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

[pagh80]

I am interesting to hear what other civ3 players think of the game civ3.

Obviously there is a lot of complaints in this forum
about the game.
But on every site where it have been tested it has been rated as a great game (9 out of 10)

ex: gamespot.com have said this about the game:

"Civilization III is a triumphant proclamation that strategy gaming is alive and well and still able to keep you rooted in front of your computer for hours at a time".

Me myself is a bit.. (when i think about is).. more than a bit dissapointed about the game.

I dont think civ3 has chanced much since civ2, and actually i think that there has been a huge number of new problems, and frustrating things (like corroption... HATE it!!)
and strange combat calculations( like in civ1)
how can a modern tank lose to a swordman.... HOW!!!!

Ill give it 6 out of 10 while it is a somewhat OK game with a few new good ideas (like the strategic resources), but also to many frustrating things in the game..

Looking forward to hear your oppinion about the game..

 

[NetDanzr]

In a review, I have written, I gave it 4/5. On a 1-10 scale, however, I'd say 7/10, mainly due to the lack of a multiplayer, a few bugs and some balancing issues.

 

[Protaxis]

Very much a "1 step forward, 1 step back" game, when compared to Civ 2.

The 1 step forwards:

-Culture / Borders

-Strategic resources

-Diplomacy (more options)

-Better AI


The 1 step backwards:

-Corruption problems

-Unbelievable combat resolutions

-Bombard / Air units unable to kill other units

-The HP system


Of course there are more things to be listed for both sections, but those are my major likes/dislikes.

I'd give it a 7 out of 10.

 

[Mike C]

The main reason why the reviews are all clamouring about how great Civ 3 is, is because for all intents and purposes, the reviews for Civ 3 were already written.

Most gaming sites and mags have probably released 2 previews for this game already hyping it up to be the true successor to Civ 2 and all and that Sid was going to take charge and get the Civ series back to "the way it was suppose to be".

After they themselves generated all this hype, they would look like idiots panning the game especially after saying how good the hands on betas were.

The same phenomanon happend with Blizzard's StarCraft. It got rave reviews even though it was a non-revolutionary product in many ways paled in comparision to Total Annhilation. However, the hype was already built and the media could not go back on the hype generated.

Witness Black and White, hyped as the revolution in gaming when all it was, was a glorified 3-D wood simulator. The same thing happened there.

I was sucked in this time because of Sid's reputation. I thought, goddamn, the man who built Civ and was overseer of Civ 2 couldn't possibly go bad.

Boy was I wrong

Rating 7/10. Thats being generous at that.

A minor step forward from SMAC in some respects, a major step back in many others.

 

[Sam_Catchem]

I would give it an 8/10.

I am having a lot more fun with this game than others.

It will be a 9 when it is all patched up, I imagine.

 

[pagh80]

Protaxis: I pretty much agree in what you say is good and bad.
I hope that the combat simulator will be like that in civ2 (almost perfekt.) because that is the biggest and most frustrating problem in civ3..

Want a new ex. my nuke couldn´t kill the infantry... ?? how??
did they have a factor 2000000 suncream on or what??


All civ fans (included me) can only look forward to the release of the patch..

Civ3 could be a great game with some changes.

 

[Galen Dietenger]

There really 3 answers to this question, it depends really on 'who' you are.

If for example your a game reviewer, *generally* they dont always do the most indepth tests on a title(mileage may vary). They tend to rate civ3 fairly high 7+ while giveing cursory mention to a 'few bugs' etc.

If your a game mag advertiseing weasel scum sucking bottem-feeder, they all gave CIv3 glowing 'game of the year' ' best TBS' game etc etc blah blah Bull****, even before the title was released...

I can only speak for myself tho, but the more time I spend on civ3 the *less*I like it, the reasons are all over this board . Hard to give it more then 4/10. A patch, if we ever see one, may increase the rateing I would give it-cant say atm tho

 

[AugustoD]

for now it is 3/10 if the patch works with the air superiority problem fixed and other corrections i will give it 8,5/10, but at this moment the game is unplayeble for me It means the game has a lot of petential, but unfortunally firaxis put on the box a beta product, and this is an insult for us the customers..., maybe next time i will go for a warez in a firaxis game, just as a "compensation" for this insult.

