Why is Civ 3 Getting Such Good Reviews?

[HulluKarhu]

Well I posted my own review on the message board of my other favorite PC game series Might and Magic..where we are eagarly awaiting M and M9. Having Played 6 7 and 8 over the past 5 years.
http://sabinsky.com/mm9/tavern/mm9tavern.html

I use the English translation of HulluKarhu..Finlands Crazy Bear.
I gave it 7.5 before patch 8.5 after patch.
To give that a calibration :
I gave HOMM3 =8.5, MM8= 8, MM7= 7.5 , and MM6= 8.5..but that was in 1996 so not a fair calibration in those old graphics days.
Back in the days of my MM6 8.5 I gave Civ 2 9.5.
I think that 8.5 is a fair reveiw I might improve on that after a few more hours play, I am not disappointed yet, my wife says that I have played it for 18 hours since I patched the game. I have not been counting or sleeping much. One thing for sure it is addictive.
Back to work it is Monday already.

Real CIV fans are fans of any good game. Most have been playing PC games since Pet = Commodore and not cat.
If I posted crap I would be savaged and rediculed.
As many have done to the Gamespot review which is way over the top. It was done to quickly to be of any real value, but I also think that players who rated the game at less than 5 are just bitter. They would probably of given same score without playing it or it shows deep disappointment when they do not get all that was hoped for.
Whether it is in CIV 3, MM9 or whatever game we buy.
Many of us I am sure will try to hide the disappointment when the finished items is not all that we hoped for.
Was perfection expected from Sid? Probably..dream on!
Did Sid realy have any role in the production other than to make sure that his name was on the box and spelled correctly? I doubt it.
Could be some of the reviewers were like us..not wanting to tell the whole truth, even if they were a bit disappointed.
I do believe that this forum gives a very fair cross section and MarkoG seems to "moderate"well, as would be expected from a Greek...sorry Macedonian.
I would be interestd if he thinks that CIV 3 is 8.5 or 9+.
Before I give a game 9+ it would need to be played a lot longer than the few hours that I have done so with CIV3.

I have but a few minor gripes so far.
eg.
OK the AI gangs up on me, and I think that the trading aspect is "much ado to acheive not much" because the AI never has what i want and/or does not want what I have.

But I ignore it and it seems to be nothing that spoils the game.
Perhaps it could be better explained by someone.
I assume the tips and strategy info has to be re-written now after the patch.

[Libertarian]

Real CIV fans are fans of any good game. Most have been playing PC games since Pet = Commodore and not cat.

Yin? Oh, Yiiiiiinnnnn!

[yin26]

Are trolls that make sense better trolls than those that don't?

[Aurochs]

A quantified review is always a comparison to something else. We are comparing it to what we hoped Civ III would be. But the reviewers are comparing it to other existing games. Thus the discrepancy. We're comparing apples to the shiny, haloed, transcendent Platonic ideal apple, they're comparing apples to rotten tomatos.

It's the almost-sexual magic of Civ...when it's good it's really good, and even when it's bad it's good. Significantly better than the alternative, at least.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Aurochs
It's the almost-sexual magic of Civ...

What version are you playing? Can you point me to where I can download it?

Venger

[Antonin]

Originally posted by Daveraver
I mean, I think the concensus around here is that the game is mediocre at best, even when counting in the insipid patch...

I mean on average, even with the people that love this game... I think we'd all end up giving it a big fat 7/10 at the most....

Why then, do we keep on seeing 9's and 9.5's and the ilk? huh?

Anyone?

Is this a trick question? It's getting such good reviews because, um, because it deserves them.

You give the game a 'big fat 7/10', and you are only speaking for yourself. I think the complaints seem so prevalent to you because people who like the game are spending too much time playing it to whine here in endlessly redundant threads. Me, I only post here from work.

[Eaglezeye]

I'm just tired of being Firaxis' quality assurance department. I will not purchase another product from them on the release date. I'd rather wait until you guys tell them the items they need to fix and they patch the game a couple of times. Civ III has been a very disappointing experience.

[Admiral PJ]

civ3 should get a 10 and no less.. anyone saying its bad is a Traitor to this forum, and should be kicked out

It was like this with Quake 2 and 1 , all the quake 1 people became a separate group from Q2, each disliking the others.

