Should I Buy CivIII?

[Libertarian]

Consider that reviewers might not have enough time to competently evaluate a game as complex as Civ3. (The game's shortcomings don't become apparent until the modern age, which, as I recall, Firaxis itself never play-tested.) Consider also that they might have fiduciary conflicts in bashing their sponsors.

You can check out the reviews of actual players at Amazon. Here's an excerpt from one of them:

On the technical side of the game, the interface is unintuitive and generally ugly. Menus are in strange places, and your advisor screens are nearly impossible to get useful information from. The graphics are a warmed over version of the Civilization II game, and the sound and music are embarrassingly poor quality. Response time is a major issue, with late game enemy turns taking 30 seconds to 1 minute per enemy. Start up time for the game itself is good, and I have not experienced any crashes with this game (patched version 1.16f). Also, the game manual is large, but uninformative, and index and table of contents are almost useless in aiding you in your search for some obscure game quirk.

[Alex]

Originally posted by Libertarian


Having just returned from Las Vegas,

Hey, Lib is back! Las Vegas... it is near Mingapulco, isn't it?

Welcome back, man.

And Wiglaf... I'd say buy it, but I could also say wait for the next patch. Depends on how high your expectations are.

[Libertarian]

Hey, Lib is back! Las Vegas... it is near Mingapulco, isn't it?

Actually, I think it's in a world of its own.

Welcome back, man.

Thank you. Most kind.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Libertarian
...(The game's shortcomings don't become apparent until the modern age, which, as I recall, Firaxis itself never play-tested.) ...

Back to your old unfounded statements, eh, Lib?

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
I guess I'll wait for the next patch and then buy it, just because it's hard to be totally sure. All the review sites are giving it near perfect scores, though...ign, gamespot, avault, etc. If it's even a minor improvement to civ2, I'd like it (it's not a huge step down or anything, is it?), but for now I'll probably look into EU2 and watch civIII closely.

Thanks again.

Wiglaf: Be careful with the offical reviews on Civ3. Most reviewers probably only played Civ3 for a few hours and were under pressure to give the game high scores (advertising pays a lot of bills). You have to play Civ3 for a couple of weeks to see that the whole is not equal to the sum of its parts.

We gamers have absolutely nothing to gain by advising you. I played Civ 3 for several weeks when it first came out. It IS fun, and I love the unit graphics and animations. But many concepts in the game were not thought out or playtested properly. After a while sheer game tedium/frustration sets in.

If you wait a couple of months you can still pick up Civ 3 for half the price it is now. And you will enjoy it. But there are several games out RIGHT NOW that are much, much cheaper and are a better value for your dollar:

1) EU2
2) CTP2 (get the mods to go with it)
3) Shogun Total War: Warlords Edition
4) Imperialism I and II (free downloads at the underdog site)
5) Heroes of Might and Magic III series
6) Alpha Centauri and Crossfire
7) The Age of Empire series (real time games but they are fun and they have real quality)

With all that said, I plan to have another look at Civ 3 when the Gold Edition comes out.

Hope this helps

[Libertarian]

Originally posted by ACooper


Back to your old unfounded statements, eh, Lib?

Ask Mark to give you a link to the Christmas chat.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
I guess I'll wait for the next patch and then buy it, just because it's hard to be totally sure. All the review sites are giving it near perfect scores, though...ign, gamespot, avault, etc. If it's even a minor improvement to civ2, I'd like it (it's not a huge step down or anything, is it?), but for now I'll probably look into EU2 and watch civIII closely.

Thanks again.

It's not a step down at all, in fact it's a big improvement overall. It's just that some of the changes they've implemented need to be fine tuned some more, and there's a few bugs that have to fixed. It may take some time to do this, but it's still a good game. I feel I got my money's worth at any rate.

[Leonidas]

Here is the Wargamer's review of EU2:


http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/euro...lis_2_main.asp

[Blaupanzer]

Like RPGs? Get Wizardry 8. Like RTSs? Get Cossacks. Like bookkeeping on a massive scale? Get EU II. Like strategy games AND willing to play them on their own terms; get Civ III. Like getting flamed? Ask the General forum about the value of Civ III; then tell them what you decided. Enjoy gaming. Let us know what you think when you do get the game.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Alexnm

And Wiglaf... I'd say buy it, but I could also say wait for the next patch. Depends on how high your expectations are.

