Gamespot's Single-Player Strategy Game of the Year: Civ3

[yin26]

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/features/pc/bestof_2001/p3_22.html

[yin26]

Listen, it's obvious these guys played Civ3 the same way they play their shooters: Quickly and once until the end. Sure, if you play Civ3 that way, you might be impressed. Heck, I was. But Civ3 sucks from about your 4th game on.

Here's just their first sentence:

Civilization III brings great turn-based strategy gaming back to life with its solid design, sleek interface, sharp artwork, unlimited replayability, open architecture, and epic storytelling

WTF?!

[HalfLotus]

Lots of people have played lots and lots of civ3 and love it. Just can't stand to have someone disagree with you can you Yin?

You do realize that your sig says you're an ******* 90% of the time, dont you?

[yin26]

Here's proof they simply have NO IDEA what they are talking about with Civ3:

In addition to the game's inherent replayability, Civilization III includes a complete editor for players to create their own mods and scenarios for virtually endless variety.

LOL! PATHETIC!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have always respected Gamespot (and because of their RPG game of the year award, I'll be looking to get Wizardry 8), and I agree with their choice 100%.

[Adam Wallock]

OT: WIZ8

I too tend to agree with Gamespot's reviews. I have made many purchases based on their ratings and not been disappointed.

Wizardry 8 is a must own for any RPG fan. Great Game.

[Capt Dizle]

I am wordless. I haven't bought many games this year so maybe Civ 3 is the best of a sorry lot.

Seriously, who the heck designed this game. Sid could hardly have looked at it.

[yin26]

Well, the Wiz8 seems to be a solid recommendation, and I plan to play it when I finish a few other games first. But this Civ3 thing is laughable.

[Alex]

Hmm... I really think they have not played the game that much. But I tend to agree with their review. I think that Civ3 manages to revitalize the series. Maybe it is not THE game we were hoping for, but it is hardly a disappointment to me.

But I have to agree with Yin on one thing: that "complete editor" nonsense. They launched the editor once, and thought: "Cool! We can change the rules... Ok, next game?".

[Terser]

CivIII is alright in my book. Just alright, mind you.

The reason Gamespot gave it this accolade--and in fact the reason why players and reviewers pay it such respect--is because of the complete and utter lack of great competition. Look at the nominees for Gamespot's single player strat game of the year: "Kohan," "Commandos II," "Tropico," and EUII. Now, I've got nothing but love for those games, having played (and to a certain extent enjoyed) all but one of them (Commandos II). But let's be honest: none of them are particularly innovative or earth-shatterlingly immersive. In any other year Tropico and Kohan probably wouldn't have made the list, and from what I've seen and read calling "Commandos II" strategy seems kind of a stretch. Thus we are left with a winner by default *Drumroll* Civilization III!

The one eyed man is king in the kingdom of the blind...

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by yin26
... But Civ3 sucks from about your 4th game on.
...

Oh, NOoo! I'm still playing my THIRD game!!

Gotta love the different ways people play!
Some for the quick win, some to immerse themselves into it; some with a half-full glass, some with a half-empty glass.

----
Terser,
I LOVE your signature!!

[Libertarian]

If nothing else, thinking people are learning how worthless reviews can be. Declaring an unfinished, untested game to be the Game of the Year merits nothing but ridicule.

It is to laugh. Ha!

[GodSpawn]

Yin, just as a matter of interest, what would you have chosen as strategy game of the year? (This isn't a loaded question, BTW!)

[yin26]

Hmmm, thanks for the unloaded question. I hope you give your pick, too.

On the Gamespot list (I'll just keep with their list) are:

1) Civ3
2) Commandos2
3) Europa Universalis2
4) Kohan
5) Tropico

I played Commandos2 and found it *very* polished and interesting for the first few missions. While the polish stayed, the interesting faded for me. At a certain point, it simply became rather easy to go in with a few good tricks and clean things up. So, a bit light on the strategy part once you got good at it.

I played Tropico and also found that to be a bit tedious after a time. Quite fun, though. Once you learn some good buidling orders, however, the strategy part begins to become weak, and you find yourself playing a sort of Sim City with guts ... but not much more.

Never played Kohan.

Played Europa Universalis *1*: Am I allowed to comment on 2? From all I have read of 2 (which I plan to buy soon), it's just 1 with some added complexity. So if it's O.K. to vote for a game I haven't played, I'd *still* put Europa Universalis ahead of Civ3. Why?

Well, its decidedly NOT for the 'grab you at first turn' effect, that's for sure. Heck I packed EU up after about 7 hours of trying hard to like the game. Gave up on it. Moved on. Then some people whose opinions I value convinced me to give it another run. Glad I did.

In short, Civ3 grabs you then spits in your face after a few games. EU spits in your face (as if to say: Sissy! If you can't handle it, piss off!) then grabs you for many longs months. So I can understand why pressure cooker Gamespot guys wouldn't get deep enough into EU to figure it out ... keep in mind these are the same guys who think Civ3 has a complete editor, o.k.? .... but:

Europa Universalis is by far the best (especially historical) strategy game to come out in a long, long time. It has my vote for strategy game of the year, bar none!

[Badtz Maru]

Kohan is a VERY innovative game for it's genre. It may not look like much, but there is a lot of depth in the gameplay. It's resource management system is unlike any other RTS, the unit construction system is unlike anything I've seen in an RTS, and it models a lot of things that are ignored in most RTS games, like morale and supply range.