Civilization 3

Rating:
Summary: Probably the best civ game!!!
Review: Civilation 3 is the best civ game so far. As many people know, the last civ game, Civilization Call to Power was a huge dissapointement. Even though the graphics were improved, the gameplay was dissaproved. The gameplay was trumendously bad. The was because the Sid Meider did not make the game. Sid came back, and made the next civilization.

Civilization 3 is a cross between Civ 2 and Civ: Call to Power. It has the great gameplay of civ 2 and the good graphics of Call to Power. This is why I recommend the game to everyone.

Newbies, if you have no idea what i am talking about, here is a review for Newbies:

Civilization 3 is, i think, the best game to start out with. Civ 3 has some better menu commands, and it comes with a civ dictionary, so u can find out every term that may come to use with you. Don't be scared of the 300 page instruction manual. You don't need it. If you want to read it, it will give you a lot of background knowledge. If not, just play the tutorial. My newbie civ friends learned right away how to play just by doing one or two tutorial games. It's simple and fun!

I RECOMEND CIV 3 FOR EVERYONE!!!

Rating:
Summary: Too addicting!
Review: This game makes you forget what time it is and sometimes what day it is. You just keep wanting to do one more thing and it never stops!

It's fun but keep a clock with one of those annoying hourly chimes on it around so at least once an hour you'll realize that you're still on Earth and time is passing by!

Rating:
Summary: Rushed, Unpolished, yet delievers Addictive Gameplay
Review: Civilization III(CivIII) has big shoes to fill. Earlier Civilization Games in the series have gotten great reviews and entry into numerous Computer Gaming halls of fame. The basic principle is to control a tribe of people for over 6000 years of history. No other game series gives the user such non-linear world conquering gameplay.Maintain the Army/Navy, Diplomacy, Cities, Scientific Research and Exploration of the world as leader of your Civilization. The gameplay is addictive and will keep you up late partly due to the "Just one more turn" nature of the game but also because games can take a great deal of time if you micromanage every detail of your Civilization.

Positives
- Culture System
- Boarders
- Good graphics
- Resource System

Negatives
- No option to place the location of Civilizations or units in map editor
- Unfinished Scenario Editor
- If you take the lead, the A.I. Civs throughout the world all ally against you.
- Culture - as it makes oversea colonies impossible to manage under default game rules.

I like the Civilization series for re-creating history, to see how I could done as leader of a Civilization. Civilization II had much more to offer for this type of gameplay.

The game feels rushed and unpolished despite having Sid Meier's Name on the Box. Sid is one of the greatest game developers and he acted as little more then creative consultant for this game.

I recommend this game to anyone who likes games like Risk, Diplomacy or is a Alternative History Buff. To anyone who owned CivII wait until CivIII is lower in price and has been extensively patched.

Rating:
Summary: Good Job.
Review: My review is simple. I want to thank Infrogames for 2 things.

1. Thanks for taking out all the nonsense. Who acutally went to the high council anyhow... they brought noting to the table and looked dumb doing it. The wonder movies were a distraction as well.

2. Thank you for not leaving all the loopholes in the game. I hate winning a game every time. The AI doesn't get tricked because it is AI... you actually have to outsmart it. What a concept. This is a good game, like a live action multi-player chess game.

3. The only things you could fix in a patch would be the part where tanks can still be beaten by pikemen. That bugged a little - but it only CivIII one of its five stars.

Rating:
Summary: The Fall Civilization...
Review: The original "Civilization" by Sid Meier was a classic of computer gaming. Civilization 2 was a rare example of a sequel that improved on the original. Alpha Centauri (AC) was another excellent, though somewhat unappreciated title in this family. While waiting for Civ III, die hard strategy gamers had to suffer mediocre titles like "Call to Power" and "Call to Power 2."

When it runs, Civ III is a solid game. Personally, I consider Civ 2 and AC more balanced and playable. There is no question the earlier versions of Civ were far more stable.

