Review of Civ3 by Yin

[yin26]

As the release date nears overseas, and as a number of people in North America watch these forums a bit more prior to making any decisions, I would like to get my review out while it can still be of use to those of you trying to decide whether to buy or wait. This means that my review comes sooner than I would have liked. I am no expert on Civ3, in other words, but I have paid close attention to this game for the past 2 years.

I've also been the most vocal Pessimist, the Doomsayer, the 4th Horseman of the Apacolypse, the Whiner, the Fool. The Prophet? Whatever people have called me (many of the things I can't type here! ), you could certainly say one thing about my bias: I have high standards and low tolerance for anything that pushes the gamer to the side and the corporate suit to the front. "By this is a business, Yin!" I understand. And it should be a business founded on making the gamer happy. Did Civ3 do that? Well...

Before I get into my review, I'd like to offer Apolyton a quiz. I think in all honesty this will be the fairest way to begin. Please put a checkmark next to the one that BEST applies to you in each category:

1) OVERALL EXPECTATIONS

1. [-2]I want Civ3 to revolutionize the genre.
2. [-1]I want Civ3 to be Alpha Centauri +
3. [/0]I want Civ3 to be Civ2 +
4. [+1]I want Civ3 to do some new stuff and keep some old stuff.
5. [+2]I just want Civ3.

2) MULTIPLAY and EDITOR

1. [-1]I think Multiplayer/Editor ability out of the box is very important.
2. [+1]I don't mind the absence of MP/Editor since I am confident they will come later and I am happy with single player now.
3. [+2]I will only play single player, so with MP/Editor or without, I will simply play.

3) BUGS

1. [-1]I want the game out of the box to be without any major bugs that affect gameplay.
2. [+1]I accept bugs as part of the process and am willing to wait for patches.
3. [+2]I am used to bugs and don't really care if a patch is released as long as it's playable.

4) IMPLEMENTATION of GAME CONCEPTS

1. [-1]I want all game concepts to be readily understandable and open to strategic manipulation in a clear and intuitive way.
2. [+1]I don't mind having a bit of mystery behind some game elements and even enjoy coming up with odd or counter-intutive solutions on my own if need be.
3. [+2]I only need some basic idea of what's going on and will simply just ignore things that I don't like or don't readily understand.

5) AI

1. [-1]I like an AI that, if it has an advantage, always presses it.
2. [+1]I like an AI that presses its advantage only when its chances of success are high.
3. [+2]I think there is no such thing as a really great AI and have no great expectations (and I assume there will be no MP and don't care about that, either).

6) WEAPONS / REALITY

1. [-1]I like big weapons (like nuclear ones) to have big and atrocious effects on cities and the environment.
2. [+1]I like big weapons to be an important part of the game but not necessarily as important in game-terms as are their real-world equivalents.
3. [+2]I don't see these kinds of games as anything but an abstraction anyway, so I'll just accept whatever effects these weapons have and move on.

7) GRAPHICS and SOUNDS

1. [-1]I think good graphics and sounds are a very important part of the gaming experience.
2. [+1]I think good graphics and sounds are important but not a defining part of the game.
3. [+2]I think graphics and sounds should just be serviceable.

8) THE MANUAL

1. [-1]I think a manual should be thorough, accurate and stuffed with vital information about all aspects of the game.
2. [+1]I think a manual should at least cover the main concepts in some detail.
3. [+2]I don't ever read manuals.

9) THE INTERFACE

1. [-1]I think the interface should make my attempt to do or find something effortless and intuitive.
2. [+1]I think the interface is good enough if I can learn it rather quickly, even if it's a little quirky.
3. [+2]I think as long as the interface isn't horribly flawed, I'll adapt.

10) LENGTH of GAME TURNS

1. [-1]I think game turns should be swift from beggining to end.
2. [+1]I accept that the end game will necessarily see longer turns ... even very long turns ... though I hope for patches if needed.
3. [+2]I will give the computer all the time it needs without complaining since I can use that time to relax or chat on the Net anyway.

