Rating: 
Summary: Go past all the negitive comments, this game is awesome.
Review: This game is awesome! I loved Civ and Civ2, and couldn't wait untill the latest version came out. Before I bought it I decided to read all the reviews to see if I should wait and get it on sale, and I was shocked to see all the bad reviews. People upset that it was just a graphical upgrade, many errors, slow and game play didn't live up to the hype. WHAT? I have a 1.4 GHz system and it didn't have a problem, NOT ONE. This game is not Civ2, which is why I like it. They kept the basic structure but changed the game and game play. The AI is much inproved, and the same problems a real civilization faced in development. So yes this is a new game and not the same old civ2. Yes, they did change the gameplay a little, but they did from Civ1 to Civ2 too. No they didn't make all the changes that we would like, but Civ2 didn't have multipler when it came out either. If you liked Civ2 but got tired of always killing the computer then you will like stepping up to the new version!
Rating:
Summary: Keeps me up late
Review: This is a really challenging and addictive game that has tons of options for the player to tweak. The included editor is a neat tool, too. I would highly recommend this game to players that like strategy games. A patch will be coming out before Christmas, too, so the few minor bugs should be addressed soon.
Rating: 
Summary: Civilization 3
Review: I was so excited to get this game that that is all that was on my mind for weeks.
I was happy to see them combine a the best of 1 and 2 in this game. But I was a little disappointed that they took out some of the technologies of the past and they took away the video clips of wonders as they are built. I thought that was one of the great things about Civ. 2. I did think the diplomacy is much better. you don't have the problem of bleeding heart liberals amongst your democracy stopping your wars.Congress can't override you when you decide to start or continue a war.
Overall I will still spend hours playing this game, and then hours making up to the wife and kids after they feel I abandoned them.
Rating: 
Summary: I just can't get the hang of this one...
Review: I played this game in all my spare time for 3 weeks straight, and I just couldn't get the hang of it. Granted, it took me the first 2 weeks to find all the features of the game - IF I've found all the features of the game. I wound up starting the game over and over again because I was dismally far behind the AI players. After 3 weeks of play, I now feel I can build a good solid starting civilization that isn't great, but won't get crunched by the first AI player I meet.Oddly, I think part of my problem is that you can't use the same strategies you used in Civ I or Civ II (not to mention CtP). I find this odd because the game is so similar to the old Civ games. A bit more complicated here and a bit simpler there, yes, but the same none the less. The changes basically are this: --The interface is completely different. Try right-clicking a lot(Establish embassies with other civs by right-clicking on your capitol city, change production by right-clicking on a city, etc.).
--The tech tree has changed. It's interesting that you can't discover industrial age techs until you discover most of the middle age techs and so forth, but I think it was simplified a bit too much.
--You can't build armies unless you happen to get a leader during combat (or discover a certain advanced tech). I got a leader. Once.
--Culture is cool. Diplomacy seems to go better if you have more culture. Unfortunately, if you spend all your time on culture, you don't have the funds for anything else and you'll be crushed anyway. Culture causes cities to increase their borders, though, and that includes taking over enemy territory.
--The city governor is... interesting. I haven't decided if I like it yet or not (again, right-click on a city). It allows you to set the focus for your city (production, science, etc.) and if you click on Production at the top, you can tell it to produce Settlers, Workers, Wonders, etc. Often, Sometimes, or Never. And you can do this for This City or All Cities, so you don't have to go city to city to tell the governor to stop building Settlers. Unfortunately, you can only go so far to turning the governor off. He pops up and tells you what he wants to build (if Manage Production is turned OFF) next if you're building, say, a library, but woe is he who wants to stop producing military units as soon as the present warrior is done. It starts another unit automatically (not necessarily the same type it just finished).
--Build queues are dismally difficult. I only recently realized that if I was in the city screen and I held down the shift key I could add to the build queue instead of changing the present production. I have yet to figure out how to remove something from the build queue, nor move a thing up or down in the list, to say nothing of saving the build queue so I can use it in other cities.
--There are no settings to increase or decrease resolution.
--Trade is vague and difficult. Once you've discovered trade, found resources and then found EXTRAS of those same resources, and once you've built a road to civs on your continent or you AND the other civ have built a harbor, then you can go to the deplomacy screen and request or offer goods as a part of a trade proposal.
--Putting the workers (the ones who build roads, etc.) on automatic can be a bad idea. Some automated processes are good - <CTRL>+N will cause him to build a network of roads between all of your cities. <CTRL>+R will cause him to build a road to X. Fully automating them may be a bad thing, though. I've noticed that they tend to run around doing whatever they see fit - including irrigating areas that are not only not useful to your city, but not even inside of your cultural influence!
--Strategic resources is another thing I haven't decided if I like or not. They are realistic - one shouldn't be able to build swordsmen without iron for the swords. On the other hand, most of your military still winds up being spearmen because you have to discover the tech that lets you see the resource, then find the resource, then build a road to it, then build a colony there if it's outside your cultural influence. And even then, you can only build swordsmen in the cities that are connected by road to the resource.
