Rating: 
Summary: no scenarios
Review: the best part of civ 2 was the ww2 scenario and it is missing. You also can't start later in the civilization. The game is too long with a lot more boring parts.
Rating: 
Summary: Best strategic controlling game ever
Review: I reccomend this game to everyone who absolutly loves strategy games I think it is real quality buy (...) you save money while playing the greatest game ever made.
Rating:
Summary: unclear specs
Review: I've read the reviews, and am aware that Civ III isn't a game of same caliber as the original DOS game and then the two that followed -- on all of which I have wasted thousands of hours. (There are worse uses of leisure time.) I have more a question than an opinion: Does anyone know for fact whether this marginal C3 will run on XP?
Rating: 
Summary: Minor upgrade to an already amazing series.
Review: The Civilization series is perhaps the best video series of all time, or at least is certainly up in the Top 2 or 3. If you haven't played any of them yet, prepared to get VERY addicted, as you lead your civilization through a grand sweep of time, from the stone age right all the way to the modern age and beyond. Casual gamers beware - you will become hard core after you buy this game.That said, Civ 3 isn't much different from the previous games - it doesn't change much in an already great formula. So, if you still dig the Civ games, buy this now! However, I found myself wishing for improvements in the areas that have always hurt this series: The AI still mindlessly swarms all over the map; the difficult levels are still just a "cheating handicap" for the computer; the new diplomacy options are completely wasted on the moronic AI; the warfare model is still rather crude; blah, blah, blah. Also, the basic Civ playstyle has changed in small but important ways, enough that I still prefer Alpha Centauri.
Rating:
Summary: A Civilized Remake
Review: When it comes to entertainment, I'm a blood-and-guts kind of guy-and video games are no exception. But the first game in my alphabetized library is not *Half-Life* or *Max Payne*. Since I enjoy epic games as much as shooters, I bought and played *Civilization III*, the latest in Sid Meier's brilliant world-strategy series. Not exactly a sequel, I find *Civilization III* a polished and streamlined remake of its predecessor. What do I mean by remake? Well first let's take a look at the series. The original *Civilization* put the player at the head of a human pre-civilization. His or her job was to lead the people into recorded history, across 6,000 years to the present. The player could choose governments, build a war machine, control emigration, and develop science. Back in my day, *Civilization II* ruled the roost of intellectual strategy games (mainly because my computer could run it). But it also expanded greatly upon the original game, by increasing the types of units and concepts, by improving the existing units and concepts, and by adding various editor programs and expansions. After *Civ II* Activision developed a separate series-*Call to Power*. *CtP* added an entire future age; complete with a story and timeline. In other words, *Civ II* and *CtP* came that much closer to being epic and diverse. *Civilization III* does not step forward; it runs in place and shows off its muscles. And I have to admit; this game looks and plays pretty good. *Civ III* initially loads a bit slowly on my 1.05 Ghz and my 256MB. In-game reloading is quick and animation is generally smooth. The graphics easily surpass the previous titles, and includes unit animation as in the *Call to Power* offshoot. Looking at the map window is like looking at a real satellite image, and the terrain tiles blend together. I can't complain about the interface; the multiple menus of *Civ II* have folded into a single screen here. Handy buttons allow all unit commands to be quickly and easily issued by point-and-click (only the appropriate buttons will appear for each individual unit). I can complain that even on my gaming platform *Civ III* crashed several times, particularly when I was using catapults to bombard a rival city. The programmers at Firaxis don't bombard the player with features either. The watchword around the office must have been "slim and sexy." Homogenizing the menus and adding a unit orders panel seems to have led to a complete revamp of the previous SOP. Trade no longer depends on special units; instead it is handled through the diplomacy screen. Diplomacy is accessed directly from buttons on the main map screen. Speaking of diplomacy, embassies and spies are also handled by buttons instead of units. Military units also no longer consume resources from individual cities; instead they simply cost gold from the national treasury. By the way, the player must now take extra caution when choosing city locations-terraforming doesn't exist in *Civ III*. Finally, the numbers of civilizations, government types, and victory time limits have been reduced. All the reductions and subtractions do not allow this game to step forward, at least when compared to the considerably longer and more developed *Call to Power*. But Firaxis doesn't let Civ *III* step back either. Many important additions make *Civilization III* relatively dynamic, and the most important to me is the concept of Culture. Previous games lacked political boundaries, which meant the player's civilization was always a collection of city-states. Any rival civilization could walk right in and start planting its own cities. In *Civ III* your cities still claim personal resource squares, but they also generate a Culture influence. Each city's culture grows if the right improvements are built. The areas of influence not only overlap to claim an entire mass of land and sea, but neighboring cities may defect if their own culture is too weak to resist. Along with the concept of Culture is the concept of Strategic Resources, which are needed to build certain units and improvements. Civilizations will automatically collect any resources falling within the culture boundary, provided said resource is connected by road or rail. It may seem to the reader by now that *Civilization III* is more realistic than its ancestors. Many of the changes and eliminations have been balanced out by concepts such as Culture and Strategic Resources. The manual explains most of the revisions and additions. And yet the world of *Civilization II* remains. From the graphics to the game play, *Civilization II* is polished and revised to make this current incarnation. I was a bit disappointed at first, when I realized that so many concepts and units were cut back. But once I realized *Civ III's* place as a classic remake, I relaxed and just played the game. For a shoot-'em-up guy like me, that's pretty civil.
