the best game yet or not?

tomdy2k · February 6, 2002, 19:29

hi

i've seen tons of game sites giving civ 3 great reviews, but on those same sites the civ3 players have been less than enthusiastic........

i'm trying to decide if this is the game to buy or wait for something else..

what are the impressions of you guys who have been playing awhile?

tom

Worthingtons · February 6, 2002, 19:30

Willem · February 6, 2002, 19:37

Well just have a look around and form your own conclusions. There's lots of opinions floating around. Myself I think it's a good game, but some areas need work. But they are still working on it, so I'm optimistic.

ColdWizard · February 6, 2002, 21:20

i suggest waiting until it's finished (when/if scenario editor and Multiplayer are added), unless you like straight sp play. i also recommend not paying extra for the "limited" edition.

Tarquelne · February 6, 2002, 21:52

The key concept seems to be "preconceptions." I really think most of the people who loathe civ3 do so because it isn't what they expected/wanted it to be. Many people, it seems, wanted something like SMAC 2 or Civ2.5. Civ3 is more like "Civ2 #2" - Where Civ2 did little to alter the gameplay of Civ1 and mostly added "toys" (more units, improvements, techs) Civ3 went in a different direction. It has fewer units, techs, "movies", and improvements compared to Civ2 (or SMAC) and introduces only a few new features. (Mainly Culture and Strategic/Luxury Resources.)

Civ3 is often less "realistic" than Civ2... the combat is a good example. It's considerably ealistic than Civ2s. (But, I would agree with Firaxis, gives better game-play. Not that I didn't alter the stats of almost every unit... but I do that in every game I can anyway.)

Civ3 does, however, definetly have a better AI. I'm not saying it isn't often boneheaded... it just isn't as consistently boneheaded as most game AIs.

The only really big flaws in Civ3 I see are no "stack" movement, and the editor is behind the curve. (Though Firaxis has said it wants to develop the editor considerably.)

Dis · February 6, 2002, 21:56

I disagree civ3 gives better gameplay with regards to combat. fast units are too powerful. Ships bombardment sucks. Air bombardment sucks. shall I go on?

the game is fun for 2 or 3 weeks. After that you'll probably get bored. I suggest "renting" it- if you can take it back. Or waiting until it gets discounted. You may want to wait a year or two when they bundle the game with its expansion pack(s)

yin26 · February 6, 2002, 21:59

Without a doubt, if you aren't simply burning a hole in your stomach to play a Civ game, let this one wait. It's not complete and, quite frankly, it's tedious as it stands.

When the Gold Edition comes out complete with all the things that should have come with the game in October, consider spending your time and money then. Until that point, your time and money would be wasted on Civ3.

Dida · February 6, 2002, 22:09

if I would rate this game on 10.0 scale, I will give it a score between 7.0 to 7.5. It is just ok, C or C-, nowhere close to B+ or A.

Capt Dizle · February 6, 2002, 22:17

Frankly I doubt that the Gold Edition will be any better. I am judging by the things Soren did in the patch. Many changes were 180 in the wrong direction. Firaxis says that they will put fun ahead of realism, but the game is not fun. What they have done is try to make the gameplay monotracked and simplistic so that the AI will be able to function at a level close to the human player.

To put that in other words, Soren has dumbed down the available strategy options in the game so that the human is justing sitting there plodding along a tedious simplistic path.

Until someone at Firaxis realizes that the current design team is drilling a dry well, and takes some appropriate action, any expansion will simply be more of the same torture.

Since Sid will not acknowledge his responsibility to the pride of the Civ series the prospects of anything positive happening is virtually nill.

yin26 · February 6, 2002, 22:19

Yeah, it looks that way. Isn't it so fascinating to see a group of people TRY to fail? Well, you have to be good at something, I guess...

OneInTen · February 7, 2002, 02:15

What's the point in having 1000s of options if a trained monkey could beat the AI? WHere's the fun in using all these options if you know before the game starts the AI is merely there to watch you run away with a scoreline of 1000 - 1?

