strategy game of the year?

[pat46]

hi

i been holding off buying civ 3 due to the fact that user reviews vary so much from the game site reviews..


i've notice it;s been patched a lot since initial release.......does it now deserve the kudos that the game review sites have given it.

i'm kind of torn between this and disciples2 ....

is it a fun game now and worth 39.95?


pat

[asleepathewheel]

Re: strategy game of the year?

Originally posted by pat46
i've notice it;s been patched a lot since initial release.......does it now deserve the kudos that the game review sites have given it.

i'm kind of torn between this and disciples2 ....

is it a fun game now and worth 39.95?

I would say get it, 40 bucks isn't bad and I've found it to be an enjoyable game. Of course, take what I say with a grain of salt, I am a fanboy. i haven't played disciples2, so I can't compare. The game has been patched a lot, which has improved it quite a lot. So I would say get it.

Is MP important to you? If you want Civ3 as an MP game, I would just wait till November to get the expansion pack with it.

have you played the other civ games? Alpha Centauri? If you're thinking its a combination of the two games, you'll be disappointed (as a lot of people here are). But, to me anyways, it is a nice improvement on the series. Changes: added resources/strategic and luxury and streamlined trade (no more caravans). Civs now have more specific identies and tendencies and a unique unit (rather than before just having different colored standards) Added culture, which firms up your boundaries, and other things that are nice improvements. I'm sure others will disagree with me, but 40 bucks is a pretty decent price for the game, I've spent many many, too many hours playing it and I still find it challenging.

[Stuie]

I've been enjoying Civ3 since the 1.21f patch came out. Definitely has that just-one-more-turn feeling. The major complaints around here seem to be of the "It's not Civ2" or "It's not SMAC" variety. Well, it's not. I also wouldn't go back to either of those games now that I have Civ3.

I think the game review sites that actually take time to review the games (ala gamesdomain) can be trusted to deliver level-headed reviews that are not biased by expectations of what Civ3 would or should or could be. So if there's a site you trust for reviews, trust their review of Civ3. It's not loaded with the baggage that comes with player comments on this site.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Civ3 is Ok to good. I beg to differ from Stuie on his opinion of gaming mags opinions. THe game looks and feels wonderful on first and second go 'rounds. To my mind it does not have the just one more turn syndrome about a month into playing it as the previous incarnations of civ and civ like titles did.

But since the game looks good plays good initially etc. this is what the game mags have latched onto and the reason why the game got glowing praise. I doubt they had the resources or time to delve into the game to the extent that some of the folks here have that have issue with it.

The game plays well in the early parts of the game i.e. Ancient eras. But starts to bog down in the Industrial era and becomes a chore in the Modern era.

Jus My opinion tho'.

I'ld prolly give it a 6 or 7 out of 10.

[Laiquendi]

read the "Where did Civ III go wrong?" thread. =p

[Velociryx]

Hey man, I've played both, and would give both about a 7.

Both games have good points about them, and both have things that are exceedingly frustrating once the shine of newness wears off. Depends on what you are looking for.

Civ3: Highpoints include an intuitive interface and a structure you're familiar with if you've played any of the other games in the series, this will have almost zero learning curve. You can jump right in and get started.

Great, outstanding, superb AI. Best I've seen in the genre. Soren did an awesome job.

Some new features, Culture and "Strategic" Resources to play with.

Civ3: Lowpoints include relatively poor implementation OF the new features (Culture and "Strategic" Resources (how a thing can be strategic when it's prone to simply vanish out from under you with no warning escapes me, as does the fact that you have absolutely no way of knowing or measuring how much of a given resource you have, in total). Combat has been streamlined and simplified to the point where it's sometimes silly (done, per the designers, to help balance out civs who get screwed on resources....off the top of my head, I can think of at least three different ways to do it that would have maintained at least some integrity of the combat system, but that is another story...don't get me started on that rant! lol), and the tech trees are broken out into four little "tech shrubs" which pretty much nullifies any truly strategic choice in research.

Your mileage on this game will vary, depending on how much depth and strategy you are looking for, in-game. It's the prettiest civ game, and that shine obviously wowed the folks at the magazines, who have all of a day or two to spend on reviews, but once you get past the spit and polish, you find a simplifed version of the game. If that's okay with you, if you don't want or need a deep strategic experience, you'll get a lot of mileage out of this game. The more demanding you are for a deep, strategic experience, the higher your level of disappointment will be.

Disciples II: Lush, striking graphics, awesome musical score, GREAT, engaging missions are the up-sides to this game.

The downsides include: Way too simplified combat system....it's like Homm3 with a tenth of the options. Your interactions with the main map and stuff on it is limited (again, it's like Homm-Lite).

The missions, while fun, are frustrating. You will do a lot of reloading from the last autosave. One wrong move and you die.

Usually horribly.

If you have the patience for that, or don't mind starting out on the easiest level, you'll enjoy it. (and I have to admit, the final "Empire" mission was a masterpiece....I had to fight a delaying action against an army I COULD NOT defeat, in order to save up mana and haul my best guy--the 9th Level Mage, "Velociryx"--back to the endangered capitol for the big, final battle...awesome, edge of your seat gaming that had me up till sunrise).