Please add up your points and find your score below. Now, some words about this score: It is meant only as a general guide. Please do not start flame wars over the differences between a few points, thank you:

• [-11]: Shouldn't surprise you that Civ3 will have you horribly disppointed in every way important to you since you have very, very high (unreasonable?) expectations. Nothing will save it. Not ever.
• [-10 to -6]: There's a good chance that even patching Civ3 a few times won't make it the game you hoped it would be. You'll have to be patient but probably will never be completely satisfied despite patching.
• [-5 to -1]: The negatives outweigh the positives, and while you find the game pretty fun in the first few weeks, you know only some solid patching will keep you playing in the future. You'll have to be patient but have reasonable hope for something much better thanks to patching.
• [0]: In general, you'll find some good stuff and nothing really to complain too hard about. At other points, though, you'll find yourself a bit bored or bothered. But patching will likely really turn things around for the better.
• [+1 to +5]: Civ3 has hints of brilliance and overall solid gameplay that will really intrigue you. A few patches will almost certainly make the game much better --even great-- for you.
• [+6 to +10]: Civ3 shows tremendous promise. It's just a patch or two away from greatness beyond your expectations.
• [+11 to +15]: Civ3 either meets or exceeds what you want in the game, and you will have a great experience out of the box.
• [+16 to +19]: Civ3 might well be one of the best games you'll ever play. Firaxis focussed on all the important stuff and produced one hell of a game without any patching really necessary.
• [+20]: Shouldn't surprise you that Civ3 met all your expectations since you seem willing to take anything you can get.

By the way, my score:
[+1] I want Civ3 to do some new stuff and keep some old stuff. [-1] I think Multiplayer/Editor ability out of the box is very important. [-1] I want the game out of the box to be without any major bugs that affect gameplay. [-1] I want all game concepts to be readily understandable and open to strategic manipulation in a clear and intuitive way. [-1] I like an AI that, if it has an advantage, always presses it. [+1] I like big weapons to be an important part of the game but not necessarily as important in game-terms as are their real-world equivalents. [+1] I think good graphics and sounds are important but not a defining part of the game. [-1] I think a manual should be thorough, accurate and stuffed with vital information about all aspects of the game. [+1] I think the interface is good enough if I can learn it rather quickly, even if it's a little quirky. [-1] I think game turns should be swift from beggining to end.

TOTAL: [-2] "The negatives outweigh the positives, and while you find the game pretty fun in the first few weeks, you know only some solid patching will keep you playing in the future. You'll have to be patient but have reasonable hope for something much better thanks to patching. Keep in mind here that it is IMPOSSIBLE for us guess how good future patches will be, so this guide is focussed only on the game *as is*. In other words, if you are putting a lot of hope in patches to address the issues you don't like, be cautious.

[yin26]

THE REVIEW

"[+1] I want Civ3 to do some new stuff and keep some old stuff":

In fact, this is precisely what Civ3 has done. Some of that new stuff is quite good, if problemtic in its own way. For example: Culture and Resources have wonderful potential in that there are now some quite innovative and challenging ways to play. You can, if you want or need in a given situation, 'out-culture' a nearby civ. This can be tremendously important in situations where going to war is not a good idea for you but you've got to expand or lose the game. However, this one has its negatives as the game currently stands. Imagine that you have totally conquered a civ except for one tiny city it has on a far off island. Clearly that civ should have no cultural clout. While the game will have you look at the civ's long-term cultural points, how does it make sense that some of those cities you have captured CONTINUALLY revert back to their old culture despite the fact that that culture is essentially gone from the game?

Well, perhaps you can say that the people merely long for a glorious past. Fine. But when the city turns back, you lose ALL units that were garrisoned in that city. Even if the city was size 4 and you have 8 units garrisoned there, you lose them all: Without warning and without explanation as to the mechanics of it. You can try your hardest to rush build temples, colleseums, move your palace closer, etc., but often times it makes no difference. So faced with not understanding how all that works (and feeling that it's just flawed design), I feel that Culture as implemented now has some very important negatives alongside its clear positives.

