Rating: 
Summary: All I want for Xmass is a patch for my Civ III
Review: If they good folks at Fraxis would fix what I HOPE are bugs this could be an excellent game.
But first the good bits, because there are several.
The game has a much more realistic feel.
I like the new technologies tree except the omission of "refrigeration" In keeping with the new feel, the technology could have possibly been renamed "mechanized agriculture" but should have resulted in increased food production. (The US produces 50 TIMES more food per acre than countries that practice only primitive agriculture techniques -like irrigation.) I love the strategic resources. Trying to ensure you have the oil you need adds a whole new dimension to the game play.
The things, which I hope, are bugs are:
Airplanes/ artillery cannot sink ships! Once you have damaged them to a certain point, attacking them with air/artillery units are not even allowed. (Hey folks anyone want to guess what sank the most war ships in WWII)
Corruption/waste. Get to many cities (about 10) to far away from your capital and they will produce only one shield no matter what you do. That's right democracy with its "nuisance waist" and communism with its "communal" -all cities (supposedly) suffer the same waste dose noting. A courthouse will fix it right? Nope. Funny though, the AS doesn't seem to have this problem.
The AS (artificial stupid) is. Luxuries are each worth exactly the same when traded yet the AS will demand 2 or 3 of yours for 1 of theirs even when they have 6 extra sitting around rotting while their cities are in disorder.
The AS is extremely lucky both in battle and especially in strategic resources placement. The higher the level I play on the more 'lucky' it gets...lets leave it at that.
Related to the last point, there is plenty of time between turns (later in the game) to calculate odds.
So if we are lucky we will se a patch soon to fix the gross problems and maybe a net multiplayer mode to allow us to forgo the 'lucky' AS.
Rating: 
Summary: Better feed the kids and the pets before you start
Review: I've been an avid CivII player for about five years. This is definitely better. Other reviewers have dissed the diplomacy screen because they think it's too complicated, but that just means they were too lazy to master it. Trading techs, money, maps, resources, luxuries, and even cities with opponents opens up entire new strategies to pursue.I'll bet some of the players that liked CivII got their butts kicked when they tried Civ3 because the old strategies don't work. That may be why some of them gave it mediocre ratings. The AI is much smarter, and you'd better get your civilization going well right out of the gate or you'll get stomped. As for fewer city improvements (cited by a couple of reviewers), there are only a few missing, and the new small wonders make up for their loss. But there are more military units, and better designed. The bottom line is that if you loved CivII because it was a challenge to develop effective and comprehensive strategies, then you'd better set aside plenty of time, because you're going to need it. You'll probably be up most of the night on your first game. On the other hand, if you used CivII primarily to slug it out in wars with the AI opponents, there are better games to try. The objective in Civ3 is to build a civilization, not be a military commander.
Rating: 
Summary: A complete waste of money
Review: Having played Civilization and Civilization II since 1993, I was looking forward to Civ III. It was surely time to replace Civ II, but not with this. Always prefering to begin with the positive, they finally got one thing right: the "go to" feature. The graphics aren't better, unless you like the 1980s Japanese animation-style "battles". The game itself is not improved or made more realistic. It's simply more difficult. If you're successful, any city not near your capital (or capitals) takes a century or more to build an improvement. I suppose someone at Firaxis thought this was realistic, but I'd bet our friends in the Yukon (far from Ottawa) or Seattle (far from DC) would beg to differ that their production levels are lower than in or near their nations' capitals. Also, if successful, you'll encounter tons of pollution (each turn) about a century before you've the technology to do anything about it. And pollution can never be eliminated, or brought to acceptable levels. Not very realistic. It's inferior to Civ II in nearly every way imaginable, except the "go to" feature. It's tedious when doing "well". You're left wishing the other civilizations would come kill you off. Some might think it's more challenging. I thought it was both frustrating and a waste of money.
Rating:
Summary: Put your coffeemaker into overdrive - you'll be up late
Review: I read the comments of another reviewer whose thought process was along these lines: "I'll keep playing until I get X, then I'll go to bed/dinner". I had to laugh, because that same thought process has kept me up many a night playing "Civilization 3". There is no way to describe the addictiveness (not a word, but you get the idea) of this game. Having played the original "Civilization" back in college in the mid-90s, I should have known what I was in for when I got Civ 3. I had no idea how much more addictive it would become in this new and improved version. And what an improvement it is. The graphics are amazing, with highly detailed units (fully animated now) and terrain squares. The user interface is much simpler - no more menu bars at the top of the screen. Visuals of other world leaders are now animated, with facial clues to their moods and attitudes towards you. Gameplay is also different. There are now multiple ways to win the game including (for the pacifists out there) cultural and diplomatic victories. The ability to build and support various units has also changed with the idea of strategic resources - they appear only when technology that uses them has been discovered (which makes sense - if you did not know what to do with oil, why would it be a resource to you until you could use it), and your access to any given resource at the time you need it may not be easy. So even if you discover Flight, you cannot build jet fighters unless you have access to aluminum (either through trade or by having deposits of it in your territory). Empire management is done through advisors for domestic activities, trade, diplomacy, military and science (the science advisor is never satisfied with his budget, and always complains that he needs more funding - how typical), and by directing the activities of your workers, military units, civilians and so on. Having read some of the other reviews here, I have to agree that there are a few quibbles to nitpick over. Like the inequities in battle units - I have had elephants and barbarians invade and take out cities fortified with jets and tanks. Like the slow progress of science even at unsustainably high budget levels. But my complaints are few, and my hours of sleep are growing fewer. Once you become immersed in this game you'll know what I mean. To answer another reviewer's question, the game runs just fine on Windows XP. I have not noticed any problems with graphics, animations or gameplay (my system is an Athlon XP 1.33 gHz with 128 MB system RAM and 64MB video RAM). "Civilization 3" is a great game for novice gameplayers (it's fairly intuitive and easy to learn) and for fans of the older versions of the game and fans of strategy games in general. Just be prepared to say bye to your friends and family and any outdoor activities. You won't be seeing them for a while.
