a veteran civ player's view on civ 3

[Colonel Rhombus]

Sixty-five reasons why I'm a whiney little *****. Whoever originally wrote that load of rubbish probably looks like they've been sucking on a lemon for their entire lives.

The only things that pissed me off about Civ3 was the corruption and the simplified combat. Both have been addressed in subsequent patches. The bonus HP option and lethal bombard features have largely corrected the problem.

There really isn't very much to complain about.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


Part of it is that they expected not a "good game", but expected the true sequel of Civilization. If you use a famous title, you have to live up to the expectations it bring with it. That's the counterpart of the guaranteed good sales.
Second part comes probably from the itching that is caused by people which praise a game beyond its real value, and the need to react at such statements.

Proof that pitching high expectations will only serve to get people worked up. They really didn't need to make such expectations. But I do agree that by slapping "Sid Meier's" in front of a game title creates the impression that it will be a masterpiece. With the patches that have and will come, it will be. I've seen so many games that were still unfinished out of the box, that are far worse than Civ III was out of the box (take Ultima Ascension for example. Even with the countless patches released, it was still a crock, and terrible end to 20 odd years of role-playing history). I guess I might have been desensitized to rushed Christmas releases of such minor proportions as Civ III because of incidents like Ultima Ascension (which was a major problem area).

And the last part, that is probably the real one for our friend Coracle, is the need to troll

Ah yes. In the earlier days, it might have made things more interesting, but when the same issue is being whined about repeatedly (eg. 'Soren's Culture Flipping Nonsense', etc.) it is, as I already said, getting too old and worn, creating no new argument.

[King of Rasslin]

It was a big disappointment for Civ 2 fans because they want to tech all the way to tanks before they attack Come on, the AI was so dumb in Civ 2 and there was no need for resources. You traded with caravans. You could use the AI's own roads and railroads against them. Seriously, Civ 3 is a (huge) step above Civ 2

But it was butchered compared to Alpha Centauri. They really dumbed it down, probably for the Civ 2 fanboys. Some people still complain that it's too hard or they can't tech up to tanks like they used to. Espionage was hurt, I will agree with that. But adding in culture, resources, and bombarding, it is truly an awesome game much, much, much bettter than Civ 2.

I don't want to talk about Alpha Centauri. It's depressing that such a great game was ignored by, well, the ignorant

The good news is that we don't have to worry about a sequel. AC is so good you don't need one! The AI is really dumb, but multiplayer was awesome. I mean, a planetary council to raise or lower sea levels. The random events. Elevation. Unique locations with random bonuses. Cooler goody huts (the Civ 3 villages are so boring it brings me to tears) and mind worms. Really cool terrain improvements (thermal boreholes) and ocean cities. A huge tech tree without useless techs (free artistry, anyone?)

Civ 3 is praised by me as a Civ 2 fan, but hated by me as an AC fan. I guess I would give it 3.75/5. It's good. It's great. But it isn't the greatest.

[Sava]

I was a Civ enthusiast, and I sometimes still play TOT. But Civ 3 is stupid. It is the same game except for a tech tree modification, the addition of culture, new graphics and sound, downgraded combat system, and a useless trade system. You'd think after 7 years or so, they could at least come up with some different and better improvements. This game should really be called Civ 2.5 If Civ 2:ToT had a sprite editor (to edit animated units) it would automatically be a superior game.

[MiloMilo]

Axis, good input. I have started to notice a trend between the posts that commend the game and those that condemn it. The whiners usually compare the game with civ2 and mention every detail that they were used to that has changed. The fact is that there were some radical changes made, maybe too radical. See, civ2 took a great formula (civ1) and added some goodies on top of it. So people loved it. They loved it even though it presented nothing really new, and had some very serious flaws (ai cheating instead of ai strategy, no borders, to easy to win without any depth of strategy, not enough victory conditions, etc.)

Now I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I understand some of Coracle's complaints. The is no proper scenario editor, there are (thus) no proper scenarios to play, and there are many facets of gameplay that a civ2er will not be used to.

What Coracle and others don't appreciate is that at its core, civ3 is a vastly superior game. Firaxis was pushed to release it too early, but look at it this way: instead of waiting six months for a game we wanted, we got the game early and Firaxis spent six months altering in response to fans' suggestions. The scenarios will come. The multiplayer will come (civ2 didn't ship with multiplayer either, if I recall, nor did civ1. Remember civ, then winciv, the civ2, the civ2multi, then civ2gold?). In time this game will easily eclipse its predecessor. And people like Coracle will eventually understand that they simply like civ2 better and go back to playing that.

[dunk]

Personally, I think anyone who buys collector's editions and complains about them is somewhat dim.

I mean the box tells you what's inside.

I have seen some good ones. Pool of Radiance actually came with a novel.

I don't know why, but I think some people had their hopes up way too high. And now they come here and whine like toddlers.

I have fun playing Civ III. I could care less if it was dumbed down from AC. I have both games and I play them both.

[King of Rasslin]

I'm with dunk999 here. I play both Civ 3 and AC but I like AC more. I really miss making my own custom units

I mean, in Alpha centauri, you could have an 8-1-2 defended by a 1-5-2. Combined arms was really much better in Alpha Centauri. Although I do commend Civ 3 for giving weaker units a chance. Sometimes you can't get iron or saltpeter. That shouldn't be a death sentence.

[Cyclotron]

I never played AC, but in my mind Civ3 was a worthy successor to both Civ1 and Civ2 (which I played with a vengeance). The improvements vastly, vastly outweigh the losses. As for comparing it to SMAC, I have no way to judge... but I do own CTP and let me tell you, that really dissapointed me. Sure, there were a few things that interested me, but I'm really glad Civ3 turned out so well in a genre with those mediocre games.

Civ3 is not perfect, but it is definitly woth the money I paid for it... I await PTW.

PS, sucks for the people who bought LE. I never buy an LE.

[rhenric557]

I keep seeing everywhere that people gripe about how slow the game is, yes it can get a bit bogged down towards the late end of the game but doesn't anyone remember how slow CIV 2 was when it came out.

[Cyclotron]

Sheesh, Civ3 has never bogged down for me... of course, this computer is brand new. Civ2 actually got to about 30 seconds per turn on really huge maps, but I generally didn't play on huge maps.

[Alex]

Been there, done that.