Rating: 
Summary: Clunky, badly-done.
Review: It's a sad comment when a classic game is succeeded, several generations later, by a 'sequel' that is considerably harder to play and much more annoying in interface and controls. Don't buy this. Please, don't subject yourself to it. Buy Civ2 - which is similar to this, only not broken and far less annoying. Buy Civ3. Buy Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. But don't buy this. The pathing is a pain, you can't get to the controls for your cities or your units, and it's just generally one of the few games I ripped out of my CD drive and threw against the wall in pure frustration.
Rating: 
Summary: UGH!
Review: The absolute WORST game. It's just plain awful. It's so awful it's frusterating. The box shows like you can build buildings in cities that you create, but you can't. It's awful and awful. Save your money and buy Pacman.
Rating:
Summary: Go for Civ III, instead
Review: This game was not made by the creator of Civilization, Sid Meier, and it shows. The AI is shoddy, the interface isn't what it should be, and the game just doesn't feel like Civilization. For me, the worst part is the map generator. It's always putting continent-sized swamps and mountains everywhere, so that half the map is uninhabitable. It just doesn't feel like you're playing on a real world. Plus, you can't use pre-generated maps (at least, not easily).....In addition to all that, the units will drive you crazy. All of the "special units" are only visible to certain otherunits. So if you want to defend against slavers, or spies, or televangelists, etc, you need to have a different anti-special unit for each of them in each of your cities. Ugghhh!
Before Civ III came out, I would get this to tide me over until it was released. But now that Civ III is out, don't even bother. Just get Civ III, you'll be much happier, believe me...
Rating: 
Summary: Better Than Civilization III
Review: This is a great game. If you like empire building and military strategy turn based games, buy this game for the decent price offered here, before you waste your money and time on Civilization III.Civilization: Call to Power ---
1. Has a much better system of building your infrastructure than do any of the Civ series,
2. Has a MUCH better combat system than Civ I, II, and III,
3. Was copied (albeit poorly) by Civ3 in many ways (e.g. bombardment, public works, military support, etc.), 4. Has superior game play to Civ III.
5. Is a lot of fun to play! The artificial intelligence is not bad in Call To Power, but it is easily defeated once you get the feel of it. The best opponent, while playing Call To Power, is another human, and Call To Power has the best multiplayer support (both for Internet play and Play-by-Email) of any of the Civilization series games. ... Enjoy yourselves!
Rating:
Summary: Great Game
Review: This is a great strategy game and very engaging. It's very well thought out. Make sure you have a lot of time to kill playing it. But very addictive and very fun. It's a classic.
Rating: 
Summary: They took functions out of the game to add graphics
Review: Well, if you've never played Civilization before, you might like it. For the gamers, collectors, and followers maybe buy it and stuff it in a corner. The settlers don't improve the terrain, the units are not supported by individual towns, and on and on. I just can't think what happened here? Did someone else get a cheap contract on the rights? Where is the game? Cinamatics are blurry...ah it is hard to bad mouth what use to be a good game, but like everyone else has already said, "Skip this one." And, get the name of that truck. What happened?
Rating:
Summary: technology alone doesn't save a game
Review: Yes, this game does have good graphics. It also has loads of technology up on Civ II. However, technology doesn't always make a game better or more fun to play. Let's face it, if that were the case there wouldn't be people scouring the internet for copies of King's Quest 1.
This was my first experience with the Civ games, and I didn't like it. There were too many military units, and it seemed by the time you finally finished building one it was obsolete. Also, the caravans were, well, annoying. You had to build dozens of these little caravans to trade amongst your own civ!!! Civ III addressed this problem by only having to build roads around your civ (so much simpler.)
While Civ III IS still new and fairly expensive, I would tell people to buy it instead. Or if they couldn't afford it, I'd tell them to get Civ II. A Civ game just isn't a (good) Civ game without Sid Meier.
Rating:
Summary: technology alone doesn't save a game
Review: Yes, this game does have good graphics. It also has loads of technology up on Civ II. However, technology doesn't always make a game better or more fun to play. Let's face it, if that were the case there wouldn't be people scouring the internet for copies of King's Quest 1.
This was my first experience with the Civ games, and I didn't like it. There were too many military units, and it seemed by the time you finally finished building one it was obsolete. Also, the caravans were, well, annoying. You had to build dozens of these little caravans to trade amongst your own civ!!! Civ III addressed this problem by only having to build roads around your civ (so much simpler.)
While Civ III IS still new and fairly expensive, I would tell people to buy it instead. Or if they couldn't afford it, I'd tell them to get Civ II. A Civ game just isn't a (good) Civ game without Sid Meier.
|