As for Resources, again this has some tremendous potential. Unlike most games in this genre that become predicatable rather quickly, not having access to an important resource *really* lights a fire under your butt to go out and get it, be that through trade, cultural expansion or war, etc. In other words, you simply cannot be passive in this game if the resource deal comes up against you. This is great. On the other hand, the very 'unfairness' of the resource placement will, at times, make the game almost impossible to win unless you play spectacularly and/or get some luck on your side. I'm all for giving the player a challenge, but not giving him enough solid tools to overcome a bad sitation is taking the issue too far in the other direction. As you can see, I think those two ideas have tremendous potential, and I even give Firaxis a +1 on this category ... but the concepts are neither explained enough nor implemented well enough in my opinion. I look for some patching here.

"[-1] I think Multiplayer/Editor ability out of the box is very important.":

Self-explanatory. Firaxis really blew this one. I realize there are those who don't mind that these things are missing or are content with the hope that they will likely come later. But these are standard features, features we were mislead to believe (at least for a good long while) would be in the game. Some people like to argue: "Well, perhaps Firaxis itself didn't know if those things could be done under the deadline." Fine: Then Firaxis should have made that announcement a long while ago. "We can't promise MP and a full-featured editor out of the box but, rest assured, we will do all we can to release them shortly after the game is released." Simple and responsible.

"[-1] I want the game out of the box to be without any major bugs that affect gameplay.":

Please see the forums for all the reported bugs. The important thing I want to say in this category is this: Civ3 is a BETA -- although a good one as far as betas go. Yes, a beta. This game was rushed out the door. Firaxis itself admits this to some degree. A more open beta/alpha testing process was dropped, as was having a pre-release demo, which Firaxis (Brian Reynolds) admitted was tremendously helpful in tesing compatability and in-game issues. Firaxis did not do that this time and deserves to have black marks put against them for shipping a beta and hoping to give us the 'full' game later on.

"[-1] I want all game concepts to be readily understandable and open to strategic manipulation in a clear and intuitive way.":

As I already hinted above, too many things simply don't make sense. Soren (lead programmer), for example, told me that the AI will ignore your requests to remove its troops and settlers given 'certain conditions.' What are those conditions? And in the specific case I was discussing, I had asked the AI to remove its units from my land to keep it from building on the 3 or 4 squares right in the middle of my empire. The first time (well, he always ignores the first request), he complied. A few turns later, however, I was totally ignored. I don't mind the new and improve AI expansion. I *do* mind not understanding these 'conditions' Soren talked about because then it's much less a strategy game than a "Well, since the game is muddy on this point, I'd better make a wall of settlers or just go to war or something" kind of game. Sure, I can do that. But it ruins the rhythm of the game. I am now a warmonger in my early games whenever there is ANY chance I'll have an AI ignoring my requests, etc. Because if I don't go ballistic on him, he'll chew into me with reckless abandon. Mind you: That kind of expansion is wonderful and a great boon for the game. But that kind of expansion forcing the player into war because diplomacy is ignored is NOT a step forward for Civ3.

The same might be said of the corruption levels in the game. It is simply too hard to have cities on the map when they produce 1 shield and lose 10 ... despite building all the anti-corruption buildings, despite switching to an anti-corruption government, despite relocating your capital, despite building the Forbidden Palace, etc. While I understand that corruption is a method used to keep the player from so easily expanding all around the world, what good are the counter-measures if they hardly work? Again, there is no clear explanation of how corruption occurs and why these anti-corruption elements seem to fail. For me, this really hampers enjoyment of the game. You might say that high corruption levels in cities far from your starting position keeps you from amassing too many cities at once, but now I simply don't want to grow cities past a certain population or I'd rather raze an enemy city rather than build it up over time as my own, if I'm willing to invest the vast resources. But the game is forcing me in certain directions without any clear or intuitive explanations.

"[-1] I like an AI that, if it has an advantage, always presses it.":

From my experience on Regent and Monarch, the AI will really only go hard on you if it manages to get a substatial advantage. In other words, I think the AI both in diplomacy and war is too conservative. A number of times, the AI could easily have counter-attacked and taken several cities but instead begged for peace. Other times, the AI will make silly trades: Engineering for my World Map, for example. While this might change on the next highest level, I think from Regent and up that the AI should use its even modest advantages much more aggressively to keep the player on the edge of his seat.

