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

[Fayadi]

Civ 3 can be good or bad from different patterns

For Military Generals who plays Civ 3 they will give 3/10
No swordsman in the history can beat tanks .Unless they are some swordsman FROM HEAVEN.the good thing about military is the money/resource balance

For millionaire they will give 3/10 corruption is unbelieavable ,the firaxis want to make it realistic but they had done it terribly

For peace lover 6/10 -it is so hard to be invaded by military powers,too peaceful aint good

For civ2 fanatics - 5/10 no revolution changes

 

[Franklyn]

Originally posted by Mike C


Rating 7/10. Thats being generous at that.

Dude -- after trashing Civ3 in numerous threads, I figure you would have given it a 2.5. I hate to see your take on a game that truly stinks.

Back to the topic: I'm giving the game an incomplete till the first patch comes out.

 

[Mike C]

Originally posted by Franklyn



Dude -- after trashing Civ3 in numerous threads, I figure you would have given it a 2.5. I hate to see your take on a game that truly stinks.

Back to the topic: I'm giving the game an incomplete till the first patch comes out.

Anything below 8/10 on my scale deserves panning. The lower it goes the louder the volume. When you get down to it, the game is either fun or not. This one is fun and ok up until it gets to the modern age. Then I get angry
as battleships are forced to limp back home after a battle with galleons and subs are sent to the bottom by galleys.

 

[Dwarven_Megalomaniac]

Who said it was like a step forward and a step back? Took the words right out of my mouth.


-I really like the strategic resources things.
-I REALLY like the strategic luxuries.
-I like all the animations and sounds.
-AI is smarter (sorta)


-The cultural borders WOULD rock ... except you can't politically enforce your border ("cross this and its war")
-Can't destroy boats with planes???
-Can't use jets to intercept???
-90% corruption in frontier cities mid to late game
-Defending naval units get a free preliminary volley (against modern ships??)

Overall, I give it a 6. Its still got lots of potential to reach 9 or even 10... if a few things DO get addressed in a patch.

 

[Peer]

ATM I´ll give it a 4

When the AS is patched a 6

and only if they patch the combat system, esp. alowing aircrafts to sink boats I´ll give it a 8

 

[treadwin]

Am I the only one who thought that the combat system in Civ2 was lame ?

I agree with the naval combat. It is much more predictable how a battleship and a galleon are going to do against each other, but . . .

That one tank unit that wandered into a country, even a backward one, and conquered 17 cities single-handed ? Even if they did only have swordsmen ?

Did they not make molitov cocktails ? Did the tanks never break down ? Did the crews never sleep ? Did the swordsmen just charge the tanks head on ?

If you are talking one tank vs one swordsmen OK, but on a strategic level, was civ2 really that realistic ? Perhaps the resistor thing was enough. . . .

For my part, I would like to see the naval/air/ZOC/bombardment balance changed, but ground combat I find OK. Of course, it can always be better, but not like civ2, not totally predictable.

 

[scriptorum]

I'd give it an 8/10. It has some issues, but there are clear, solid improvements over Civ 2, and without a doubt it remains a highly addictive game. I don't understand those who post 3-4/10. If I thought so little about a game, I would stop playing it, and I certainly wouldn't be here reading the forums about it.

Issues:
- Untenable corruption problems for large empires
- Air-to-air combat issues not so well thought out
- Governers are still mostly useless

Improvements:
- Cultural borders make sense
- Diplomacy is more useful, trade is easier
- Strategic resources add a great deal of depth
- Much improved interface (incl. Civilopedia and research screens)

 

[Big_Time_Charlie]

One of my biggest probs is with performance just seems to lose all it momentum towards the end, will have to play and smaller maps in future. I keep restarting in all honesty loses it magic after a while each game for some reason.

All I can say in Civ 2 I would play for ever and couldnt wait to get back, although Ive had a big Civ iii session one weekend I havent returned to finsih off the game midweek as I can only manage a few turns.

Id give it 7/10, maybe an 8/10 once all the above is finsihed. I think CIV III will need to put some magic back in to get a 9 or 10, its definetly got the potential I just hope we arnt all put off by the time the final patch comes out

 

[Communist]

I agree to the idea that CivIII has pluses and minuses related to CivII, but definitely more pluses. Of course, I expected perfection from this version, and it is far from that. Still, I give it a 8/10, and can give a 9,5/10 if they just do some slight changes in some basic points, specially combat odds.

