Egyptians war chariots don't have any additional power (they're supposed to), cities formerly with walls suddenly regrow them when knocked down in population which seems to have a very high chance of happening with air bombardment and while resources have only a 1% chance of disappearing, the one that does is always the one you only have ONE of. Never is it one where you have 5 of them. After lots of turns and lots of hours, the game only grows in frustration, not in fun.
Rating: 
Summary: Much better than Civilization II
Review: I found the game much improved. Artificial intelligence is amazing. I am not sure if anyone can beat the computer at the hardest level. The new feature "culture" I found to be a nice touch. Some people have commented that they didn't like it. It has made my game lot more fun. In civilization and civilization 2 one of the very annoying things was that you could not move your unit passed an enemy unit unless you attacked it, this does not exist anymore. I also am enjoying the resources and luxuries feature, it gives you extra issues to worry about during the game. Also the variety of victory conditions guarantees that there is something available for everyones taste. The world map feature is much improved too: realistically detailed. No more brute force victory where you start attacking everyone from the beginning. If you start attacking the other civs randomly, world opinion shifts against you and the other civs stop trading with you, ally against you and so forth. Overall 5 stars for sure. Two drawbacks: music is simply terrible... Lastly, the railroads look very amateurish. Why they changed it from Civ-2 i do not know but they look really bad. However, there is a patch available to correct this issue so not to worry.
Rating:
Summary: Incredible
Review: Wow. There is no other word that does this game enough justice. I just recently got this game as a birthday gift, and I haven't shut it off willingly since. When I first started this game, I had minimal experience in Civ II, but I was the undisputed CivNet master. There were quite a lot of changes. I first played for two hours, and subsequently lost five games within that time period. On the easiest skill level. It is easily the most challenging game I have ever played. I hated it at that point, but was hooked, and finally figured out the basics. Now, I can't get enough. It takes some time to get used to it and to grasp the strategies for this game, but the game is definitely worth every penny you spend. Simply amazing. The diplomacy system gets me the most. It is amazing. I came from CivNet, where diplomacy involved four things: Making advance trades, demanding tribute, making peace, and declaring war. I now can set up resource and luxury trade agreements, have military alliances, mutual protection pacts, trade world maps, give gifts, receive tribute, make peace, declare war, etc. Also, the culture concepts are great as well. The graphics, for a Civ game, are awesome. I am writing this article from a school computer in the library, after April vacation. I have been in school for forty-five minutes, and I'm experiencing serious withdrawal from this game. Get it. It's worth it.
Rating: 
Summary: A beautiful game
Review: First of all, I am flabbergasted when people say that there have been no changes from the earlier incarnations of this game. The graphics are beautiful, like an old sailing chart come to life. The characters move, instead of just standing around like boardgame pieces. The battles are actually fought, the characters fall down dead, ships sink into the water. Sometimes I just sit for a minute watching all my workers dig mines or shovel roads. The much-touted improved AI does, in fact, make the other factions somewhat more clever. Instead of mindlessly beating me up (like they did in Civ 2 and Alpha Centauri) they actually respond to trade agreements by going from, for example, "annoyed" to "polite." On the other hand, they can still, on occasion, be quite unreasonable, and their ability to accumulate scientific knowledge, strategically expand their empires and build the latest, greatest wonders is simply miraculous, while I'm struggling to keep my cities from burning and my gold from being snitched by barbarian hordes.
All the Civ 3 games I've played have been on the second-to-easiest of six levels of difficulty (I JUST CAN'T bring myself to play the easiest), which brings me to by far the biggest issue I have with Civilization 3: Every time I've played I have at some point started losing ground at a phenomenal rate and been unable to move forward. I've tried aggressively trading with the other factions, mining the hell out of the countryside, and selling off older units until I was in serious danger of being destroyed by even the weakest of my rivals. I've tried building up militarily, I've tried constructing a strong infrastructure of roads and marketplaces, I've tried creating a grand culture. I've found that each strategy comes at the expense of some indispensible need, and the game is quick to punish the gamer for any and every deficiency in their developing nation. It seems impossible to find a balance between military might, culture, food production, wealth accumulation and scientific learning; as a matter of fact, building anything less than the strongest military in any city invites attack, and a military strong enough to be useful when the player first (and always unexpectedly) needs it is likely to leave the rest of your civilization not much more than a smattering of aboriginal villages. And things only get worse once you advance beyond a despotism, when the very nature of your government forces your development even further askew.
Here is what for me has become a typical scenario: After several hours of play, I've finally gotten my empire really expanding and taking shape. The other factions have made their entrances and negotiations are under way! And THEN...Persia rudely demands a map of my territory. I refuse, and Persia declares WAR! and steals a bunch of my land with only token resistance from my forces (what are these guys doing)!? My national treasury is suddenly empty and units are being disbanded. Half my cities are aflame because, dammit, the people need CLOWNS. Every wonder I was constructing gets built by somebody else and my production has been switched--at a significant loss--to something that I don't have the gold to support after it's completed. My advisors each have a separate agenda, but nobody's agenda appears to pertain whatsoever to the game I am currently playing. And, of course, the Babylonians, English, French and Egyptians have all signed a trade embargo against me because I so gravely wronged their dear friends, the Persians. About this time I decide the game's entertainment value has dropped to just below watching that woman on TV who pretends to read dogs' minds, or maybe searching the phone book for people with funny or unusual names. Pop fssssss. Overall, the game is a visual feast. I really have to say I'm not sorry I bought it, if only because of the graphics and its TREMENDOUSLY high "wife annoyance" value. The AI truly is impressive, even if it is like playing Monopoly with a really, really dishonest Banker. I just would have liked to have seen the "let me win" levels be a little friendlier. To say the least.
