Tweet
There have been a number of critics, lately, whose reviews of Civilization III have been exemplary. It isn't, though, that I like to fly in the face of the status quo. Alternately, others say that the game lacks something its predecessors enjoyed. I'm not here to become their sycophant either. What I am here to do is offer my opinion, as unfortunately candid as it may be.
When I first aquired my copy of Civilization III, I was immediately impressed. The game seemed to shout "revival!" in large, bold letters and with a schnazzy new font. Unfortunately, for Sid Meier and Firaxis, that original notion was probably intended to be half the battle. On interta alone, few games can survive, and Civilization III is no different. While the graphics are somewhat improved, the sound calculated to unconsciously fill tiny voids in the ambiance otherwise glaring, and the unit database imbued with a whole range of "special" civilization-specific designs, I cannot help but cry out "is that all?!"
Did Civilization III truly live up to the legacy of Civilization II, and indeed, Alpha Centauri? While the later is remembered for being somewhat more complex, and at times, somewhat depressing in its atmosphere, it did bring in a "media" element previously lacking. Fantastic voice-overs and movie clips helped to define the vast scope of a brilliant technology tree and seemingly endless "wonder" list. Most of Alpha Centauri's ideas were new by default - it was on a planet other than Earth. Civilization III, however, takes its units, wonders, and tech tree directly from Civilization II with little - if any - difference whatsoever. Icons now move during combat. That is about the only change in a combat system which borrows Alpha Centari "status" rates, but neglects morale and the final "commando/hero" rung of its predecessor.
Civilization III blends the element of strategic resources and harvesting nicely, allowing civilizations to "sieze" slaves and direct the expansion of culture, trade, and luxury as never before. The game can, however, draw dependance on these resources beyond reason. There are times when even the most signifigant and heavy-handed campaign will yield nothing, and when the resources avaliable are so meager as to not be worth the effort to gain them. What good is an empire with one knight to its name when ten cities and twenty muskateers were sacrificed for the gain?
Then there's the fact that iron and horses seem randomly distributed, often not in great abundance. When one civilization - especially over an ocean - is heavily entrenched over one or two - the ONLY - iron squares, there is no hope.
This wouldn't be terrible, really. Why not trade or pay another civilization to offer iron or horses or saltpeter? Because the civilizations are ruthless. They expand without reason, often creating cities in the most random squares, calaculated - apparantly - to drive you towards war or hem in your peripheral - and often worthless - territory. But then this begs the question: if worthless, why spill more milk? Because it was mine, and because all those cities do is pump out military units soon to move against your workers. Apparantly, money means nothing in Civ III, for even the most impoverished empires can subdue the most wealthy. Gold can be spent for peace, though the computer civilizations will often turn upon you the very next chance they get. What's more: they will ally, all of them, against you, apparantly without method and only with madness. The civilizations with which you compete are ruthless and overly-matched, even on Chieftan level. One shouldn't have to be an expert to win on what is widly-accredited to be "the most insigifigant" of all difficulty settings.
Attacking units, even at regular levels, can often debunk and destroy elite or veteran units - sometimes without a scratch. The AI will construct cities in the most useless places, yet somehow "reaps a profit". When they sieze your cities, they will drain the population without cause and consistently sell every improvement already there. The AI seems also to have an endless stream of units despite being literally impoverished. There are moments when I have three thousand gold ahead of their paltry coffers, yet I can do nothing with it. I have heard much talk of "luberjacking". Perhaps this is the AI's method of madness?
Civilization III moves forward very little and back very much. Even the special units, one of the mainstay elements with which the game was sold, are hardly more than "special" or veteran-status units. In most cases, they are really not worth the hassel and of dubious value. Most appear to be almost exactly the same. There's also the issue of "realism". At a time when Europa Universalis really sets the standard for gaming companies "to know their stuff", we get a horsemen as the Iriquois and Chinese unit when Brave and Cho-Ku-No would have sufficed just the same. Despite the apparant "stereotypes", even the Brave is no different, in practice, than the German Panzer or Roman legionnaire.
