I Want Civ 3

[Lucky]

Well, a top score in Civ3 can be reached BOTH by early conquest and by milking until 2050.

Early conquest can be done within a max of 10h or so.
A fully played game until the end takes at least 50. That also depends on your machine and of course the map size.

 

[Ace]

I guess I'm spoiled by a good thing. Civ II is a fantastic, replayable, game. I expected civ III to be a new and improved version (much like Civ II was over the orginal Civ), but still Civ, and its not. III is almost a totally different game.

 

[Leonel]

Originally posted by duke o' york
You realise that this is the equivalent of going into a mosque and saying "Well lads, your religion is all right but Judaism is so much better"! Not a smart move at all.

Actually, if we were to compare the Civ games to the semetic religions, Civ 1 would be Judaism, Civ 2 would be Christianity and Civ 3 would be Islam. Therefore you'd be going into a mosque and saying Christianity is so much better would be a bad idea. But yeah, Civ 3 and Civ 2 are cool 'cause Civ 2 you can make your own graphics easily... once you know how to but Civ 3 has borders and prettyful graphics.

 

[knightblk]

I thought for ALLLLOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNG time that Alpa Centari was the sequal to Civ2, Civ3 is to #@$!@#$$@#@$@$#@$$#@$#@ Expensive!!!!

 

[Pongui]

Let's not kid ourselves about a Civilization IV that is anything like what we want it to be. The Firaxis people don't appear to frequent this site. They don't like the Civ series enough!

My next computer upgrade will be so I can try Civ3. Must cater to those graphics.

 

[Finvola]

I actually miss playing Civ II..I left it back in the USA when I came over here and I got Civ III when it came out..I went back to the states for a visit earlier this year only to find my young nephew had swiped my copy and I have asked several times for him to give it back but I think I'm out of luck, so I just have to be happy with Civ I and Civ III. It just annoys me because I would still play it when I get fed up with Civ III.

 

[starlifter]

by Ace:

I expected civ III to be a new and improved version (much like Civ II was over the orginal Civ), but still Civ, and its not. III is almost a totally different game

I think Ace put it very well. In many ways, Civ III really is a new game, not a follow on to Civ 2, except in name. Not saying that's a "bad" thing... just pretty much how it is.Civ 2 could have been (and still could be) greatly imporved, either thru patches, or say a $19.99 new release. $50 and $60 games are pretty steep, esp. for the younger folks.

 

[EdmundSpenser]

Originally posted by philippe
Hmmm Duke o'york i disagree.I have both games.
I played civ2 for 2-3 years and i can call myself veteran and i had it also on psx.Civ2 is good but the time to wait between turns....horrible.

If you're a 'veteran' how come I never whooped u in multiplayer...and if u have a good excuse, its time for a challenge.

civ 2 rulz, civ 3 is, in a word, disillusioning

ed

 

[Republic_Outlaw]

Well I seriously dont no whats wrong with you people. Ive been playin Civ3 for soooo loooong and it never gets boring, the graphics are better not to mention a seriously smart A.I. The graphics are sweet and you can make your own units! I think Civ2 ok but Civ3 is much much better. You should get it dude!

 

[Republic_Outlaw]

Originally posted by EdmundSpenser


If you're a 'veteran' how come I never whooped u in multiplayer...and if u have a good excuse, its time for a challenge.

civ 2 rulz, civ 3 is, in a word, disillusioning

ed

You people live in the past to much. Get with the program, wake up and smell the coffe old geezers

 

[Marlos]

Originally posted by Republic_Outlaw
You people live in the past to much. Get with the program, wake up and smell the coffe old geezers

You know, Civ3 has, IMHO, "seduced" so many players because of the quality of its graphics that the gameplay deficiencies are overlooked. Even the most loyal Civ2 player will admit that the combat graphics are not that great. Still, who cares if my worker can run to his new assignment or just appear there? The net effect is the same.

Civ3 has too many MTV-generation players. All style, little substance. (I'd say 'short attention spans', too, but they do have to wait for the AI to move its units around ) Just because it is the newest game does not make it the best.

 

[Republic_Outlaw]

Itd best to me

 

[Mayhem]

There are hella CD-Cracks for anyone.

http://www.altavista.com

 

[Mayhem]

I mean http://www.astalavista.com

 

[Smash]

Civ3 is a game that takes a step forward while taking 2 steps backward.

Unit graphics are better,yes,but become more annoying than anything else.Terrain graphics are just awful.Firaxis art department should have been fired.User created terrains are MUCH better.And they were in the first week of release!

Trade system is a joke.

Espionage is,in effect, gone.

Exploration is greatly reduced.Almost to nothing.

These are 3 BIG areas of fun in Civ2 that have been completely removed from 3.BIG MISTAKE.

Diplomacy is expanded but really,really a pain in the ass.Lets face it.Its true.Real neato the first game or 2,but after that.....You can't have good diplomacy with an unimaginative,heartless AI as a counterpart, so why try?.Play some Civ2 multiplay and you 'll see how much fun diplomacy really can be.

