Rating: 
Summary: Dissapointment!
Review: This game is a graphical enhancement of CIV II with much of the playability removed. It is slow and tiresome to play - and not particularly rewarding. Strategy gaming fans - pass on this one.
Rating: 
Summary: A Challenging and Engrossing Game
Review: I bought this game about a month ago and quickly realized that it would be a long time before I began to get a handle on it. I'm not a big-time gamer so I was perhaps unprepared for the complexities that are built into this game...there is so much to learn to be able to play it well. The 230 page instruction manual is a help, but by no means complete...it leaves a lot to guess-work and trial and error.
I have not played the earlier versions of this game so I can not make comparisons. Civ III plays flawlessly on my PC with XP Pro...never had a freeze-up or crash, which would be devastating in the midst of the complexity of this game. The graphics are outstanding and even the sound effects are entertaining and well done. My sincere complements to Sid Meier for creating a game for thinking adults; this is not a fast-paced action game but one that needs to be approached thoughtfully and carefully if you would expect any success.
This is a game for someone who wants to take the time to learn the intricacies of the strategies and tactics of a very complex game. Be prepared to spend a lot of time with this one.
Rating:
Summary: Not masochistic enough to play
Review: I've played both Civ1 and Civ2 into the ground, but Civ3 is collecting dust on my shelf. After enduring extremely buggy sound and crashing gameplay, I gave up finally because I couldn't win!!! I couldn't even compete. Even on Warlord, I was fighting for my Civilation's life every moment. The other civiliations seemed to be able to out-grow, out-produce, and out-fight me not matter what strategy I tried. And every time my civilization was finally going fine, all the other opponents allied together and proceeded to stomp me into oblivion. Okay, that kind of Challenge is fine for the harder levels- I like getting my tail whomped every now and again- but a player should have a decent chance to win at the next to lowest level!
All in all- I'll go back to Civ2 which is much more stable and much more fun- no more Civ3 for me, I'm not that masochistic.
Rating: 
Summary: A huge disappointment
Review: You don't normally think of "Sid Meier" and "bad design" in the same sentence, but Civ III falls so flat on its face, we may need to rethink this."Corruption" is the raging cancer at the heart of this game's ills. Any city you start at even a very modest distance from your capital, isn't going to produce anything due to "corruption". Firaxis thinks this is "realistic", but 500 years to build a courthouse??? Which doesn't even help very much. God forbid you should capture an enemy city, it'll be too feeble to defend itself, ever. Civ II was rightly condemned for its heavily pro-conquest bias -- your score was a lot higher for conquering the world than for winning peacefully -- and Civ III says it addresses this. It fails, utterly. You'll be obliged to commit most of your economy to defense, because your city will be attacked by thirty to fourty units at a single turn. If you haven't defended it heavily enough, goodbye. Regardless of what sort of game you want to play, it will have to be military. There is a huge, obvious flaw in the diplomacy setup, that should have been caught during playtesting: if a neighbor is letting an enemy through his territory to attack you, there is no diplomatic solution to get him to stop. The only thing you can do is attack him for it, which makes you the bad guy and costs you points for "breaking your word". Each civilization now has a special unit for it alone -- an interesting idea, but badly out of balance. The French have musketeers, the Germans have the Panzer, the Americans have the F-16 (assuming you survive long enough to develop it) while the Iroquois have the mounted warrior. Others are equally out of time/scale. Some civilizations have "scouts", which are available immediately in the game, and though unarmed, can cover territory much faster than other units. This gives these civilizations a tremendous, unbalanced early advantage in discovering technology, new cities, and money. Civ III has also made a huge step backwards. Civ I was heavily criticized for having spearmen blow up battleships, and Civ II was fixed to make this more realistic, but Civ III has returned to having swordsmen destroy tanks. This game is barely playable as a military sim, and not a particularly good one. In contrast with what we'd hoped for and expected from this designer, Civ III is a complete flop and an embarrassment to its forerunners. Stay with (or get) Civ II, it's a much better game in almost every respect.
