What is your view of Civ3?

[dirtyparrot]

And so as to help you decide, here is another thing recently created for civ3

I'm waiting for sharks with freaking lasers attached to their heads before playing another CIV III game

 

[Kyriakos]

There are some sharks around, at least three, but no lasers

Some more stuff currently being developed for civ3:

 

[civver_764]

Civ 3 is inferior in almost every aspect to Civ 4. Truth.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well that is a simplistic way to see it. Civ4 has 3d gfx, but of lower quality: the units have less details and frames, the buildings have 1/20nth of the polygons used in civ3. That is to be expected since it would need a supercomputer to play with things that have 1 million polygons

But i wouldnt count on civ4 being around 10 years after its release.

 

[civver_764]

I didn't just mean graphics. The game play itself is better.

And yeah I guarantee there will still be a fairly active Civ 4 community 5 years from now.

 

[Takhisis]

Will any of you gentlemen care to place a bet?

 

[ZeletDude]

I think civ 3 is pretty fun, but I haven't played it in a few months, never played civ 4 though, my computer sucks . So I can't really compare them.

 

[History_Buff]

Perhaps I'm just weird, but Civ 3 was a much better game than Civ 4. Civ 4 was ugly, the squares are ungainly, large parts of the combat system are stupid, and the maps are generally too small, and unattractive. And the lack of depth in the Civ franchise becomes more and more obvious with each release.

While I have high hopes for Civ 5, I have higher hopes for Victoria 2.

 

[civver_764]

Ugly? I suppose it's just a matter of taste, but I can't enjoy Civ 3 anymore like I used to because Civ 4 just looks 1,000,000x better. Especially with my awesome video card.

The only qualms I have with the combat system are that health and strength are the same thing, but otherwise it's tons better than Civ 3's. The maps can vary in size you know... Have you tried the Giant Earth Map? =D

And what depth was lacking in Civ IV? The fact that you don't have to micromanage like crazy late game?

 

[Takhisis]

You don't have to micromanage in civIII either if you know how to use the governors. You can automate nearly everything.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Auto-management in every game always sucks. Anyway, the "micromanagement" of civ 3 is not extraordinary. Its what you would expect from this sort of game.

At any rate, why would you not want to micromanage this sort of thing? The purpose of micromanagement is to defer the decision-making to other, equally capable people (like a multi-core processor or 4-wheel drive in a car; splitting the workload out) to save time and headaches. But the AI is not equally capable because its a stupid computer, so deferring decision-making to it about construction in your empire is stupid. The same goes for essentially all auto-management in games.

 

[Dachs]

You wouldn't want to micromanage this sort of thing because it's boring as hell.

 

[aelf]

Perhaps I'm just weird, but Civ 3 was a much better game than Civ 4. Civ 4 was ugly, the squares are ungainly, large parts of the combat system are stupid, and the maps are generally too small, and unattractive. And the lack of depth in the Civ franchise becomes more and more obvious with each release.

See what I mean? I've heard only complaints about graphics (a matter of taste) and some unsubstantiated comments about gameplay mechanics (combat system stupid? Like how when you don't get as much? Lack of depth? How?) and not an objectively valid comment about how CIII is better than CIV.

 

[Kyriakos]

What is certain is that it would have been hard on the computer to cope with civ3 detailed gfx in civ4. Which is why you get skins instead of modelled details. But skins look horrible up close...

 

[Till]

How often do you look at stuff up close, though? This is a strategy game, not Sims: Empire Edition...
In fact that's why i view the 3d engine as a resource expensive gimmick that i could have done without. It does look pretty,though, with the right hardware and mods.

 

[aelf]

I'm really not taken in by graphics, but I'm completely fine with CIV's. When I started on it, I didn't like it either, but after a while I got used to it, eventually more than to CIII graphics. I think it's just a matter of expectations, assuming you can run the game no problem, and those can change

 

[Zelig]

What is certain is that it would have been hard on the computer

A $400 computer can run Civ 4 at max settings, this hasn't been relevant in years.

 

[Kyriakos]

A $400 computer can run Civ 4 at max settings, this hasn't been relevant in years.

You havent been paying attention It can run civ4 with its normal gfx, not with buildings of 1 million polygons, used in civ3.
Just to compare, the buildings you see in civ4 have 100-300 polygons.

 

[Zelig]

You havent been paying attention It can run civ4 with its normal gfx, not with buildings of 1 million polygons, used in civ3.
Just to compare, the buildings you see in civ4 have 100-300 polygons.

Civ3 buildings have 0 polygons.

 

[Kyriakos]

Civ3 buildings have 0 polygons.

Do you always open your mouth without knowing what you are talking about?