Rating:
Summary: Good game, but hard to get used to
Review: I understood Alpha Centauri farely easily, this interface is different and less straight forward. Graphics and animation is great. I think the queue is harder to figure out than alpha centauri
Rating:
Summary: Yeeeeeech - *disappointing* (...) I wish I'd waited...
Review: (if I could give it 3 1/2 stars, I would; but I can't honestly even give it a 4-star rating)... There are some improvements in this game:
*)Animation is fantastically improved, the unit detailing is striking....
*)The "specific unit specialty" for countries is a great touch.
*)The sound quality is exceptional.... ...some things about the same:
*) the AI for diplomacy, while it gives one more choices, is still somewhat braindead/inbred at times when you try different things with another culture who rejects your first offers...
*) I think some of the limitations are set up a bit too high (for example, that triremes sink when more than 1 square away from land...I have played about 8 games up to this point, and even crossing a small sea strait, my triremes sink about 75-80% of the time...) ...and quite a few disappointments:
*) the aforementioned Wonder movies. Whether you care for them or not, you should have the option of viewing them. They were *fantastic* in Civ 2. One spends a significant amount of time in each city building Wonders: when you built one in Civ 2 and got the movie, you *felt* rewarded for the effort you put into it. In Civ 3, you get a stupid picture of a structure with a big *thud* from the bass drum. BIG DEAL!!! I quote from the Civ 3 website (...) ...: "We have created a beautiful and fun world in Civ III and felt that the Wonder movies of the past would take you out of that world and interrupt the gameplay experience. In Civ III, building a Wonder triggers a unique reward screen that captures the flavor of the Wonder movies without disrupting the flow of your game." Pardon my language, but if that reward screen gives you the flavor of the Wonder movies, then I guess a (...) gives you the flavor of a well-cooked steak. The pictures are BLAND and BORRRRRING. They should have included Wonder movies, and given you the option whether or not you want to play them. I don't think I've ever been so surprised, disappointed, or insulted as a game purchaser. *) While I appreciate the added AI during combat, I find it ludicrous that archers can typically take on tanks and win more often than not. I think if the attack/defense difference is too great, you should make it a flat 1/1000 chance of taking out a unit. I would find that much more realistic. *) I find the ranges of most of the modern weapons quite limited...jet fighters *and* cruise missiles have far more range than the creators of Civ 3 seem to grant them. 4 squares is hardly anything at all... *) If the above 2 things don't bother you, just wait till the computer's AI decides to send an army of warriors and archers (let's say 20) up against your walled city, with infantry and tanks contained therein. It's ridiculous the "barbarians" would gain access to the city -- yet they often do. *) The computer does not handle diplomacy very well when it comes to the other nation removing armies from your territory - it only seems to work about 50% of the time. Otherwise, you might find a settler with a 1 army escort plunking right down
in the only 3x3 open spot of land you have in the middle of YOUR nation. VERY irritating. I'd have to completely agree with the review of 1 person on a computer gaming magazine site, when he said this game smacks of something that was rushed out the door without being *fully* tested, for Christmas. It's disappointing at best. If there is a Civ 4, I'm going to hang back and wait 3 months this time instead of just blindly rushing out and buying it.