Well it appears that 1.17f will be out by Friday.

[Zoid]

Wiglaf, you can buy my copy of Civ3 50% off.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by kailhun

If you're looking for a civ3 type game, then civ3 is probably the best around.

Well, duh!

[thinkingamer]

2 major changes in civ 3: culture(good idea, but works weird sometimes) and GL (if u r lucky enough to get enough GL in a single game u can perhaps even beat Deity lvl.)

3 other significant changes in civ3: Each civ has its own bonus and a unique unit (borrowed from Aok), units require 1 gold for upkeep instead of 1 shield, and significant gov. changes (ex: no fundamentalism)

pros: Probably the best civ AI ever.

cons: still takes 24 hours to finish a single game (even tough u KNOW that u won 3 hours ago),
LOTs of bugs,
slow even on a high speed system, bad scenario editor,
50% luck and %50 strategy on most of cases (ur lucky starting location, the amount of lucky GL u get in single game, etc.),
requires to buy an official strategy guide to fully understand the game,
forces u to pay extra 10$ for a crappy tech tree (and a 12min video cd that tells u how smart/cool Sid is),
and, bla, bla, bla........(i could go on forever)

wait for civ3 gold edition for 40$ at most.

[klesh]

Originally posted by thinkingamer bad scenario editor.

Rather, a lack of scenario editor in the true sense of the term.

-FMK.

[Wiglaf]

Consider that reviewers might not have enough time to competently evaluate a game as complex as Civ3. Consider also that they might have fiduciary conflicts in bashing their sponsors.

Good point, but very rarely do so many different people make similar mistakes or voice the same general bias over a game - out of twenty or so sites I've seen review CivIII, only a handful have been negative. OTOH, CTP and CTP2 were hit pretty hard.

If you wait a couple of months you can still pick up Civ 3 for half the price it is now. And you will enjoy it. But there are several games out RIGHT NOW that are much, much cheaper and are a better value for your dollar:

1) EU2
2) CTP2 (get the mods to go with it)
3) Shogun Total War: Warlords Edition
4) Imperialism I and II (free downloads at the underdog site)
5) Heroes of Might and Magic III series
6) Alpha Centauri and Crossfire
7) The Age of Empire series (real time games but they are fun and they have real quality)

Dunno about EU2 (looks like a different concept, apparently an RTS with a different scope entirely). Also, it runs up about $40 as well, and I'm still a little wary about the others (already tried/own CTP and SMAC) that have reached the bargain bin. Thanks for all the help, hopefully the next patch will make things much more clear cut.

Just to clarify, as all the reviews got to my head - what are the major problems civIII has that keep it from being a must buy?

[TechWins]

Just to clarify, as all the reviews got to my head - what are the major problems civIII has that keep it from being a must buy?

The main problem is that it lacks polish and has been "dumbed" down. One example of it lacking polish is how the combat is still a little rough around the edges. Another example of it lacking polish is how there are so many useless technologies. One example of how it has been dumbed down is how there are now only two states of diplomacy with a Civ - peace and war. Yes, there a (cute) little things like "annoyed", "cautious", and things like that with another Civ, but that is far less complex. There really isn't even a state alliance; it's a very poor version. Another example of being dumbed down is how you have to be apart of the mad expansion rush at the beginning of the game because the AI excessively expands. Also, the waiting time in between turns is ridiculous.

Overall, the game is fun for me, only with graphic changes and Korn's Blitz mod, though, but there is still more to be desired. A lot of the problems with the game can eventaully be fixed.

Although, there a few problems with the game that don't look ever to be fixed, simply because of their internal role with the game.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Dunno about EU2 (looks like a different concept, apparently an RTS with a different scope entirely).

