CivULATION or SiDAPPOINTMENT?

[DarkCloud]

So- how would you rate civlization III- please fill out the poll, if you wish to

[DarkCloud]

Would you consider it a game worth paying 45 dollars for, or a game worth only 20 in the bargain bin?

Is it worth its top seller title?

Or its award as strategy game of the year at CGM, or best game that didn't win an award at CGW?

Is it as yin26 would say, in need of SMACceptance or is it a hit?

Please voice your opinion here.

[Harovan]

2.0

It can get a hit, when it's finished.

[SpencerH]

2.0

Some interesting concept changes, but poor mechanics. Its fixable though, I just wont pay for the fixes.

I'd like to see the poll results based on how many "CIV" games have been played (to death) by the voters. I think that the lower scores will cluster with those of us who have played more versions while the higher scores will be for whom CIV3 is a newer experience.

[korn469]

3.5

but that is because i adopted the CtP:2 rating system of basing it on mods (the blitz mod in this case) and not the original game (which i would give a low 3.0 or a high 2.5)

also i am primarily interested in single player for turn based games, so the lack of multiplayer doesn't lower my score

and just for the record

Civ3 100+ hours
CtP:2 -
CtP 5+ hours
SMAX 25+ hours
SMAC 100++ hours
Civ2 100+ hours
Colonization 50+ hours
MoO2 25+ hours
MoM -
MoO 10+ hours
Civ1 50+ hours

[SpencerH]

original game (which i would give a low 3.0 or a high 2.5)

It's interesting that you're more satisfied with the original than I am despite that you've changed virtually everything that you could in your mod (and I suspect you would have changed more if you could). I've done virtually the same thing. Right now I'm testing the effect of reducing the town size to 3 and upping the cost of settler to 3 pop points (I dont know the thread where I saw it suggested). The play is certainly different so far.

[Salvor]

I went all the way to 4 stars.

Sure, the game ain't perfect, and I get as frustrated as the next guy with the things I don't like.

But for someone as busy as me, it's extremely rare to find a game that has me literally glued to my PC every non-working waking (or semi-waking) hour for going on 4 months now, with no signs of abatement.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by SpencerH
2.0

Some interesting concept changes, but poor mechanics. Its fixable though, I just wont pay for the fixes.

I'd like to see the poll results based on how many "CIV" games have been played (to death) by the voters. I think that the lower scores will cluster with those of us who have played more versions while the higher scores will be for whom CIV3 is a newer experience.

Civ1: 100 hours
Civ2: 500 hours
Civ3: 20 hours

4.0

[elfstorm]

I love SMAC for various reasons.

I love MoM for various different reasosn.

I was hoping Civ3 would combine the best of both.
Wow - was I ever disappointed.

Civ3 ain't bad, I like it... guess my expectations were too high.

[Ironikinit]

Four stars, no-brainer.

As a change of pace, I played some Disciples II. Fine game, but as far as replay value goes, Civ 3 smokes it. Since the AI is weak in D2, the game puts all the emphasis on scripted campaign games, which is fine, but once the campaigns are played, that's that for me... I'm not going to replay it to see if I can do it faster. D2 does have MP, and runs fast enough and has a small enough scope that MP is viable. That's the whole reason why we picked it to play. Civ 3 is a single player game in nature, but that won't stop a tiny minority from playing MP if and when it becomes available.

IMO, Civ 3's only real competition is Europa Universalis 2, which unfortunately also suffers from weak AI. If anyone has another good strategy game to suggest, I'd like to hear about it.

Personally, I wouldn't waste much time playing a game I considered to be a 2.

I've played pretty much the whole Civ series and its offshoots such as Colonization and SMAC, but not CtP or CtP2 which never interested me.

[Sava]

Overall, Civ 3 is a huge disappointment. I think CTP2 is a better game.

I gave it 2 stars because by itself, it still is pretty decent. It just isn't up to par with my expectations. It is basically Civ 2 source code with new graphics, new culture, and different unit properties with a rewritten AI.

It seems like the development team didn't do their homework when it came to combat. Modern Armor, for instance, would annhilate regular Tanks in 99.99999 percent of real world scenarios. The perfect example is Desert Storm. The Coalition forces lost 0 tanks to enemy fire. In the "highway of death" battle, the Iraqis lost 160 tanks.

If you are going to only have two main variables in a combat equation, you must assign values to units that make the outcomes realistic. I can't remember the numbers off the top of my head, but given Gulf War statistics, the Modern Armor should at least be 160:1 in attack/defense. But this would make gameplay and other values hard to even out.

A better system would have included these variables:
Range
Firepower
Armor
Mobility
# of units

The through a system of calculation, you get a simple Attack - Defend equation that is determined by those 5 variables. Instead of having 2 units fighting to the death, you have casualties inflicted. Sometimes it might take a few turns for units to fight. This would allow for realistic warfare scenarios such as stalemates. Also, there needs to be a system for POW's. Not every single soldier is wiped out in a battle. Perhaps there could be an option for "Take No Prisoners" or "Make into Slaves".

Unfortunately my ideas have 0 probability of making it into a future CIV title. I guess I've got to finish my degree in Computer Science and write the game myself.

[Rotten999]

I got over the "this sucks" phase after playing for awhile, and now consider Civ3 to be a fun diversion. A lot of the new features are very cool (civ traits, uniques, culture, borders you can actually see, better negotiation, et. al.). Once I realized this wasn't Civ2, nor was it trying to be, I liked the game more. Combat isn't perfect, and I've learned to like the corruption "problem." I especially like how a conquered city is virtually useless for production while the war is on, as it logically would be.

Civ1 = Way too much
Civ2 = Way too much, squared
Call to Power = Played it maybe three times. I got so sick of units telling me they were "tired," of forty turns of wonder production going down the tiolet when another civ got there a turn before me, of "public works" to build roads and such, of cities producing nothing for some reason, and on and on. Yuck.

[centrifuge]

I really like Civ3, but for now it is on my shelf. I'll play it some more after the patch, but for now I'm enthralled with CTP2. The new World at War mod is awesome

[Wittlich]

As the game stands right now - I give it 2 stars.

[ACooper]

Given all the time I spend playing the game and all the time spent here talking about it I would have to give it 4 stars (Which, by the way, is the leading rating at this point)

It is good that they are still working on it because it is not perfect, but then, it never will be.