What is it about this game?

[Chronicles]

Normally I don't start these kind of threads because they seem quite pointless, and I assure you this one will be just as pointless as all others. Still...

I have played every single Civilization game (even tried the facebook thing because, well it's civ). I love every non-social media iteration of it. But somehow, I often come back to CivIII and it manages to lure me in like none of the other games (except maybe CivI but that's mostly nostalgia) can. Why is that? When it comes to content and gameplay speaking Civ IV BTS is perhaps the most complete of all Civs, but it doesn't give the same thrills (though I've played BTS till death). And I don't even play with mods!

By the way, why is it often said that CivIII is the worst of all civ games?!

Well thanks for reading.

 

[TLF]

I played civ 2 and then got civ 4. I only bought civ 3 a few days ago and I am finding that I like it better than civ 4.
I like the clean look of the graphics.
The fact that the game is a bit simpler than civ 4 may be part of what I like.
Sometimes more is just too much.
I think the warfare is more fun in civ 3. I like that there are attack and defence ratings for units that make you use combined arms.

In many ways I even like civ 2 better than civ 4. It's probably the most fun of all the civ games.
I just don't like looking at those old graphics for so many hours.

I also find that playing many hours of civ 4 wears me out.
Civ 3, for whatever reason, doesn't wear on me in the same way.

 

[Chronicles]

I get your point. I love Civ2 as well, though it was always very tiresome re-irrigrating everything once you get supermarkets. I also agree that warfare is much more fun, though I'm not sure why; I use combined arms in civ4 as well. I do feel civ4 is very much a numbers game, what with diplomacy and everything. I love the fact that Civ3 is much more keyboard friendly, I hardly use the mouse for commands - probably since most hotkeys, especially for workers, are the same since Civ1.

When news came out regarding Civ V, I was very hopeful that it would be more like Civ3 again. I love the graphics of V, I love you can bombard again (siege battles are a bit strange in CivIV), but V sadly didn't live up. Getting the expansion tomorrow, but probably I'll be coming back to III soon.

 

[TLF]

I had hoped that civ 5 was going to have proper tactical battles like Heroes of Might and Magic or Age of Wonders.
Maybe civ 6.

 

[Theov]

Who says it's the worst?

 

[Chronicles]

People of whom I often get the impression they never even played it

 

[Buttercup]

Civilisation III is indeed widely regarded as the weakest member of the Civilisation franchise. This is evident from a vast array of on-line sources from Gamespot user reviews to democratic top 100s.

There are many reasons for this.

Civilisation I - It was spearheaded by Sid Meier. It's the original. Nuff said.

Civilisation II - A micromanagementist's dream. Added acres of additions to Civ I without taking barely anything away.

Civilisation IV - Provided 21st Century graphics and was the game the designer of Civ III was aiming for when he 'experimented' with Civ III.

Civilisation V - Vying with Civ III for position at the bottom of the heap. Too many removed mechanics and radical changes to basic mechanics without adding anything particularly interesting to replace them.


Civilisation III:

The downers which keep it at the bottom of the heap, to name but a few:

Tedious Corruption levels
Tedious incurable Pollution
Tedious Technology trees of zero use/value
Tedious and ineffectual/irrational weaponry advances
Tedious No like-for-like trading
After Railroads at the mid-game point Workers become Tedious pollution moppers

Massive gaps where there appears to be nothing useful to build
Massive balancing problems between AI only abilities and Human only abilities
Massive balancing problems between old and new military Units
The game has a general Civilisation-light feeling

Took away great swathes of micromanagement elements of Civilisation II and replaced them with a few big Macro concepts which don't feel like they've fully 'got right'.


Sounds awfully negative doesn't it. And it kind of is. But then would you rather watch a bad Martin Scorsese movie or a good Steven Segal movie? A bad Civilisation game will still challenge you and entertain you far more efficiently than a good shoot-em-up.

Also, Civilisation III has the best music of the series, the quickest game-time commitment and the easiest interface for new players.

...and it works on Windows 7...