If you can't make any positive complaints then don't waste this forum by posting rubbish like 'I can't win the game by building lots of cities all over the world anymore and crushing everyone with 5 tanks.. this is broke'

[cutlerd]

CIV3 is getting mostly good reviews because it is mostly a great game. As a player of CIV since when CIV1 first came out, I find CIV3 to probably be the best non-RPG computer game ever. Never before have I had a computer game where I actually wanted to devise plans and strategies while not at the computer (i.e. while commuting to work). Only the best of table top wargames had ever involved me that much.

Almost every complaint I have heard for CIV3 can apply to CIV2, so while critiques of CIV3 on its own rights are at least understandable, critiques denigrating CIV3 as compared to CIV2 make no sense to me.

The AI in CIV2 was laughable and could always be beaten. Blitzing was much easier in CIV2, where you didn't have to leave any units behind in captured cities and could immediately use enemy railways to blitz and spy blitz to take out a huge enemy empire in 1 turn. Spies were ridiculously overpowered in CIV2.

Management of any world-conquering game is going to become tedious in the late game phase. There is almost no way around it. CTP was tedious late game (though you had the benefit of screwing around with space colonies and sea colonies), CIV2 was tedious late game, and CIV3 can be as well. I don't think anyone has a cure for the need to move a lot of pieces around late game.

As far as the people moaning about patches and mistakes...is there a game in recent memory that did not require patches? Try on Pool of Radiance. Baldur's Gate series had many patches, and still required hundreds of player-made fixes to correct what were, in many cases, game breaking bugs (like one where a Paladin quest could not be finished and so the game could not be finished). I was personally involved in many of the patches for the old Harpoon series. All of the Avalon Hill and Atomic Game WW2 wargames had multiple patches. Like it or not, patches are a way of life in computer gaming. Railing against shoddy programming and releases is a fine thing IMO...but railing specifically against CIV3 patching as if it were some unique occurance just makes you look whiny and bitter and probably simply displays the fact that you have a bigger jones for this game than any other.

Likewise, all AI is masterable, exploitable, and eventually 100% beatable. By definition, there will never be an AI capable of beating determined and intelligent human players without cheating until an AI is developed that can actually think. Anyone whining about the AI having holes or being beatable is basically complaining that they can't play CIV3 against HAL.

Do I think there cannot be further strengthenings beyond the first patch? Sure. Coastal forts need to make some sort of sound when they operate. Some AI holes need to be fixed (i.e. it should be easy for an algorithm to look at a given tech and IF it is a dead-end and IF it provides no units and IF it is not needed to advance an age and IF the wonder attached to it has been built then the AI should only want it on the cheap). I also agree that the AI needs to upgrade its units more. Even by upgrading 1-3 units per turn the AI should be able to do so, especially with units assigned to city defense. I could go on with at least 20 other items that still need to be patched, but I consider CIV3 a great game that can be made even better. And apparently the reviewers think so as well.

Devin

[FrostyBoy]

I give the game a 7, simply for what it has, but I don't give it a 10, because it should have had more.

[Pythagoras]

I think that people complain because they expected a continuation of the "brian reynolds" era of civ games. This game however, instead of being SMAC 2 on Earth, is more like Civ 2(b). Its like Meier came along, saw SMAC and thought "this is dumb... this is good... stupid history & philosiphy go away" and reworked the series again in his image. Whether you think thats a good thing or not is another issue. Meier's legacy of games is a lot like a long list of great catchy tunes . Games like Pirates! Gettysburg! RR Tycoon civ1 civ3 etc are all games that seem to appeal to gamers a little less seious about their games then others.

Anyway I think civ3 is an awesome game in and of itslef. And the sheer amount of Firaxis posts leads me to believe much is still in the works. Id give it a 9.7.

[E_T]

It might be a form of September 11th Syndrome, where anything bad said about another computer company could cause them to have a bad quarter or two, cause layoffs, destableize the economy more than it currently is and even ultimately make things bad for the reviewer. In a way, it's also unamerican.

that's my 2 cents worth...

E_T

[Venger]

Originally posted by Admiral PJ
It was like this with Quake 2 and 1 , all the quake 1 people became a separate group from Q2, each disliking the others.

