BigBirdZ28
Fundamentalist in a Z28
I really think we need a poll for a topic like this.
Poll for "How good a game will you say civ3 is??? (1-10)"
- Thread starter BigBirdZ28
- Start date
CIV I : 9.9 out of 10
The best damn strategy game to date.
CIV II : 9.99 out of 10
They actually achieved to improve civ I ! Thank you god for creating sid meier !
CIV III : 9.999 out of 10
**** ! How is this possible ! It's awesome ! Way better than civ 2, and i thought that was the limit...goodbye children ! Daddy is gonna divorce mummy and play civ III...
The best damn strategy game to date.
CIV II : 9.99 out of 10
They actually achieved to improve civ I ! Thank you god for creating sid meier !
CIV III : 9.999 out of 10
**** ! How is this possible ! It's awesome ! Way better than civ 2, and i thought that was the limit...goodbye children ! Daddy is gonna divorce mummy and play civ III...
EdmundSpenser
I Am 007
that pole was confusing....i voted wrong, and i really wanted u all to experience my distaste for civ 3...
in unpacking my hatred for civ 3, i realize it is because civ 2: its experience, arrival and addiction in my life, came at a quintessential moment in my gaming life and as such has been enthroned in my game-topia as number one of all time. Watching those videos of wonders for the first time and experiencing the barmy angst of the military chief in the consult kings advisors as well as elvis just got me off for a good five years...
now either im over the civ experience (unlikely though considering i live at civ 2 multiplayer gaming zone) or i am just unable to replicate that first experience...perhaps the majority of u guyz are civ newbies, and hey if i was discovering it for the first time civ3 would be way cool too,
but as far as im concerned civ 2 is da bomb and will always rule and id rather touch a camel's ass repeatedly than even switch on my pc to play civ 3
ed
in unpacking my hatred for civ 3, i realize it is because civ 2: its experience, arrival and addiction in my life, came at a quintessential moment in my gaming life and as such has been enthroned in my game-topia as number one of all time. Watching those videos of wonders for the first time and experiencing the barmy angst of the military chief in the consult kings advisors as well as elvis just got me off for a good five years...
now either im over the civ experience (unlikely though considering i live at civ 2 multiplayer gaming zone) or i am just unable to replicate that first experience...perhaps the majority of u guyz are civ newbies, and hey if i was discovering it for the first time civ3 would be way cool too,
but as far as im concerned civ 2 is da bomb and will always rule and id rather touch a camel's ass repeatedly than even switch on my pc to play civ 3
ed
Feinder
Chieftain
I give Civ3 a 6. "OMG! This is board for folks who love Civ3!"
I do think Civ3 is a great game. But it is fair, and unfair to compare it to it's predessors (I need a Switzerland civilization *grin*).
Civ3 has EXCELLENT graphics, and the idea of Culture and attributes and unique units is Excellent. But when compared to it's predessors (esp Civ2), it's is sorely lacking.
IT NEEDS MULTI-PLAYER.
IT NEEDS SCENARIOS.
IT NEEDS A REAL EDITOR.
And there seem to be several things in Civ2 that were removed (and are now missed) in Civ3. What happened to "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Alot of folks would have been happy with Civ2, with the better graphics, culture, and Unique units. But some things got "enhanced" or removed entirely that should have been left alone.
So that's why I give it a 6. If I pay $50 for game (that's not a MMORPG where you EXPECT constant patching), I expect it to be a bit more than I got. Like I said, I think it's a great game, and they will end up putting out an expansion pack, that I'm sure includes many of the things that I'm saying are missing. But it annoys me that I'll have to pay (probably) $30 for the expansion pack. Even with multi-player and scenarios and an editor and fixed bugs, it's not an $80 game. If they put in, all that it's missing, it would be a 10. But it's not worth $80.
Now. That being said.
Is it really fair to compair Civ3 to Civ2-Gold? Folks aren't remembering that the original Civ2 did NOT come out with all the scenarios or multi-player. Those too were expansion packs. So if it was ok to charge $40 for Civ2, and then an additional $20 for the expansion packs, why isn't it ok for them to do it now with Civ3?
