Gamespot Review: 9.2 / 10

[Adrock25]

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/reviews/0,10867,2821275,00.html

[Ludwig]

The only real disconcerting thing here is the reference to long turn times during the endgame.

Although it sounds like he was playing without fog of war in order to get a sense for the behavior of the AI.

If you ever played Civ II with the map cheated to full visibility you could sit there forever waiting for the AI to finish moving each and every last unit.

If that's not what's happening here - and if it just plain old takes a long time for the computer to resolve its turn during the endgame, whether you can see the individual animations or not - then we have a CtP-style problem here. And that wouldn't bode well for my plan to use the editor to play on a monstrously oversized map.

Well, I'll have the game tomorrow and then I can see for myself.

[The diplomat]

Well, looky here. Gamespot gives civ3 a 9.2 and calls it "superb", the "best civ to date".

[squid]

I think he had his world map turned on....I always cringed whenever I traded world maps in Civ2 and SMAC, for just that reason ...

There is no way he should be able to even SEE that many enemy units, unless they are border hoping, which they should not be doing.

[Comrade Tribune]

Yin is not here, so I will be the 'Devil´s Advocate':

"Some suspicious things go on during the computer's turns. Units shuffle back and forth pointlessly as if they were patrolling. Twenty workers will march all at once to irrigate a single square. There'll be an awful lot of outdated troops loitering around the AI's empires as the 20th century rolls around."
***
"Things such as aircraft, trade, and espionage are also streamlined--unfortunately, espionage is so streamlined that it seems tacked on as a poorly documented afterthought."
***
"The endgame bogs down in as deep a morass of micromanagement as ever. Civilizations sprawl and brim over with units. Managing your workers and terrain improvements can get complicated and tedious. Pollution is still an exercise in workers scuttling to and fro.

City management and terrain improvement can be turned over to the computer, but you'll get weird situations like archers being built in A.D. 1600 and cityscapes speckled with too many mines.

This is a problem with most games that model the epic sweep of history, so it's not unique to Civilization III. What is unique to Civilization III is the inordinate time between turns in the later game. On a midrange system, it's not unusual for the computer to take well more than a minute between turns. This will tax the patience of even serious gamers, so it's hard to imagine casual gamers putting up with it. "
***
"On the city list, the option to sort cities doesn't work."


I must agree with Yin again: I wonder about the high marks given in the light of all the above.

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

"Some suspicious things go on during the computer's turns. Units shuffle back and forth pointlessly as if they were patrolling. Twenty workers will march all at once to irrigate a single square. There'll be an awful lot of outdated troops loitering around the AI's empires as the 20th century rolls around."
***
"Things such as aircraft, trade, and espionage are also streamlined--unfortunately, espionage is so streamlined that it seems tacked on as a poorly documented afterthought."
***
"The endgame bogs down in as deep a morass of micromanagement as ever. Civilizations sprawl and brim over with units. Managing your workers and terrain improvements can get complicated and tedious. Pollution is still an exercise in workers scuttling to and fro.

City management and terrain improvement can be turned over to the computer, but you'll get weird situations like archers being built in A.D. 1600 and cityscapes speckled with too many mines.

I must say that Civ2 had many of these problems and it is considered a resounding success!
I think the main problem Civ3 suffers from is the fact that it has to live up to Civ2.
Had Civ2 never been released and this was Civ2 there would be no complaints like this.
Even with these problems the game still got 9.2 which is excellent! Perhaps, some of them could be solved in a patch and the game will then become just about perfect.
I think we can breath a sigh of relief that all the reviews so far paint Civ3 in a very favorable light and all criticisms of the game are minor points.
The Gamespot review was the one I was waiting for and with their blessing I have no doubt that Civ3 may be the best Civ ever!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Comrade, you are trolling right?

[ElitePersian]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Yin is not here, so I will be the 'Devil´s Advocate':

"Some suspicious things go on during the computer's turns. Units shuffle back and forth pointlessly as if they were patrolling. Twenty workers will march all at once to irrigate a single square. There'll be an awful lot of outdated troops loitering around the AI's empires as the 20th century rolls around."
***
"Things such as aircraft, trade, and espionage are also streamlined--unfortunately, espionage is so streamlined that it seems tacked on as a poorly documented afterthought."
***
"The endgame bogs down in as deep a morass of micromanagement as ever. Civilizations sprawl and brim over with units. Managing your workers and terrain improvements can get complicated and tedious. Pollution is still an exercise in workers scuttling to and fro.

City management and terrain improvement can be turned over to the computer, but you'll get weird situations like archers being built in A.D. 1600 and cityscapes speckled with too many mines.

This is a problem with most games that model the epic sweep of history, so it's not unique to Civilization III. What is unique to Civilization III is the inordinate time between turns in the later game. On a midrange system, it's not unusual for the computer to take well more than a minute between turns. This will tax the patience of even serious gamers, so it's hard to imagine casual gamers putting up with it. "
***
"On the city list, the option to sort cities doesn't work."

I must agree with Yin again: I wonder about the high marks given in the light of all the above.

Ok listen up, first off, these arent HUGE problems - they can easily be addressed in a simple patch. Also, he didnt even say how often they happen, it could be very rare for all we know, and he didnt say what difficulty he was playing on (i dont think). the ai will do dumber things on easy difficulty settings.