 

[monotonous]

to me it's just the atmosphere (you know like after many hours of hard work and you enter a new era), the satisfaction and challenge, the music, and deal with all the other leaders

 

[Civman33]

To quote Buttercup:

I get your point. Though I would say Civ3 is still a very fun game, it has a huge amount of problems. Like you said, the game seems to try and screw you over as badly as possible while allowing the AI to play against each other fairly, so you will see stalemates in combat when you are fighting due to some "hidden mechanic" that is in the game. No way can I lose 4 swordsmen to a lone spearman while attacking a town with no walls settled on grassland.

A lot of people would say it's just bad luck. I beg to differ. Too many times have I encountered this so-called "bad luck" in where I lose a ridiculous amount of units to a single weaker unit or have started near a desert and plains area with very little food, strategic resources, and luxuries, while the AI starts out with several cattle, wheat, resources, and luxuries near their start location.

I do think that there is a hidden modifier that provides bias towards the AI player while negatively affecting the player. That's what kills the game, too many bad things happen to the player while the AI gets to mock you on the defeat screen. This is when I play on Regent, mind you, which is supposed to be a balanced difficulty.

 

[gps]

Civilisation III is indeed widely regarded as the weakest member of the Civilisation franchise.

With V around and the controverse discussion about it I can hardly believe this statement.
Seriously you made some really good points. The biggest issue I have with III / Conquests is it just feels unfinished and abandoned. Stuff like the submarine bug, that was fixed in the other variants in is back in Conquest seems just lazy and careless. Like they got to a point where they did not care about it any more and just left.
On the other hand there are a lot of good stuff and new ideas in it too, and they stayed true to the original concept. It's maybe not the best, but it's 100 % Civ and from I to IV at least it's a continuous path of improving, fine tuning and adding interesting new elements to the original game play. Up to IV it's still all that was good about I, but bigger, prettier and better. All part of the same great family. A pity they did not stick to that formula after IV...

 

[Chronicles]

I see the reasons why it would be regarded as one of the less succesful games. Though cleaning up pollution was tedious in I-II as well. I never really pay close attention to the way the tech tree is build up etc. I think for me the atmosphere is what does it plus the fact that this was the civilization game that made me try the harder difficulty levels. I remember the first time playing a monarch game, coming from warlock and once did a regent game, after reading a lot on this site about tactics, and it seemed a different game all of a sudden. Due to this I now play, and start, on higher difficulties in the later Civ games.

 

[templar_x]

funny. having played c3 for such a long time, and having put the finger on some major weaknesses of the game, i still cannot relate TO A SINGLE of the points that buttercup raised. it is like him talking about another game. none of these points appears to bother most of the people here... differently from completely other points which he does not mention.

t_x

 

[Cyc]

There are many reasons for this.

Civilisation I - It was spearheaded by Sid Meier. It's the original. Nuff said.

This is total crap. You should be ashamed of yourself, Buttercup. The Civilization I game is a clone of the Empire II game. I played a LOT of the original Empire game which was basically a DOS screen with Letters representing units and continents. This as back in the 80s. In the 90s they came out with Empire II, I thought "Great!" and went out and got it. But with all the new graphics and enhancements, I still didn't think it was that much of an improvement over the original. Then I read a review about Civilization and saw a pic of the map graphics. I was immediately interested and went out to buy that game. It was just like Empire, but they did a better job of modifying it. It was more enjoyable. So there ya go. Civ is just an Empire mod. Original idea, my ass.

They had outstanding game development from Civ1 to Civ3. Then they dropped the ball big time. They've been looking for the ball ever since.

I played civ 2 and then got civ 4. I only bought civ 3 a few days ago and I am finding that I like it better than civ 4.

Welcome to the club, TLF. Now you're playing the real Civ. Get involved with the Mods and the editor.

I like the clean look of the graphics.
The fact that the game is a bit simpler than civ 4 may be part of what I like.
Sometimes more is just too much.

Yup. Less is more.
And for me, Civ2 was great as a speed game. It could be played at a fast pace with great results.

I also find that playing many hours of civ 4 wears me out.
Civ 3, for whatever reason, doesn't wear on me in the same way.

I think it holds your attention better. Civ4 is like a clinging girlfriend that has one to many weird aspects.