Note that the AI *does* press its expansion advantages extrememly well, which is outstanding save for the odd inability of the player to demand troops get off his land. I will note one amazing AI example of a massive attack though in case you missed my description of it elsewhere: In one game on Regent level, I entered a Mutual Defense Pact with Greece. Well, Greece then pissed off Enland, who was clearly the strongest power on the map. But we were an ocean apart and I had next to no fear that anything would come of it. Boy, was I wrong! The attack that ensured was awe-inspiring. England soon sent a half dozen battleships to escort 3 aircraft carriers and a few transports loaded with about 5 tanks, 5 maries and even artillery. Then the carpet bombing and off-shore artillery began to soften up targets! I was awestruck ... something right out of the Colin Powell play book. It would be hard to imagine a human player doing that well. I actually got chills as my continent was just ripped to shreds in a matter of moments.

So what I can say about the AI is this: It clearly has the fundamental and horribly difficult apsects of attacking solved (I mean, it crossed the ocean to get me!). But from my experience and from what I read, the AI is too cautious, and you soon find yourself youself in games that are fairly stalemated. The AI is waiting ... you are waiting ... waiting waiting. I think the AI has it in itself to do much more, and I hope that gets unlocked. Also, I will mention this again here: The AI's 'expand at all costs' at some point is actually quite counter productive for the AI. As it sends settler after settler across the map to found a 3 square city on tundra, you have to really wonder: "Couldn't those resources and units been put to better use building infrastructure?" Something should be looked at in that regard. Oh, and I should also add here that the governor and worker AI is, unfortunately, as useless as ever. Yes, you will have to mirco-manage everything as always ... and this will really drag you down in the late game.

"[+1] I like big weapons to be an important part of the game but not necessarily as important in game-terms as are their real-world equivalents.":

This might seem like an odd category, but Korn's discussions of Mutually Assured Desctruction got a lot of people to think if Civ3 would make nuclear war have major consequences. Unfortunately, it doesn't. I was actually going to rate Firaxis a -1 on this point, and still have feelings in that direction. I *do* think that nukes are useless in this game and shows that Firaxis went too far in the other direction toward making war less powerful. Too far, I say. You shouldn't reduce the power of war by handicapping a nuke of all things! Make the nuke more expensive or something. Make the requisite techs really hard to get or something. But don't have nukes in a game that are less effective than a couple tanks. The only reason I gave the +1 in this category is I was not fond of the nuclear exchanges in Civ2, finding them very unbalancing in the end game. So I give Firaxis some credit in that regard, but there is yet work to be done here. And not only with nukes, ALL units. Inherent in any 'unique unit' approach will be balancing. Yes, there are units that need balancing here ... but I'll leave it at that.

"[+1] I think good graphics and sounds are important but not a defining part of the game.":

I actually give Firaxis some plus marks here even though I have several points to critique. The good points are that the graphics and sounds *are* improved over Civ2 and, IMO, SMAC. The colors are brighter. The sound (when it's working) is a bit more upbeat. I like being able to see the Palace. The city view is nice if a bit underwhelming. All in all, it's clear they didn't want in some areas to spend all their time and money on eye and ear candy, and I support that decision even if more of it would have been very nice indeed. However, there are some trouble spots relating to gameplay, where graphics and sounds DO matter. For example, when you complete a wonder, there is no longer any video -- which is fine. But the static picture you see is missing something VITAL!: The benefits the wonder confers! Now I know there is already a user-made patch to fix this (bravo!), but this is a rookie mistake for Firaxis to make. Also, the unit movement animations were turned off on my computer literally after the second game! The reasons are simple: Not only do unit animations NOT add to the gameplay (which is fine by itself) but the movement ones in particular actually slow the game turns down too much and are simply too repetitive to have any entertainment value after a day or two.

In an RTS, the animations are critical to game's atmosphere. In a TBS, if they slow down the turns, they are poison. Now, I like the standing animations where you see little movements. I like the working animations and the fighting animations, which actually add some nice tension as you watch the hitpoint bar as units swap attacks. But the walking animations just used up too much time with little pay off. On another note, it's still not always as easy as it should be to distinguish units and citizen heads as it should be, and the happy face icon used on the city zoom looks like it was ripped off a UBB forum and patched in with Photoshop!