 

[boca]

Based on the amount of fun I'm having playing it I will say an 8. And I know it will get better after the patch

 

[Kulture]

I'd give it an 8/10. I loved CivI and CivII - I've logged more hours on both than is healthy, and I can see the same happening on Civ3. CivII gets 10/10. I can remember firing up CivI for the first time back in about 1992 - my wife rues the day! Interestingly I never got into Alpha Centauri - just couldn't relate to the technologies.

I'm a sucker for turn based strategy - heaps better than the click-fest RTS offerings.

I think I prefer CivII as a game, but that won't stop me having a lot of fun with CivIII.

It's funny how new releases sometimes just add complexity to a good game without necessarily adding fun. A great example was the Heroes of Might & Magic series. HOMMII is still my all time favourite game - much better than HOMMIII which got bogged down in complexity without really adding anything to gameplay.

I agree that CivIII offers many improvements - particularly the culture concept and improved diplomacy. But I'm really starting to get frustrated with the corruption thing and with occasionally odd combat results. Underneath, it still seems to be basically the same game as CivII but I'm still only scratching the surface of CivIII - it's going to be fun understanding all the nuances...

I also love Imperialism II - a very under-rated game that I often return to.

 

[Smash]

7>7.5

 

[slothman]

6 out of 10. It could be a good game if some of the problems were fixed. Unless they basically redo the entire game it will probably never be as good as civ 1 and 2.

 

[Rhandom]

6 out of 10, mostly because of the reasons listed above. Like most, I could easily see this game getting a 9 or 10 if they fix issues with combat resolution, wartime culture flips, etc.

I keep giving it extra chances though because I love the Genre -I want MoM II the most though. I loved the city management in that game - I don't understand why we went back to the micromanaging of city production after MoM showed a better way.

 

[iLiAS]

Everything is relative, I guess.. so I will break it down:

If you are a new to Civ: 7/10. There's really not many better strategy games out there.

If you are a veteran Civ2 player: 3/10. The score just can't say enough about the disappointment and the letdown Firaxis has served us here.

If you have experienced Europa Universalis II: GAME OVER. Wrap up the Civ3 CD & manual, put them in the box, and take them back to the store. So long Sid.

ilias

 

[panav]

oh i d give it a 10/10 ....basically cause i m a first time strategy game player....and a first time civilization player..

so from a newbie s point of view THIS GAME ROCKS

 

[Proteus]

At the Moment 7/10.
More, if certain things are adressed by the patch as there are:

• Combat Values. There are too less differences between the Combat Values of certain Units. Aside from the Differences betweeen more modern and antique Units, there are Combats between Frigates and Caravels that really suck. Frigates have an Attack-Value of 2, Caravels a defence of 2, which means a civilian Transport beats a designated Warship in 50% of all cases
  
• Obviously Buggy Specialists. See my Thread Specialists buggy
  
• Buggy Air superiority
  

 

[Loekie]

Ill give it an 7.

Coz of the bugs which are already mentioned above and also the very ugly menu's (like blue hyperlinks) and missing parts (like changing the resolution).

I'll hope this all is being fixed when the patch comes out.

 

[Mr Spice]

I´ll give it a nine. The air defense bug and the AI:s inability to disband obsolete units are the main factors preventing me from giving it a ten.

Aside from these two thins I LOVE the game!!!

 

[solamnic76]

Originally posted by pagh80
I am interesting to hear what other civ3 players think of the game civ3. (1-10)

A second best game ever after Master of Magic from Simtex.

Why? Civ3 is clearly best of the civ - series and therefore one of best games ever. In this case 2nd best game ever. Gaming experience isn't same as it was with CIV1 but it does not make game worse. It just shows that impact was once made and i'm older and more played since.

10/10

Of course game allways could be better, but when compared to all other games around....decision is clear.

 

[Lt.Col. Kilgore]

I believe that the game wasn't realised nor will it be in any patches the way I believe most of us expected. I honestly could have waited a few more months for them to really realise the potential of a game like this.

In essence I would say Civ III is an improvement over the second, but the patch will make it a completely truthful statement. As of right now its 5/10 'cos I know the patch will probablY make it about a 8/10 for me, but I guess I was expecting this Civ to be what we may see in the fourth, a Civ game for Civ fans and not a user friendly game to draw in non-Civ fanatics for more profit. And of course... NO BUGS!