I get your point. I love Civ2 as well, though it was always very tiresome re-irrigrating everything once you get supermarkets. I also agree that warfare is much more fun, though I'm not sure why; I use combined arms in civ4 as well. I do feel civ4 is very much a numbers game, what with diplomacy and everything. I love the fact that Civ3 is much more keyboard friendly, I hardly use the mouse for commands - probably since most hotkeys, especially for workers, are the same since Civ1.

Maybe civ 6.

Yeah, right. That's what we said about Civ4 in relation to the CivIII AI. They just made the AI better liars and cheaters. They just keep going for cheap, easy improvements.

To quote Buttercup:

I get your point. Though I would say Civ3 is still a very fun game, it has a huge amount of problems. Like you said, the game seems to try and screw you over as badly as possible while allowing the AI to play against each other fairly, so you will see stalemates in combat when you are fighting due to some "hidden mechanic" that is in the game. No way can I lose 4 swordsmen to a lone spearman while attacking a town with no walls settled on grassland.

A lot of people would say it's just bad luck. I beg to differ. Too many times have I encountered this so-called "bad luck" in where I lose a ridiculous amount of units to a single weaker unit or have started near a desert and plains area with very little food, strategic resources, and luxuries, while the AI starts out with several cattle, wheat, resources, and luxuries near their start location.

I do think that there is a hidden modifier that provides bias towards the AI player while negatively affecting the player. That's what kills the game, too many bad things happen to the player while the AI gets to mock you on the defeat screen. This is when I play on Regent, mind you, which is supposed to be a balanced difficulty.

I agree. There is a modifyer in the game. It's evident in the resource placement, and other important aspects.

With V around and the controverse discussion about it I can hardly believe this statement.

Seriously you made some really good points. The biggest issue I have with III / Conquests is it just feels unfinished and abandoned. Stuff like the submarine bug, that was fixed in the other variants in is back in Conquest seems just lazy and careless. Like they got to a point where they did not care about it any more and just left.

Yup. Any company that puts a game together like CivIII and is too lazy to correct the spelling or problems with the Civilopedia loses points in my book. They did push it out before it was ready, but that's the corporate world. Don't get me started...

funny. having played c3 for such a long time, and having put the finger on some major weaknesses of the game, i still cannot relate TO A SINGLE of the points that buttercup raised. it is like him talking about another game. none of these points appears to bother most of the people here... differently from completely other points which he does not mention.

t_x

You may have a point here, templar x. Although, as I stated above, I do believe there are hidden modifiyers in the game that relate to Buttercup's complaints.

I think most people don't post about the bad things because they don't want the CivFanatic groupies and lackies coming down on them, deconstructing their statements, and causing over complicated discussions designed just to knock them down. It's the over-zealous fan boys here (who can say any given point is wrong, but can't prove it) who demand concrete evidence to disprove there mythical theories.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Consider, Buttercup, that this *is* a Civ3 forum; likely to find some fans of the game here.
We may be revisiting an old argument from software sales ... is that a bug or a feature?

While I enjoyed Civ2, Civ3 marked some key changes in gameplay which propagated through the rest of the series. One could argue that these concepts were implemented better in Civ4, but they had their beginnings in Civ3.
-- empire-wide economics. In Civ2, every unit is "homed" to a specified city; you could cripple a city by producing lots of units, and not remembering to re-home them to a different city. In Civ3 and later games, the whole empire supported the army.
-- cultural boundaries. In Civ2, all borders were a figment of your imagination. Civ3 began the notion of territorial integrity, which was amplified in Civ4.
-- resources tied to geography. Civ3, 4, and 5 require one to have specific resources to build certain improvements or units. This, in turn, was another motivation for war.

Does Civ3 have problems? Sure, but so does Civ4. I like the implementation of bombard units in Civ3 better than the "suicide catapults" practice in Civ4. As a game mechanic, the idea of disposable units is not so bad ... it's just not historical *at all* to think that armies would build cats or trebs, and then throw them away. Great Generals in Civ4 are not nearly as useful as armies in Civ3. It's much easier to build a powerful army and go stomp an opponent in Civ3. I like the increased transparency of AI attitudes in Civ4, but I'm equally frustrated that I can't get the AI to trade the item or tech that I want them to, in both games.

 

[tR1cKy]

People of whom I often get the impression they never even played it

then, why bother listening to them at all?

