Tweet
Good lord.
Deciding where to begin tearing this review apart is like deciding where to begin cleaning Jeffrey Dahmer's kitchen. The incredibly sophopmoric grammar aside (leading, as it does, to meanings the author clearly never intended), Diamonds' review of Civ3 on Intelgamer is by far the lamest of the many lame reviews out there.
Let us hope it is the last.
Clearly, he meant "famous" and not "infamous", but oh well. Let's not pick on arguably the most sensible portion of the review.
Whatever that means. Oh wonder of wonders: the third step is higher than the first and second. Wow.
A technical error so egregious that we now know the reviewer is a mere hack.
But clearly, it doesn't assume that the reviewer has played this title. Oh, maybe he played it in the same way that Firaxis did — up to the middle ages or something.
But perfection?
That assertion destroys the reviewer's credibility, not only because it is demonstrably false, but because he himself does not give the game a perfect score.
It is to laugh. Ha!
The Civ3 "hefty paper manual" is like a Creation Science biology textbook: thick and full of errors.
Apparently, the version that ships to reviewers gives an extra worker at the beginning of the game. No wonder the reviewers like the game so much!
It just gets goofier and goofier, doesn't it?
To decry a much needed public works feature in favor of moving hundreds of workers around on a fitful map with a daunting interface and one level of zoom is testimony to the reviewer's myopia and ignorance.
Or airport.
We'll never know whether his failure to differentiate between luxury resources and strategic resources is an oversight or a manifestation of his majesterial ignorance. And we'll likely never care.
Gaah!!! 
This review reads like a remedial tenth-grade English paper by a hapless jock who wrote on his helmet while sitting on the sideline during a game.
Is he talking about "culture" here? Yes, obviously. But once again, he gives us wrong information. Culture, as anyone knows who has actually played the game, is derived solely from the accrual of certain improvements over time. Postively nothing about population or advancement influences culture in any direct way.
Thank you.
Eye candy? Is he talking about the bobbing heads? Did he never have any need to call up the documentation while conducting diplomacy? Did he ever even see the diplomacy screen outside of a screenshot?
You be the judge.
[...shaking head...]
I'm almost embarrassed for the poor sap. "Build more cities!" when the game won't allow another one. "We need more resources!" when we already have every resource on the map. "The best unit that we know of..." Uh huh.
May I call upon people of all faiths to pray for this gentleman? Clearly, nothing short of divine intervention will give him a clue.
Yes, surely I want to stop production of my Hanging Gardens two turns before it's finished so that I can discard a few hundred shields and build an aqueduct instead.
[...blank stare...]
Well, what I would say is that you threw this review together in about fifteen minutes of momentous struggle with a language that is only remotely familiar to you about a game that you most likely did not play.
Mercifully, the review ends here.
I'm reminded of Dabney Coleman's line from Modern Problems: "I don't want you to do it because you're weak; I want you to do it because you know I'm right."
If there were a Hall of Shame for game reviews, this one surely would merit a lifetime achievement award.
(edited to correct spelling)
Deciding where to begin tearing this review apart is like deciding where to begin cleaning Jeffrey Dahmer's kitchen. The incredibly sophopmoric grammar aside (leading, as it does, to meanings the author clearly never intended), Diamonds' review of Civ3 on Intelgamer is by far the lamest of the many lame reviews out there.
Let us hope it is the last.
Some of you may remember the first Civilization, created by the now infamous (sic) Sid Meier.
Clearly, he meant "famous" and not "infamous", but oh well. Let's not pick on arguably the most sensible portion of the review.
From the creation of the original Civilization up to the present Civilization 3, the Civilization title as (sic) gone through a steady increase in development quality.
Each new release has maintained the original concept created by the first Civilization. With the not so popular exception of Activision’s Civilization: Call to Power.
Civilization 3 is the best-created game bearing the Civilization title yet. Basically put it’s the original title in perfection. This review is going to assume that you’ve played a civilization (sic) title before.
But perfection?
