the best game yet or not?

[tomdy2k]

hi

i've seen tons of game sites giving civ 3 great reviews, but on those same sites the civ3 players have been less than enthusiastic........


i'm trying to decide if this is the game to buy or wait for something else..



what are the impressions of you guys who have been playing awhile?


tom

[Worthingtons]

[Willem]

Well just have a look around and form your own conclusions. There's lots of opinions floating around. Myself I think it's a good game, but some areas need work. But they are still working on it, so I'm optimistic.

[ColdWizard]

i suggest waiting until it's finished (when/if scenario editor and Multiplayer are added), unless you like straight sp play. i also recommend not paying extra for the "limited" edition.

[Tarquelne]

The key concept seems to be "preconceptions." I really think most of the people who loathe civ3 do so because it isn't what they expected/wanted it to be. Many people, it seems, wanted something like SMAC 2 or Civ2.5. Civ3 is more like "Civ2 #2" - Where Civ2 did little to alter the gameplay of Civ1 and mostly added "toys" (more units, improvements, techs) Civ3 went in a different direction. It has fewer units, techs, "movies", and improvements compared to Civ2 (or SMAC) and introduces only a few new features. (Mainly Culture and Strategic/Luxury Resources.)

Civ3 is often less "realistic" than Civ2... the combat is a good example. It's considerably ealistic than Civ2s. (But, I would agree with Firaxis, gives better game-play. Not that I didn't alter the stats of almost every unit... but I do that in every game I can anyway.)

Civ3 does, however, definetly have a better AI. I'm not saying it isn't often boneheaded... it just isn't as consistently boneheaded as most game AIs.

The only really big flaws in Civ3 I see are no "stack" movement, and the editor is behind the curve. (Though Firaxis has said it wants to develop the editor considerably.)

[Dis]

I disagree civ3 gives better gameplay with regards to combat. fast units are too powerful. Ships bombardment sucks. Air bombardment sucks. shall I go on?

the game is fun for 2 or 3 weeks. After that you'll probably get bored. I suggest "renting" it- if you can take it back. Or waiting until it gets discounted. You may want to wait a year or two when they bundle the game with its expansion pack(s)

[yin26]

Without a doubt, if you aren't simply burning a hole in your stomach to play a Civ game, let this one wait. It's not complete and, quite frankly, it's tedious as it stands.

When the Gold Edition comes out complete with all the things that should have come with the game in October, consider spending your time and money then. Until that point, your time and money would be wasted on Civ3.

[Dida]

if I would rate this game on 10.0 scale, I will give it a score between 7.0 to 7.5. It is just ok, C or C-, nowhere close to B+ or A.

[Capt Dizle]

Frankly I doubt that the Gold Edition will be any better. I am judging by the things Soren did in the patch. Many changes were 180 in the wrong direction. Firaxis says that they will put fun ahead of realism, but the game is not fun. What they have done is try to make the gameplay monotracked and simplistic so that the AI will be able to function at a level close to the human player.

To put that in other words, Soren has dumbed down the available strategy options in the game so that the human is justing sitting there plodding along a tedious simplistic path.

Until someone at Firaxis realizes that the current design team is drilling a dry well, and takes some appropriate action, any expansion will simply be more of the same torture.

Since Sid will not acknowledge his responsibility to the pride of the Civ series the prospects of anything positive happening is virtually nill.

[yin26]

Yeah, it looks that way. Isn't it so fascinating to see a group of people TRY to fail? Well, you have to be good at something, I guess...

[OneInTen]

What's the point in having 1000s of options if a trained monkey could beat the AI? WHere's the fun in using all these options if you know before the game starts the AI is merely there to watch you run away with a scoreline of 1000 - 1?

You may as well go play the sims if you want a game where you're not actually in competition with anyone. As an added bonus, you've got lotsa options in that game!

[Encomium]

The game reviewers are both idiots and paid (or bribed) shills for Firaxis.

Civ III is a BIG DISAPPOINTMENT.

I would give Civ III a 'C+' if there had been no Civ II.

But since there was a great Civ II, Civ III gets a 'D'.

It has many bugs, playability problems, a stupid AI, that culture flipping nonsense, less histoircal realsim than Civ II, and I don't think it was ever even play-tested.

[OneInTen]

Encomium, I assume you're not posting with a satraight face when you declare civ 2 a great game but civ 3's AI stupid?

[Capt Dizle]

Mr. 1 in 10,

I will take a game with 1000 options by which I can beat the AI over one that has 1 way to beat the AI that can't be finished because it bores you out of your mind.

Single play is just a warm up for real human competition anyway. The game is designed backwards.

jt

[Willem]

Yes Encomium, we all know what you think. After all, you keep repeating the same things over and over and over again. Pull up a perch, I'll introduce you to my parrot.