This is total crap. You should be ashamed of yourself, Buttercup

Don't be so mean, Cyc. Nothing that comes from that guy should be taken too seriously, but chances are that a vast number of bystanders has already figured it out by now, so it's mostly harmless

 

[Theov]

Civ1 was good for its time. And sometimes, when my timemachine is working properly, I go back some 10 years and still enjoy that game.
Civ2 I only know from memories from the times I've recently played it. I don't remember much from the original years, since that period in my life has been defined not by gaming, but by alcohol consumption.
Civ3 is just so good. It adds a lot without losing the feel of a Civ game. There's some bad things, but that's complaining that your girlfriend sleeps a lot when she's tired.
Civ4 was just made for Civ gamers it seems. It's just so scripted. Oh you built that thing right, then you should go that way. Oh your changed to that civic? You can forget about a war now! Ugh.
Civ5 - I don't know and don't care.

It's like red alert. Command and conquer was awesome. Red Alert was bigger, better, faster, stronger. Red Alert 2 was super. Red Alert 3 was for retards.

 

[MPK]

I've never played CIV 1.

I started playing CIV2 on Playstation. I thought I would play it forever. I even played for 42 hrs straight once. It so interferred in normal life - But after about 400 years of this I actually started to lose interest, ,,and then University took over all the free time.

I next got CIV2 put on my Laptop, and again I was away in the land of "Civ2ing and Conquering". I did prefer the Playstation graphics over the PC version.

When CIV4 came out I went and bought a Copy. I played it for a few months,,,then ditched it. - I didn't like the "bubble" borders. And it was so slow ,,,," was boring ".

Next was a try on CIV5 when it came out... I managed maybe 6 months with this then sold it to some other sucker. It was "terrible", "Slow, tedious, numbly boring",,, . To sum up CIV5,, "Did the makers of CIV5 ever even play CIV2 ?" ???? - it was a complete different game, just like it was loosely copied from the CIV concept.

I thought they should make "CIV2, mk5"... CIV2 gameplay with CIV5 graphics.

I never played CIV3 because I had read bad reviews about it when it was first released.

I finally got around to playing CIV3, "I think it is "Great"" , Maybe it has some 'quirks" in the game play, adds to the challenge I think,, [ Wish I had never read that comp. mag. with the bad reviews in it. ]

Now I need to learn to Mod properly and full satisfaction will be fulfilled I think. I couldn't even download a unit

Would be nice if the creators of CIV 3 could fix these odd quirks,,,,or would they make it worse....lol

 

[Zefyrinus]

Tedious Corruption levels
Tedious incurable Pollution
Tedious Technology trees of zero use/value
Tedious and ineffectual/irrational weaponry advances
Tedious No like-for-like trading
After Railroads at the mid-game point Workers become Tedious pollution moppers

Massive gaps where there appears to be nothing useful to build
Massive balancing problems between AI only abilities and Human only abilities
Massive balancing problems between old and new military Units
The game has a general Civilisation-light feeling

I totally agree with all of this! (Except the last line which I don't understand what you mean by it.) I especially hate the AI behavior. Like when they are sending a massive stack of troups from across the continent just to get you, like someone already mentioned on some other thread, while they have that stupid grin on their face, pretending to be your friend. I just get so ripe.

That being said, I have never played II, IV or V so I don't know how bad or good they are. Civilization Revolution to Nintendo DS is the worst one I've played; they've simplified it so much for the DS that it's not any fun. Also, if you're at the same technology level as the enemy, you need to outnumber them like 10 to 1 in order to take a city.

 

[gps]

That being said, I have never played ... IV ... so I don't know how bad or good they are.

Well, then I would really recommend getting and trying it. The IV Complete Edition should be available in Europe for less than 10 Euros - which is the equivalent of two or three beers or so. So even if you hate it absolutely that's not too much money wasted. And if you like it you're getting a lot of content and one of the most complex and versatile games of strategy for an absolute budget price...

 

[Cyc]

Well, then I would really recommend getting and trying it. The IV Complete Edition should be available in Europe for less than 10 Euros - which is the equivalent of two or three beers or so.

If he waits much longer, it may be 100 euros, or a thousand euros.