What's good about Civ3 then?

[MarkG]

that's why i said 98%

[Solver]

I think Firaxis has already stated that PtW will require Civ 3.

[Capt Dizle]

Greed. Well, that will limit their market somewhat. And you can be sure they will put out a bundle at some point where you can get both for less than the price of either. I hope everyone waits till then to buy and sends a message that the community is tired of beta products.

There isn't enough in PTW that shouldn't have been in the original Civ3 to justify an expansion, you see, they are still behind the development curve.

[Solver]

Jimmy, now this really smells like a troll. Though sure there will be a Civ 3 Golden Edition or something, with both original and PTW in it, for a price less than separately bought.

[MarkG]

yeah greed....
if only we were in cuba.....

[Capt Dizle]

I have no problem with folks making money but comon guys, if the game had been finished when released, the expansion would be more than it is gonna be, you gotta admit that!

They would have had more time to work on it.

And it is not a troll, if Firaxis can get away with dumping an unfinished product on us this time, guess what we get next time?

But, to put us back on topic, Civ3 has several gameplay concepts that are better than previous games, especially toning down air power. Great leaders is a half step forward, strategic resources is a plus, though poorly implemented, and there are a host of other minor things that everyone who loves TBS should see. I just recommend folks wait and but the bargin bin version.

[MarkG]

jimmy, the market is never wrong
and the market(with very little space for a tbs game) says that civ3 is in the top 20 selling games for 7 months now with no price drop. no brand name, no marketing strategy and no conspiracy theory could achieve this. you cant fool so many people for such a long time which means that civ3 is NOT an unfinished product

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by MarkG

Not good

expansion packs are not sequels. they are expansion packs. the word expansion requires something to exist so that it can be expanded

Oops. Meant not good odds. Of course they'll charge. Of course you'll have to already own Civ3. And of course, I'll gladly play it.

Well, at least 98.743% sure.

[Capt Dizle]

Mark, if this is level of TBS that we can expect in the future then so be it. Other great games and game genres have died.

[Solver]

Jimmy, you can forever argue on whether Civ 3 was finished or not. I say it was finished with the first patch!

Markos, you still consider Civ 3 being in Top 20 good, while it should easily be in the Top 10.

[MarkG]

well, solver, according to MY personal version of paradise, civ2 SHOULD still be in the top 20 and civ3 at #1. does that make a difference though?

[Solver]

Civ 2 can barely hold its own in Top 20 games of all time... does that make a difference .

[rwprice]

Originally posted by MarkG

30£ for 20 hours is 1.5£/hour

i think movie tickets in the UK is at around 4£
that's at best 2£/hour

you should complain about ticket prices every time you go to see a movie

I think this is the most logical way to look at the question of value for a video game. Here in the US, you can rent a movie for about $4, which is usually $2 per hour. If I can get that kind of value from a game, then I figure I'm doing pretty well. Anything more than that just shows what a good entertainment value games really are.

[vondrack]

for me, Civ3 is a great game...

Getting back to the question starting this thread, I will join ranks of those that raise thumbs up for Civ3.

I spent countless hours playing Civ2 (although not thousands, as some... ), winning maybe 30+ times on the King level. Never felt like playing a tougher game, though, as I have always considered myself a casual player, just enjoying a game now and then, not playing it as a full time job. Mostly space victories, to be exact, as I somewhat prefer peaceful empire building to extensive warmongering.

I have spent at least 200+ hours playing Civ3 so far, starting from the original release through all the patches... My final impression is that Civ3 is way better than Civ2 and I am unlikely to ever get back to Civ2. Yes, it is more difficult to win, as hard polished, straightforward winning strategies used in Civ2 DO NOT WORK anymore... which was driving me crazy in the beginning, right. I had my favourite ways of winning (based on the fact that there were certain overpowered wonders in Civ2) - and these were no longer effective!

But as soon as you realize that you are simply facing a better balanced game (although NOT a PERFECTLY balanced game), where there are less shortcuts leading to victory, you start enjoying it more and more - just as I did. Civ3 is giving me a lot more varied games that Civ2 ever was. Yes, I abandon certain games soon - starting in the midst of a desert is not fun for me. Losing a key city early (not because a game would be flawed and cheat me in any way, but because my strategy was to hope for luck and say, build a wonder instead of a strong garrison...) is not fun. But my winning games (three of them so far - a 1.16f game with Romans, a 1.17f with Egyptians, and recently a 1.21f game with Greeks) were won based on careful approach, not luck. I did not take too many chances and played safe and strong - it worked!

There are great concepts in the game - for me, the whole culture thing is fine, flipping included (I do not know if it is just me, but cities tend to flip to me, rather than to my enemies... ). Many people complaining of the culture flips do not realize that very often, if not always, the culture flips work FOR the human player - especially speaking of the so-called Settler Diarrhea... effectively countering this, I admit, annoying "feature" of the Civ3 AI. Those ridiculous outposts built "inside" my perimeter almost always flip to me eventually, without forcing me to go into a war to conquer them.

