How good a game will you say civ3 is??? (1-10)

[Charles]

Now I dont want everyone to get the wrong idea...

"all these messages from the same person, why is he so bitter at a half decent game, that seems to be doing fine"

Give me a chance to explain.......

First of all, I'm speaking for a large group of people, and second the things that I'm *****ing about are facts, not something I make up just to *waste* more time explaining myself to these people who rate the game above 5, and then complain because SOME people dont do the same, its bullsh_t.

let me make it clear, Civilization III *IS* a good game as far as game standards go. But! The areas that I personally find important, as does the "Mod Community"... are fouled, and I guess alot of us designers are somewhat **insulted** that Firaxis could do this to us, after such a good series of games.
And our dedication as fans all over the world! I could get used to the fact that the game has "slow performance" if we could only properly design scenarios again!

Let me ask all of you this ... if you were a game designer and 65% of your consumers where un-happy at one of your creations, wouldn't it bother you?

Dont get me wrong...Firaxis' are an incredible team of designers and programmers.. Which I guess, is all the more reason for us to be pissed!

Charles.

 

[Dario]

Best game i have ever played in a long time...

Big improvement over civ2 wich was a big improvement over civ1, wich was the best strategy game to date.

I give it a 9.999 because i don't think is the perfect game. In this logic, i give civ1 9.9 and civ2 9.99...i hope i will be giving civ4 a 9.9999

 

[Grotius]

Post-patch, this game is a 9 out of 10. I love the new stuff: culture, strategic resources, luxuries, civ-specific units. Post-patch, I love the way air combat works. The AI is a big improvement over past iterations of the Civ franchise. The game is a challenge, and it's hugely addictive.

Sure, there are some things I'd change or fix, but they're mostly minor. This game is great fun.

 

[FullofHoles]

In my estimation, Civ3 accomplishes one very important thing that Civ1 could not. Civ3 forces me to shut off the computer and leave the house. In terms of enriching my social life, I would have to award it a facetious 10/10.

Thank god Civ3 isn't a great game. Civ1 destroyed an entire half-year of my life. A half-year that I do not remember at all. Civ3 cannot do that at all.

Looking back on 2001, I would have to say that the greatest thing that happened to me was when burglars broke into my house and stole all of my computer game CDs. (This paragraph is not facetious, losing those CDs turned out to be a good thing. I still hope that the burglars die fiery painful slow deaths, but I benefitted from their "visit".)

 

[Charles]

Originally posted by Dario
Best game i have ever played in a long time...

Big improvement over civ2 wich was a big improvement over civ1, wich was the best strategy game to date.

I give it a 9.999 because i don't think is the perfect game. In this logic, i give civ1 9.9 and civ2 9.99...i hope i will be giving civ4 a 9.9999

I can appreciate the fact that you and the post following yours are that of appreciation for the game in question. But you and the select few minority of the Civ Community can rate it as high as you like, but it still doesn't change the *fact* that there are existing problems with the design, and that many many features have been neglected to suit a modern marketing majority of play station / nintendo era kids. Simply, your are either easily amused or your no fan. But merely someone who purchases a game because it is there. I on the other hand only purchase a game when it appeals to my better sense of quality and judgement, otherwise I don't have $40-$100 to throw away on garbage. And in my opinion (which will never change) is that Civilization 2 is still far better!

Charles.

 

[tetley]

I give Civ3 a 6/10. It's just not THAT fun, and it takes too blasted long to play!!

I'm playing Empire Earth now, and I give it a 7/10 (at least, for single player). Not that much better, but it has one huge advantage over Civ3: EE lets me have a life! I can play EE for 2 hours and put it down and go do something else. What's 2 hours in Civ3--like 5 turns?

 

[BlackTriad]

Even post 1.16f

6 out of 10 and to me the game will NEVER get a 10 of 10. Only a game that has been shown to AT LEAST have been properly play tested BEFORE hitting the shelves will get that score.

Do not believe the "raving" mag reviews. Remember that they DEPEND on companies like Infrogames to PAY them.

Corruption Model flawed and pulls civ far from where it was. Civ WAS about expansion now it is not though the AI has no problems expanding far beyond its capitol at ANY difficulty.

