Why Are you still playing Civ III?

[LLXerxes]

It wouldn't run on any of the computers in my house. And when I got the new computer I learned that I lost one of the installation disks.

Besides, CIII is great. I got more out of Conquests than I did CIV, even though I did enjoy it.

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

I find Civ III more entertaining than Civ IV, so I tend to play it more.

 

[Dishpan_Hans]

Civ 3 is just more fun. It took me a bit to warm up to Civ 3, so I may warm up to Civ 4 someday, but the technical/system requirements are too much for my old computer, so I really only played civ 4 at someone else's house, I found the religion thing to be mostly a tedious retread of the caravan/freight concept from Civ 2, something I found tiring.

I prefer the graphics of Civ 3, too. Civ 4's leaders look too goofy.

I find the different options for terrain improving was the most interesting aspects of Civ 4 from what I saw.

 

[Zelda's Man]

Though I have been playing civ3 for about 2 years, I have recently beaten conquests on deity. Now I am trying to play through all of the conquests. There is still much to do. When I finally get bored with civ3, then I'll start playing cIV.

 

[boarder]

civ3 has a more epic feeling about it to me

 

[Elite]

I'm going to wait a little longer before I buy Civ IV(still in buggy/beta phase) I don't like sudden crashes.

 

[Virote_Considon]

I just can't sit down and play a game of Civ4. Everytime I try, I decide to just tinker a bit with a Civ3 scenario before hand, or I play it and it makes me think of a Civ3 scenario that's more fun.

 

[Empiremaker]

Mainly #1, I've played Civ 4 some on a computer I don't usually can't play on. I wasn't too impressed by it either. It just lacked something, although there are some great things, I just don't think its hat great. I don't care about the type of graphics as long as I can tell what's what. 3-D or 2-D doesn't matter, and even like Civ 3's grpahics moe than Civ 4's.

Plus I just downloaded RAR, and it's great. Civ 3 still has a lot in it.

If could play both equally I would probably spend about 2/3 my time with Civ 3 and 1/3 with Civ 4.

 

[Runes]

In addition, I thought that technology came at me too fast in Civ4. I'd be in the Industrial age and have a unit for each city and almost no trade links.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I was ver excited about Civ IV coming out, and was just as disappointed by it. Civ III Conquests, even with the irritating corruption and the like, is still so much better than Civ IV. The best part is, since I'm usually somewhat dissasitfied with a map or something, I can easily go in and change it.

 

[Mirc]

We'll lose 20 people when they upgrade their computers!

I have both, and like both, but Civ3 is much more addictive, I like it more, I like modding it, I like playing mods for it, and I like it all in all much more.

 

[gunkulator]

I only play Civ3 when I'm on my old computer, which is still quite often. I don't care about mods or modding. Given the choice, I'll take Civ4.

 

[Scratcher]

I have had Civ3 since 2001, probably when it came out. I have played nearly nothing else since. I just really like this game.

I got Civ complete only last year and I am still slowly getting used to the differences of C3C. To me this game has nearly eternal playability and I have not been tempted in the least to purchase and play CIV.

 

[El Justo]

easy - the game mechanics for civ3 are just better right now. it's relatively easy to modify, there's hordes of great gfx, and the surface has only been scratched wrt enhancing the core/vanilla game.

i have civ4 also but don't particularly care for the gfx, the single unit values, the BS artillery set-up, the dorky 3D gfx, the insanely intricate measures needed to mod, and the general lack of any real quality fan-made stuff has prevented me from switching. in time though, this may change. however, it's gonna take quite a bit to get me to switch over - i mean, the appeal for civ3 is very much still there for me...

 

[Risbinroch]

I have loved Civilization from the start until CIVIII. Civilization also has a few good things, but there are too many elements I really hate: 3d graphics the most important.

Then the wild animals attackin units! If I wan't to play Age of Empires I would do that instead... However I won't, so I stick with Civ3.

 

[mjdh1957]

There are some Civ3 scenarios that I really enjoy so I still fire it up from time to time, though I now play mostly Civ 4.

And when the Age of Imperialism 3 scenario comes out I'll be giving that a go.

 

[Smellincoffee]

My computer couldn't possibily run CivIV. Every time I get a little money saved up to upgrade it, I wind up buying DVDs instead.

 

[The 777 Hoax]

I bought Civ4 and it was poopy.

 

[Civinator]

It´s always the same Civ3/Civ 4 thread and therefore it´s somehow difficult to get something new in the discussion:

In the newest issue of the German computer game magazine "Gamestar" some journalists visited FIRAXIS to have a test on the new game "Sid Meier´s Railroads". Three hours were reserved for the test by FIRAXIS, but a quarter of that time would have been sufficiant. So simple and boring was that new game. All interesting strategy stuff was been cut off.

After that test, the thoughtful journalists discussed about the simplifications of that game until one of them said:" Looks like they have given that game the "Civ-treatment" and that this wasn´t meant as a compliment (end of that article).

The fun of strategy games is streamlined away more and more by FIRAXIS.
The next they streamline away, seems to be the player in total (like the megaflop MOO 3). Some posters say, that Civ 4 is missing the "soul". But the soul of a computer game is the player...

Sorry, but it seems, that Sid is getting too old to do good computer games any longer and that his advisors are "on the wrong train".

 

[El Justo]

Civinator/Blue Lion wrote:
the soul of a computer game is the player

getting philosophical on us?!