Its not an RTS in the true sense of the word if that makes you think of games like Age of Empires or Command and Conquer. You're not clickfesting to beat the clock unless you like it that way. Every event of importance can be set to pause the game and everything can be examined and all instructions can be issued in pause mode. You're moving armies and putting together diplomatic agreements between nations, not committing a tank rush to knock hitpoints off some enemy units and buildings. I think of it as a 1 day per turn game in which any uneventful turn will quickly move you on to the next one. There's a lot of more discussion about EU1 and 2 in the other games forums so I won't repeat it all here.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Leonidas

6) Alpha Centauri and Crossfire

Crossfire is no longer available for PC, only for Mac.

[Willem]

Originally posted by thinkingamer

...requires to buy an official strategy guide to fully understand the game,...

As P.T. Barnum once said, "There's a sucker born every minute." Just hang out here and check out the Strategy forum.

[Chronus]

I enjoy Civ 3. It is my favorite of the Civ series though I do miss scenarios. Hopefully, Firaxis will improve their editor so that more people will be eager to create them.

Naturally, the game is similar to its predicessors. However, it is also different in many ways. If you do get it, throw away your Civ 2 ideas and start off fresh. The more I deprogram myself out of Civ 2 mode, the more I enjoy Civ 3.

Dunno about EU2 (looks like a different concept, apparently an RTS with a different scope entirely). Also, it runs up about $40 as well,

Hmmm . . . Best Buy was selling them last week for $19.95. If you enjoyed EU, and if you can get EU2 for $19.95, then, perhaps, that is the game for you. I was tempted to buy it myself.

[Ironikinit]

Wiglaf,

The main problems with Civ 3 are community standards, gameplay, and realism, IMO. I'm talking problems that didn't already exist

This community, if I'm not mistaken, is real heavy on making scenarios and multiplayer. Civ 3 doesn't support those, and a lot of people feel burned. Nevermind that Civ 2 didn't support those on release, and nevermind that most Civ 2 players didn't use them much if at all.

In terms of gameplay, many of the complaints are about the interface. The domestic advisor pops up too much, notifications of pollution or disorder are too fast to read. Those are small potatoes and really when you think about it, if that's the best criticisms people can come up with, they're looking for things to complain about. However, the game really does run slowly, esp. if you try to play on a huge map, and that's too bad, because a huge map with 16 civs would be great.

A big complaint that people have is that the combat system is quite simple, which leads to unrealistic results. That means that it's possible for ancient units to occasionally beat modern ones. Theoretically possible, anyway, I'm yet to see it. I have seen, plenty of times, cavalry units attacking tanks and doing damage, which looks pretty funny.

You made a good point about CtP and CtP2 getting panned. Even the reader reviews were negative on Gamespot. I haven't played, so I dunno. Some people think reviewers are gluesniffers or something, but personally I trust professionals over amateurs.

[Libertarian]

The domestic advisor pops up too much, notifications of pollution or disorder are too fast to read. Those are small potatoes and really when you think about it, if that's the best criticisms people can come up with, they're looking for things to complain about.

And you're ignoring things to complain about.

When Wiglaf finds himself scrolling all over the map to find the theater of battle from which the interface yanked him in order to activate an irrelevant unit on another continent, and when he discovers that he must move his units one at a time, and when he finds that he cannot access the Civilopedia from key screens, and when he finds that what you trivialize — the ability actually to read messages about pollution and such — is a needless annoyance, and when he realizes that each successive turn in the modern age will be an ever increasing burden of mindless clicking and scrolling, I hope that he will taunt you with twice as many words as these.

[Ironikinit]

The temptation is there, but it's easy to ignore.

Let me see if I can guess what it said:

Blah blah rant whine cry blah blah boo hooty.

Was I close?

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
The temptation is there, but it's easy to ignore.

Let me see if I can guess what it said:

Blah blah rant whine cry blah blah boo hooty.

Was I close?

Charles

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Was I close?