Rating:
Summary: Civ3-a regression
Review: Civ3 is good for those who have never played a turn-based strategy game. But it is by far an inferior product relative to Civ2 or Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. There's no improvement of the AI since all it does is still the old fashioned cheating. Given the same circumstances the AI builds units faster, is less susceptible to social unrest, has an uncanny ability of building cities where the undiscovered resources are-just to name a few. Though the culture and the resources are good ideas in Civ3, they are not well incorporated into the game play. The corruption makes it impossible to increase your power by expansion, which results in a stalemate in the mid-game that makes the game unnecessarily dragging and boring. I often ask myself how am I going to end this game, win or lose I don't care-a question that never occurs to me when I play Civ2 or SMAC. Civ 3 is a regression rather than a progression. It regresses from the multimedia of Civ2 and SMAC (movies, human voices) to the monomedia of dumb still images. It regresses from well designed games of Civ2 and SMAC to a poorly thoughtout current iteration, a non-game. I have given up on Civ3 dispite all the patches, because even great patches can not fix a program that is poor at the core, the design.
Rating:
Summary: ultimate world domination strategy game
Review: Sid Meyers is a god, and this is his best game so far. If you liked CIV 1 or 2, go ahead and get this one... I've spent many wasted hours on this game.
Rating:
Summary: Civilization 3
Review: Civilivation 3 is fun game because you can fight in wars,trade and build citys.You can also build buildings and collect resources.Workers can build roads, clear forests or jungles and irrigate land.You can pick from tons of worlds or create your own on Civ 3 edit...
Rating:
Summary: It might not be perfect, but it's real Civ!
Review: Some will criticise Civ III for not being a radical departure from Civ II. But I don't know how fair this is. Civ is a winning formula, and I am happy to see it built on once more. The problems I will mention have frustrated my enjoyment to some degree, but it is still an addictive game. I am tempted to give the game three stars for the lack of multiplayer. Most games players these days expect online gaming as standard, and I was very disappointed to see Civ shipped without it. However, the makers have made the game very customisable (editing of rules and maps is allowed) so I expect to see some good fan made scenarios in the future. An (incomplete) overview of the big differences from the predecessors: Culture and nationality: Each Civilization has specific abilities (example: the Egyptians are industrious, meaning they build faster, and religious, meaning they build religious buildings especially fast, and have no anarchy between governments. Other Civs have different special abilities). Unlike Civ II, you now have national borders (so no more pesky AI players dumping cities in your midst). Strong culture expands your borders, sometimes at the expense of weaker cultures. Your people also have culture; they know which nation they belong to. You can improve your culture by building certain city improvements and wonders of the world. If one of your cities is captured, the inhabitants already in the city retain their national identity. If your culture is strong and that of the conquerors is weak, your people may actually overturn enemy rule and revert to your control! A strong military presence can prevent reversion, but the spectre of governing cities full of unhappy foreigners is a deterrent to war (something that Civ really needed). Strong culture can also cause cities from other Civs to defect peacefully to your control. Lastly, an impressive culture will improve the demeanour of other leaders and will make them easier to deal with. Resources: You now need to have access to various resources (by ownership or trade) in order to build certain things. For example, without iron you can't build knights, and without coal you can't build railroads. Luxury resources (such as gems) make your people happy, and can also be traded. The presence of resources makes the game much more interesting. Combat: Combat is probably the area that generates most controversy in Civ, and I'm afraid Civ3 is no exception. Air units can't move as such, you just base them in a city, and they have an operational range of x squares. They do their missions and if they are not shot down, they return to base automatically. To someone who has lost a lot of planes by accidentally leaving them floating around in the air, this is a big improvement. But you have to manually assign them to their missions for every single turn. It would be nice to put them on air defense until further notice. It's good for combat to be slightly unpredictable, because it makes war risky (another much needed disincentive to war) but it's a little too unpredictable in this game. I've lost modern infantry units to Bronze Age spearmen and seen submarines sunk by transport ships. War discontent seems to be solely dependent on culture and government. Foreign nationals in your city will always be upset at war with their motherland. People in a republic or democracy will not tolerate war at all well, which is fine, but they pay no regard to how the war started or how competently you marshal your forces. In Civ3, settlers and workers (guys who build roads etc) are drawn from your city population, so you have a strong incentive to look after them. But military forces are merely manufactured goods, and nobody mourns their loss. This can make fighting very difficult, because both you and your enemies can have unlimited tolerance of attrition. A common AI tactic is to send hordes of obsolete units to certain death, just to wear down your defenders, and then send the proper units in. Another major problem is that you cannot use roads and rail in enemy territory. Rail is fair enough, because your enemies aren't going to drive trains for you, and to give you unlimited free traversal of their territory would be silly. But why should the road quit working? My armoured counter-offensive against the Babylonians came to an abrupt end when I found that my tanks could only move two squares at a time in enemy territory (while their defending forces had the unlimited movement afforded by rail). The no roads restriction makes any tactical offensive action very difficult. Defenders don't have to bother about defending or sabotaging transport links, and attackers are reduced to a crude, massed frontal offensive, creeping forward and winning by attrition. Zones of control (where you were prevented from passing close to enemy units) have gone. You can now pass by enemy units, but some units get to take a free shot at you. Another infuriating feature is that this only applies to passing units, and not approaching units. So you can pass between two fortresses adjoining a city attack the city with impunity (you would have to move one square further along before the zone of control would come into play). One good thing about this scheme is that an ancient unit can't block a tank from passing by (don't worry, they don't get free attacks either). The user interface is generally good (more subtle, less popup windows), but there are a couple of big problems: there is no facility for you to group your units so that they move with one command (so you have to move units one by one).
|