--You can upgrade units! Maybe this was in Civ II and I just didn't see it, but I think it's infinitely cool that I can put a unit in a city with a barracks and then right-click to upgrade. My final word of advice: Build settlers. Build lots of settlers. And somehow figure out a way to do that while making your cities bigger (in later governments, the bigger the city, the more military you can support). And most importantly: Don't throw out your copies of Civ II or Call to Power. You'll need them later when you get frustrated with this one.
Rating: 
Summary: Where is the coal????
Review: The visuals are much improved, but I can't understand the global snipe hunt for resources. You might have all the technology for an advanced unit or improvement, but you are out of luck unless you can manage to wander over the planet and actually FIND all the resourses needed. I have spent 100 years at a time trying to find Iron or Coal and don't get me started on that rarest of elements, Aluminum. Spaceflight? So sorry, the only aluminum on the planet is controlled by that other civilization, you know, the one that has dedicated itself to your destruction? And, unlike Call to Power 2, the oceans are just there so your ships and subs have something to move around on.I uninstalled CIV II and reinstalled CTP2.
Rating:
Summary: A vital component of a turn-based gamer's library
Review: If you have ever played any of the Sid Meier games before (well, except Colonization), then you already know what you're in for. If you've never played any of his games, I won't be able to describe this one for you. Suffice it to say that they are extremely enjoyable, provide great depth and great challenge, and provide relationship-threatening hours of entertainment in front of your PC. "One more turn" will be your new catch-phrase. A brief description: you are one of a number of leaders in ancient times, many thousands of years B.C. Your goal is to conquer the earth. You start with a small village, and by tilling the land, exploring and meeting other tribes, and various other means, you learn new technology, expand your empire, and watch your civilization grow through the ages, from spears and chariots through miniaturization and interstellar travel. I know, I know, that's hardly anything to go on; just buy the game and trust me. My impressions of it, as a veteran of the Civ series: as the documentation points out, if you haven't played any previous games, you won't have any bad habits to break. How true! I was never very good at earlier games and have had to start on the easiest level of this one just to learn the new tricks. Other reviewers are right on target by suggesting that culture is the key. Your area of influence is determined by each city's culture, gained through time from certain improvements and wonders. Develop enough culture and you can even seduce your opponents' cities to join your civilization. If, like me, you thought Temples were a crutch for over-militaristic societies, throw that one out the window. Trade? No longer an advancement. The Apollo Program? Can't rely on someone else to build it for you; you'll need your own. That's right, your own wonder. There are now "Great" wonders, which are unique, and "Small" wonders, which can be built by any civilization meeting the requirements. Terrain now plays a greater role: in addition to defense, the random items that appear are now vital for certain units and actions. Want a Swordsman? Better have access to iron. No coal? No railroads. The technology tree looks a bit smaller and is divided into Eras. Want to develop a straight-line path to Space Flight? Nice try. You need to discover all required technologies in one era before advancing to another. I think it helps a lot in terms of managing your development; the order in which you discover them gives you variation from game to game, but you don't have to worry about too many wrong turns because you all pass through the same gates. The influence of the previous game, Alpha Centauri, is most evident in the concept of unique abilities for civilizations. In the past, the only real differences between the groups was in leader name, adjectives, city names, and color. Not any longer. Each civ has two specialty areas (out of 6, so with 16 possibilities, two civs have the same and the rest are unique), starts with two techs based on those, and gains special things based on those areas. Also, each civ has a special unit that is superior to the unit available to others. For example, the Americans get an F-16 in addition to the Fighter that everyone else uses. It's better and does more things ... but once the Fighter's been surpassed, the F-16 loses its edge. I really like this - it's one of the things that caused me to shelve Civ II for Alpha Centauri. Now, you'll replay the game not just to try alternate strategies, but to see what the difference is between the Aztecs and the French. Air units have been changed quite a bit, by the way. You no longer "fly" based on your range, miscounting your squares to crash into the sea. Instead, you have areas of operation, and can perform one (or more) actions within that area. It takes a little getting used to, but it's a nice improvement. Oh, one more important change: your score is an average now, not a total. No more jacking up your population in the final turns to max out your score. It's averaged over all your turns, so if you started out as the weak civ on the block, you may never catch up; alternatively, if you can get that big, early lead, you may be able to coast home. (Watch out for the UN, though.) I really can't explain much more without going into details that you should discover yourselves, or without totally losing those who've never enjoyed a Sid Meier game. I will point out that this is version 1, so there are a few little things here and there (no male Russian? no female American? What's with calling me Mr. in a Democracy?). They're minor. Trust me. And most will be fixed. A couple things to note: it is much like Civ II, so if you are expecting great differences, you won't find them here. Buy Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. It mixes some of these elements with a completely different storyline. Another is that along those lines, you will find that despite all the automation at your fingertips, the game drags on in the waning years. I like that, because it shows how my civilization has grown - Rome wasn't built in a day, and you can't run it in an hour these days either. However, you may prefer a quicker ending. If you have any interest in turn-based strategy games, and don't have other people who expect to see you around over the next month or so, get this. Now. Scroll to the top of the screen and buy it. If you're female, available, and really like this game, call me! No, seriously, buy it, enjoy it, and prepare to spend hundreds of hours relishing the work of the team. This is one of the best games I own (and I do own a lot), and I've never been disappointed with a Sid Meier game ... except for Colonization ... so I recommend this one for everyone.
