CIV3, Better then the rest?

[Ex.plode]

Personally I think CIV3 is the best game of this franchise, I've been playing CIV pretty religiously since CIV2 and I find that CIV4 and CIV5 are just to different for me.


Hopefully i'm not the only CIV3 fanboy out here


thoughts?



not sure if I used the correct then in the title /english noob.

 

[Midnight-Blue766]

This is a Civ3 forum: of course everyone's going to say this is the best: likewise, if I go onto the CIV forums and say CIV is the best game, then everyone would agree with me.

 

[Ex.plode]

This is a Civ3 forum: of course everyone's going to say this is the best: likewise, if I go onto the CIV forums and say CIV is the best game, then everyone would agree with me.

Soz, was not sure where to post this.

 

[Bowsling]

Soz, was not sure where to post this.

Don't worry, why Civ3 is better than the rest is one of the most common topics on this forum.

I have played every game in the series except CivI, and Civ3 is my favorite. Part of it is "nostalgia" if you will, as it was the first Civ game that I played.

The graphics are also another big factor. They look nice, they don't look like they came straight out if a children's movie like CivIV, and they don't slow the game down and take away from the gameplay like in CivV.

Don't worry about your English (I didn't realize you weren't a native speaker until the note at the end of your post). It's better than the English of a lot of native speakers on this forum.

 

[Ataxerxes]

You're not the only fanboy, don't worry. There was a poll in OT a few months ago about best Civ game. IV won, but III challenged V for second place. Given it's age, it is the best of the series. I like both III and IV but have avoided V. Don't like Steam and a lot of people hate V passionately, so I was discouraged from spending my money.

I tried II but I dislike food being used to support workers and I can't really see the tiles clearly for what I should be doing. But I don't know enough about the game to comment.

A lot of the III players tried IV but went back to III. III and IV are, as you said, very different games.

 

[Ex.plode]

Yeah, I was really dissapointed when I loaded up CIV4, I was expecting a very different game.


Good to know some people still love CIV3 with me

 

[RedKi-rr]

I played all civs in the serie. I love them all, except civ5. As for me - civ4 is the best one, but its graphics and slowness are rather annoying. So, I would prefere civ4 with graphics of civ3.
As for me every civ from 1-4 has its own feature. In civ3 warring is rather interesting, the possibility to catch up is good too. But civ3 is the most timeconsuming, and this is the other edge. I saw Moosinger's Sid game...it was about 450 hours! per one game! I myself spent once about 70 hours per game...In civ4 it takes about 8-10 in average. When I start sologame I can't interrupt myself...%)

 

[Ex.plode]

I played all civs in the serie. I love them all, except civ5. As for me - civ4 is the best one, but its graphics and slowness are rather annoying. So, I would prefere civ4 with graphics of civ3.
As for me every civ from 1-4 has its own feature. In civ3 warring is rather interesting, the possibility to catch up is good too. But civ3 is the most timeconsuming, and this is the other edge. I saw Moosinger's Sid game...it was about 450 hours! per one game! I myself spent once about 70 hours per game...In civ4 it takes about 8-10 in average. When I start sologame I can't interrupt myself...%)

Yeah, it's insanely time consuming


I just didn't like the way CIV4 felt, the controls got all wonky and the game changed to much for me


maybe I should give CIV5 a try

 

[Ataxerxes]

I played all civs in the serie. I love them all, except civ5. As for me - civ4 is the best one, but its graphics and slowness are rather annoying. So, I would prefere civ4 with graphics of civ3.
As for me every civ from 1-4 has its own feature. In civ3 warring is rather interesting, the possibility to catch up is good too. But civ3 is the most timeconsuming, and this is the other edge. I saw Moosinger's Sid game...it was about 450 hours! per one game! I myself spent once about 70 hours per game...In civ4 it takes about 8-10 in average. When I start sologame I can't interrupt myself...%)

HOF games are different from regular games in terms of time spent. Every move has to be carefully considered.

Funny thing is, preferred map size will really influence how time-consuming III is compared to IV. I find on large maps III will be faster because IV can take a long time between turns in the late game. On smaller size maps IV will be faster because you have fewer cities than in III.

 

[RedKi-rr]

Actually I didn't play at huge maps, but I think that it takes a long between turns in Civ4 due to its graphics and engine. I hate it. I want to play mainly and not to see nice pictures...On other hand in civ2 the engine is very outdated)) The most exiting thing in civ4 is diplomacy. It's more difficult and thick tool than in other civs.
BtW, I spent 70-80 hours in usual game...And without micro at all. But I should poit out that it was with 30 civs. Something like the game in The Rat's thread. After 1/3 of the game all become clear, but you want to see that winning sign..So you play it till end. After a couple of such games I never play with 30 civs and huge maps. Maximum is standard map (in any civ1-4).