If you are a Sid Meier fan, you pre-ordered your copy and have little need for this review. If you are discovering the series, I suggest you try Civ 2 or AC first. These titles are available at very reasonable prices. The gaming experience will give you an excellent idea whether you will enjoy Civ III.

This is important because for many gamers (like me), Civ III requires a new PC. This game consumes "Microsoft-level" PC resources, particularly towards the end of the game. I would be reluctant to play on anything less than a Pentium IV with 256 megabytes of memory and an ultra-fast 40 gigabyte hard drive.

Civ III also consumes serious player resource with the usual Sid Meier-mandated micromanagement of units and cities. Unfortunately, Civ III did not borrow the clever technique of "Call to Power" and allow players to purchase terrain improvements en masse. Instead, we have the usual unit-based improvements where players have to trust matters to the AI... a questionable proposition at best. City management also requires close attention. Large maps will test even obsessive-compulsive Civ players with lengthy turns requiring substantial micro-management.

The game playing experience is richer with elements like "culture." Civ III allows players who do not prefer warfare a greater range of options. The diplomacy engine is much more refined and computer opponent AI is better. Don't be disappointed if the computer AI seems otherworldly in its intelligence... the game "cheats." This has been a frustration for every Civ player throughout the series.

Unit balance is imperfect, but serviceable. The combat engine is slightly more refined and improved.

Sid Meier games have never been known for graphics, and Civ III is not an exception. The interface is not quite as elegant as Civ 2 and the units are a bit rough and can be difficult to identify at first.

The major problem is actually completing a game of Civ III without your system crashing, finding a fatal error in your save game or having your system lock due to the infamous "Nationalism" bug. This is why I continue to lower my rating... finally reaching the basement of one star.

I have spent hours on the web researching this flawed software and have come to a simple conclusion... Infograme and Sid Meier released a product that was not ready for market. Buy this at your own risk.

Rating:
Summary: It ain't worth your money and time
Review: Civ3 is a defective beta quality game with bugs and performance problems. I love all the other Civ games including alpha centouri. Playing Civ 3 in comparison is no FUN and not EXCITING, but a lot of boring WORK like cleaning up pollutions. You cannot get emmotionally involved with the play as you would with Civ2, 'cause Inforgrame took out the talking high council and the wonder video clips. Because of the lack of the human touch you feel you are not playing against any other civilizations.

The only good things in Civ 3, the concepts of culture, the civ-specific abilities and the resources, are overwhelmed by the flaws of this half-baked product.

Rating:
Summary: Give Me a Break!
Review: Am I the only one out there who has been bitterly disappointed by CIV III? I started out at the "Prince" level-of-difficulty (middle-most of the choices) and "Roaming" barbarian set-up. I haven't lost a game at the "Diety" level of Civ II for a long time, so I thought I'd start out mid-range just to get used to the new set-up, rules, changes, additions, etc.). I spent most of my time fighting off raging hordes of barbariabs on horses as I was looking all over my meager island for horses and iron deposits so I could go on with development.

The AI placed me (Japan) right next to Zululand, the Romans, England, and the Americans. Every time I tried to initiate diplomacy the terms were so outrageously one-sided and imbalanced I had to ask: "Why even try???" I finally got to "Monarchy" level of government and was trying to get to the "Civalry" advance (needed so that I could get my special "Samurai" civilization-specific unit). My special game advisor was screaming at me to devote more effort to developing my science capacity but, I could scarcely devote more than 20% to this effort because I had to keep manufacturing units just to fend off the Barbarians, Zulus, Romans, English, and Americans. I had fail;ed to be the first to get even the most humble of "Wonders of the World."

My little fleet of "Galleys" (Tiremes in Civ I and II) finally met up withs Greek BATTLESHIP with the warning that I was about to be invaded if I didn't acceed to their impossible demands they would destroy me. I turned them down, only to be met in the next turn by a horde of aircraft carriers filled with fighters and bombers. I decided to quit and start over at an even lower level and eliminate Barbarians (except at the obligatory village level). That was six weeks ago. And, by the way--my most succseeful game!

