Rating: 
Summary: Lots of changes to Civ 2 - some good, some not so good.
Review: I've been a huge fan of Civilization since the very first DOS version - and enjoy this one as well. They've really improved the graphics as well as the gameplay. I love that they've included culture and have increased your diplomacy options. Beware though that this version of the game is much more difficult to win than Civ 2 ever was (and there is no cheat mode to make sure you can't lose). The computer opponents are much smarter this time and even on the easiest game setting don't hesitate to form alliances against you (both military and economic). They've also done away with spys, diplomats and caravans - though I'm not quite sure why. You have to set up trade with other kingdoms via the foreign advisor screen and isn't the easiest thing to manage. As far as spys go, I don't understand why they've done away with them. They're functions are all part of a new wonder "intelligence agency". No more buying your opponents cities. On the negative side though - gameplay has certainly slowed down. In one complex game I played I would literally have to wait almost a minute every time the computer moved. This was the biggest detriment to the new version. And while I love the new foreign advisor screen if you're playing with more than 7 other civs - there's no way to check intelligence on them. They don't show up on the foreign advisor screen at all. Another nice function they could have built in would have been an automatic file manager for saved games. The saved files can reach over 3 MB each and have to be manually deleted.
Rating: 
Summary: Ummm....what happened guys?
Review: And to think...I bought Call to power II to hold me over till Civ 3 came out. What happened Sid? Why does call to power seem more like Civilization, and Civ3 seems more like a cheap rip off? I even went to the website frantically looking for an update of some sort that would turn the game into something worth playing. But of course there is nothing there, just alot of fan-fare trying to get poor saps like me to buy this game. It's a shame....
Rating: 
Summary: Hey...give it chance!!
Review: (...) It is very similar to Civ 2, but that was to be expected and not something to be detracted for. First off, the fun you have with this game can change greatly each time you play it. If you are so vastly ahead of the other civs, it really is no fun due to lack of a challenge. If you are far behind, it is frustrating. If several civs are neck and neck in the tech race, with troops massing on the borders and resources in short supply, it is possibly the most addicting experience you can get. That is how the game is meant to be played, and if you do things right, that is how it will be. But there are some gripes which have popped up numerous times in my few runs through the game. The other civs love ganging up on you a little too much. There were several times when one enemy declared war on me, and in the next turn, it was a full blown world war with me on the receiving end. Granted, I had been rather stingy in diplomacy in earlier stages, but they all seemed too eager for a piece of me. It can make for some tense gameplay to be sure, but can get tiring. And all too often, an enemy would merely circle me with ships for decades on end, blowing up terrain improvements but doing little else. That can become intensely annoying. Cities switching allegience due to culture left me with mixed feelings. I feel that a military presence should certainly keep this from happening. Many times I fought tooth and nail for an enemy city, only to lose it within the next few turns because the temples and such had been destroyed, leaving it with little culture. This would happen despite having tanks stationed there. But it is nice to get a city that way. I'll mention another couple gripes for the sake of self-indulgence. The civilization leaders for one. Come on, Joan of Arc? Why not use Napoleon to represent France? And I for one am utterly sick of seeing Catherine the Great's horrifyingly ugly mug sneering at me. Let's have a more flattering picture there! It would have been nice to see Washington instead of Lincoln this go around as well, or Churchill for England. And what's up with the Zulus and Iroqouis? I know you are supposed to forge your own history with this game, but their historical significance in the real world is about nothing. It wouldn't be so bad if Spain hadn't been omitted. Ok, those are all very minor. The good here is plentiful. The special units are a fantastic touch, and I wish there would have been at least one more for each civ. They can easily turn the tide of a game if used at the right time. The graphics are great, and I think the unit animations really add to it. And I've seen that many players whine about the handling of resources, but I think it's the only way to go, and a nice touch of realism. You can almost always get what you need from someone, and if not, well, what do you think you can build tanks for? Many things are handled a little better than in Civ2. Spaceship building goes much more smoothly; you don't have to worry about a million ss components or structurals to build. Trading without caravans is nice, as I rarely bothered with them anyway. Although I haven't found a way to trade food, but there may be something I'm missing. Artillery use is an improvement ala Alpha Centauri, even if it appears that you can't outright kill units with it. National borders are a touch that was sorely missing from the predescessor, with map colors and everything. The end game replay is also cool, although it would be nice to have some overall casualty reports from wars in the end. I have logged countless hours with Civ2, possibly the best game ever made. And I think this is a worthy follow up. Think of it as an upgrade. If you haven't played Civ2, this is definately a warranted purchase. If you have, you will find many of those great memories coming back. It helps if you are more a patient gamer (...). A very rewarding game, as engaging as ever.
