Tweet
Before some smartass ask why I'm waisting time posting my (negative) appreciation of this game - I do it because I really wanted to like this game and feel cheated by what was delivered. I bought my first computer because of Civ I and bought all the civ related games that came out since. I had loads of fun with Civ II (as opposed to CTP - that shiny broken toy) and expected no less from its successor. Well it is true that one should never expect anything because 2 days ago, after using the editor in order to correct some of the gross inconsistencies in the design - and seeing the engine crash repeatadly as a result - I decided to shelve the game until they either patch it thouroughly or that a better one comes along.
First of all I conceive Civ to be about the civilizing process. I really don't understand how people can get a kick out of churning out units and chasing the AI up & down the map. But be that as it may, to each his/her own style. So based on my assumption I find Civ III to be so much less that what it could have been.
1) the game is ridiculously linear; i.e all players start more or less in a similar position and end (potentially) more or less at the same finish line. All go through the same tech tree (an outdated concept IMO - should replace it with something more organic - more flexible), produce the same units, pursue the same goals and try to acheive similar results (pls spare your remarks about the different engames - they're all basically the same thing: a winner on top and loosers behind).
2) it is also tediously simplistic - both in concept and execution. Granted the scope prevents such complexities one can see in Europa universalis but who said we must remain forever focused on an all-in one solution ? Why not a series of backward compatible games covering each an era in depth ? I dream of seeing a game where I can witness the failure and dislocation of my civilization - and it's rebirth into something new - different yet still akin to the precedent one... Alas a choice has been made (since CIV I) to put playability above realism - as if both were mutually exclusive ! Well perhaps it is for chronically hormone-impared teenboyz ...
3) the interface has been streamlined apparently. To some extent this is true - but again the developers seem to have stopped short of a finished product. Where some commands are indeed simplified (for the better) - some other painfully remind me of CTP where one had to dig multiple level to get to a specific function. Why not a spreadsheet-like system where you'd have different level of information displayed on overlapping pages ? Perhaps too processor intensive that... I don't know since I'm not a programmer.
4) the editor is on the surface all that I could have asked in order to customize the game to my heart's content - except that it's totally non-functionnal ! I tried making the building of the Settler unit dependant on the appearance of wheat (changed to be a strategic resource) and the knowledge of pottery only to have the game either protection-fault crash on me or start ok then churn & churn until it froze. This was to prevent the AI from overexpending as it tends to do in this newest iteration.
5) Finally the AI is both overagressive and extraordinarily stupid - a receipe for disaster - both in VL as in RL. I've seen the AI put cities in the middle of a waterless desert, on frozen tundra with no forest or games around just to deny me room for expension. While this is an interesting reflex - it could have been implemented with more finesse. The improved diplomatic system demonstrates the above better still: the AI is constently trying to score points off you - while this is fair - I deplore the lack of cooperation/coordination (especially when one civ is beholden to you {in awe of} between civilizations.
For the positive side.
a) the whole concept of Culture is interesting - from the expending borders to the civ-specific cultural attributes. However even here we can see the shallowness of it's design by the simple fact that any civ can get similar bonuses if they perform similar actions. There's no sense of uniqueness to any civilization.
b) the integrated economic system is much better - I for one am not sad about the loss of caravans.
All in all though Civ III is too lacking in depth to satisfy me. Well I've ranted long enough. If you have any comments - post away !
G.
First of all I conceive Civ to be about the civilizing process. I really don't understand how people can get a kick out of churning out units and chasing the AI up & down the map. But be that as it may, to each his/her own style. So based on my assumption I find Civ III to be so much less that what it could have been.
1) the game is ridiculously linear; i.e all players start more or less in a similar position and end (potentially) more or less at the same finish line. All go through the same tech tree (an outdated concept IMO - should replace it with something more organic - more flexible), produce the same units, pursue the same goals and try to acheive similar results (pls spare your remarks about the different engames - they're all basically the same thing: a winner on top and loosers behind).
2) it is also tediously simplistic - both in concept and execution. Granted the scope prevents such complexities one can see in Europa universalis but who said we must remain forever focused on an all-in one solution ? Why not a series of backward compatible games covering each an era in depth ? I dream of seeing a game where I can witness the failure and dislocation of my civilization - and it's rebirth into something new - different yet still akin to the precedent one... Alas a choice has been made (since CIV I) to put playability above realism - as if both were mutually exclusive ! Well perhaps it is for chronically hormone-impared teenboyz ...
3) the interface has been streamlined apparently. To some extent this is true - but again the developers seem to have stopped short of a finished product. Where some commands are indeed simplified (for the better) - some other painfully remind me of CTP where one had to dig multiple level to get to a specific function. Why not a spreadsheet-like system where you'd have different level of information displayed on overlapping pages ? Perhaps too processor intensive that... I don't know since I'm not a programmer.
4) the editor is on the surface all that I could have asked in order to customize the game to my heart's content - except that it's totally non-functionnal ! I tried making the building of the Settler unit dependant on the appearance of wheat (changed to be a strategic resource) and the knowledge of pottery only to have the game either protection-fault crash on me or start ok then churn & churn until it froze. This was to prevent the AI from overexpending as it tends to do in this newest iteration.
5) Finally the AI is both overagressive and extraordinarily stupid - a receipe for disaster - both in VL as in RL. I've seen the AI put cities in the middle of a waterless desert, on frozen tundra with no forest or games around just to deny me room for expension. While this is an interesting reflex - it could have been implemented with more finesse. The improved diplomatic system demonstrates the above better still: the AI is constently trying to score points off you - while this is fair - I deplore the lack of cooperation/coordination (especially when one civ is beholden to you {in awe of} between civilizations.
For the positive side.
a) the whole concept of Culture is interesting - from the expending borders to the civ-specific cultural attributes. However even here we can see the shallowness of it's design by the simple fact that any civ can get similar bonuses if they perform similar actions. There's no sense of uniqueness to any civilization.
b) the integrated economic system is much better - I for one am not sad about the loss of caravans.
All in all though Civ III is too lacking in depth to satisfy me. Well I've ranted long enough. If you have any comments - post away !
G.
Becuz I hoped it would be different - innovative. I mean with exemples like EU around - which opened new vistas for strategy games - you would have thought that it would have inspired the firaxians ! And here in Canada (well in Montreal at least) you can't get a refund like with EBoutique in the States. 
Comment