WTH happened to my wonder movies?...a palace to build?..bah!.Of course you can keep the civ2 throne room.


The biggest beef I have is they have not improved the play at all.They have given the illusion of a better AI by decreasing what the human player can do..Everything you do is governed by some kind of "cap" on it.This makes for a high frustration factor.They haven't created a better AI...they created limits to what the player can do.
This leads to very early tedium as there is little available to do.Build roads.Build mines.Thats about it.

If I want limits on what I can have or do,I'll play one of the numerous great civ2 scenarios available.

I won't bother going into the screwy civ1 combat system.It just plain stinks.A major step backwards and a huge disappointment.

There are some really good new ideas like strategic resources,unit capturing and bombarding but it seems most of what held your interest in Civ2 is gone from Civ3.Hopefully Civ4 will get it right.Gonna be waiting a long while for that.

I'll give Firaxis some credit,They did listen to player feedback during development.Problems are they listened too much to SMAC players and just removed everything Civ2 players did.

 

[Ren]

<rant>
I agree with Smash. Though I do like the diplomacy in Civ 3, that's about the only advantage it has. The spiffy graphics are a useless feature that just slows down my computer. There's no Caravans, no diplomacy. For Pete's sake, wonder building has gone to the s***house, you can't rush build, you can't change from another improvement, you can't use caravans, you can't even leave an old wonder building until the next one comes along Although I know it is more realistic, I like killing a big stack units with one hit, but no, not in Civ 3. What's the deal with the unhappines? Even on Deity in Civ 2 I can survive without a "Forbidden Palace" for my far away cities, in Civ 3 it is needed to control cities on the same continent! Where are the cheats? I know I don't need them, but it's always fun to do a bit of AIing now and then, just because, I don't know about others but there's something I like about surrounding enemy cities with Mech Inf stacks in fortresses, and seeing their plight as they try to burst out with Dragoons or the like, just for fun. What's with the Veteran units? I see little to no difference between a regular status unit and a vet, or even an elite one, what's the use? Settlers, do they really need workers to clear forests or build roads? Going by history they don't. I like my wonder movies too, and the high council for that matter, I love seeing the science advisor telling me that the cobblestones in our streets possess more knowledge than we do, or seeing the military advisor drunk as a skunk singing and telling me that all is well. The last 'thing' i want telling me who to attack is some dork in an army helmet. Civ 3 is definately a change over Civ 2, but I liked the way I could move from Civ 1 to Civ 2 and start playing. The strategy was mostly the same, the tech tree similar, the game ideas the same. Civ 3 was a new world for this Civ vet, what with things like culture and the such. Now Leo's doesn't give me free upgrades Have you ever tried to buy a city from the other AI in Civ 3? I've NEVER succeeded, I've offered everything I have (and yes it was quite a substantial amount) for the AI's smallest city, and still no, I like in Civ 2 how I can take a city whether the AI likes it or not, with Bribery
</rant>

So who actually read all that?

 

[Marlos]

Originally posted by Ren
So who actually read all that?

I did, Ren, and I agree with you and Smash completely!

I'm trying to think of something to add to your rants :rant: , but you two covered it pretty well. About the only facet you've left out is the rampant corruption in Civ3, even under democracy! Whatever!

I played a full game of Civ3 with the second patch on warlord, and smoked the AI. But I went back to Civ2. I just didn't look forward to Civ3 the way that I STILL look forward to Civ2.

Still crazy, after all these years...

 

[Andu Indorin]

Ah ... Civ 4. What might that be like?

I heartily agree with Smash's brief but incisive analysis above; but I cannot fault Firaxis for expanding its product base with a "bells-and-whistles" approach to game design. They have successfully designed and marketed Civ 3 as a game to sell to a generation of players who have not experienced the glories of Civ 2. To be sure, every veteran, Old Guard gamer I've talked with has universally criticized Civ 3, and defends Civ 2 as the better strategy game. Yet, the reviewers have almost all stated that Civ 3 is an "improved" product.

What then for Civ 4? Given the critical and financial success of Civ 3, will not Civ 4 be another step in a regression away from Civ2? (Or, as Smash put it, one step forward but two steps backwards.)
Scary thought that. Having anxiously awaited Civ3, I for one will not be holding my breath for Civ 4.

(By the way, anyone of you out there know of a respectable game company that hasn't attempted a Civilization-like game that I could offer my award-winning simulation design ability for?)

 

[Remorseless]

Jumping on the bandwagon, preaching to the choir, a sunshine patriot...pick a cliche. Luckily, I got to play Civ3 with a friend's disk and thus didn't have to waste the money on it.
In other words, Marlos and Smash were dead on...3 is the simplified, prettified version, Civ2 still makes you gnash your teeth in frustration, bellow out curse words...and bring back time and time again. Three is Brittany Spears -- what Madison Avenue thinks we want. Two is Carmen Electra -- what we all really want.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I believe that Andu Indorin's signature says it all - Civilization 2 - a superior game.