You may as well go play the sims if you want a game where you're not actually in competition with anyone. As an added bonus, you've got lotsa options in that game!

Encomium · February 7, 2002, 02:23

The game reviewers are both idiots and paid (or bribed) shills for Firaxis.

Civ III is a BIG DISAPPOINTMENT.

I would give Civ III a 'C+' if there had been no Civ II.

But since there was a great Civ II, Civ III gets a 'D'.

It has many bugs, playability problems, a stupid AI, that culture flipping nonsense, less histoircal realsim than Civ II, and I don't think it was ever even play-tested.

OneInTen · February 7, 2002, 02:34

Encomium, I assume you're not posting with a satraight face when you declare civ 2 a great game but civ 3's AI stupid?

Capt Dizle · February 7, 2002, 03:18

Mr. 1 in 10,

I will take a game with 1000 options by which I can beat the AI over one that has 1 way to beat the AI that can't be finished because it bores you out of your mind.

Single play is just a warm up for real human competition anyway. The game is designed backwards.

jt

Willem · February 7, 2002, 03:41

Yes Encomium, we all know what you think. After all, you keep repeating the same things over and over and over again. Pull up a perch, I'll introduce you to my parrot.

Penfold · February 7, 2002, 04:40

i quite disagree. in my opinion, this game is GREAT .
ok, there are a few things that need adjustment, but i simply love the new features, the graphics and the overall gameplay.

i'm a civ-veteran (started with civ1 and went through _all_ of the sequels).

so maybe you should rent the game somewhere to test whether you like it or not. and if you dont, you could spend your time whining about it in the civ-forums instead of playing a really good game and having a good time.

OneInTen · February 7, 2002, 05:37

Quote:

I will take a game with 1000 options by which I can beat the AI over one that has 1 way to beat the AI that can't be finished because it bores you out of your mind.

Happily, civ 3 is not a game in which there is only one way to play. If you can only think of one way to play it, I suggest you read some posts in the strategy forum here or on civfanatics.

Quote:

Single play is just a warm up for real human competition anyway. The game is designed backwards.

Given that I doubt even 1% of civ players have ever played a MP game of civ, let alone played on a regular basis, I'd say that MP is almost completely irrelevant.

Azrikam · February 7, 2002, 07:38

tomdy2k, (if indeed you're still listening) if you're looking to make an informed decision about Civ III, then you've come to the right place.

But, make sure you read through the posts thoroughly. There are a lot of people who either praise or trash the game, but give absolutely no reasons for either. Filter these out, and there are some genuinely informative posts that point out Civ III's successes and it's shortcomings.

I decided not to purchase the game after careful study of these boards, but to each his own. What I'm trying to say, is don't just count up all the Pro-CivIII'ers, and all the Con-CivIII'ers, and go with the majority; listen to what they're saying.

=DrJambo= · February 7, 2002, 09:51

Well i am a firm favourite of Civ3.

Since buying it i haven't looked back to Civ2, although don't get me wrong, Civ2 is still a mighty fine installment in its own right!

1. Pros
Culture addition and the notion of having drawn out borders is excellent, prevents the AI from sauntering in and building within your carefully constructed city network.

Having a higher culture than other civs can cause peaceful take-overs of nearby cities distant from their capital. I like the way this is implemented, although it does take some getting used to. IMHO most complaints come from people too used to civ2 who are unwilling to alter previous well defined strategies. Civ3 is completely different in a variety of ways strategy-wise.

Less units means a more streamlined gameplay. Now there are less units clogging up the tech tree meaning units take longer to become obsolete. Remember the Knight, Crusader, Dragoon, Cavalry line? This could effectively pass very quickly meaning that by the tine you built up an army of Knights, Dragoons or Cavalry were the most up-to-date unit available and your army was obsolete (unless you had the very valuable Leonardo's workshop).