 

[Theov]

Dear Ex.plode,
there are people still posting on these forums 10 years after the game came out for a reason.
Welcome to the forums. (insert the playing band, the dancing smilie guy, the smilies cheering with beer pints and the balloons)

 

[Ex.plode]

Dear Ex.plode,
there are people still posting on these forums 10 years after the game came out for a reason.
Welcome to the forums. (insert the playing band, the dancing smilie guy, the smilies cheering with beer pints and the balloons)

Touche indeed, should have thought of that

 

[Schweet]

I recently got CivIII complete for a few dollars having never played it since PTW. What a revelation, it's like a whole new game and feels a lot more balanced. It's definitely my favorite of the series.

 

[Das Boat]

When I bought Civ IV I ended up coming right back to Civ III... it is so much better.

 

[Ex.plode]

I recently got CivIII complete for a few dollars having never played it since PTW. What a revelation, it's like a whole new game and feels a lot more balanced. It's definitely my favorite of the series.

It's definitley well balanced, that's what appeals to me the most. Aside from the ease of use

When I bought Civ IV I ended up coming right back to Civ III... it is so much better.

Haha, same.

 

[Moosezilla]

It seems like civ3 is best, when will ver.2.0 come out?

 

[Bowsling]

When they release the source code.

 

[Strong Reaction]

Yes, since this is the Civ 3 forum I imagine most will agree with the OP. I bought Civ 4 Gold Edition a while back, played a few games, won, and its been sitting on my shelf since. I recently decided to give it another chance. There are a lot of things I dont like about it which include but not limited to

Simplifying the combat i.e.
+ no defensive values
+ Rochambeau effect: spear-man beats horse, horse beats etc. etc.
+ Artillery/bombard units are no longer support units: a catapult attacking and occupying a city is silly, man you need boots on the ground.

For some reason battles I don't find the battles as nail biting also the pursuit and success of building wonders seems to be not as exciting. It doesn't feel like an accomplishment when I do build a wonder.

Not to mention the addition of religion, it irks me; I just don't have any interest in any of the religions nor do they run congruent with some/most of the civs that I like. The Aztec's founding Judaism or any number of similar scenarios

related thought:

Anyone notice how very similar Rise of Nations is to Civ 4 graphically and conceptually? Intro of civics, work boats, and many other similarities. In my mind RON is Civ 4 in real time. I do believe, maybe its common knowledge, a few civ designers jumped ship and RON is their vision of what CIV should be.



disclaimer: Although I do like RON, I prefer Civ to real-time "strategy" games.

 

[Ex.plode]

Yes, since this is the Civ 3 forum I imagine most will agree with the OP. I bought Civ 4 Gold Edition a while back, played a few games, won, and its been sitting on my shelf since. I recently decided to give it another chance. There are a lot of things I dont like about it which include but not limited to

Simplifying the combat i.e.
+ no defensive values
+ Rochambeau effect: spear-man beats horse, horse beats etc. etc.
+ Artillery/bombard units are no longer support units: a catapult attacking and occupying a city is silly, man you need boots on the ground.

For some reason battles I don't find the battles as nail biting also the pursuit and success of building wonders seems to be not as exciting. It doesn't feel like an accomplishment when I do build a wonder.

Not to mention the addition of religion, it irks me; I just don't have any interest in any of the religions nor do they run congruent with some/most of the civs that I like. The Aztec's founding Judaism or any number of similar scenarios

related thought:

Anyone notice how very similar Rise of Nations is to Civ 4 graphically and conceptually? Intro of civics, work boats, and many other similarities. In my mind RON is Civ 4 in real time. I do believe, maybe its common knowledge, a few civ designers jumped ship and RON is their vision of what CIV should be.



disclaimer: Although I do like RON, I prefer Civ to real-time "strategy" games.

The thing that turned me off from it was a combo of the extreme changes, both graphically and gameplay-wise. but also the way you managed your civ and units just seemed off to me.

 

[Bowsling]

They fixed the catapult thing that you mentioned in Beyond the Sword. So siege unis have a damage cap, and therefore can't kill units.

Unfortunately for the game, they did not mirror the AI to fix that, so you would have an invasion force of six catapults whittle your defenders down but not be able to finish them.