Rating: 
Summary: A Waste of Time and Money
Review: Despite all the hype that preceded this game, it did not measure up. The game plays okay at first, but as you go along and neighboring civilizations grow, you begin to see all their personnel march endlessly across the screen and you have no choice but to sit and watch. You cannot turn this off and it slows the game down. Also, you cannot group your battlegroups. You have to march them off individually. There should be some provision to enable you to group them. I ask you, how can a Greek phalanx defeat a panzer? Silly question, right? I would have thought so, too, but it can happen in this game. I really got bored with this game and its "idiosyncracies" (actually, it's lack of planning in the design phase) and never did play all the way until the end. Which brings up another point: the end game is terrible and impossible. Which is another reason I never finished. It did tend to crash or hang up my computer as well, but I've gotten used to that happening with so many of the games nowadays that I hate to mention it. And, it's always your drivers (mine are the latest) or the way you installed it (I turned off every other program running before I put it on the hard drive)or some other goofy reason that you've heard a hundred times before if you've ever tried to contact tech support for most game companies. My advice is: save your money!
Rating: 
Summary: I may never eat or sleep again.
Review: This game has me completely under it's control. Pure evil! I cannot eat, sleep, or interract in any way with other human beings. I live only to play this game. Hour after hour of "just one more city," or "let me take care of the French and THEN I'll go to bed," or "just as soon as I build the Great Wall," or "watch what my battleship does to this ironclad." I have never had a game grab ahold of me and not let go like this. The sad part is I actually have a life. Don't buy this game! Read a book! You will never be the same! Run away while you still can!
Rating: 
Summary: A Surprisingly Weak Sequel to the Civ Games
Review: While Civilization III *should* have been a significant update to the Civilization games, it is not. In short, it is a huge disappointment. If you already own Civilization II, stick with it--you'll be happy you did. And if you don't have any Civilization game yet, try to get a copy of Civilization II on Auctions first before you you actually give your money to Infogrames.The problems with Civilization III outweigh its advances: 1. The game was released with a series of bugs worthy of a beta version at best. For instance, cavalry units can vainquish tanks, archers can vainquish bombers. It's just not realistic. 2. There is new AI for a more fulfilling and complex diplomatic side to the game. That said, you can keep track of only eight civilizations in your diplomacy screen--while you are playing with 16 civilizations in the game. Furthermore, the diplomacy and trade screens are clunky to use. They are reminiscent of Windows 3.1 approaches to UI, not Windows 98, 2000, ME, XP, etc. 3. The Cheat Mode feature has been removed, which was an important learning tool in the last version. 4. No animations in the diplomacy and Wonders. When you build a Wonder, you find yourself profoundly disappointed with the popup window telling you you did it. 5. True alliances are possible, but they are in general worthless because your allies do not consult you on their military maneuvers. You enter an alliance, and you are sucked into a war you didn't want in a turn or two. 6. Air units are less fun to use in this version of the game because of a new one-turn "range and return" approach. You feel like your air units just never fly! There are some important and meaningful improvements to this game (e.g. diplomacy, cultural wins, culture in general) that should have been in Civilization II, but overall Civilization III is a flavorless and insipid "update" to Civilization II that Infogrames and Sid Meyer released at least 6 months too early. As I said, the game is more like a beta than a final product (there are already three patches to download to correct all the problems). It's just not as fun as Civilization II. I would dissuade anyone from spending their money on this game--Infogrames and Sid Meyer should be punished for this sloppy and uninspired release. Let's encourage them to focus on quality assurance and creativity for Civ 4. But if Civ 3 portends the future of this series of games, Civ 4 will be a profound disappointment as well. I cannot recommend this game.
Rating:
Summary: Departure from, not improvement upon Civ 2
Review: Before you buy Civilization 3, read 20 or 30 reviews posted here. Note that most of the negative reviews site specific problems with the game, whereas the positive ones praise the series, Sid Meyer, and the state of addiction achievable. Though all of noted the problems apply to your copy of CIV3, they may not be enough to weigh against better graphics, and the lure of new wonders and units. Assuming you appreciate the beauty and efficiency of Civ2's design, note the following (non-comprehensive) list of differences. 1)SIZE - Civ 3 is a Bemouth - huge install (smaller install @ 500mb), demanding on processor; a lag between turns of several seconds occurs even with 500mhz PIII processor. Civ2 took <50mb to install, and you didn't need the CD to play the game. 2)GRAPHICS - Here is where much of the work has been done. Civ3 has more complex land and units, and animated leaders' faces for each nation (though the choice between female and male leaders is no longer possible)though it lacks CIV2's movies for wonders. 3)RULES - Significant changes to rules and wonders exist. Some seem in the interest of fairness of play, while most are arbitrary, and none of the CIV2 rules that you might want to reinstate are changeable. Rather than sum up rule changes, I urge you again to read a few pages of reviews. (My personal issue is with the statement that there are "more ways to win the game," strange, given that
trading units no longer exist, and that given the new AI, a source of problems for many reviewers, on regent or higher, massive attacks by other nations is inevitable)
Rating:
Summary: A MUST BUY for any stretegy gamer.
Review: Sid Meier has always made great games and his latest, Civ 3, is quite possibly his greatest. It is a dramatic improvement over the first two (that were great to begin with). Challenging, with infinite replayablility, it may just cost you your social life if you aren't careful.
Rating:
Summary: Cheaters Beware!
