Should I Buy CivIII?

[TechWins]

Just to clarify, as all the reviews got to my head - what are the major problems civIII has that keep it from being a must buy?

The main problem is that it lacks polish and has been "dumbed" down. One example of it lacking polish is how the combat is still a little rough around the edges. Another example of it lacking polish is how there are so many useless technologies. One example of how it has been dumbed down is how there are now only two states of diplomacy with a Civ - peace and war. Yes, there a (cute) little things like "annoyed", "cautious", and things like that with another Civ, but that is far less complex. There really isn't even a state alliance; it's a very poor version. Another example of being dumbed down is how you have to be apart of the mad expansion rush at the beginning of the game because the AI excessively expands. Also, the waiting time in between turns is ridiculous.

Overall, the game is fun for me, only with graphic changes and Korn's Blitz mod, though, but there is still more to be desired. A lot of the problems with the game can eventaully be fixed.

Although, there a few problems with the game that don't look ever to be fixed, simply because of their internal role with the game.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Dunno about EU2 (looks like a different concept, apparently an RTS with a different scope entirely).

Its not an RTS in the true sense of the word if that makes you think of games like Age of Empires or Command and Conquer. You're not clickfesting to beat the clock unless you like it that way. Every event of importance can be set to pause the game and everything can be examined and all instructions can be issued in pause mode. You're moving armies and putting together diplomatic agreements between nations, not committing a tank rush to knock hitpoints off some enemy units and buildings. I think of it as a 1 day per turn game in which any uneventful turn will quickly move you on to the next one. There's a lot of more discussion about EU1 and 2 in the other games forums so I won't repeat it all here.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Leonidas

6) Alpha Centauri and Crossfire

Crossfire is no longer available for PC, only for Mac.

[Willem]

Originally posted by thinkingamer

...requires to buy an official strategy guide to fully understand the game,...

As P.T. Barnum once said, "There's a sucker born every minute." Just hang out here and check out the Strategy forum.

[Chronus]

I enjoy Civ 3. It is my favorite of the Civ series though I do miss scenarios. Hopefully, Firaxis will improve their editor so that more people will be eager to create them.

Naturally, the game is similar to its predicessors. However, it is also different in many ways. If you do get it, throw away your Civ 2 ideas and start off fresh. The more I deprogram myself out of Civ 2 mode, the more I enjoy Civ 3.

Dunno about EU2 (looks like a different concept, apparently an RTS with a different scope entirely). Also, it runs up about $40 as well,

Hmmm . . . Best Buy was selling them last week for $19.95. If you enjoyed EU, and if you can get EU2 for $19.95, then, perhaps, that is the game for you. I was tempted to buy it myself.

[Ironikinit]

Wiglaf,

The main problems with Civ 3 are community standards, gameplay, and realism, IMO. I'm talking problems that didn't already exist

This community, if I'm not mistaken, is real heavy on making scenarios and multiplayer. Civ 3 doesn't support those, and a lot of people feel burned. Nevermind that Civ 2 didn't support those on release, and nevermind that most Civ 2 players didn't use them much if at all.

In terms of gameplay, many of the complaints are about the interface. The domestic advisor pops up too much, notifications of pollution or disorder are too fast to read. Those are small potatoes and really when you think about it, if that's the best criticisms people can come up with, they're looking for things to complain about. However, the game really does run slowly, esp. if you try to play on a huge map, and that's too bad, because a huge map with 16 civs would be great.

A big complaint that people have is that the combat system is quite simple, which leads to unrealistic results. That means that it's possible for ancient units to occasionally beat modern ones. Theoretically possible, anyway, I'm yet to see it. I have seen, plenty of times, cavalry units attacking tanks and doing damage, which looks pretty funny.

You made a good point about CtP and CtP2 getting panned. Even the reader reviews were negative on Gamespot. I haven't played, so I dunno. Some people think reviewers are gluesniffers or something, but personally I trust professionals over amateurs.

[Libertarian]

The domestic advisor pops up too much, notifications of pollution or disorder are too fast to read. Those are small potatoes and really when you think about it, if that's the best criticisms people can come up with, they're looking for things to complain about.

And you're ignoring things to complain about.

When Wiglaf finds himself scrolling all over the map to find the theater of battle from which the interface yanked him in order to activate an irrelevant unit on another continent, and when he discovers that he must move his units one at a time, and when he finds that he cannot access the Civilopedia from key screens, and when he finds that what you trivialize — the ability actually to read messages about pollution and such — is a needless annoyance, and when he realizes that each successive turn in the modern age will be an ever increasing burden of mindless clicking and scrolling, I hope that he will taunt you with twice as many words as these.

