Is anyone still playing Civ 3?

[jlocke]

Comparison:

CIV III: Works on a laptop from 2000, with 60MB RAM!
CIV IV: Crashes, jumpy, laggy etc. with 2005 computer, 1GB RAM, 2 ghz, 512 Video memory

my opinion:
Civ 4 was released prematurely. The patches have helped some, but on the whole, I think that financial considerations took precedence over gameplay considerations, which probably didn't help the firaxis brand in the long term.
Many of the new additions to 4 were great, but not completely thought through. (It's a bit silly to have the possibility of Slavery + Emancipation at the same time as civics. Also, pet peeves, generic religions, lack of combat zoom on defense, lack of full camera rotation while locked, shoddy implementation of the worldbuilder, lack of negociation in diplo [some people prob like this], and the horrible sluggishness in later eras.) there are more I can't remember now.

It's a wonder that the modding community has been able to do anything at all with the initial release of CIV IV. I think that the system req. impose a kind of technological elitism. But hopefully the patches will keep coming, and they wont break all the mods that have been made every time they come out.

 

[Ceritoglu]

n0xie is spot on with his/her assessment of cIV. I think its fine if they have a version with swanky graphics for the top-notch pcs, but for the rest of us plebs could they not have spared a version that actually runs smoothly (interestingly enough, cIV seems to run a lot smoother with me on MP)? I actually watch TV while playing cIV SP since the waits are so unbearably long.

I'm more than happy with the improvements on certain aspects of gameplay, its definitely a massive improvement on cIII - which suffered from a corruption system that rendered empire building futile, encouraged settler spamming (strategic placement of cities was thus non-existent) and promoted the much hated Stack of Doom, a problem partially solved by cIV with artillery (although I've found the AI rarely suicides artillery in order to neuter those SoDs).

The gameplay has progressed beautifully, but my only qualm is with it running so slowly on a pc with the recommended requirements.

 

[Magic Cat]

I haven't played Civ 3 since 4 came out. I love 4 and can't really see myself installing 3 again. It seems a much more balanced game and I'm loving multiplayer - never had a multiplay expansion on the earlier ones. I do have a pretty new machine which I think helps a lot - but then that's always been the case with PC games: if you don't keep your machine up to date new games tend to be a bit of a hassle. Its just a shame that if you only buy a few games a year then they turn out to be expensive!!!
Also, I don't have any issues with warmongering on 4. Once you get a powerful Civ you can have the same massive armies that rampage across the planet as always. Playing a multiplayer game and having nicely rendered nuclear explosions to the text tune of, "Oh my god he's nuking my Rifleman", makes my day
Cheers

 

[Englor]

Quite simply put, civ 3 was just bloody awful and nearly imposible to expand upon with out having everything imaginable. Civ four is quite the correction and delight.

 

[casey1966]

4. (2009) Civ4 "Mods" After the expansions it's time to dig into all the great mods!
5. (2010) Civ5!?!?!?!?!

Hell,I'm ready for some mods right now,alot can happen in 3 years...as long as that's "your" time frame

 

[Older than Dirt]

I stopped playing Civ 3 six months after it came out. Hope Civ 4 stays interesting longer and I don't have to go back to Civ 2 again.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Yes I do. I like all the mods and scenarios for Civ 3 better.

 

[BadHorsie]

I'm writing this at a library

So let's hope you forge a good career and will one day be able to have a hard drive that stores more than one game...

 

[gunkulator]

Hey don't knock it. He's getting 25% more research done. 50 if he's playing Civ3.

 

[The Sleepy Vike]

I have Civ IV on my newest computer and have Civ III on an older one so, when my brothers are playing Civ IV, I play Civ III every once in awhile.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

All this talk of CIV III made me fire the game up again....

I lasted around 40 mins (somehow)...frankly guys...it now seems utter rubbish..the spamming settlers till all the land was used was moronic, and then the uselessness of far flung cities made the game no fun at all..

No rose-tinted spectacle view of the game here I'm afraid

 

[Smidlee]

.the spamming settlers till all the land was used was moronic, and then the uselessness of far flung cities made the game no fun at all..

That's one thing I dislike about civ3. With all the mods (including expanions) I tried didn't solve this problem.