I spent virtually all of my Christmas vacation trying to figure out what I was doing wrong. I went down to an even easier level of difficulty and programmed in the most benign of opponents and still have had my "ears chopped off" by the AI. I just can't seem to get into the "learning curve." If my initial introduction to "Civ" (eight or nine years ago) or "CIV II" would have been this exasperating I would never have become a "Civ Addict." I spent the past two weeks in a full-time effort to really try to get to the core of my problems and finally gave up after another disaster. I'll probably go back to CIV III from time-to-time, but right now I feel that six weeks of effort with little to show for it is more than enough time spent in (what seems to be to be) a futile effort.

Rating:
Summary: Sid Meier, bow your head in SHAME!
Review: While all the Sid Meier apologizers are rating this atrocity of a game with five stars, good people are still being tricked into thinking this is a good game. This game is terrible on so many levels it will be hard to list them all. Personally, I have truly enjoy Civ II and its true sequel, Alpha Centauri. With the exception of better graphics and sound, there is nothing enjoyable about this slop.
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS:
Watch the system requirements carefully. This game is painfully slow on even the fastest computers. It will take up 500 to 700 megabytes of hard disk space and will not work well on anything less than 600 Mhz processor. Even with fast computers, the game will crash a couple of times during game play, especially after the game year 1900.
GAME PLAY:
Slow and a step back from Alpha Centauri. The production queue is supposed to be very easy to use and instead it is impossible. The city governor will not deactivate when prompted on and the computer decides for you what unit to deal out next. The lack of game options the player has is indicative of the dictatorial manner of Sid Meiers. He refuses to let the player decide and his whole attitude is reflected in the fact that although Sid Meiers doesn't mind his likeness being used for advisors he refuses to extend that to let the player be the actual leader of their civilization instead of what Sid Meiers wants.
THE "STRATEGIC RESOURCE" SCHEME.
You can't build units until you have the resources. This makes the game unplayable since the maps generated have very little of these resources. I am reminded of the old Sid/Microprose game "Colonization" which had that problem. Sorry, Sid the idea of this promoting trade doesn't work. The idea that 4 or 5 strategic resource not be plentiful on the earth is not reasonable at all.
THE CORRUPTION BAFFLE:
As soon as you build your third or fourth city you will see it: 5 out of 6 shields wasted to corruption. This ratio remains static no matter if you switch to a republican government and build courthouses and other improvements. That is absolutely unacceptable because you need shields to build your empire. That’s the whole point, right?
THE AI:
No matter what you do or what skill level you play, the computer’s nation will be bigger, stronger, and have more units and wonders than you. Sloppy programing makes the AI squeeze cities into every corner of the world so that by the time you have the knowledge to explore the seas, there is no point because the computer has all the territory. If that wasn't bad enough, the enemy can build a city right next to your capitol, drain your resources, and this is not an act of war. At least Alpha Centauri dealt somewhat with this issue.
WAR AND COMBAT:
If you like winning by global conquest, forget about it in Civ III. Even if you can build units after all the corruption and manage to mobilize your troops (quite hard to do in Civ III), the “Cultural Influence” aspect of the game takes place. Say you conquer a town, and surround it with troops, on the next turn the town will change hands back to the enemy, including all your troops. So occupation is unrealistically impossible.
DIPLOMACY:
A joke in Civ III. It appears they tried to make it more interesting with increased options like trade agreements and rights-of-passage as opposed to bonafied alliances. At least it was a good idea, only thing is it has to work. Here, there is a simple flowchart the program follows in negotiations, plus there no need for diplomacy if the only way you can win is by taking strategic resources from the AI. The diplomacy is worthless since the AI is so aggressive and demands ridiculous things and declare war on you in a whim.
THE PATCH:
Recently Firaxis Games has release its first “patch” to the public. It has a huge list of complete and inexcusable mistakes in their beta version. I still have not figured it out and they won’t instruct the lay person how to use a “patch”. This is just another example of the lack of any kind of competency you can expect from those people.
CONCLUSION:
I know most of the Sid Meier apologizers are smart folk who know a rotten deal when they get one. I would only hope that you to have the courage to tell the world that this game is terrible. And to you who have not yet bought into this Sid Meier craze or remember only better days of Alpha Centauri and Civ II, I would encourage you to spend your hard earned money on something more worthwhile. Of course Alpha Centauri or the original Civ II is very good. Also try the adventure comedy “Monkey Island” or the real time strategy “Empire Earth”. ...