Tough AI. Even on Regent level the AI will test your skills. Remember that increasing difficulty levels in Civ2 generally meant that the AI civs all teamed up against you meaning a rather dull endgame. Not so in Civ3, it's still possible to be peaceful with good relations with other civs and be the strongest. THe AI civs trade very well with each other, meaning that you have to be on the ball diplomatically to keep up.

Introduction of combined arms, with the ability to retreat and bombard (ranged attack).

Multiple victory conditions... i was easily drifting to a victory by score in one game when in 2047 the UN voted in my closest rival to win! I couldn't believe it, but it just goes to show that playing friendly stilll means it's possible to win even if you aren't the strongest civ. I was impressed with that.

Reasonably good editor, which is bound to get better in time with future patches. This is essential for ingame unit balancing as the default stats are far short of the mark.

16 unique civs with contrasting unit units!

Resources, strategic and luxury which give reasons for war other than purely territorial conquest.

Improved diplomacy with mutual protection pacts and alliances vs civs. Can often end up in massive world wars, which you couldn't do in Civ2...very exciting when this happens, get attacked from all sides.

Introduction of great leaders and armies. Leaders are now the only way to rush wonders. No longer possible to expoit the AI by stockpiling caravans and rushing wonders. Leaders helps militaristic civs keep up in their wonder construction.

Ability to draft citizens for war and set government to wartime.

Improved aircraft actions and useful aircraft carriers.

2. Cons
Offset unit balancing: bombardment values too weak, espionage too expensive, cavalry too fast, muskets too weak, frigates and explorers pointless, naval units too slow, helicopters range too little and capcity too small, paratroopersrange too small, cruise missiles inadequate. Fortunately this can all be modified in the editor, as can the personalities and type of things civs spend shields on building, such as navy and aircraft!

Some loss of exciting Civ2 non-military improvements: supermarket, superhighways for instance.

Tech advances too slowly, especially if you get stuck in wars. This meant that often you would never reach the near the end of the modern era. This again can be modified in the editor though.

Some instability in the late industrial period with invalid page faults causing corrupt saved games meaning hours and hours wasted!

Daft worker action leading to late game tedium cleaning up pollution.

Some lack of depth with navy and affecting trading routes.

Corruption changed and slighly harsher, but imho just takes getting used to and modifying playing styles accordingly.

This just names a few of the pros and cons, but my advice is go ahead and get it! The game will only get better with time as Firaxis produce updates and improvements.

MonsterMan · February 7, 2002, 10:57

Don't buy it until you've seen what kind of patches and/or expansion packs are released. I'm not going to repeat what everyone else is complaining about, but all that negativity doesn't come from nothing. I humbly plug for my page http://www.overvikt.se/civ_pj.htm which has a lot of suggestions, each and everyone of them would improve the game

Bilas · February 7, 2002, 11:23

I agree with many of the posts here. Wait a little bit until future patches come out. IMHO the game has many problems, but as you can see there are some who think it's a great game now. For me I would hold off a little bit and when the patch/editor/MP comes out then possible get it.

Pembleton · February 7, 2002, 15:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Bilas
Wait a little bit until future patches come out.

They're coming out? It's been 2 months since the last one and no peep that it's even being worked on.

ACooper · February 7, 2002, 16:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Pembleton

They're coming out? It's been 2 months since the last one and no peep that it's even being worked on.

Only 2 months. What do you expect in two months? There have been major holidays in that time. Also they are trying to make sure it's right. That's exactly what we ask of them. Get it right. If they rushed and (god forbid) a new bug was created that would be much worse than waiting another month or two for the next patch. Give it time.

They have confirmed that they are working on a patch. (see here ) but they cannot even say if it will ever be released. I'm sure for legal reasons.

Pembleton · February 7, 2002, 16:58

Quote:

Originally posted by ACooper
Only 2 months. What do you expect in two months? There have been major holidays in that time. Also they are trying to make sure it's right. That's exactly what we ask of them. Get it right. If they rushed and (god forbid) a new bug was created that would be much worse than waiting another month or two for the next patch. Give it time.