Courthouse and Police Station reduce waste and corruption by exactly and only 1 shield and 1 arrow each no matter how far from a capitol they are. It's not even worth it to build them.

From Depotism to Democrocy (Not including Communism) Corruption effects are exactly the same.

Pollution model-this is bugged and a city will ALWAYS produce AT LEAST 2 pollution icons even if you reduce it to size 1 and destroy all pollution making improvements.


In later stages the game takes FAR too long to take a turn especially on a huge map and only 8 civs.

And many MANY more faults just look around these forums alone.

Unlikely combat results seem to happen often. We are not wrong here Firaxis, how often was it complained about in Civ 2?

What happened to the good 'ol Microprose team? Every game I ever played of theirs was HIGH QUALITY. From F-15 Strike Eagle to Falcon 4.0 and Civ2 they pumped out VERY good games with VERY few bugs. And why was Darklands never pursued futher? I consider it one of the absolute BEST games of all time despite its (at the time) numerous faults.

I am extrmely dissapointed and I will miss the most creative team to ever put their hands on a keyboard

 

[Cruiser]

7 out of 10.

Too bad. It should have been a ten.

Besides graphics, which we expected to be better than Civ II given the years we waited for Civ III, there are a lot of good points:

The AI now MASSES attack forces. Waves of catapults don't attack you. All units in a stack are NOT destroyed if one is. Borders are a very nice touch.

But there are so many problems! Such as:

Strange and innacurate unit values.

Poor use of navies and too low-rated naval units.

Cheating AI.

Culture flipping and disappearing garrisons.

A stubborn Diplomatic AI.

An Espionage/Intelligence option that is far too expensive to be worth using.

Too much corruption.

Lack of Historical realism.

Tremendously long periods between turns.

Much too rare strategic resources.

No Cheat Mode or scenario builder.

Great Leader units are of minimal use in combat.

An Editor that doesn't even let you zoom in on a map.

And so much more.


WARNING: Civ II lasted so long due to user-created Scenarios. Firaxis had better find a way to let us make them for Civ III or interest in the game will drop off sooner than they might think.

 

[Exile_Ian]

Well everyone is entitled to their opinion but I'm not ashamed to say I love this game.

I'm not a newbie by any means having played strategy games in general for a couple of decades (!) and Civ2 especially for many a long night.

Maybe I didn't have unrealistic expectations (having lived thru a certain amount of dissappointment over Sim City 3000 for many of the reasons people mention in regard to Civ3). For me though, Civ2 had become a little stale, and the improvements in Civ3 (in terms of game depth) were enough to refire my enthusiasm.

I measure a games success not so much in how it matches against some unreal 'perfect game' but in terms of how much time do I spend playing it, and how high is that 'oh just 10 more minutes' feeling. By those criteria, Civ3 scores very high. I've played (I estimate) something like 5 full games, and about 15 partial games (where I quit because I wanted to test out alternative strategies), spread over something in excess of 200 playing hours.

Sure there's things I'd like changed - such as better editing facilities so I could put into action some scenario ideas I have - removal of a few annoying 'features', such as the unkillable Spearman; inconsistancies in trading; lack of real zoom features; difficulty of tracking trade agreements etc. etc. All minor gripes in the scheme of things though.

I also would base my score on the potential for Civ3, because I have confidence that there are more improvements to come. Firaxis have been very responsive to our opinions, and despite the farce related to the incorrect patch release, they show signs of fixing the more obvious shortcomings soon. (Compare this to SC3000 and the attitude of Maxis and now tell me Firaxis don't listen!). Clearly, Firaxis are not going to rush into a Civ4 and there are already promises of Multiplayer etc. (although personally I'm not that interested in MP at this stage).

Its my favorite game (I'm hardly playing anything else).
I spend hours everyday playing it (too much according to my wife).
In terms of value for money, I've probaly already had good value for the purchase price of the game (in terms of hours per dollar), and every hour/day/week now is effectively bonus time!

So all things considered, I have to say at least 9/10.


One last footnote: For the people who rate it a 3/10 etc. - why on earth are you even wasting time at a Civ3 website? If any game rated so low in my estimation I wouldn't even waste my breath talking about it - I'd go find something more worthwhile to do!