As for the sounds, unfortunately the music simply cuts out in my games past a certain number of turns. I have seen other people post similar problems. But even when the music works, it's not particularly interesting. And as you can imagine, the sound effects become repetitive very fast. Overall, you would not buy this game for its graphics or sounds ... but that's not why you'd but it in the first place. Still, some disappointments here considering Firaxis said they would put to rest the history of criticism against their graphics.

"[-1] I think a manual should be thorough, accurate and stuffed with vital information about all aspects of the game.":

In a game as complex as Civ3, to ship the manual they shipped is really sad beyond words. I hate to harp on this (close your eyes if you are sick of hearing it from me), but Firaxis has displayed such apalling disregard for keeping us informed throught the past 2 years that it comes as no surprise to me that they'd give us a next to useless manual. Of course, the manual itself gives a suspicious warning that some information might not be correct or updated because "of printing deadlines." B.S.! Shoving the game out the door early was the problem here. "Well, they did the best they could do under the circumstances, Yin." True. And that means you have a Civ3 beta, as noted above.

"[+1] I think the interface is good enough if I can learn it rather quickly, even if it's a little quirky.":

Overall, the interface is clean and helpful. A big improvement over SMAC in my opinion. However, even here there are issues. It is too unapparent how to renegotiate trade deals. The statements you select on the diplomacy screen are bunch so closely together in such a small font that you can easily click the wrong statement by accident and cause a war (please add checkboxes or something for this, Firaxis). A number of people complained that you get NO notice as to why you can't upgrade a unit. I was lucky enough to read the forums first to know that this city has to have a barracks, and while that particular thing is mentioned in the manual, it should be part of the game itself. The same with recruiting an army. You need at least 4 cities, but that can be easily unknown your first few games, and the interface is really no help. I really like the linked text that allows you to click on something to reach the Civilopedia, though hyperlinking the building cue would also be great. Another minor complaint is that when I'm on the diplomacy screen, I'd like to be able to simply toggle through the leaders instead of having to close the window and open a new instance for each one. This is because I often want to shop around techs and trade deals quickly between all of them. In general, though, I give the interface positive marks.

"[-1] I think game turns should be swift from beggining to end.":

Let's face it ... Civ3 bogs down to an almost unbearable degree in the late game. A one-minute turn is unforgiveable enough. But I have seen 2 and 3 minute turns reported on 'acceptable' computers! What is so frustrating about this is that an awful lot of that computer time is spent needlessly spent with workers moving from one useless spot to the other and with units 'patrolling' back and forth. Firaxis absolutely must work on this issue because it's a killer in my book. Please take units off of patrol. Please have workers doing something or taken off the map. Please allow me a 'units zap to position' option so all that square by square tedium can be avoided. Please. I'm begging you! In a game all about turns, not giving turn times top priority seems horribly sloppy.

CONCLUSION: "The negatives outweigh the positives, and while you find the game pretty fun in the first few weeks, you know only some solid patching will keep you playing in the future. You'll have to be patient but have reasonable hope for something much better thanks to patching.

I'd just like sum things up here by saying that Civ3 DOES have that 'one more turn' feeling, and the first few days with the game are quite exhilirating. But as you go deeper, the negatives begin to mount and you find that you are taking one more turn because you restarted or reloaded because something just didn't seem right or intuitive. Then you start wanting to dissect a certain issue in the game, like corruption or the AI ignoring your pleas to get off your land, and you realize a growing number of turns are being devoted to: Beta testing.

Now, if you are the kind of person who absolutely can not stand to play a game in this state, please stay away from Civ3 for at least the first few patches. You could really play it safe and wait for the x-pack, which will probably be close to the Civ3 that was supposed to be released last month. But if you don't mind helping Firaxis work through these things, and if you have patience and faith that Firaxis *will* respond to these and other issues, then by all means jump in. You know the issues ahead of time.

