Why is Civ 3 Getting Such Good Reviews?

[dissent]

I think Civ3 will eventually be worthy of a 9 or 10, once it is patched (finished) completely. Probably 2 or 3 more patches or so. I'm guessing the reviewers didn't spend enough time on the game to see the flaws/bugs. I didn't start discovering them until well into my first game, and this came about 3 days after release, far before the average reviewer's deadline.

When the game was released, I would give it a 5. I'd give it a 7 after the first patch, and like I said, it will probably eventually be a 9, and thus deserve the overwhelmingly positive reviews it has already received.

[Daveraver]

Originally posted by Sn00py
I give the game a 7, simply for what it has, but I don't give it a 10, because it should have had more.

That is exactly my point. I just feel like its lacking, like its missing the most logical progressions in gameplay from Civ 2.

I feel like a girl snubbed for a date. I had allllll these expectations, then the guy shows up and takes me to McDonalds instead of Tavern on the Green. And the patch is basically saying: "Hey baby, you can even supersize it if ya want."

[Raion]

You asked why reviewers gave CIV III a 9 to 10 rating.

As one of the reviewers of the game, I know what it is capable of.


"It is the original game of all those types of games".

It is extremely flexible, and most games are 'NOT'.

Like all games, it needs a patch, so what, Microsoft OS's need an update or patch every other day.

It is the combination of being the Classic Original, voted to the Hall of Fame in Computer Gaming Magazine way back in 1989, because it was "a hate this dang game until I actually get better and beat the game until all of a sudden, I love this dang game, because it is only a computer game, and I feel good when finally whooping those computer CIV's any which way I can", a game.

Not for graphics or ease of use, because like all things "One has to work at it, and then, when you win, it's more satisfying".

One more time!