Okay, whatever. Just to give one example, the developers of Wizardry made about 3-4 patches in the span of the same amount of weeks after the game was released, and by the time the final patch was released, all notable problems have been solved.

I have already finished the game, and I see nothing that they need to work on in future patches.

Dobian02 · February 7, 2002, 17:14

I have to side with the pro-Civ III people. This game has some issues, but overall it's a solid Civ game. The game has an AI that's superior to any other Civ game before it, good graphics (for this type of game), good interface, and there are several strategies for winning the game (in spite of what some have said). Strategic resources - fantastic. I agree that espionage is way to expensive (let me bankrupt my civ so I can get amphibious warfare!), but like someone said, you can edit this. Diplomatic AI could be better. Other civs should be more receptive to your proposals when they are under assault from an enemy, for example. Tech tree is too slow, but again this can be fixed. Pre-determined outcomes in combat (same result every time) - not good. But overall, a fun game. I just finished a very enjoyable game as the Greeks. What makes this game fun is the changing alliances and diplomatic arrangements which make Civ III unique.

The Mad Monk · February 7, 2002, 17:57

I have to say not. I like cultureand some of the diplomacy, but they're about the only new things I like. Civ2 and SMAC combat systems were both better, and you don't have to wait five minutes after pushing the 'turn' button to watch Samuri easily butcher your riflemen in hilltop walled cities in five separate battles with no damage.

I miss the wonder movies, and there's too many 'empty' techs now.

The Andy-Man · February 7, 2002, 19:19

what so good bout wonder movies?

basically, with a game like Civ (a proper one, like SMAC - not this Civ3 crap) a game like civ will still be brilliant with Civ1 graphix. all yuo need to add is the 'behind the scenes' stuff, like AI, more options etc.

Mikael · February 7, 2002, 19:43

Hmm.. since everyone seems to be giving their opinions here...

Civ3 is an OK game, definitely not a pile of **** as some have said.

But it doesn't get any better than that, and the horrible late-game (+ other problems) more than makes up for the good early game. All in all, average game or even slightly below. *Very* far from being as addictive as Civ2, this one surely won't stand the Test of Time

There are much better strategy titles to buy at the moment.

thinkingamer · February 7, 2002, 23:07

Civ 3 has the best idea/concept of the perfect end-turn pc strategy game, but it is executed so poorly that i would rate it about 7 out of 10.

These r my major complains:

1. Random stuffs that makes this game so unbalanced,
this includes:
-random map (yes im one of those people that think even Aok random maps r extremly unbalanced)
-random GL promotion after a battle (imagine in multiplayer game when ur opponent gets 3 GL and u only get 1 GL through out the entire game; u r lost!)

2. Speed: Not only the structure of the game, but even with my 1.4 athlon with 512mgs pc is slow.........(pleeease, armies without GL!)
and im not willing to play a game that takes 24 hours to finish.
And sure, u can let the computer decide ur decisions for speed, (such as automated workers) but that takes all the flavor of end-turn games system.

3. Stincky map editor: Firaxis did not learn that Starcraft and AoE were very successful partly of their great map editors (no wonder Sid's favorite games are Starcraft and Aok!)

4. TONS OF BUGS: i know all games has some initial flaws, but this is ridiculus; also the manual has bugs, which cannot be repaired forever; also Firaxis charged another 10 buck for civ's worst tech tree folder.

5. Today if it's not online gaming it's out of date: It'll require a miracle so that civ could be played online.

I loved SMAC, but while SMAC fixed many of civ2's flaws, it also created flaws of its own. So i had high hopes of civ 3.

But after seeing how it turned out my hope for the perfect civ is gone.

tomdy2k · February 7, 2002, 23:31

hi

after all this it's a moot point i guess. a friend loaned me his copy and i have to say so far unlike AC or Civ2 the game is no fun at all.and to make matters worse i have to stare at sid's likeness.......

I think i would rather play a real time game than this and i don't even care for most real time games.

tom