All in all, I am sorely disappointed that a Civ3 beta was put on the shelves. On the other hand, things like the underlying power of the AI (which is really the heart of the game) and the overall ease of play (not to say winning is easy, that is) really speak in favor of a post-patch Civ3 greatness. Honestly, I think this game could be truly genre-defining if given enough love and attention. And while there will be countless arguments over the fairness of map and resource generation, Civ3 does give me a wonderfully satisfying feeling that if I am going to win, I'd better figure out where I am, what I have, and who's my biggest threat FAST so I can begin my long-term planning before I get utterly swallowed up. Frankly, bugs and all, that's more than enough to keep me happy in these early weeks waiting for patches. But rest assured, if the patches are less than diligent, Civ3 will last no longer on my hard-drive than it apparently did being tested at Firaxis.

--Yin

[tleilaxu]

1. -1 (Alpha Centuri +)
2. 0 (i wish it had MP, but i don't have a net connection at home right now, so it's not an immediate concernl; however i hope i don't have to pay for it)
3. -1 (bugs bad!)
4. -1 (concepts should make sense)
5. -1 (evil AI good dumb AI bad)
6. +1 (i disagree with the way nukes are implemented but eh, whatever)
7. +2 (graphics schmaphics... does a chess game need graphics?)
8. +1 (manual no big deal)
9. -1 (interface problems are like sand in the vaseline)
10. +1 (the endgame is always slow and makes me bored. i wish it weren't so but i expect it)

Total: zero... pretty accurate about my feelings as well...

[MidKnight Lament]

Excellent review, Yin. For the books I was a +4.

Despite you pointing out the negative aspects, I'm going to buy the game, because I feel I can play while they're still working to patch it. But I'll go in with well-grounded expectations.

[Grumbold]

At -4 I come in more negative

Nice review, and it sums up my feelings pretty well. I'm going to buy the game but know some of those problems are going to make me grind my teeth until they get fixed. I need to get the game to be able to speak with any authority on how best to improve it to the level it should have achieved. To be more heretical, I suggest Firaxis should stick to patching until they have got it right and only then complete the multiplayer element.

[Fidel]

+2, although I feel like I am belonging to the next positive category
again, i feel that if you are not a mod&MP fanatic, you can go and buy it right now. if not, wait till it is cheap.
by the way, yin, you said that the 'english invasion was worth the price of game alone' - so when are you buying your copy?

[raingoon]

Hi, my name is Raingoon (Everybody: "Hi, Raingoon...") and, uh, I'm a 2+ on the Yin scale -- oh, is anybody sitting there? Thanks...

Yin, how did you do that? Your questionaire really tagged me. Last time I did one of those was in my wife's Cosmopolitan magazine. It told me I wanted to marry a sensitive guy, which I can assure is not nearly as accurate an assessment of my disposition as your survey.

Nice review! My own on-going review is shaping up in its way similar to yours, although I'm generally more favorably disposed (I am a 2+, after all). My next installment on Industrial Age will start reflecting some of the things that you rightly mention begin to add up as marks against the game, as you play on for awhile.

Yin, over all EXCELLENT review, imo. Thanks!

[The Templar]

Got a -1/2. (Not enough range on the AI question. I don't think an AI should always press an advantage - but I think high chance of success makes the AI too passive, so I put myself in the middle).

My two biggest complaints are that ICBMs should decimate everything on the tile they hit. We are talking the H-bomb here you know.

Second, the diplomacy screen is frelled. More information about each civ should be present, including government type (I shouldn't have to go to the military screen to get this), attitude (in words too, not just facial expressions). Or is it there and I've missed it? (Gee, and I really like the interface for the most part). You should be able to issue the "get out or declare war" ultimatum immediately, without having to wait for it to show up.

Some trivial points. The UN should do more (like in SMAC). Great leaders either need to be a tad more frequent or better yet, a non-warish way to rush wonders has to be implemented. Air units should do more damage, with the possibility of actually destroying a unit when they bomb. And finally, corruption needs a bit more balancing. I think adding an anti-corruption flag to the police station helps somewhat, but far out cities still can't get beyond one shield/one commerce. This of course renders the Forbidden Palace useless without a great leader to rush it.

All in all though, I am actually pleased with the game overall so far.