The concept of resources and luxuries is great and adds a lot of complexity to the game. The trading and diplomacy system, although sometimes a bit unpredictable, works great for me for most of the time - at least, I have been able to secure great trades/treaties with it (while suffering humiliating defeats when using it in a wrong way)! Forming an everybody-against-the-one alliance against the strongest civ that has just surprisingly invaded my soil is a real adrenaline booster. It adds a lot of excitement to the game.

The AI is a tough opponent for me (playing on the Regent level, standard maps). As I have said before, I do not consider myself a hardcore civ gamer. Especially, I do not enjoy forging "winning" strategies that do not resemble reality. I know there are working strategies that simply tear the AI down, I have read about various approaches that lead to easy victory even on the Deity level. But, you know, I do not play this game to just win it at all costs. I wish to win it my way, enjoying the empire building in such a way that it resembles "reality" (as I percept it in this game) at least a bit... I want to finish the game with an empire running as smoothly as a new clock, full of happy citizens. And with this approach, Civ3 plays great.

I would even sometimes rate the AI as "cunning". I have experienced AI civs doing very smart things (and yes, I have experienced AI civs doing very silly things, too). Ganging up on a weakened civ, effectively dividing its land between themselves (yes, sometimes the weakened civ was mine... ). Ganging up on the strongest civ, weakening or even destroying it, effectively preventing it from winning (yes, sometimes the civ prevented to win was mine... ). Correct me, if I am wrong, but this is how the HUMAN players are supposed to play, isn't it?

Yes, the corruption and waste is annoying, but playable (now, after the 1.21f patch - it has been more of a nuisance before, but it has always been playable), effectively countering the need for (and yes, the possibility of) gigantic empires that inevitably lead to the late game tedium... yes, the AI settlers running around like chicken, building cities on the strangest places, are annoying a bit... but I do not agree with those that consider this an inability or foolishness of the AI. I have conquered LOTS of such cities and have been able to nurture them to thriving 15+ cities with almost all the possible city improvements. It takes time, but even with difficult desert or mountainous areas, you can do it later in the game, in the industrial and modern eras (well... perhaps tundra areas being an exception proving the rule... ). Nobody would probably complain of that it is not possible to build up a metropolis in high mountains in the real world... but most people would agree that there have always been relatively small outposts built in difficult terrain for the sole purpose of holding the surrounding lands - and that is what happens in Civ3. You build cities that are actually adding to your GNP and housing the majority of your nation... and you are building "cities" that simply make sure you hold the surrounding lands (which is likely to have strategic resources or luxuries in it). It is that simple - people that do not get this are missing an important point.

A common complaint found in the forums is that the combat system is flawed and needs a major rewrite. I do not think so - while I have lost some encounters rather unexpectedly (and yes, it did drive me crazy at the time), for the most part, the results are very reasonable and I am suffering very light losses if playing carefully. Frankly speaking, I almost always manage to hold my opponents back, even though they have vastly superior armies, speaking of the number of units... the key is that I always do my best to be technologically superior... I lose one unit of mine to five to ten of theirs... sometimes the ratio is even better. Speaking of this - people demanding that the AI should upgrade more frequently are, IMHO, right. I really think it should - the AI still seems a bit weak to me if waging a war (but then, if Soren improves even this, there would probably be people complaining of the game difficulty being too high... you never appeal to everybody... ).

Well, I do mind that my bombers/artillery are not able to sink enemy ships or finish surface units off, right. That should be possible, even if difficult. But nobody is perfect - Civ3 is just a game... and I have never played a game I would be 100% satisified with.

I would give Civ3 at least 90% - and considering the patches, the game continually improves, adding more percents to the overall score. Firaxis is listening to players, although many state the contrary. Words like greed, beta test, corporate thievery and the like show very little knowledge about how the real world works. Being a businessman myself, I do understand that there are many things influencing the game development. For me, I am quite happy with how the game plays now. And with every new patch, I am even happier - the difference between the original game and current 1.21f is significant. I would never dare to say that Firaxis simply fixed what they "screwed" in the original release (although there were things in the original release that definitely needed fixes). I would rather suggest that they responded to players disliking this, looking for that...

This is my opinion on Civ3 and I am sure that not everybody is going to like it just as much as I do. What always surprises me that there are a few players considering their opinions the only "truth", daring to rate this or that feature as crap, unfinished, ultimately failing etc. Guys, why don't you simply switch to a different game? Do you really think that repeating your negative feedback in every thread, you are actually helping something/somebody? I played SO many games rated high in gaming magazines I eventually found boring or not fun FOR ME... and I would never dare to say they were crap. I would never dare to discourage others from trying them... as others might prefer different gaming experience, liking what I disliked. _I_ simply did not like the games, they did not suit _my_ playing style and therefore, I do not play them anymore.

Conclusion: I consider Civ3 worth my money (and I paid a lot more than 50 bucks... almost 100 as I wanted the tin box that was not sold here in Europe). I strongly believe that most people will find the game very good and fun. Just do NOT expect it to be very Civ2-like. The principle is still the same, but the gameplay is quite different and you will have to adapt yourself to it.

Accept my apologies for the long post, but I do not post that often and when I finally do, it just takes some space... Have fun!

[Theseus]

Bravo.