Rating:
Summary: A great game for its time (around four years ago)
Review: I know I'll probably get dinged by people reading this review, but the simple fact is that this was a great game several years ago when Civilization II came out. Now, though, it falls flat of expectations. Yes, they've revamped the graphics and tweaked the rules, but 95% of the game is exactly the same as Civilization II. There are no significant advances. It's still turn-based, it's still single player only (*very* disappointing), and there is basically no change from Civ II. My advice: If you're a Civilization fanatic and want a graphically enhanced and slightly tweaked version of Civilization II, get it. If you're looking for something better, consider Age of Empires II Gold (with the Conquerers expansion) from Microsoft. It's cheaper, realtime, multiplayer, and has a lot more variety in game styles and options. Even the single player games are good with challenging computer players and neat campaigns to run. Sid, you and your games totally rocked (I'm one of the aforementioned Civilization fanatics), but if you release Civilization IV, please give us better reasons to buy it!
Rating:
Summary: Not as good as Civilization II
Review: Civ III is much anticipated and I would say quite disapointing. Civ II had a number of unballanced aspects (howitzers that won ever engagement and railroads that allowed instant transport to name a few). However, it was a good simulation of cultural development. Civ III lacks many of the key technological improvements of Civ II (no rail so you always use the same roads that you built in 3000 BC and no improvments in agriculture) that makes the game less fun. They should have made the game more ballanced but still kept the flow of history that made it great before.
Rating:
Summary: The good, the bad, and the ugly
Review: I am a diehard Civ II fan, and I've played almost every title in the Civ series including both editions of Call to Power and Alpha Centauri. Civ III has some good things, some bad things, and some just plain ugliness. The Good things:
1) Diplomacy is MUCH improved over previous games.
2) The AI is much improved which makes the game a real challenge.
3) Much improved graphics for the units and the terrain.
4) No more trade-routes for luxuries!
5) Simple, trouble-free installation.
6) More than two ways to win. The Bad things:
1) The computer opponents *still* start wars with no apparent good reason.
2) Special resources are far, far, too rare. It is almost impossible to get the computer opponents to trade military resources - and even then, such trades are only good for 20 turns.
3) It is difficult to keep track of what your cities are producing. If a city is building a unit, it automatically begins building another unit (not necessarily of the same type).
4) Poorly written manual which assumes that you already know how to play.
5) The tutorial only covers a few aspects of the game.
6) The game takes forever to go through the computer turns. This is exacerbated by larger maps.
7) No High Council. That is one of the most fun features of Civ II, and I was hoping to see it in Civ III. The Ugly things:
1) The graphics for the heads of the government stink! Where's Lincoln's trademark stovepipe hat?
2) The customization of your civilization is VERY limited and poorly implemented. You cannot change your gender from the default for your civilization. Some customizations do funny things to the advisor's dialogue boxes. Firaxis did a GREAT job with this in SMAC. I was hoping to see it in Civ III.
3) No multiplayer. For a modern game, this is a major faux pas.
4) At first glance, it is no longer possible to easily customize your game by tweaking .txt and files.
Rating:
Summary: A solid game
Review: Being a huge rts fan and Starcraft being my all time favotite, I wasn't sure if this game would live up to all the hype. It would take one heck of a turn based strategy game to keep my interest. I played Alpha Centauri and it's upgrade and while amused I got bored of it after a while. When I got Civ 3 I started by playing the tutorial. It was real fun. I then launched into the game itself. I'm very impressed with the details of the game there is a lot to manage without being too overkill. The game overall is very engrossing and I really have to fight to turn it off to go to bed. The graphics are nice, much nicer that Alpha Centauri, and the flow of the game really keeps you involved. It took a while to learn how to pump out the modern weapons, but I finally did it. One drawback is the waiting between rounds later in the game. They show every worker's movement and every enemy's movement in your range of sight. This slows the game to a crawl. Also, when you get an upgrade for aquaduct or hospital the computer proceeds to inform you which cities need that upgrade. This is a hassle when you have thirty cities! The only other bad thing is that the battles aren't always so fair. My Panzer should be able to walk over a knight, and yet the knight can actually do a fair amount of damage; and I don't see how a frigate could ever hurt a battleship. A battleship can toast a target 20 miles away!! Nevertheless, I have enjoyed playing this game, which says a lot being one who normally stays away from turn based games.
|