 

[Magnus]

'9'

'10' when multiplayer comes out.

best game ever.

 

[pagh80]

I can see that there have been a lot of different meanings about how good the game is. Some say its crap
and other say its good... but..

To you guys who give it a 9-10 or even 10-10 have you played a whole game all the way through the modern time??

You didn´t hate that a moderntank all to often lost to a swordman? that battleships loosing to galleons, that planes cant shot at ships as well as fighter cant intercept( wasn´t that one of the most impotant things in ww2..... Intercept bombers), that the air superiority dont work proberly, that a nuke can fail to kill a unit and last how the corruption works in the game?

Come on... GUYS!!! A tank with full energy loosing to a swordman?
If we should talk about realism the tank should win far the most battles, AND it should have the first hit while it can see the swordman before he can see the tank.... in far the most cases

I think that to get competition from the A.I you should have to turn up the differculty level, so that the comp. is just as advanced as you.

SO... to win a battle over a civ who have swordsmen should be easy if you got tanks. Not as hard that it is now..THAT is not realistic.

 

[go4heat]

I agree with many others when i say this game is a 7/10. When they come out with the mplayer patch and FIX the DAMN CORRUPTION then it will be 8, maybe 9. But until then, civ3 is a 7. All I can really say about Sid Meier, on the other hand, is I CANT WAIT FOR SIMGOLF!

 

[robertstumpf]

I give Civ 3 a 5, at best. Civ 2 had more than its share of faults, but at least Civ 2 games did not all seem the same- no two Civ 2 games were exactly alike, and therefore it is the only game I remember that still feels fresh years after having bought it.

Civ 3 is the same old same old every time I have played it so far...it is ponderous and weighed down with features and AI results that make it perhaps more interesting, but less fun. The game doesn't MOVE. You can't get a grip on it and get into a civiliazation building rythim like you could with the previous game. In the old game, even if you were playing against several other civiliazations, there always still seemed to be ample exploration space, ample room to grow and build. Here, the games all feel constricted and pre determined. The world map is no longer a canvas for you to draw on...it is too cluttered up with other Civ's popping up out of no where.

To me, it is the element that makes the game perhaps technically better but a lot less enjoyable. This was a game that was crying out for some decent play testing.

 

[Endureth]

6...

I was going to give it a 4, but then I thought of the new resource system and leaders. Those are the two best improvements IMO. Although I do think the leaders need some tweaking still. An army of tanks should have 2 attacks, just like a single tank does.

Pros--
1. Leaders and the whole new leader system (where are the admirals?)
2. The resource/strategic resource system. Awesome idea.
3. Graphics, they are great, although I use the graphics patch found on this site for terrrains, the unit combat animations are nice.
4. Combat system. You know what guys, it's a game. Who cares if a gallon kills a BB once in a while. It hasn't happen all that often in my games anyway.
5. Aircraft (although it's broke, I do like the new system). Aircraft should only be able to land at airports though.


Cons--
1. Air Superiority.
2. Modern ships being so damn slow.
3. Computer not upgrading units.
4. Computer being an ass and walking through your territory (yet, tell him to leave and he declares war)
5. Ungodly lag in the end game.
6. Multi-player.
7. Difficulty levels (I say make the AI better, don't cop out and just let him cheat at higher levels).
8. Diplomacy. How easy is it to manipulate the computer. Pathetic. Did they just forget everything they learned in SMAC?
9. The map!! Why is the map not 3D like it was in SMAC? With a little tweaking they could have made a great LOOKING game as well.
10. End game techs. The end game techs are not representtive at all of modern or near future technologies. There should be a modern age with a completely redone tech tree that's more real life. Where is the internet? Where is postal service (that did amazing things for commerce and happy people)? Oil rig wonder (ever seen that rig off the coast of Scandanavia? There should also be a future tech tree with near future technologies like the international space station which could be a joint venture between 3-5 civs.
11. Movies. That's just Jewish (no offense). I'm sure they saved a lot of money by not putting the movies in.
12. Missiles aren't units, don't treat them as such. The should be able to be "loaded" onto other units to boost their attack strength. (example: Load two missiles to a destroyer and the AS of the destroyer is increased by 6). Nuclear weapons should be DEVASTATING!!!! And have a profound effect on how other civs view you.


Come to think of it, the best part of civilization currently is the first two eras. After the third it becomes unbalance and incomplete (the tird isn't totally bad though). I always feel like so much of history is being skipped. And this is a historic game.