Quake, the original, and specifically QuakeWorld, is still the greatest pure shooter ever made. I've played them all - and owned at all. And QW is elegant simplicity, near perfection of a sort rarely achieved.

I agree with Snoopy, whose awesome artwork is a great mod for Civ3. A 7 is about it (I did 7.5, but I'll buy 7...)

Venger

[JerryK72]

Originally posted by Daveraver
I mean, I think the concensus around here is that the game is mediocre at best, even when counting in the insipid patch...

I mean on average, even with the people that love this game... I think we'd all end up giving it a big fat 7/10 at the most....

Why then, do we keep on seeing 9's and 9.5's and the ilk? huh?

Anyone?

Not all people think the game is mediocre. I for one give it a 9.5 . The reason I give it that, is I'm a new/casual strategy gamer. I never played CIV I, and barely played CIV II. My first real strategy experience is with SMAC & SMACX. I played CIV II after I played the SMAC games. So to me CIV II seemed a little clunky and hard to get used to. CIV III, on the other hand, moves relatively smoothly. It reminds me of SMAC. I love this game. To me its the best ever and worthy of a 9.5 . Reviewers rate games based on how they think the general public will accept the game. To an average gamer CIV III is probably close to a 10. Which is why reviewers rate it so high.

To the hardcore strategy gamer, It is mediocre at best because your standards are very, very high. Firaxis knows it can never please everyone, so they shoot for the largest demographic possible. Unfortunately for the Hardcore gamer, the demographic most companies shoot for are the average gamers.

The reason most of the *active* users on this board, whine & complain is because they are hardcore gamers that love CIVIII and want it to be the best it can be.

[Akka]

Seeing all these 9,5/9,8/9,7 is just plain silly.
Come on people, grow up a little, and learn about "moderation". I'm not even talking about how fun Civ3 is. I'm just merely talking about the incredibely high scores you are giving.
WAKE UP PEOPLE, 10 means PERFECT !
P E R F E C T
This just can't exist.
Civ3 has quite a lot of flaws, so it's not perfect.
It CAN be upgraded a LOT, regardless of the fact that it's the best Civ ever or that it's the worst pile of garbage you saw. So, being able to better without still reaching perfection, make it below a 9,5 game.
Remember men : 5 is the average between 10 (perfection) and 0 (void). It means "average product". A game with a 6 is already better than the average. A 7 is a good/very good one. 8 is GREAT. 9 is only reachable by the most mythics of the classics.

Give 9,8 to a game. Then grade another game next month which is vastly better. How will you do that ? Starting to grade it above 10 ?

Tsk tsk...

[dissent]

I think Civ3 will eventually be worthy of a 9 or 10, once it is patched (finished) completely. Probably 2 or 3 more patches or so. I'm guessing the reviewers didn't spend enough time on the game to see the flaws/bugs. I didn't start discovering them until well into my first game, and this came about 3 days after release, far before the average reviewer's deadline.

When the game was released, I would give it a 5. I'd give it a 7 after the first patch, and like I said, it will probably eventually be a 9, and thus deserve the overwhelmingly positive reviews it has already received.

[Daveraver]

Originally posted by Sn00py
I give the game a 7, simply for what it has, but I don't give it a 10, because it should have had more.

That is exactly my point. I just feel like its lacking, like its missing the most logical progressions in gameplay from Civ 2.

I feel like a girl snubbed for a date. I had allllll these expectations, then the guy shows up and takes me to McDonalds instead of Tavern on the Green. And the patch is basically saying: "Hey baby, you can even supersize it if ya want."

[Raion]

You asked why reviewers gave CIV III a 9 to 10 rating.

As one of the reviewers of the game, I know what it is capable of.


"It is the original game of all those types of games".

It is extremely flexible, and most games are 'NOT'.

Like all games, it needs a patch, so what, Microsoft OS's need an update or patch every other day.

It is the combination of being the Classic Original, voted to the Hall of Fame in Computer Gaming Magazine way back in 1989, because it was "a hate this dang game until I actually get better and beat the game until all of a sudden, I love this dang game, because it is only a computer game, and I feel good when finally whooping those computer CIV's any which way I can", a game.

Not for graphics or ease of use, because like all things "One has to work at it, and then, when you win, it's more satisfying".

One more time!