[Ironikinit]

The temptation is there, but it's easy to ignore.

Let me see if I can guess what it said:

Blah blah rant whine cry blah blah boo hooty.

Was I close?

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
The temptation is there, but it's easy to ignore.

Let me see if I can guess what it said:

Blah blah rant whine cry blah blah boo hooty.

Was I close?

Charles

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Was I close?

In a word: No

[Wiglaf]

When Wiglaf finds himself scrolling all over the map to find the theater of battle from which the interface yanked him in order to activate an irrelevant unit on another continent,

Does that happen often?

and when he discovers that he must move his units one at a time,

Had to do that in civ2, no problem there.

and when he finds that he cannot access the Civilopedia from key screens, and when he finds that what you trivialize — the ability actually to read messages about pollution and such — is a needless annoyance, and when he realizes that each successive turn in the modern age will be an ever increasing burden of mindless clicking and scrolling, I hope that he will taunt you with twice as many words as these.

I'll hold out for a patch on things like that, and hopefully the minor issues will be fixed. Although, I'm curious about what's the exact problem with the modern age and how it's different from the earlier ones - seems to me a lot of people don't like it, and it'd be good to get the exact reason why.

However, the game really does run slowly, esp. if you try to play on a huge map, and that's too bad, because a huge map with 16 civs would be great.

What sort of maxed out game (map size/number of civs) can you get away with on your system without too much slowdown?

[ACooper]

Hey Wiglaf, when Lib complains about the interface is refering to the diffuculty he has telling the difference between a worker and a transport.

[Ironikinit]

Wig,

I don't find the unit selection to be that bad of a problem, the battle order, so to speak. It took some getting used to, and if the program queues up a unit away from the action, I just give that unit its order and move on. It could bother me if I was a control freak I guess.

Yeah, the stacked movement. In some of my early games I built too many artillery, more than I really needed as it turned out, and I was wishing for stacks in that case. A lot of people want it, but to me it's like BFD. As you said, same as in Civ 2.

The modern age problem is like there can be an "end of history" scenario. Not much to do. You've built all the buildings, you're usually well in the lead. You have a choice of building units or wealth, which is a way to increase income (er, sorry to be so obvious, it's like capitalization in Civ2). So it can be a bore, frankly. Luckily there's diplomatic victory where you build the UN, grease a bunch of palms, and if you haven't been naughty you win a vote, game over. The first time I built it I held the vote and lost, bit of a learning experience. Anyway, I like it cos it gets the game over. The SS (space ship) is another quick-ish way to end it. Sometimes wars break out, and that can get messy cos there's so many units. Sometimes you're pretty much forced to go to war because a resource runs out or you don't have, say, aluminum or uranium in your territory, both of which you need for SS parts.

The biggest game I've ever played was huge map, continents, 80% water, and I believe there were around 10 civs in it. It bogged down significantly, but less than a minute of wait per turn I guess. I have a PII. I play on standard maps now. Games are long enough as it is. Sometimes I'll go for a large map.

Thanks, Skanky. I was just guessing. Funny, the parts that Wiglaf quoted really did look like the same old whines to me.

[Zoid]

TechWins and Lib has made some good points, what I think is the most important issue here is the fact that when you make a sequel it´s NOT a good idea to make it equal or even inferior to its predecessors (Civ2, SMAC/X) cause what´s the use with a sequel that doesn´t add anything to the gaming experience?

If whining fanboys like Ironikinit are willing to fork up 45$ for a beta-Civ2-clone, fine by me. But I demand a bit more...

[Wiglaf]

The modern age problem is like there can be an "end of history" scenario. Not much to do. You've built all the buildings, you're usually well in the lead. You have a choice of building units or wealth, which is a way to increase income (er, sorry to be so obvious, it's like capitalization in Civ2). So it can be a bore, frankly. Luckily there's diplomatic victory where you build the UN, grease a bunch of palms, and if you haven't been naughty you win a vote, game over. The first time I built it I held the vote and lost, bit of a learning experience. Anyway, I like it cos it gets the game over. The SS (space ship) is another quick-ish way to end it. Sometimes wars break out, and that can get messy cos there's so many units. Sometimes you're pretty much forced to go to war because a resource runs out or you don't have, say, aluminum or uranium in your territory, both of which you need for SS parts.

Still don't see where the big deal is, most of those problems existed in civ2. Although, you did say you were usually in the lead by the modern age, so I gotta ask - is the AI a step down or much easier than you expected?

About corruption, I read up on it and apparently the idea is to force the player into building more developed cities and take away some cheap civ2 strategies. I've also heard it's completely broke and doesn't work at all the way it should - any truth to that? Same question with culture.