All in all, Civilization III combines so many features as to make the game utterly unplayable.
When I first aquired my copy of Civilization III, I was immediately impressed. The game seemed to shout "revival!" in large, bold letters and with a schnazzy new font. Unfortunately, for Sid Meier and Firaxis, that original notion was probably intended to be half the battle. On interta alone, few games can survive, and Civilization III is no different. While the graphics are somewhat improved, the sound calculated to unconsciously fill tiny voids in the ambiance otherwise glaring, and the unit database imbued with a whole range of "special" civilization-specific designs, I cannot help but cry out "is that all?!"
Did Civilization III truly live up to the legacy of Civilization II, and indeed, Alpha Centauri? While the later is remembered for being somewhat more complex, and at times, somewhat depressing in its atmosphere, it did bring in a "media" element previously lacking. Fantastic voice-overs and movie clips helped to define the vast scope of a brilliant technology tree and seemingly endless "wonder" list. Most of Alpha Centauri's ideas were new by default - it was on a planet other than Earth. Civilization III, however, takes its units, wonders, and tech tree directly from Civilization II with little - if any - difference whatsoever. Icons now move during combat. That is about the only change in a combat system which borrows Alpha Centari "status" rates, but neglects morale and the final "commando/hero" rung of its predecessor.
Civilization III blends the element of strategic resources and harvesting nicely, allowing civilizations to "sieze" slaves and direct the expansion of culture, trade, and luxury as never before. The game can, however, draw dependance on these resources beyond reason. There are times when even the most signifigant and heavy-handed campaign will yield nothing, and when the resources avaliable are so meager as to not be worth the effort to gain them. What good is an empire with one knight to its name when ten cities and twenty muskateers were sacrificed for the gain?
Then there's the fact that iron and horses seem randomly distributed, often not in great abundance. When one civilization - especially over an ocean - is heavily entrenched over one or two - the ONLY - iron squares, there is no hope.
This wouldn't be terrible, really. Why not trade or pay another civilization to offer iron or horses or saltpeter? Because the civilizations are ruthless. They expand without reason, often creating cities in the most random squares, calaculated - apparantly - to drive you towards war or hem in your peripheral - and often worthless - territory. But then this begs the question: if worthless, why spill more milk? Because it was mine, and because all those cities do is pump out military units soon to move against your workers. Apparantly, money means nothing in Civ III, for even the most impoverished empires can subdue the most wealthy. Gold can be spent for peace, though the computer civilizations will often turn upon you the very next chance they get. What's more: they will ally, all of them, against you, apparantly without method and only with madness. The civilizations with which you compete are ruthless and overly-matched, even on Chieftan level. One shouldn't have to be an expert to win on what is widly-accredited to be "the most insigifigant" of all difficulty settings.
Attacking units, even at regular levels, can often debunk and destroy elite or veteran units - sometimes without a scratch. The AI will construct cities in the most useless places, yet somehow "reaps a profit". When they sieze your cities, they will drain the population without cause and consistently sell every improvement already there. The AI seems also to have an endless stream of units despite being literally impoverished. There are moments when I have three thousand gold ahead of their paltry coffers, yet I can do nothing with it. I have heard much talk of "luberjacking". Perhaps this is the AI's method of madness?
Civilization III moves forward very little and back very much. Even the special units, one of the mainstay elements with which the game was sold, are hardly more than "special" or veteran-status units. In most cases, they are really not worth the hassel and of dubious value. Most appear to be almost exactly the same. There's also the issue of "realism". At a time when Europa Universalis really sets the standard for gaming companies "to know their stuff", we get a horsemen as the Iriquois and Chinese unit when Brave and Cho-Ku-No would have sufficed just the same. Despite the apparant "stereotypes", even the Brave is no different, in practice, than the German Panzer or Roman legionnaire.
All in all, Civilization III combines so many features as to make the game utterly unplayable.
Comment