In a word: No

[Wiglaf]

When Wiglaf finds himself scrolling all over the map to find the theater of battle from which the interface yanked him in order to activate an irrelevant unit on another continent,

Does that happen often?

and when he discovers that he must move his units one at a time,

Had to do that in civ2, no problem there.

and when he finds that he cannot access the Civilopedia from key screens, and when he finds that what you trivialize — the ability actually to read messages about pollution and such — is a needless annoyance, and when he realizes that each successive turn in the modern age will be an ever increasing burden of mindless clicking and scrolling, I hope that he will taunt you with twice as many words as these.

I'll hold out for a patch on things like that, and hopefully the minor issues will be fixed. Although, I'm curious about what's the exact problem with the modern age and how it's different from the earlier ones - seems to me a lot of people don't like it, and it'd be good to get the exact reason why.

However, the game really does run slowly, esp. if you try to play on a huge map, and that's too bad, because a huge map with 16 civs would be great.

What sort of maxed out game (map size/number of civs) can you get away with on your system without too much slowdown?

[ACooper]

Hey Wiglaf, when Lib complains about the interface is refering to the diffuculty he has telling the difference between a worker and a transport.

[Ironikinit]

Wig,

I don't find the unit selection to be that bad of a problem, the battle order, so to speak. It took some getting used to, and if the program queues up a unit away from the action, I just give that unit its order and move on. It could bother me if I was a control freak I guess.

Yeah, the stacked movement. In some of my early games I built too many artillery, more than I really needed as it turned out, and I was wishing for stacks in that case. A lot of people want it, but to me it's like BFD. As you said, same as in Civ 2.

The modern age problem is like there can be an "end of history" scenario. Not much to do. You've built all the buildings, you're usually well in the lead. You have a choice of building units or wealth, which is a way to increase income (er, sorry to be so obvious, it's like capitalization in Civ2). So it can be a bore, frankly. Luckily there's diplomatic victory where you build the UN, grease a bunch of palms, and if you haven't been naughty you win a vote, game over. The first time I built it I held the vote and lost, bit of a learning experience. Anyway, I like it cos it gets the game over. The SS (space ship) is another quick-ish way to end it. Sometimes wars break out, and that can get messy cos there's so many units. Sometimes you're pretty much forced to go to war because a resource runs out or you don't have, say, aluminum or uranium in your territory, both of which you need for SS parts.

The biggest game I've ever played was huge map, continents, 80% water, and I believe there were around 10 civs in it. It bogged down significantly, but less than a minute of wait per turn I guess. I have a PII. I play on standard maps now. Games are long enough as it is. Sometimes I'll go for a large map.

Thanks, Skanky. I was just guessing. Funny, the parts that Wiglaf quoted really did look like the same old whines to me.

[Zoid]

TechWins and Lib has made some good points, what I think is the most important issue here is the fact that when you make a sequel it´s NOT a good idea to make it equal or even inferior to its predecessors (Civ2, SMAC/X) cause what´s the use with a sequel that doesn´t add anything to the gaming experience?

If whining fanboys like Ironikinit are willing to fork up 45$ for a beta-Civ2-clone, fine by me. But I demand a bit more...

[Wiglaf]

The modern age problem is like there can be an "end of history" scenario. Not much to do. You've built all the buildings, you're usually well in the lead. You have a choice of building units or wealth, which is a way to increase income (er, sorry to be so obvious, it's like capitalization in Civ2). So it can be a bore, frankly. Luckily there's diplomatic victory where you build the UN, grease a bunch of palms, and if you haven't been naughty you win a vote, game over. The first time I built it I held the vote and lost, bit of a learning experience. Anyway, I like it cos it gets the game over. The SS (space ship) is another quick-ish way to end it. Sometimes wars break out, and that can get messy cos there's so many units. Sometimes you're pretty much forced to go to war because a resource runs out or you don't have, say, aluminum or uranium in your territory, both of which you need for SS parts.

Still don't see where the big deal is, most of those problems existed in civ2. Although, you did say you were usually in the lead by the modern age, so I gotta ask - is the AI a step down or much easier than you expected?

About corruption, I read up on it and apparently the idea is to force the player into building more developed cities and take away some cheap civ2 strategies. I've also heard it's completely broke and doesn't work at all the way it should - any truth to that? Same question with culture.