pc.ign.com review up: 9.3! *nt*

[fluxcapacitor]

no text

[ChrisShaffer]

How about giving us a link ?

[Pembleton]

Go here

[Pembleton]

"Most importantly, the populations of your cities are hard to read. In the previous game you could clearly see which of your citizens were happy, which were content and which were unhappy. This time around the different heads look much more alike and are harder to read at a glance. "

Is this guy blind? I looked up a screenshot of this and although perhaps one might say the faces look alike, the divisions are clear. Does he not know how to differentiate between the sizes of spaces between the different groups of happy, content, unhappy?

Faces Screenshot

After going here click the 3rd screen for another face screenshot

[squid]

mostly docked on graphics and sound, as expected. looks good to me.

[yin26]

O.K. Here are the negatives he points out:

1. The tool for creating these deals is very straightforward but I was disappointed to see that the rivals are pretty passive. They tend not to suggest their own trades (opting instead to threaten you when you get a powerful advance or trade world maps with you). Opponents who take a more active role in trade would be nice.
2. This time around the different heads look much more alike and are harder to read at a glance. Since the happiness of your citizens is so important to maintaining order, this similarity is kind of a pain.
3. Another irritating bug is that the list-sorting feature on the domestic advisor screen doesn't stick. If you're interested in seeing your cities rated based on scientific research, or production, or food output, you can click the corresponding icon in the menu bar. But when you move the mouse off of the icon (say, to scroll the list) you lose the sort and go back to the default city list. It's not as big a pain as the indistinct city heads but it's still sloppy.
4. The game also has some shortcomings in the area of sound. While I've never thought that sound or visuals are necessarily the point of the game, a little more could have been done here, especially in the area of sound.
5. And for some reason, someone thought it would be cool to add the sound of birds chirping to the game. This is honestly probably the most irritating aspect of the game.
6. While the game isn't going to win any graphics awards it does have a tight artistic style.
7. You'll still have the odd "spearman defeats mechanized infantry" problem but nowhere near as often as in the previous games.
8. The only real problem with the units is that one unit will often obscure another's health bar in combat. Not being able to see the health bars of both units involved in a fight is a small oversight but a frustrating one.
9. Lacking multiplayer, your only option beyond the generated games is the scenario editor. While it's a good tool, it lacks a few key features -- an option to view the whole map would be nice, for instance.

While he gave it a 9.3, the actual average of his scores is an 8.6

Of course, the biggest issue of all wasn't even really covered in this review except to say that he couldn't cheese so much. That is, GAMEPLAY and AI (except for the passive negotiators, which is a bit disappointing) aren't really covered, though you can't really expect it to be so early.

However, I'm willing to be that given more time after the hype wears off, that score of 8.6 is much more realistic.

[MxM]

Originally posted on PC.IGN
And for some reason, someone thought it would be cool to add the sound of birds chirping to the game. This is honestly probably the most irritating aspect of the game. It's bad enough to hear real birds chirping outside my window because I've been up for 10 hours playing this game. When the game makes chirping sounds it triggers a Pavlovian response in me that makes me feel more tired than I am. It sounds stupid, but it's true.

Ha! This is very good to hear that the author actually played until morning! Definitely very good game!

[dainbramaged13]

although the actual review wasn't the most flaattering review ive ever read, a 9.3 is pretty goddamm good

[yin26]

First, looks like Firaxis didn't acheive their goal of putting to rest complaints about the graphics. Second, that 9.3 isn't reflected well in his actual scores. 8.6 sounds much more reasonable.

[GoofyBoy]

I like this sort of review.

If he can critisize it, then you know that he's honest. And he explains in detail why he doesn't like stuff.

It lets you know what might bug you about the game, and its not rehash of marketting fluff.