-----

Anyway, sorry this turned into a rant. The bottom line is, dispite all of it's faults, it is a great concept of a game. I just hate knowing it's not as good as it could have been. If only it was designed by people who cared about the game just as much as the money.

Endureth

 

[ACM]

Some bugs, but a lot of fun and replayability. Just what a Civer expects from Civ.
8/10

 

[EdmundSpenser]

Originally posted by pagh80

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

lmfao



ed

 

[Charles]

Greetings,

First off, I waited impatiently I might add, for the great and mighty civilization III to hit stores. And I bought my first copy on the day it was released. I brought it home, ripped off the plastic, and began the installation. Now I've been a fan of Civilization since Sid first gave birth to it. And I just wanted to say that I think Civilization III is a complete waste of shelf space! Please allow me to explain.....

First, I've been into Civilization II - scenario design since the game came out. And I was somewhat displeased with the customizable-limitations that Civilization II was born with. However I made due with what I had, and I designed some really cool scenario's! Now, when I heard about Civilization III, I was overjoyed! Veteran-players from all over the world have been writing Microprose (now known as Firaxis) with comments, suggestions and stories on how to make Civilization II a better game. So Firaxis went into the making of Civilization III! It was too good to be true, Civ 3 had to be better! (NOT)

To start with, I examined the editor and customization abilities of the game right away, because for me thats what makes the game! And the first thing that became a major "let-down" was the fact that you "cannot place starting locations" in the editor. At first I thought, oh well, big deal! It's probably made up for it somewhere else. But you know what? It didn't. Every turn of my examination of the editor and this new concept of Civilization III... led to dissapointment. In short the editor sucks big time!

All Civilization III really is, is "Alpha Centauri" "Civilization I" and "Call to Power" combined.. I wouldn't be surprised if Firaxis used the same source code and programmed from there. I think Civilization III is just another "cash cow" for them. Now if local programmers (check the web!) have design mod's for the game in the first month of it's release, why couldn't the mighty and industrious but also *very lazy* firaxis gone that extra distance?

PS. The reason why Civilization III has really good ratings, is because the sites that do game reviews are loaded with MORONS and idiots who are merely promoting game sales! dont be fooled!

Anyway, I speak the truth and anyone who disagrees with me *obviously* does not know the game as well as I do. I know what some of you will say to this long complaint of mine, "Why dont you just take your issues of with Firaxis and see what they say!" yeah right! thats like pulling the horn out of a live and pissed off rhino! I did write to them multiple times! do you think I got a reply?!

" I give Civilization III a 3/10 because they did improve alot of areas that where poor in Civilization II, such as graphics, diplomacy, and a much stronger AI ... but what good is a car, if it's missing a front wheel? "

Damn you Firaxis, you ruined a really good strategy game!

- Charles, British Culmbia - Canada.

 

[Charles]

Originally posted by scriptorum
I'd give it an 8/10. It has some issues, but there are clear, solid improvements over Civ 2, and without a doubt it remains a highly addictive game. I don't understand those who post 3-4/10. If I thought so little about a game, I would stop playing it, and I certainly wouldn't be here reading the forums about it.

Issues:
- Untenable corruption problems for large empires
- Air-to-air combat issues not so well thought out
- Governers are still mostly useless

Improvements:
- Cultural borders make sense
- Diplomacy is more useful, trade is easier
- Strategic resources add a great deal of depth
- Much improved interface (incl. Civilopedia and research screens)

Well quite simple there, my friend! I personally have been a fan and veteran player since the "Civilization Concept" was born! For most people thats the majority of their youth! I mean sure, Civilization III has fancy graphics and a great new interface with some really good improvements. But lets face the facts! It's got way more problems and set-backs than it does improvements.

"Improvements:
- Cultural borders make sense
- Diplomacy is more useful, trade is easier
- Strategic resources add a great deal of depth
- Much improved interface (ind. Civilopedia and research screens)

but you definately have blinders on when you say "why play the game if you dont like it" haven't you ever had a favorite hockey team and the team loses 3 years in a row, havent you ever been let down? Well thats why we complain!

Disadvantages/Game Problems

Editor

- Cannot place starting locations.
(defeats the perpose of creating scenarios, why did firaxis brag about the new scenario design?)

- No editor-parameters.
You can change things like "Improvement Costs" without the game crashing apon loading. The drop down menus in the editor should have hard-coded limitations so you can't !@#$ it up. Call it a training wheel for designers.