That assertion destroys the reviewer's credibility, not only because it is demonstrably false, but because he himself does not give the game a perfect score.
Most noticeable about Civilization 3 when you purchase it, is the hefty paper manual that comes with it. The manual is divided into two sections: Those who have played a Civilization title before, and those who are new. Both are very comprehensive.
The Civ3 "hefty paper manual" is like a Creation Science biology textbook: thick and full of errors.
When you start, you start just like normal. You get one settler to make yourself a city. However, you are joined by 2 other units, which are called workers.
These units, unlike Civilization’s before it, are specifically designed for working the land around you. They do tasks such as creating mines, building roads, clearing forests, etc. This is significant because the player no longer has to rely on other settlers or Public Works to do these activities.
To decry a much needed public works feature in favor of moving hundreds of workers around on a fitful map with a daunting interface and one level of zoom is testimony to the reviewer's myopia and ignorance.
The land around you becomes more important as well. For instance, resources can be used to create revenue. More importantly, they can be used to create weapons. For instance, when you start in the Middle Ages, in order for you to create swordsmen, you have to have a resource link to iron. Or you can trade with other countries for the resource. As well, only the cities that are connected to the resource can use them. Cities either have to be connected via road or harbor.
We'll never know whether his failure to differentiate between luxury resources and strategic resources is an oversight or a manifestation of his majesterial ignorance. And we'll likely never care.
An added feature in the game is your countries (sic) influence. This is marked by a dotted line around your cities and borders. Things you build as well as population size and advancements increase your influence. Influence is used to determine how other countries react to you. As well, if your influence becomes great enough, you can annex enemy cities. Meaning the city becomes yours. Your influence line is also your countries (sic) boarder (sic). It plays an important part in wars and treaties.
This review reads like a remedial tenth-grade English paper by a hapless jock who wrote on his helmet while sitting on the sideline during a game.
Is he talking about "culture" here? Yes, obviously. But once again, he gives us wrong information. Culture, as anyone knows who has actually played the game, is derived solely from the accrual of certain improvements over time. Postively nothing about population or advancement influences culture in any direct way.
In Civilization 3 the diplomacy screen is much more advanced than the previous versions. Not to mention the eye candy that goes along with them. Going into all the possibilities in diplomacy would be mind numbing, so I won’t go into them here.
Eye candy? Is he talking about the bobbing heads? Did he never have any need to call up the documentation while conducting diplomacy? Did he ever even see the diplomacy screen outside of a screenshot?
You be the judge.
As a great leader of your people you are given advisors. These guys basically tell you what your country needs and how it is feeling. They give suggestions as to how to run things and what is needed. But, more importantly, they give statistics.
I'm almost embarrassed for the poor sap. "Build more cities!" when the game won't allow another one. "We need more resources!" when we already have every resource on the map. "The best unit that we know of..." Uh huh.
Managing your cities is about as fun as beta testing "Martha’s Make your Own Recipes" software. But the good news, you don’t have to do it. Civilization 3 sports 'governors' that will manage your city for you. While this isn’t a new concept to Civilization, the new part is THEY’RE ACTUALLY SMART.
Yes, surely I want to stop production of my Hanging Gardens two turns before it's finished so that I can discard a few hundred shields and build an aqueduct instead.
I could go further into what Civilization 3 has, but I like to think that I have a life. It would honestly take some 20 hours to possibly describe everything in the game. You’ll even notice that I completely skipped warfare. But what’s there say (sic) about that?
Well, what I would say is that you threw this review together in about fifteen minutes of momentous struggle with a language that is only remotely familiar to you about a game that you most likely did not play.
So it was a late review, I know that. But right now I’m hoping that your (sic) all (sic) of (sic) your (sic) are reading this review not wondering if it’s a good game or not, but agreeing with me because you already have your copy.
I'm reminded of Dabney Coleman's line from Modern Problems: "I don't want you to do it because you're weak; I want you to do it because you know I'm right."
If there were a Hall of Shame for game reviews, this one surely would merit a lifetime achievement award.
(edited to correct spelling)
Comment