[dainbramaged13]

Originally posted by yin26
O.K. Here are the negatives he points out:

1. The tool for creating these deals is very straightforward but I was disappointed to see that the rivals are pretty passive. They tend not to suggest their own trades (opting instead to threaten you when you get a powerful advance or trade world maps with you). Opponents who take a more active role in trade would be nice.
2. This time around the different heads look much more alike and are harder to read at a glance. Since the happiness of your citizens is so important to maintaining order, this similarity is kind of a pain.
3. Another irritating bug is that the list-sorting feature on the domestic advisor screen doesn't stick. If you're interested in seeing your cities rated based on scientific research, or production, or food output, you can click the corresponding icon in the menu bar. But when you move the mouse off of the icon (say, to scroll the list) you lose the sort and go back to the default city list. It's not as big a pain as the indistinct city heads but it's still sloppy.
4. The game also has some shortcomings in the area of sound. While I've never thought that sound or visuals are necessarily the point of the game, a little more could have been done here, especially in the area of sound.
5. And for some reason, someone thought it would be cool to add the sound of birds chirping to the game. This is honestly probably the most irritating aspect of the game.
6. While the game isn't going to win any graphics awards it does have a tight artistic style.
7. You'll still have the odd "spearman defeats mechanized infantry" problem but nowhere near as often as in the previous games.
8. The only real problem with the units is that one unit will often obscure another's health bar in combat. Not being able to see the health bars of both units involved in a fight is a small oversight but a frustrating one.
9. Lacking multiplayer, your only option beyond the generated games is the scenario editor. While it's a good tool, it lacks a few key features -- an option to view the whole map would be nice, for instance.

While he gave it a 9.3, the actual average of his scores is an 8.6

Of course, the biggest issue of all wasn't even really covered in this review except to say that he couldn't cheese so much. That is, GAMEPLAY and AI (except for the passive negotiators, which is a bit disappointing) aren't really covered, though you can't really expect it to be so early.

However, I'm willing to be that given more time after the hype wears off, that score of 8.6 is much more realistic.

ok, from what i can se, every ONE of these things is a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny ( can i say it enough times) aspect of the game except for no. 1. The only legit point is no. 1 in fact.everything else is bullcrap and he definelty placed too much emphasis on all these nitpicks

[fluxcapacitor]

dainbramaged13:

I completely agree w/ you.

[yin26]

1: Passive rivals who then go off just threatening you is, IMO, a rather big problem, and we will grow sick of this quite fast, I assure you.
2: This one seems a bit petty ... but I don't have the game in front of me.
3: List sorting. Again, first few times you play, you forgive it. A month later you want to kill it.
4 and 5: Disappointing. A game killer? Not if (as has been said) you can play without the CD in the drive, so I can put my own music in. Silly, however, to have so many sound loops.
6: Well, Firaxis promised to silence the graphics critics. Next time maybe?
7: If it happens even remotely 'too often,' this will send people into many fits. You'll see.
8: Again, just sloppy programming.
9: Those missing 'key features' might well be important to the people who have to supply us with our *missing* scenarios.

And I should also point out that while some of these ARE important, the real issues of gameplay and AI are still on the table. If you ask me, this is NOT a good start to the Civ3 reviews.

[dennis580]

ACTUAL FINAL SCORE is 9.75 not 8.6.

Actually Yin 9.75 is the acutal score for most of civers. Throw Presentation, Graphics, and Sound out which most real gamers don't give a rats a$$ about. This leads us to with waht really matters Gameplay and Lasting Appeal. The Gameplay got a 9.5 and the Lasting Appeal gets a perfect 10 after you take away the no mulitplayer and average scenario design tool neither of switch i care about and alot other civ fans don't care about either..

So a 10 in Lasting Appeal and a 9.5 in Gameplay. Final Score 9.75. Looks like this is without question one greatest games ever made.

Presentation
A fantastic Civiliopedia and some real awesome interface decisions really draw you into the game. 9.0
Graphics
The effect is nice on the whole. Animations and tiles are solid but the game won't win any awards. 7.5
Sound
Some poor sounds loops and strange effects punctuate an otherwise enjoyable score. 7.5
Gameplay
The changes are impressive and only serve to make an already addictive game more convenient and more enjoyable. 9.5
Lasting Appeal
No multiplayer and an average scenario design tool are strikes against it. The single player game is almost infinitely replayable. 9.5

[Shiva]

He said 9.3, he ment 9.3.

Sorry Yin, you need to write that down on your note pad