Review: I give this game 1 star for one very simple reason-in their "infinite wisdom", the -wonderful- people at Firaxis decided not to include the Cheat Console in this game! The Scenario Editor's no help either! So if you're like me and you enjoyed being able to cheat in the game and change things around with ease, think twice before you buy this one!
Rating: 
Summary: Groovy Update of the Best Strategy Game
Review: Civilization was one of the penultimate computer games, and instantly became a success upon its release in 1990. Followed by a sequel in 1994 and some pseudo-Civ knockoffs (Call to Power) and Sid Meier's "continuation" of the theme in Alpha Centauri, it was only a matter of time before the original source material got another facelift. The results of that effort are here, in the sumptuously redone Civilization 3. Of course, the graphics and sound have gotten a total facelift, and there have been many minor (and a few major) changes to the game itself. The core is still the same old Civ: you start off knowing how to make fire and not much else, and you take your tribe all the way to colonizing another planet (or killing everyone else on the map). The changes are, at first glance, merely cosmetic: units take damage with "hit points," like Alpha Centauri, there are slightly fewer technologies and you aren't so restricted in learning them, and there is much less emphasis on bulldozing every forest in sight to make farmland. Diplomacy has been vastly expanded, and instead of building trade caravans, you can now connect your civilization to others with roads, railroads, and harbors. The single largest change is the addition of resources and luxuries; even if you discover Gunpowder, you cannot build musketmen unless you have saltpeter somewhere in your civilization's sphere of control, and you have mined or or tapped it with roads. Same with luxuries; if you do not connect a frontier city to your main civ's network of roads, they do not have the benefit of resources or luxuries and can easily slip into civil disorder. The other major change is culture; building temples and libraries and Wonders used to only give you the benefit of increased research or happiness. Now, it allows you to expand your cultural influence. If you have a city where people have been worshipping at the same temple for thousands of years, and your opponent builds a city closeby, there is a good chance the people in that city will "defect" to the culturally superior civilization. Culture also defines your borders, and measures the influence of your cities on other civs and each other. There is little to complain about here; Meier left the superstructure of his old game intact (if it ain't broke, don't fix it!), and the additions compliment the game nicely. The only true point of contention is that the government system is still incredibly dumbed-down; in fact, you have less of a choice about government in this game than you did in Civ 2. If there is one thing I wish that Meier would expand on, this would be it. Also, there's no multiplayer support (although we have been promised multiplayer in the future), but that's not a big deal; the way I play the game, it takes an average of 50-70 hours to complete, and I cannot imagine waiting for 15 other palyers to do the same. Civ isn't a game that's really conducive to multiplayer anyway, so it's not a big loss - remember, multiplayer does NOT a good game make! Civ 3 is a great redux of the Granddaddy of all computer strategy games. If you're tired of real-time "strategy" where you see how many units you can build in 15 minutes, take a break and create an empire. It's more rewarding anyway.
Rating:
Summary: A very good game gets continued by an even better one.
Review: Civ III has no reason to sty behind other titles. The gameplay is still so good, that it will kepp you in front of the screen for hours and the copious amount of improvements is (especiallly in the grafic, making it even more fun. If you know, how to use a Computer you will have no problems with this games, otherwise will the supporthotline surely help you.
Rating:
Summary: Improves on every aspect of Civ 2
Review: Back in 1996, I was playing Civilization 2 for hours at a time. I couldn't get enough of the game. I wouldn't hesitate to put it in the top 5 or 10 games of all time. Everywhere I read it was getting 5-star reviews. So, naturally, Civilization 3 has a lot to live up to, especially after several dubious half-sequels. Sid Meier has done it again. Civ 3 keeps all of the addictive aspects of Civ 2 and adds many more. Now, a player has cultural boundaries that are based on how many temples, wonders, and cultural improvements he or she builds. The diplomacy is vastly improved (with mutual protection agreements, two civs going to war may mean eight others follow suit). The graphics are also substantially smoother and less pixel-y. In addition, the game is also substantially harder to win. No longer will you build every wonder and be leaps and bounds ahead of other civs in technology. In addition, but giving each civilization distinct bonuses, your strategy often depends on who you're playing. Every combination (two per civ) of industrial, scientific, religious, expansionistic, militaristic, and commercial is available in the game. In all, another very addicting Civ game. It may not be quite as revolutionary as the second one was, but it's just as fun and addictive.
Rating:
Summary: Cheep update to a classic game.
Review: Please note: I do not believe that impressive 3d graphics
add much to a strategy game like civ.
Civ 3 is a game of empire building that falls short of
its predecessors. The graphics are nice, the combat
is improved, the ai is much better, but the fun is gone.
Civ 2 was a masterpiece of gaming, it involving, it was
compelling, most of all it was fun! Civ 3 does not include
descriptions of what the technologies are ( what really is
the point of developing masonry if you can't find
out what it was invented for? Civ 2 had complete
dictionaries of this kind of info), civ 3 does
not give you a grand unveiling of a wonder like civ 2
(this makes wonders rather anti-climatic to receive),
and civ 3 governments are very messed up. When I was
a democracy with my capital in North Africa, my cities
in south Africa had so much corruption due to distance
that I produced only one shield per turn. This would
be like saying that California is a very corrupt and non
productive state because of its great distance from Washington
DC! Don't get me wrong, there are some very enjoyable parts
to this game, but it falls far short of civ 2. So, if you
want to play Civ, try #2 first.
| 