 

[T.A JONES]

Wow another thread in the Civ4 forum thats main aim is maim What are you guys gettin so defensive about? Let me tell you these guys who your out to dis most of em are modders and their virtually immune to what you can toss at em.
Case in point you say the settler spamming makes you sick. We got the remedy for the sh## Why didn;t you ask? its called the "Balancer Reloaded " settler's cost more food, and more bonus resources give food bonus and more are juiced up in food value while some slightly reduced in availbilty New Stategy makes for the location location philosopy. sound better, if not let me say it takes longer then Civ4 to fill up standard map and Citys are worth fighting for.plus not invisable $$ barrier.like you know.

Whats next? curruption got you down? well thats an easy one! maximum attainable citys before Massive corruption penalty can be raised. Now you can build in the far flung reachs of the world and not get that "sea of red" in your production box.(you still get some some)..so..If you don't find that to your liking also try more "Balanced mod they include additional Corruption killers up to 3 forbidden type smwonders to spread around your much bigger empire(then Civ4).
If theres something you dislike about Civ3 well somebody got another version somewhere that agrees and Rose tints? no glasses could see past you subjectivness Try to think around things.


Now after Successfully defending Civ3 I could retaliate But let save the onslaught for another more thought out"stacked" attack

 

[Godwynn]

I hated Civ 3, the leaders looked cartoony, the corruption, no starting world map with everyone in their right places, slow turns later in the game.

I dropped it the second Civ 4 came out, and I am never going back. I still play Civ 1 + 2 sometimes.

 

[RomanHoliday]

Most of my feelings are reflected in Tymmail's response. Civ III sucked and the AI cheated like crazy. I only played it because I couldn't run II on my computer - then I would remember why I never played it. It seemed the only advancements in III were counters to traditional Civ stategies.

I noticed that most of the IV hate comes from the graphics (and the slowness that results from it). To which I say, turn them off. Turn off the animations, turn off the movies (the movies caused my system to crash all the time). I happen to like the deeper and more epic Civ experience from CivIV.

 

[jlocke]

even with all graphics settings to the lowest, Civ4 is still a hassle if you dont have 1gb ram and a great video card.
The reason I am waiting on getting into C4 big time is the lack of good scenarios.Civ3 scenarios have been perfected, and it will take a while before any of the C-4 ones are up to snuff. As far as I can tell, Paasky is the only one making progress on this front, but some mods like AndyTerry's XX century mod are excellent as well.
Eventually, once modders migrate from 3 to 4 things might improve

 

[T.A JONES]

With the SDK comming out and more people buying Civ4 I'm pretty sure the Modding community is going to skyrocket.

Funny I figured the same, then the last three days I saw Civ3 actually ahead in viewers to civ4 in the creation and custum forum.
Youd think all the hoopla with the patch combined with what you mentioned would be a powerful boost.

So how come a game almost 6 years old was leading the ratings for so long and so often latly. I guess The more time means more refine in amodders sense. Amazing artists are peakin the graphics animations and gameplay to higher levels of strategy perfection. Soon it be like trying to invent a better chess board, but still nothin like a little rivalry to bring out best in some(Civ3), right?.
Mybe wait till warlords can reload some hype

 

[Little Corporal]

I hated Civ 3, the leaders looked cartoony, the corruption, no starting world map with everyone in their right places, slow turns later in the game.

I dropped it the second Civ 4 came out, and I am never going back. I still play Civ 1 + 2 sometimes.

When I played Civ 4, I missed the cartoony leaders and the way they changed appearance from age to age.

 

[Bob1475]

Gee, the world ain't black and white.

I loved Civ3 and like Civ4.

I play Civ3 only for the scenario - one if fact - WW2Global - playing it right now - huge time between turns.

Things I note when I switch back and forth -

CIV 4 interface miles ahead of CIV 3. Significant improvements in all areas.

CIV 4 closed most of the human vs AI problems in CIV 3 - no artillery stacks, etc.

BUT - CIV 4 seems flawed in that I never feel threatened by AI UN move. Simply gobble up some more cities so you have veto power. UN is flawed in CIV 4. Also, AI is insufficiently agressive in CIV 4 at least at Noble level. Will have to move up.

 

[T.A JONES]

Man whats with tha WW2 sceanario everyone who complains about Civ3 being so slow loves that one you just mentioned, You know I have expierenced huge mods till the end with no more 3 minutes loading times( Im not talkin watching the AI go to war, I wish civ4 had that to)

so If you deversify like you say, then Youd of heard of Balancer Reloaded with its 600+ units (everything the ww2 mod has) and the waiting times I just mentioned on huge maps with 16 civs. The people who put down loading times are just the unknowledgable mod players or more commonly the subjective eye candy junkies who flock around the Civ4 forum. Good day