Rating:
Summary: Great, but a rushed Civ III is still a rushed Civ III!! :(
Review: (...) Here is what I think of Civilization 3. This game definately feels that it has been rushed. After so much anticipation for this game, I must admit that I am slightly dissapointed, even though my CIV addiction still compells me to play this game when ever I get the chance. Don't get me wrong, you will get your money's worth. Especially for those who never played CIV II before. However, there is an overall looming feeling that this game was rushed, leaving the game to feel incomplete and sometimes very frustrating. Sometimes after long hours of playing, you would quit the game just to frantically search for a patch on the civ3.com website, only to find none. Eventually you will return to the game, but you will not be able to escape the impression that this CIV is a step backwards than a step forward, even though diplomacy, trade and resources suprisingly make the game more interesting. Why is this the case? By looking at the credits, and seeing that Sid Meier did not actually work on the design of CIV III, but oversaw the development, then it comes clear why this game is a STEP BACKWARDS from the improvements made in Alpha Centauri. So what's really eating me up? The biggest gripe that I dislike about the game is the lack of polish. Even though the graphics are great and definately welcome, there is an overall lack of polish that I wouldn't have expected from Fraxis's based on their previous games. So much is left out from CIV III, that was included in Civ II and Alpha Centauri, even though the new improvements to this game help you cope. Thus, I get the sense that I am playing only half a game. It seems to me that all of this unnecessary frustration that you will seldomly find at times throughout the game (especially in harder levels) lies at the heart of Infogrames putting pressure on Firaxis to get CIV III done in a jiffy before the holidays. For me, that was a terrible mistake. Now, I am forced to play a game that is great, but I know could of been much better if someone only took the time to iron out small problems and inbalances within the AI, include scenarios, and incorperate some kind of multiplayer interface. Units customization, like in Alpha Centauri, while limited could of been an added. And does anyone know why the CIV III map editor is crappy, with out the ability to set certain nations with certain player starts. Pros: -Science Advancements are realistic, but it may take too long to get navigation.
-
Rating:
Summary: Almost perfect, but needs a few tweaks
Review: Let me just start off by saying this is the best civ yet, as a civ 1+2 veteran I can easily say this. Sid and his crew did a great job with most of the features of the game, with only one I didn't like, but we will start off with the good features. First of all, the graphics are the best I have seen on a civ yet, with fully animated portraits of the leaders and fully animated units. The city view, and landscapes are great as well. Second almost all of the features that they promised were going into the game are there, and don't listen to the people who say that they are not there, because they are (these people obviously didn't read the manual, or didn't feel like looking). The interface is excellent for beginners to the series ( were as in the previous two civs took me 30 minutes to an hour to learn they entire interface, this took me about 15 minutes give or take, but I am a veteran so to beginners it might take about 25 to 30). The workers and the cities can now be automated to handle all those annoying aspects that plagued the previous games, although it doesn't do a good job at building improvements, although I always used to like to do that myself anyway. There are now several new paths to victory, but the most fun are the classics conquer the world or go to Alpha Centuri first. Now your cities have bounderies around them that increase that is there cultural influence, but what it really means is, that what ever is inside those bounderies belongs to your civ, it also shows these bounderies on the map, giving you an idea of just how much land you own. So now when another civ enters those bounderies you know your being invaded,unless they have freedom of passage which is one of the diplomacy features. you also have to have different resources to build certain units, making the game more difficult but interesting. Now to the bad point of the game and I'll be frank, The combat system is an utter piece of crap, there are total unit inequalities in the ancient and middle ages time periods, and my advice to every person is try not to fight wars during these time periods or you will be crushed. apparently when they say improved AI they mean the enemies units are always stronger then yours, yes they do make some strategic moves the most impressive being bombarding your cities to slow down unit production giving them time to take the city. You can't really group armies either, to get an army you have to move individual units on top of eachother and they attack and defend together but if you move one soldier out they disasimble, even if you do have grouped together units they computer can still kill them sometimes with only one unit, and I hope infogrames come up with a patch to fix this, or if they make civ 4 they improve this. Despite the bad combat system overall it's a great game and I would recommend it to anyone.
Rating:
Summary: Very Addicting
Review: I have to say that the Civilization line of games is as addicting as ever. There are so many times where i was just saying to myself, "just a couple of more turn so that I can get XXX, and I will go to bed/dinner." But I do agree somewhat with some of the comments here that Civ III is not that dramatically different from CIV II. But personally, I don't expect so much changes to be made. After all, it is CIV III (a sequel to Civ II). The designers just kept the best features of CIV II and added some more cool stuff like strategic resources and luxuries. I especially like the use of strategic resources and trading for them. Dipolomacy has also been improved with a lot more choices in terms of what can be traded (cities, workers, technologies, luxuries, etc). This is not to say that the game is perfect. The way the city governors choose what to build is exasperating. Sometimes they change the production without giving you a pop screen to warn you. Also i know of no way of dealing with corruption, even in a democracy. Courthouses do not help. Cities far away from my empire have more than 90% of their commerce and resources lost due to corruptionm, and since you cant hurry production of a forbidden palace (to creat a second palace), the far flung cities are just backwaters of non-production with huge 20+ size cities. The hard-copy manual lacks the technology development tree and lists of the maintenance costs of various city imporements. But these are just minor quibbles. The game, stripped down to its core, is simply addictive.
| 