And remember that these critics basically MOSTLY point out the negatives, since thats just the way reviews work when the prevous game was a success and they are basing it on "what improvements have been made since the last game", there's too many positives to be pointed out to go into detail, so if the reviewer is actually able to point out each and every negative point (which in this case wasn't a big thing) - consider that a good thing. The game has to live up to civ2, and improve upon that, which is very tough, and makes it tough to get a good review, even though so far it seems to be getting good reviews.

You say the scores were too high for the negative aspects of the game, but that isn't true, cause the reviewers played the game, and they knows what scores to give it - maybe if they wrote a 100 page full-detailed review, then you'd see why they gave it a 9.2, its kinda hard for US to judge the score they gave based on a 2 page review they gave us.

[Pggar]

Originally posted by Simpleton


I must say that Civ2 had many of these problems and it is considered a resounding success!
I think the main problem Civ3 suffers from is the fact that it has to live up to Civ2.
Had Civ2 never been released and this was Civ2 there would be no complaints like this.

The fact is that Civ3 is the sequel and it would be good to see the problems solved. I don't mind if the solution comes with a patch, like Elite said, but i was expecting a little more.

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by ElitePersian


You say the scores were too high for the negative aspects of the game, but that isn't true, cause the reviewers played the game, and they knows what scores to give it -

I think this review was right on target. All the reviews for Civ3 have turned out to be very good which is a good sign of a great game. If there had been some poor, some good, some fair then I would be worried but since they are all in the same ballpark I have no doubts.
And you make a good point about the reviewers knowing how to score a game. These guys play tons of games and I'm sure have developed a sense for separating the crap from the great. Like I've said before, when CTP2 came out the Gamespot reviewer accurately saw the game for what it was, a load of dung, while many at Apolyton cried foul!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, the problem is selective quoting. I'll use the first quote Comrade used (the one about 'patrolling' AI units), and quote the entire paragraph:

The computer's artificial intelligence is formidable, but it's not clear how much of this is due to "cheats," which are bonuses commonly given to make up for the fact that a computer AI can't see the big picture as well as a human can. Some suspicious things go on during the computer's turns. Units shuffle back and forth pointlessly as if they were patrolling. Twenty workers will march all at once to irrigate a single square. There'll be an awful lot of outdated troops loitering around the AI's empires as the 20th century rolls around. But on the whole, the computer is surprisingly capable of providing a smart and competent challenge. It seems to recognize the importance of strategic resources on the map. It will pillage important terrain improvements and attack in numbers, making good use of combined arms. In terms of diplomacy, the AI civilizations don't react as abruptly or unpredictably as they have in the earlier games. In fact, diplomacy in Civilization III is a slow, ponderous, and frail process. Two sides starting a war can drag their allies with them, and world peace can collapse like a house of cards. Civilization III features overnight cataclysms of World War I proportions.

Emphasis mine.

Basically, there are some problems (duh, no game is perfect), but the game plays very well in spite of them.

[ElitePersian]

Originally posted by Pggar


The fact is that Civ3 is the sequel and it would be good to see the problems solved. I don't mind if the solution comes with a patch, like Elite said, but i was expecting a little more.

Yes, and it HAS had a lotta problems solved, with TONS of new features added which are more convenient, make the game more playable, and balance out the game.
Of course no game is going to be perfect, even though Firaxis (and other companies) thrives for perfection, just be thankful that civ 3 only has minor problems (from what we've seen so far), so far we havent seen any major issues with gameplay or diplomacy, and with mods, they can easily be improved upon.

What more could you want: the reviews have been consistently good.

Myself, i am one to believe that reviews which are written the first day a game is released dont mean much since no one has had a chance to thoroughly play the game and disect it, but I have trust in Sid Meier, and i must say Firaxis did an excellent job and i give them 2 thumbs up.


I wont make TOO many conclusions however since i havent played the game myself.

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by Pggar


The fact is that Civ3 is the sequel and it would be good to see the problems solved. I don't mind if the solution comes with a patch, like Elite said, but i was expecting a little more.

Ideally, this would have been nice but I wonder how good the score would have been had Civ3 not been a sequel?

That being said, I am somewhat curious as to why some of these "bugs" have not been eliminated. Perhaps, they are harder to solve than we know?

[Imran Siddiqui]

And remember the last word from Gamespot:

It speaks volumes that the most significant complaints specific to Civilization III are minor interface issues. Civ III represents solid design coupled with careful execution at its level best. Between its streamlined gameplay and unparalleled pedigree, Civilization III can open strategy gaming to a wider audience and kick off the sort of renaissance that role-playing games enjoyed after the release of Baldur's Gate. We can only hope. And even if it doesn't, well...we'll always have Civilization III.

[ElitePersian]

Originally posted by Simpleton


Ideally, this would have been nice but I wonder how good the score would have been had Civ3 not been a sequel?

That is hard to say, i would think that whatever the reviewers scored it, it wouldnt mean anything, caues it would be the first game of its genre. Personally, i think it wouldnt get good reviews ONLY because it would take ppl getting used to TBS games, it would be new to them, ppl might be reluctant to try a different genre like TBS.
But now that TBS games have been established, and a lotta ppl are familiar with them, its time to rate the games based on "how good the actual game is" and not on "i dont like this genre so i wont rate it good".