Rating:
Summary: Civ 3 has some good enhancements but Civ 2 was better
Review: First of all I want to say this is aimed at people like me who love turn based strategy games. I have no sympathy for people who down grade this game because it isn't real time or multiplayer. There are plenty of games like that out there today and they have their own appeal. I played the origional Civ endlessly for years and then repeated the cycle when civ2 came out. Civ2 was one of the best computer game sequels ever. Largely faithful to the origional concept it added more depth and better graphics with great gameplay. If you haven't played it I would reccommend you buy it first and wait for civ3 to hit the bargain bins. Civ3 has a couple of good twists on the older game with cultural victory and strategic resources. Cultural victory in particular adds depth to the game by making you build cultural improvements in far flung cities to keep them from choosing other civs. I have used this to my advantage quite a bit to snag the occassional city from my neighbors. The strategic resources bit is OK but sometimes I'd just as soon toggle it off. I also think the AI cheats like mad when it's on the ropes. All in all civ3 is a must for civilization fanatics but both civ2 and Alpha Centari were better games overall.
Rating:
Summary: Civilization3 -bad news on Win XP & Lousy Support
Review: A blue banner "mode no support" appeared in the center of the screen every time I tried to play the game.I tried the various video modes and compatiblity mode but nothing worked.I searched the Civ3 site and downloaded the reccomended patch but to no avail.Upon calling tech support I was bounced from one taped menu to another for 9 minutes and 44 secounds before I was finaly given the option to speak to someone. However,there was no one avaliable and I was put on hold ; as they do not provide an 800 number this long distance call was about to cost me more than the game itself.Out of frustration I hung-up .
Rating:
Summary: The crack cocaine of gaming
Review: All of the criticisms are true. And yet, and yet... It's 2:30am, and you have to be at work tomorrow, and your rational mind knows that the lack of sleep will catch up with you in REALLY UGLY WAYS, and yet you STILL have to take "just one more turn". And the Germans are down to one last city, and either you (the French) or the Greeks are going to capture it, and you watch as the Greek AI botches the attack. OK, can you get enough mechanised infantry units in place? If that road were a railroad, yes. OK, can you scrounge up any workers that your own AI hasn't already moved? Yes, sleeping in that city over there. Build the railroad, move in the tanks and infantry, and nail the Germans with one unit move to spare. Damn, it's 2:55am. Maybe coffee will help.
Rating:
Summary: good, but age of empires 2 is better
Review: Civ. 2 is a [great] game, it provides real leaders, resources, and cool army units. The biggest let down is the system of "turns" that it uses. The "turns" slow gameplay and it's frustrating to have something being attacked and not being able to move a unit fast enough because it has to wait a turn. Despite of the aggravating turn system it's a good game and I recomend it.
Rating:
Summary: Terrible Game: DO NOT BUY!!!
Review: If you are having any doubts about whether you will like this game or not, do not buy it. It is needlessly complex, boring as hell, and gives slow a new meaning. I bought it based on CGM's game of the year award on the box. I thought it would be cool. Boy, was I mistaken. The game has no linear plot. You set up the scenarios that you want to play. I can't think of one good reason to buy this. The games best features are merely mediocre when compared with others in this genre. The game's worst features are too numerous to name. Bad graphics, repetitive gameplay, sheer lack of anything resembling entertainment. I would have gotten more enjoyment from burning the fifty dollars I paid for this game. If you want a good strategy game, pick up one of the Age of Empire's games.
Rating:
Summary: Civ 2 was better
Review: Civ 2 was a much more fun game to play. Civ3 puts too much emphasis on resources. If you can't find iron, you're basically [in trouble]. Sure, its more realistic, but how would you like to the ruler of Papua New Guinea and try to build a space ship without iron?
| 