Rating:
Summary: its a shame i could only give this game 5 stars
Review: This game adds all the hard work from the previous civ games and puts it all in this one right here. The ai for the computer players is realy outstanding. Alot of the fun is dealing with the other countries and now that they have included other ways to win the game should open up a more broad audience. You dont have to be a war monger to win. you could win by being a peace loving citizen and win. the fine tuning of the units abilities and wonders has made it even more realistic than expected. Also the the little additions in invention, resources, and small wonders makes it more compelling and exctiting to every aspect. Adding the small wonders to the game gave alot of realism in the fact that every country can make strides at there own pace, kind of like in real life. Most people who are gamers and actualy knows good taste and qualities in games will be very pleased nad occupied with Civ III. It will even catch the first timers off guard. WOW !

Fred Harris

Rating:
Summary: A Slight Improvement
Review: With Civilization III the Civilization franchise has undergone a major renovation far greater than the jump from Civilization to Civilization II. As with any sequel, there are additions and subtractions that work and some that don't. For the most part, the alterations are a positive.

The most significant change from Civ II to Civ III is the inclusion of a culture function. As you build new city improvements and wonders, certain of these produce culture points. As your city hits a milestone number by powers of ten, your cultural influence expands. This expansion is the borders of your civilization. Your civilization's borders can expand far beyond the borders of your cities.

This expansion is important to the game for two reasons: 1) you can once again convert foreign cities to your side just by having a better civ and 2) another new concept to the game is resource acquisition. In previous Civ versions, a terrain resource had to be within your city's borders for you to be able to use it. Now, so long as the resource is within your cultural borders, you can build a road to it and utilize it. If it is outside your borders but not within another civ's, you can create a colony to utilize it.

Resource utilization is another significant alteration. While the good old resources like gold and game can still be utilized by your cities directly, some familiar ones like grapes and coal cannot. Instead, all of your cities connected to your capital city via a road/sea route can utilize the resources. The game adds the concept of luxury and strategic resources to complement the terrain ones. Luxuries increase the happiness of your citizens and strategic resources are required for certain city improvements and military units. For instance, you cannot build musket men without access to saltpeter. The access can be directly by the way I just mentioned or it can be obtained in trade.

Trade is another aspect of the game that has undergone a radical change. You no longer create trade routes using caravans and freighters. Trade routes are directly negotiated with foreign civs. The trade agreements, like all other arrangements in Civ III, last only 20 turns and must be renegotiated at that time.

I generally like all of the previous changes I mentioned. However, there is one change that I vehemently disapprove of. They have decreased the number of available civilizations from Civ II. One of my favorite things about Civ II was the addition of seven new civs you could be or play against. Gone from this version of Civilization are the Spanish, Sioux, Celts, Vikings, Carthaginians, and Mongols. They have added the Iroquois which I assume is meant to replace the Sioux. I was hoping civs would have been added like the Ottomans, Incas, Mayans, etc.

All in all I have a generally favorable opinion of Civ III. I cannot judge it based on what I want it to be because I don't think it can ever live up to those expectations; but, in reality, Civ III is a fun game to play. It's not as addictive as its progenitor; but, I don't think any computer game will surpass that one for many years to come.

As a final note: make sure your processor is at least a 500MHz Pentium. I only have a 466MHz Celeron and the game play is choppy and lags behind my keystrokes. Also, the game has a tendency to crash. I make sure I save it quite frequently. As a real test of how I feel about this game, I wouldn't buy a new Pentium system, even though mine is over two years old. The game just isn't *that* good.