[Karol]

About conquered cities and far away island:

Poland - is an excellent example - since 1795 Poland was conquered (without having small island) by THREE surrounding nations. There were NO Poland in 19th century. But its CULTURE was very high and in 1918 Poland APPEARED again on map of Europe and even now is quite big country in Central Europe.

Why it appeared again ?

Just because surrounding nations had not enough military power to prevent it. And after 100 years Polish culture was still in high level.

Maybe Civ3 is just good as is. Or maybe it should be like that in modern ages not ancient.

What do You think ?

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Karol
About conquered cities and far away island:

Poland - is an excellent example - since 1795 Poland was conquered (without having small island) by THREE surrounding nations. There were NO Poland in 19th century. But its CULTURE was very high and in 1918 Poland APPEARED again on map of Europe and even now is quite big country in Central Europe.

Why it appeared again ?

Just because surrounding nations had not enough military power to prevent it. And after 100 years Polish culture was still in high level.

Maybe Civ3 is just good as is. Or maybe it should be like that in modern ages not ancient.

What do You think ?

this time an invasion of wise poles

i think, though, that they are asking why one has to rush build temple or library the first thing in a city.

[yin26]

Well, thanks to those of you who found the scale roughly accurate. That one turned my brain for a while.

LaRusso: I plan to stop by the computer shop early next week and pay my money. If he hadn't let me try the game out, I would likely have waited. I have no regrets paying my money ... though I will have many if the game doesn't receive a lot of post-release support.

[Alex 14]

[+1 to +5]: Civ3 has hints of brilliance and overall solid gameplay that will really intrigue you. A few patches will almost certainly make the game much better --even great-- for you.

Thats what i got for your quiz, sounds good to me.

Great review Yin.

[Earthling7]

I'll be damned... I'm more negative/demanding than Yin! Only a bit, though. 0, it is, my dear.

1) OVERALL EXPECTATIONS
[+1]I want Civ3 to do some new stuff and keep some old stuff.

2) MULTIPLAY and EDITOR
[+1]I don't mind the absence of MP/Editor since I am confident they will come later and I am happy with single player now.

3) BUGS
[+1]I accept bugs as part of the process and am willing to wait for patches.

4) IMPLEMENTATION of GAME CONCEPTS
[-1]I want all game concepts to be readily understandable and open to strategic manipulation in a clear and intuitive way.

5) AI
[-1]I like an AI that, if it has an advantage, always presses it.

6) WEAPONS / REALITY
[-1]I like big weapons (like nuclear ones) to have big and atrocious effects on cities and the environment.

7) GRAPHICS and SOUNDS
[+1]I think good graphics and sounds are important but not a defining part of the game.

8) THE MANUAL
[-1]I think a manual should be thorough, accurate and stuffed with vital information about all aspects of the game.

9) THE INTERFACE
[-1]I think the interface should make my attempt to do or find something effortless and intuitive.

10) LENGTH of GAME TURNS
[+1]I accept that the end game will necessarily see longer turns ... even very long turns ... though I hope for patches if needed.

Thanx for the review... and this know-yourself-quiz... It was revealing

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Yin

Korn did a great review, and you did the most excellent scale (judged important elements, give them score and combine them excellently to give a reader good feel of how will he feel about the game, based on expectartions)

Put it on Civ III site I say I am impressed. (or at least here on Apolyton. )

Make it "Will you love civ III?" offical questionary. (but only for people who played smac or Civ before. )

Anyway on your scale I got +8. And I think you really judged it right.

I scored
1 0
2 +1
3 +1
4 +1
5 - 1
6 +1
7 +1
8 +2
9 +1
10 +1

Basically I think that the game has really great potential out of the box, and I believe in patches/ upgrades and community (my own) development to give me all that I hoped about form the game. (on the places where out of the box game will fail, and it surely will in some places) I still expect the best game ever in my eyes( is that a bit too much?) but with my humble expectations.

[SITS]

+2 and a great review Yin! Although I would have separated the editor and MP and added more negative points for the lack MP. I'm not too bothered about the editor (and I fully accept that others find this very important) but the lack of MP really does it for me so I think my score would have been around 0.

Will you be doing another review after the patch? If so, I look forward to seeing it.