Rating:
Summary: More than Civilization, but less than Call To Power
Review: My wife and I are both hard-core Civilization and Call To Power fans. In Civilization III, the graphics are good and the diplomacy and culture fix some problems with Civ I and II. However, Civilization III has some glaring play problems. 1. You can only irigate next to another irigation, a river or lake. I started a couple of games stranded on a continent with no rivers or lakes. 2. On both games that I played into the middle ages, I was on a continent with no saltpeter (so no riflemen). As a side note, riflemen have an attack of one (defense of four), so a shieldman beats a rifleman if the rifleman is attacking. 3. There is no way except for sacrificing a leader (creating an army) to creat a stack of units. You need to select each unit and have it move and or attack. Additionally, each combat is individually resolved. This makes combat (both movement and fighting) very tedious. In short, this is Sim Civilization - lots of building and very little action.
Rating:
Summary: Another masterpiece
Review: Sid Meier has done it again! This game continues to build upon the proud tradition of his series -- complex interactions among various civs, enhanced graphics over the previous version.. and even more addictive than the previous editions! The controls are a bit difficult to figure out at first, though the updated Civilopedia does provide additional terms. However, this is another excellent effort, building on his past success. I highly recommend this game to anyone who loves history, fascinating scenarios -- and many hours to play, since once you sit down, it is very difficult to turn it off.
Rating: 
Summary: Engrossing but sometimes tedious gameplay
Review: From the point of view of someone who has never played a Civilization game before, or a turn-based strategy game, I found this game to be extremely deep, complex, engrossing, if not a little tedious and monotonous at times. It took a bit for me to get the hang of the game and the documentation isn't very helpful for first-time players. But it doesn't take too long to understand the process and it gets fun after that. The depth of the game is amazing. You must strike the right balances between culture, resources, luxuries, trade and diplomacy, military, and more to be successful. There are many levels of difficulty to try your hand at. There are multiple paths to victory so many different strategies might work depending upon whether you want to take a militaristic, diplomatic, scientific, or other approach. You can take detailed control over your cities or relinquish much of the control to governors with some general direction. The play can get a little tedious when you have to control every little movement, or decide on everything your cities will build but the depth of the game and all of the variables that you must manage and keep track of make it very challenging and engrossing. I still have a lot to learn, but if you want your $40-$50 to go a long way in providing hours of fascinating gameplay then you won't be disappointed here. You will be disappointed if you are looking to master the game quickly and not think too much in the process.
Rating:
Summary: Much more than a graphics upgrade...
Review: ...
I did not much like Civ3 the first few times I played, finding the changes to be annoying and impeding the improved graphics. I also thought the AI was way too smart and my growth, even on Chieftan (the easiest level of play), was painfully slow. The game does move much slower than Civ2, but it is more realistic that way. The interface is actually better, in that it too is somewhat more realistic, especially with the whole strategic resources idea. Finally, the diplomacy is much improved, though I have found that the other civilizations will never give me a fair deal--I am forever paying them a little extra gold or getting nothing.
Some of the other reviewers complain that this version of Civilization is inferior to its predecessors because the AI is too good. Frankly, I was sick of the predictable AI of Civ2, and the AI of Civ3, while being obnoxious, treacherous and unpredictable, keeps me on my toes. For example, I began with the intention of winning a cultural victory; a difficult method certainly, but I felt I had what it took to pull it off. Unfortunately, I ran into other civilizations who would randomly start wars with me, disrupting my production of culture boosters and forcing me to develop other aspects of my civilization. Another complaint is that the game is inferior to Age of Empires. Having mastered Age of Empire 1 and 2, as well as the expansion sets for both games, I can safely say comparing these two games is the sign of an inexperienced gamer. Age of Empires, like the first two WarCrafts and StarCraft, is solely about destroying one's opponents and all development is for the purpose of destroying enemies and winning missions. In Civ3, the choice is the player's whether they wish to destroy all of their opponents or co-exist with them. If you want to straight up annihilate everyone, by all means do so, but don't expect it be as simple as it is in the aforementioned strategy games; winning in Civ3, as in the real world, requires a balance between many factors, most of which are simply ignored in strategy games. So please, ignore comparisons of Age or Empires to Civ3...they are misleading and frankly, ridiculous.
I docked a star off the game for one reason, and that is the civilization choices. For some reason, completely unfathomable to me, neither the Mongols nor the Arabs are included as civilizations. These are the two biggest deletions in my judgement; I would have chosen certain other civilizations in lieu of some of the current ones, but they are minor adjustments. I am a history major, so I know that they are two of the most influential civilizations in history and they should have been added in favor of certain other civilizations, whose overall historical influence is negligible compared to those two behemoths of history.
Other than that, a fantastic game, and very highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Still addictive
Review: This is still one of the greatest most addictive games of all time. However, it is important to note that it is not multiplayer at this time, and an expansion pack may still becoming out. Moving the troops interface is worse than Civilizations before, but the Civ 3 is still the best ever. It has new diplomacy, and includes cultural borders which really add to the game. Great game, but it is one player.
Rating:
Summary: Very disappointing
Review: this is as bad as Godfather 3 was to the other 2
|
