Why is Civ 3 so much more addictive then the latter versions?

[Divaythsarmour]

For one thing, it doesn't crash on Windows 7 64 bit.
You don't get punished for building more cities, you get richer..
I like the early period music better.
It's over-all simpler. IMO simpler is better.
It's functional design is more elegant.

 

[GeneralMeng]

civ 3 requires more micro management, because extra food and shield doesnt carry over, makes it more challenging mentally

 

[NickyJ]

I think Civilization III is better because it is simpler. I got Civ IV a few years ago, and I felt like I was buried in options that made no sense (the manual didn't help), wouldn't work, or took lots of time to figure out. Civ 3 was simple. It was pick up and play.

 

[ChaosArbiter]

*Disclaimer: Has not played anything past 3*

Similarly to NickyJ, because it's simple. There are some things I would've liked to be different (keeping Civ2's combat system of Firepower and HP, for example), but on the whole it simply works very well. It's user-friendly, while still being complex enough to be challenging. You can play it many different ways (builder vs warmonger, UN or Space), and each civ does play differently enough that you can tailor strategies to specific ones while keeping the same broad strategy - a Swordsman push will look somewhat different with Persians than with the Celts than with Germans, for example, but they're all Swordsman pushes and the basic strategy can be used by anyone.

 

[tom2050]

C3C and AC are my type of games. Civ 4 is pretty good (except the blocky graphix) but it doesn't hold my attention at all, Civ 5 is just a disaster at this point and will stay unless a massive gameplay overhaul is done (which won't happen). Civ 5 actually has more micro than C3C to the point where it becomes painful to play.

3 is simple to play, but there is alot underneath the hood. The pedia is useful, good interface, easy to mod. You can micro if you wish.. but it's not necessary. It's biggest problems are the few AI issues that Firaxis decided to ignore for years, and even introduced with Conquests expansion.

If they would release the source code, the game would be made to be stellar by the community. The one-more-turn is a simple concept, and C3C (along with AC) nails the concept cold.

 

[GamezRule]

AC? I should know it, but can't place it.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

its sad, but this wonderful game is losing popularity
Civ V is not bad, I enjoy playing it, but Civ 4 is the worst
AC=american Conquest

 

[tom2050]

Sorry, I was talking about Alpha Centuari. Actually a flurry of activity has erupted in the Civ 3 Creation forums at least; more than at any point in the whole past year.

 

[vmxa]

When did C3 come out, about 2001, so it has been very popular for being about 10 years old. I loved AC, but even that game eventually fell out of use with me. C4 I feel about the same as Tom.

I also sort of agree on C5, but will check back on each patch to see if it got better. Mean time Tom and others make mods to keep me going.

 

[darski]

Sorry, I was talking about Alpha Centuari. Actually a flurry of activity has erupted in the Civ 3 Creation forums at least; more than at any point in the whole past year.

I agree with this. there is so much amazing stuff being offered that you almost need 5 versions of C3C to use all that good stuff.

some of the offerings just take my breath away they are so good.

 

[scratchthepitch]

Civ2 and 3 were on the right track, but Civ4 was Civ becomes Sims and completly in the wrong direction. They should have concentrated at that point on improving the AI (or replacing it with a better program) and using the best of Civ2, 3 & AC. Instead they dumbed it down to something console players and casual gamers would be comfortable with. A great potential wasted.

 

[Smellincoffee]

What keeps me playing Civ3 instead of IV is the simplicity. CIV is a very attractive game, but I don't understand it the way I know Civ3.

 

[Moosezilla]

One more turn... no wonder the source code is not given up!

 

[timerover51]

Probably because it is such an admirably balanced game from the standpoint of complexity and simplicity, game play and balance, and it is easy to work with and always fun to play. Civ4 has never come close to striking that sort of balance for me.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think it is still popular due to the new work being produced for it. It rivals civ4 i think in that respect

 

[just bob]

well i've been into civ3 because my friend showed me it in march of this year.i had heard of it and knew it was a type of strat game, but never actually knew. he showed me 3 because he didn't like 4. said the graphics game him headaches and he just didn't like it.

from what i've gathered of peoples opinions, civ3 sounds like it is the best/most liked, or very close to it.

 

[ThERat]

A lot of people tend to prefer Civ 4 these days. Civ 4 is an incredible game as well, but it seems to be too convoluted with stuff for me to be really enjoyable.

Civ 4 is miles better than Civ 5 though. Shafer wanted to get the simplicity of C3C back, but I think he failed miserably. C3C is simple, yet it gives you enough challenges and choices to be interesting. The graphics, while dated are still far more suited for such a game than 3d.

New mods are still being churned out to keep the game interesting. If only we could get the source code.

 

[GamezRule]

And if they never updated the graphics, people would probably be demanding a graphic's overhaul.

 

[ThERat]

And if they never updated the graphics, people would probably be demanding a graphic's overhaul.

Are you referring to Civ4/5? I actually quite like the Civ 5 landscape, but the way they implemented the tile improvements etc really sucks. You can't even tell where your roads are. Trade posts look just ugly.

I have never minded Civ 3 graphics, especially since there have been so many mods to make them look better.

 

[GamezRule]

I am saying if they kept Civ 3 graphics the whole time with improvement, but not 3D like was implemented, people would be wanting better.