Gamespot Review: 9.2 / 10

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Comrade, you are trolling right?

Now, what´s this nonsense? Can I not point out an inconsistency in the review without you attacking me? Is ultra-optimism now mandatory in this forum? It seems Yin was right, and you are fast with a personal attack, but where is your argument?

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by ElitePersian


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".

Maybe so, but I thought Civ1 got good reviews when it first came out? It was one of the first TBS wasn't it? I don't recall how it was received myself.

[ElitePersian]

Originally posted by Simpleton


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!

EXACTLY, these guys get PAYED for doing this, its their job, they arent morons, especially guys at Gamespot and IGN, they are credible sources.

And as i was saying earlier, based on the written review and comments from gamespot, i expected less than 9.2, but the reviewer didnt write EVERYTHING he had in his mind, if he did, you'd see why he gave a 9.2

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by ElitePersian

And as i was saying earlier, based on the written review and comments from gamespot, i expected less than 9.2, but the reviewer didnt write EVERYTHING he had in his mind, if he did, you'd see why he gave a 9.2

Yes, he obviously left things out in the interest of brevity but included the pros and cons. In his opinion, the pros vastly outweighed the cons hence, the 9.2. I trust Gamespot as they have rarely failed me in the past!! That's the reason this was the one Civ3 review I was personally waiting for.

[ElitePersian]

Originally posted by Simpleton


Maybe so, but I thought Civ1 got good reviews when it first came out? It was one of the first TBS wasn't it? I don't recall how it was received myself.

Yeah, i dont remember either, maybe it did get good reviews, but i'll bet most ppl didnt like it or were reluctant to try it out cause it was a new genre, a genre different from anything we had seen in the early 90's.

TBS had been pretty much established before any CTP's came out, and they got crap reviews - not becuase they were a new genre, but because they were crap games. Currently TBS is established, and Civ3 gets good reviews, thats gotta tell you something.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
To repeat myself,
"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."
***
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..."
***
"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..."

Those are minor issues? Seriously?

IF all this is correct -and if it´s not, how much worth is the review?-, then I certainly wouldn´t rate the game above 7.

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by ElitePersian


Currently TBS is established, and Civ3 gets good reviews, thats gotta tell you something.

Yes, that's true. I wonder if Civ3 will become what the Gamespot reviewer touched on: the "Baldurs Gate" of TBS games? It would be nice to see the TBS gaming industry reinvigorated. I think CTP and CTP2 really killed it.

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Those are minor issues? Seriously?

IF all this is correct -and if it´s not, how much worth is the review?-, then I certainly wouldn´t rate the game above 7.

This guy's played it and you haven't so I trust his review more than yours, sorry.
All the reviews have all been in the same ballpark as far as scores go so this guy is probably right in the mark. All the reviews seem to indicate that although there are problems they are insignificant when compared to all the games pluses!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now, what´s this nonsense? Can I not point out an inconsistency in the review without you attacking me? Is ultra-optimism now mandatory in this forum? It seems Yin was right, and you are fast with a personal attack, but where is your argument?

Where was your argument? You take a bunch of VERY MINOR issues and say that the high score is unwarrented? Even after they said:

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.

Like he stated, MINOR issues. From reading the review, I can tell he really enjoyed it, 9.2 seems very consistant.

Where is the inconsistancy here?

Following yin in making mountains out of molehills?

[ElitePersian]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Those are minor issues? Seriously?

IF all this is correct -and if it´s not, how much worth is the review?-, then I certainly wouldn´t rate the game above 7.

Im not gonna reply to that, read that response i wrote carefully, and read the review again, they are minor issues which can be addressed.
Simpleton is right, i trust his word more than yours since he's actually played the game to make conclusions...unlike someone

[Typo]

I was waiting for the Gamespot review too, they tend to be pretty accurate when rating games IMO. It seems pretty clear to me that Civ3 will be a good game to play and not another CTP. There looks like there's some niggles with the game such as AI not upgrading units, strange battle results, lack of good automation for micro management etc. I think the good stuff in the game will outway the bad and people will love playing it.

I'm personally not too bothered about mplayer especially sucky play by email (I will never play any game using this), although it would be nice to see some type of Internet mp add-on providing its done right. Also IMO you can only play Civ as its stands for so long before it gets slightly boring. The new civs, leaders and units will probably keep me playing longer than Civ 2. I just can't wait for the modders, unit creators and scenario designers to start making great scenarios etc, I hope in this sense Civ 3 is at least as flexible as Civ2 and the editor is as good as Firaxis make out.

Anyway where the hell are the post from you lucky Americans telling us more about the game

[ElitePersian]

Im almost sure the game will come out with multiplayer, but until then, we will have millions of mods/scenarios to beef up our civ 3 experience.

[MarkG]

answers from the firaxians in the chat(right now )

on the managers building archers:

Javier_Sobrado_FIRAXIS : well, if they didn't have iron (swordsmen, knights) it might choose to build a cheap offensive unit rather than a more expensive and primarily defensive unit

Mike_Breitkreutz_FIRAXIS : Hmmm, we'll have to look into that -- the only time that happened to me was when I built cities on an island that were not connected to my capital. In those instances, archers were the best unit the city could build.

on long turns

Mike_Breitkreutz_FIRAXIS : It could take that long when I was playing with 12+ civs but I didn't notice that with 8 civs. On normal maps

Javier_Sobrado_FIRAXIS: hmm, I don't think I ever took that long between turns on my 500 or 800, but on a huge world with 16 civs I can see something like that happening

on not easily finding stuff

Javier_Sobrado_FIRAXIS : well I think the elite rifleman can be located using the military advisor screen

Javier_Sobrado_FIRAXIS: finding resources can be a pain, but your trade advisor will tell you what city is closest to an instance of a resource you have

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Typo
I'm personally not too bothered about mplayer especially sucky play by email (I will never play any game using this), although it would be nice to see some type of Internet mp add-on providing its done right. Also IMO you can only play Civ as its stands for so long before it gets slightly boring

That why most people prefer a game that ships with MP capabilities. If you haven't tried a civ type game by email you shouldn't dismiss it. Most people don't go back to single player games after that as any mod will suffer the same fate of boredom after a while. Besides few peopel have the time to sit down a finish a whole game of Civ in one sitting.

Yeah, i dont remember either, maybe it did get good reviews, but i'll bet most ppl didnt like it or were reluctant to try it out cause it was a new genre, a genre different from anything we had seen in the early 90's.

New genre?!

Maybe so, but I thought Civ1 got good reviews when it first came out? It was one of the first TBS wasn't it? I don't recall how it was received myself.

I guess Candy Land doesn't count, eh? Chess? Yahtzee? Chutes and Ladders? Trouble? Monopoly? Need I go on?

[miniloops]

We really should remember that this IS just a game! I'm looking forward to buying it, but I have to try not to let it take over my life.

Reviews are all very well but they are effectivly only one person's take on a game. It's not necessarily relevant to everyone and we shouldn't slate people for having an opinion. If I buy it and enjoy playing it I'll be happy enough.

Incidentally is MP that important? I found playing SP CIV II so much more rewarding. MP is soooooo Slow! Plus you don't have to humiliate anyone and yoy can get good ideas for scenarios!

Maybe I shouldn''t drink so much!