- No Zoom in/out during map design.
How the heck are you supposed to see the ...(and I quote) Big Picture? Pretty lame, considering you dont know if your Earth map really resembles earth or not.

- Cannont alter Units/Improvements or other images.
yeah sure, you can download a crap load of mods and paint shop programs to do so. but you shouldn't have to be a programmer/
graphic artist to alter a lousy unit image.

Should I go on... ? Lets look at the overall gameplay...

Gameplay & Design.

- Performance problems.
So now I have to go out and spend thousand of dollars on a new PC so I can play Civilization III with reasonable speed? C'mon! I clocked my time between turns on a huge map game in Deity mode, it takes about 3-5 minutes/turn for a Pentium 600mhz w/400megs of ram, and a 32meg accelerator card. 3-5 minutes??? It would take me days to complete construction on the "Great Library Wonder" alone. Literally!

- Limted "Special Units".
Rome not only had the Legion, but it also had the "Praetorian Guard" why only ONE special unit?? According to some mod-designers out there, the source code for Civilization III, can allow for up to 30,000+ unit slots! Why so limited??

- Graphics and overall display.
The graphics are too cartoon like, and bubbly! Microsoft Flight Simulator is now using digitized terrain photos, why can't Civilization III be that realistic? And why can't a unit resembly a group, rather than just ONE guy standing there with a sword? Seems pretty silly, considering this is supposed to be a "Historical War/Strategy Gene" not "The Simpsons meets Ben Hur" C'mon!

- Menu/Screen complexity.
Alot of the menus and screens are pretty cool, but there is sooo much information and eye straining activity on each screen, are we reading a book on war, or playing a strategy game? Some people like all that fancy stuff, but it again, slows the game down!
On the "choose your opponents" screen, why can't there be an option "Rest None" what if you only want 8 opponents, then you have to go through the WHOLE list selecting NONE for each opponent not used.

Here is the really stupidity of Civilization III, I'm sure you will all agree!

- Difficulty level, Monarch, Deity etc..
Notice in Civilization II and III that the AI is programmed the same, in this following manner... on DEITY-LEVEL every opponent, no matter HOW nice you are to them, or what alliances you may have with them, they turn on you, and hate you, every time! Why can't an AI opponent honor you, regardless of how strong your empire is? I think the AI should keep its respect until it has a reason to break it. Anyway, you all know what I'm talking about! It's a black and white AI, firaxis' figures that designing the AI in this manner is the only way to make the AI strong. I disagree. The way the AI has been designed is very un-realistic!

So if that isn't enough believe me, I have more! Mr Scriptorum, there are thousands, soon to be millions of displeased fans of Civilization III, you just have to open your eyes and see the obvious! Civilization III has come down in price all over Canada, and sales are dropping as more and more people see the disapointment. Simply, when I look at Civilization III, I dont see sweat, blood and tears in a game, I see *lazy* programmers and designers who are trying to dazzle people with funny little audio qwerks, and cartoon tapestry scenery.

I think Firaxis should lower their prices so the appropriote customers can purchase the game, Kids!

Well, back to Civilization II ... at least until Firaxis redeems themselves! Should a game need improvement, after its been marketed? Silly! :crazyeyes

Charles.

 

[arttu19]

WWho would be so stupid enough to rate this game below 7?
Is it the same person writing all this s**t?
No game is perfect, what did you expect? Hundred of years of work and delays, to just release the game that would fulfill all of humankinds need?
It took long enough from this game to be released anyway!

I would give it a straight 9 out of TEN.

And Screw you guys, I'm going home to play some CIV3.

 

[Charles]

Originally posted by arttu19
WWho would be so stupid enough to rate this game below 7?
Is it the same person writing all this s**t?
No game is perfect, what did you expect? Hundred of years of work and delays, to just release the game that would fulfill all of humankinds need?
It took long enough from this game to be released anyway!

I would give it a straight 9 out of TEN.

I'm sorry I disagree, maybe it deserves that kind of rating if your only rating the graphics and the lovely little warriors that scream everytime they win a battle! But as far as the customization and mod community is concerned (which is where the *REAL* challange is, designing a scenario!) Civilization III was a complete burn for $50 bucks. The Editor is horrible, and Firaxis made mistakes that even amateur programmers would have never made!

So have your little opinions, but you can't change FACTS pal.

Rediculous!