Rating:
Summary: Definitely Need a Patch
Review: Comparing to Civ 2, this version is a backward. The computers always like to make war. Even peaceful civ like Babylonians like war. This definitely makes this game more toward war aspect. Moreover, the AI just keeps sending settlers to every empty square on the Earth, even if the squares are behind your cities. Another backward is the user interface. All functions are hidden somewhere. I prefer the old window pull-down menu style. Nevertheless, some new features are good: culture influence; resource concept; special units; leaders. But the overall feeling is more like Age of Empire than a Civilization. This release definitely needs a patch to improve computer AI.
Rating:
Summary: An old friend returns, with subtle improvements
Review: As a long time computer gamer, I had been mesmerized by Civ I, and still had CivII on my hard drive, so I was glad to see the arrival of CivIII. Those who have played the earlier incarnations will appreciate the improved graphics, but the improvements in game play are subtle--multiple items have been changed to provide better balance and gameplay but you can still jump in and play like you remembered. Then go back to the manual and learn the new subleties to play better.
For new Civ students, be prepared for long hours of obsessive "gamelock" as you nurture your infant society thru growth and development until you dominate the world, militarily or culturally. Many of the concepts of research and unit building will be familiar from other games, but this was the one that started it all, and back in a new improved version
Rating: 
Summary: Geez, I must have had all the fun of Civ 5 years ago!
Review: Honestly, I'm not having fun with Civ 3 as much as I had expected.
Graphic is better, A.I. is better and Gameplay is probably better.
So what's wrong with it?
Nothing. Nothing I can think of. Maybe I am the reason.
Maybe it's me that's wrong.
Because I have had all the fun of Civilization style games
5 years ago.
Sometimes good memories are best left alone.
Rating:
Summary: Not a big improvement over Civ II
Review: I am somewhat disappointed in Civ III. Although there are some new features, I don't think it warranted a new release. Don't get me wrong, it's a great game, but if you own Civ II, there is no real reason to buy this game. Additionally, I found a bug that causes the game to error out when trying to load a saved game. It happened a couple of times which ruined a great game of mine. (I lost about 30 hours of work). Oh well. If you are new to the Civ series, you should definetly get this game.
Rating:
Summary: A Good Deal
Review: Of whom the review comes: yes, I HAVE stood up till 6AM playing video games on the computer; but no, I don't do it anymore. I swear. Yes I have played Civ1, loved Alpha Centauri, and adored Civ2, and thought Call to Power 2 wasn't as good as Civ2 (for various reasons, one of them being, with my Pentium3 at 600mhz and 256 megs of RAM, every frikking turn took a half hour). Every single feature I found annoying in Civ2 was discarded, and all those I thought strange or unrealistic were altered. Diplomacy is to my taste --even with a little dude in the corner whispering "oh yeah, their army outnumbers us" and all manner of important intelligence. Trade is far more real. Resource availablity is introduced: you need the "strategic resource" iron to build Knights, and uranium to build Nukes (speaking of which, there are two kinds, as in modern reality: strategic nukes, high-yield anti-city types; and tactical nukes, low-yield anti-battlefield types). And Yes, for the vain among us, your Palace is also far better done; and the visuals are very nice, in animation as well as landscape of both City and World. It's a nice lookin game. But why, then, not a 5-star rating? I like this game; I fell in love with it and have had a good time with it. But some aspects are difficult to get used to: for instance, myself, on Chieftan difficulty setting no less, ran a "technologically backward" (to quote my science advisor) nation! Me! Entirely due to my ignorance, yes, but put simply: There is not that wild spark, that flame declaring "this is the best game that ever was". Better than all that's ever been in the genre? Of course.
Rating:
Summary: It's not Civ 2, and definitely not Alpha Centauri
Review: Having played Civ 1, Civ 2, Alpha Centauri and the Alien Crossfire expansion pack, I came into Civ 3 with a lot of notions of what ought to be there and what shouldn't. The loss of "wonder movies" struck me as a step backwards, but I admit that having seen the movies in Civ 2 and Alpha Centauri so many times, I tend to skip them or turn them off whenever I play. So no great loss. As many people have said, the espionage side of the coin has changed greatly, as has the resource management, as has a number of things. Whilst there are some things that were definitely better in previous Civ-style games, there are improvements on the previous versions, in particular the AI and diplomacy. In my opinion, had I not been a long term gamer (15 years), and played just about everything that has released in this genre, I would have been ecstatic over the release. However, having played other versions, there are some things that I would really like to be still in the game (like queues that don't need constant prompting). As a final note, for those who have played previous versions, don't expect it to be the same, but better. It is better in some ways, worse in others, but still a good game. It just has a different approach.
Rating: 
Summary: Nothing but problems
Review: Beware, this game is a tech nightmare. I spent 6 hours trying to get my system back together after the havock unleashed by Civiliation 3.
| 