-=Vel=-

[Solver]

I got to agree with Stuie, except that I enjoyed the game ever since the first patch came out, I don't mod that much. The original game, however, had a few bad glitches and a completely unplayable Modern Age.

Vel, very good points, but not that I agree this time . Especially, I wonder why do you think the Culture is implemented badly? I find the implementation of it good. And I have nothing wrong with the simplified combat, either. And if my Riflemen get beaten by Longbowmen, not that bad .

[Velociryx]

Hiya Solver!

I don't mind the fact that cultural strength is the basis for borders. IMO, that's as good a measure as any, so sure...why not?

The thing that gets me is the WAY you go about accumulating culture points.

You just build stuff and sit on your hands...it's on auto-pilot.

Worse, the stuff you build (temples and libraries) has other built in game effects that would prompt you to build them anyway (who doesn't build temples and libraries??).

They had an opportunity, with the advent of Culture to make a whole new line of buildings (a thing we're LONG overdue for in Civ, IMO) that specialize in culture production and enhancement (with the possibility of increasing trade--tourism--income.

Culture could have diplomatic impacts (as it does in the real world). Could dramatically increase your trade income (tourism...not represented in the game at all, and yet very much a side effect of high culture).

Minor wonders that are purely culturally related

Great Artists - Akin to Great Leaders, but generated culturally.

Culture could have been another form of currency, where at certain thresholds, you can influence world events on the strength of your Culture.

As it stands now, you can occassionally prompt an enemy city to revert to your side, and watch your borders grow further out.

Not bad, but...kinna predictable, and the fact that the culture generating buildings have other primary in-game functions makes it feel rather "tacked on to the existing framework" as opposed to being its own, vibrant and robust in-game force.

Just my $0.02

-=Vel=-

[Solver]

Great Artists - I've read that post quite some ago, and think it's outstanding.

Diplomacy - it *does* have a diplomatic effect. If the other civ is in awe of your culture, they're much more likely to agree - it is so, really. Tourism seems like a nice idea, though.

Temples, you say? Culture is one of the things that change the game compared to Civ 2, and it surely changed my overall strategies. For me now, Temples are very high on priority lists, even if there's no unhappiness going on. Consider: my last game, on Regent, I started near 2 luxury resources, Worker got them connecting as I expanded. And still I built the early Temples, to get more culture. In my games my culture is always the strongest, and I like it .

[Fitz]

Pat, I would say the game is worth $40, provided you understand a few things about the game. A primary one that will stop you from coming here screaming "I got ripped off" would be understanding how combat works, so if by random number generation your tank gets killed when attacking a musketman (as an example) you know that there was a chance of it occuring and don't think about how "unrealistic" it is. (edit: you may want to browse the forum here to understand combat)

Whether or not you get long term enjoyment out of the game really does depend on what you are looking for in the game. But if you can spare the cash, you'll probably get at least 1-3 months worth out of it, and even if no more than that it's $40 well spent in my book.

I personally am one of the "previous conceptions" players from having played Alpha Centauri, but even so I think this is a great short term game, once I got over my initial disapointments about the differences.

Vel, I think that culture only buildings may have been too weak to stand on their own. I certainly would build one, the cheapest maintainance, and then put the rest off until there was nothing else to build, unless culture was a much different and more powerful system. OTOH, I would like to have more buildings.

[SpencerH]

It may be worth $40 dollars. If I had something else in mind to play (WCIII, Medieval war) I might wait and pick it up later for 20-25.

[August Borms]

Civ3 alone... nah, but Civ3 + the expansion pack (scenario editor, multiplayer) has the potential to be great!

I wouldn't call it strategy game of the year though.... Europa Universalis 2 is the only game that deserves that title

[Panag]

Re: strategy game of the year?

Originally posted by pat46


hi

i been holding off buying civ 3 due to the fact that user reviews vary so much from the game site reviews..


i've notice it;s been patched a lot since initial release.......does it now deserve the kudos that the game review sites have given it.

i'm kind of torn between this and disciples2 ....

is it a fun game now and worth 39.95?


pat

hi ,

no doubts , buy it , its worth every penney , ............

have a nice day

[Coracle]

Re: strategy game of the year?

Originally posted by pat46


hi

i been holding off buying civ 3 due to the fact that user reviews vary so much from the game site reviews..


i've notice it;s been patched a lot since initial release.......does it now deserve the kudos that the game review sites have given it.

i'm kind of torn between this and disciples2 ....

is it a fun game now and worth 39.95?


pat

Nope. Wait until it hits the $14.95 bin.

Without scenarios it is always a rip-off.

There just aren't that many important interesting decisions to make with Civ 3; too much tedium. Try Europa Universalis II.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Assur
Civ3 alone... nah, but Civ3 + the expansion pack (scenario editor, multiplayer) has the potential to be great!

I wouldn't call it strategy game of the year though.... Europa Universalis 2 is the only game that deserves that title

DAMN STRAIGHT!!

As for Civ 3, IF you can get it for 35 bucks and it includes EVERYTHING such as MP, new scenarios, scenario building, new civs, etc., well, maybe.