My answer to my own question is I understand that it's a business, and they can do whatever they want, and that we -will- end up paying the extra for the expansion packs, so why not charge us extra. But it comes to where people had come to love Civ2 with all of it's trimmings. You could even buy the Gold edition on the sale rack for $20, and you got the whole thing. Folks don't even remember Civ2 without multi-player or over a hundred scenarios. So it IS fair to raise the bar on Civ3. I think they should have been ready with all the features that folks loved about Civ2. But what has happened is that that many folks that believe that Civ3 is simply a more basic (albiet prettier) version of Civ2; and they're right.
When the have the expansions ready, I'll still buy them, and hesitantly give it a 10. Hesitant because I don't feel that it was complete in the first place.
-F-
I do think Civ3 is a great game. But it is fair, and unfair to compare it to it's predessors (I need a Switzerland civilization *grin*).
Civ3 has EXCELLENT graphics, and the idea of Culture and attributes and unique units is Excellent. But when compared to it's predessors (esp Civ2), it's is sorely lacking.
IT NEEDS MULTI-PLAYER.
IT NEEDS SCENARIOS.
IT NEEDS A REAL EDITOR.
And there seem to be several things in Civ2 that were removed (and are now missed) in Civ3. What happened to "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Alot of folks would have been happy with Civ2, with the better graphics, culture, and Unique units. But some things got "enhanced" or removed entirely that should have been left alone.
So that's why I give it a 6. If I pay $50 for game (that's not a MMORPG where you EXPECT constant patching), I expect it to be a bit more than I got. Like I said, I think it's a great game, and they will end up putting out an expansion pack, that I'm sure includes many of the things that I'm saying are missing. But it annoys me that I'll have to pay (probably) $30 for the expansion pack. Even with multi-player and scenarios and an editor and fixed bugs, it's not an $80 game. If they put in, all that it's missing, it would be a 10. But it's not worth $80.
Now. That being said.
Is it really fair to compair Civ3 to Civ2-Gold? Folks aren't remembering that the original Civ2 did NOT come out with all the scenarios or multi-player. Those too were expansion packs. So if it was ok to charge $40 for Civ2, and then an additional $20 for the expansion packs, why isn't it ok for them to do it now with Civ3?
My answer to my own question is I understand that it's a business, and they can do whatever they want, and that we -will- end up paying the extra for the expansion packs, so why not charge us extra. But it comes to where people had come to love Civ2 with all of it's trimmings. You could even buy the Gold edition on the sale rack for $20, and you got the whole thing. Folks don't even remember Civ2 without multi-player or over a hundred scenarios. So it IS fair to raise the bar on Civ3. I think they should have been ready with all the features that folks loved about Civ2. But what has happened is that that many folks that believe that Civ3 is simply a more basic (albiet prettier) version of Civ2; and they're right.
When the have the expansions ready, I'll still buy them, and hesitantly give it a 10. Hesitant because I don't feel that it was complete in the first place.
-F-
I'm hardly a newbie playing any civ. I finished both civ1 and civ2 at every level. I spent countless hours not sleeping to play civ...and i'm at it again ! I played freeciv on linux and civnet. CIV1 and CIV2 will be always 2 of the greatest games in history along with CIV3.
I feel sorry for you...you are missing one hell of a game...
Cantankerous
...but I do know Shinola
I think my version of Civ 3 came laced with crack cocaine, because I'm thoroughly addicted and can't seem to get enough! 
Despite having some faults, I'll be a good Civfanatic and give the game itself a 9.0 or better.
After all, this is me at work each morning:
Despite having some faults, I'll be a good Civfanatic and give the game itself a 9.0 or better.
After all, this is me at work each morning:
Akka
Moody old mage.
I think that you're much too low in your grades.
I would put 35/10 at Civ 1, 78/10 at Civ 2 and 456789440364/10 at Civ 3.
Similar threads
