Rate the game

[Dis]

as of today 4/29 post patch. Ignore what you thought of it in the past.

and should I reinstall it on my hard drive?

[Cesa]

Check my first post in the thread "Is it worth it?" for my opinion.

[notyoueither]

I say a solid 7 as it stands.

No scenarios and very difficult to add units, wonders, etc are a weakness as of 1.21. Other people can tell you about MP

SP is coming along very well. I would rate it higher if that were the only aspect of the game I was rating. I still get the feeling that things could be fleshed out better though. A revamped tech tree and some tweaks in the standard rules could get it to a 9 or 10. 10 is perfect though. Civ was perfect. Nothing else ever has been.

Very playable now. No major bugs reported, yet. Like the AI self destruct under Communism in 1.17.

I'd say install it and give it a go. What do you have to lose but some time you may have wasted in some other way?

[campmajor!]

I give it a six, but I still play 1.16f. My current game is keeping me from installing the latest patches. But it is nearly over, so I will probably download 1.21f soon.

[player1]

9, but they still need to work on it, to become a real classic.
(Civ1 & Civ2 would be 10 considering the times when they were made).

[Harovan]

8 points from me. And yes, it's worth to be installed again. 1.21f is a very good patch, although not yet perfect.

[MyOlde]

I rate it a 9. It's certainly the "best" game I've ever played. It's deep, complex, imaginative, re-playable, fun, thoughtful, and satisfying. I can't imagine anything better.

But I've not played a lot of games. I'd be interested to hear from everyone what they rank as equal to or better than Civ3 ... and why?

[Akka]

As NYE, I will give a solid 7 to Civ3. Add a full editor and it can goes up to 8.

But I've not played a lot of games. I'd be interested to hear from everyone what they rank as equal to or better than Civ3 ... and why?

It all depends if you talk about similar games, or games in general.

[Alex]

8, taking the last patch in consideration. All in all, there are room for improvements.

A better editor, MP et caetera. I have to say that I personally do not care about scenarios or MP, but I have to review Civ3 in an objective way, and the game that was first released was very far from being finished (although it was playable).

Now, the successive patches are "finishing" the game properly, and I'm sure that in a few months it will be a very good game.

[Cyclotron]

9. If you really want my opinions, do a post search.

[ChaotikVisions]

Gave it a 10, its a great game. Replayable, enjoyable, and much more. I've never really played a whole lot of mods for Civ games though, or played MP alot. I mostly just like seeing how things develop in each game, because its different each time, but thats just me.

[punkbass2000]

8.

I can guess who said '1'.

[Kyle]

If I hadn't played SMAC (and maybe CTP 2) in the time between Civ 2 and Civ 3, I would've given it a 10 probably. But, since I had, I gave it an 8.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

6

I've voted six.
The game has had me hooked up for about 6 months, but now I'm getting ... bored with it ... at this moment definitely and that's worse than other games that I've enjoyed (Civ1,Civ2,MOO2, CTP,AOE,AOE2).

I regret the lack of options (research lead/victory?, need more units/techs/governments,variable circonstances) and the one-way-road-to-victory concept of dealing with Civ3 at higher levels.

Civ3 introduced some new ideas that I like (culture, civ traits, UU) introduced a much better wargaming aspect ), but the game still is creatively unfinished: the introduced ideas could and really should have been worked out and implemented better. The game suffers from poorly diversified playing options, making al games ...

ALIKE.

No surprises, no real different situations. Different in details, yes, but never in game experience or in game situations.

Especially regretful is the fact that many older civ-esque games already provided more distinct playing options that the recent Civ3.

I'll play, yes, and probably enjoy a couple of them, but I'm not kidding myself, I'm definitely looking out for a richer game experience. Civ3 XP might provide that (if it offers MANY new features or units or options or ...), but I'm also confident that other companies will catch up on the civ idea/concept soon.

I'm looking out for those 'richer' inspired games that provide more depthness/addiction/surprising features etc.

Or the next civ XP/4.

But civ3 definitely won't make my top 5 recent (<10 years) game experiences. That's a fact.

AJ

[lockstep]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
8.

I can guess who said '1'.

Don't you think he would have told us why - at full length?