User Reviews (151 - 161 of 369)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

WAIT FOR THE EXPANSION PACKS

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 4 / 7
Date: November 06, 2001
Author: Amazon User

The game has some serious flaws, as early releases always do.

I suppose the game might be good if I ever got it to work. I spent HOURS reinstalling drivers, updating drivers, reconfiguring video display.. . . . .and I even upgraded to Windows XP. The game never worked.

Fraxis and Infrogames has multiple websites set up for tech support, however if that doesn't help, you can always call LONG DISTANCE to their people to help with the game set up.

BUT, even if it did work, THIS GAME IS NOT MULTIPLAYER!!!!

NO HOTSEAT.
NO LAN.
NO DIALUP.
NO WEBSITE.
NO MULTIPLAYER.

The WONDERS of the world were severely weakened and some even removed all together. NO Marco Polo, a superb multi player wonder.

So, I returned my game. I'm waiting for the expansion packs in a few months or more when the game is more reasonably priced and they clean up the SERIOUS BUGS.

It is a freak.

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 6 / 14
Date: October 06, 2002
Author: Amazon User

The game simply uses the name of its predecessors Civ1/2. The creators do not demonstrate any creativity and most of the new ideas are either to the wrong direction or the creators have not worked properly on them but they added them simply because they had to add something new.

As examples I can use the absense of Zones Of Control and the new diplomatic options, but i)they are not supported by the necessary AI so computer Civs many times take controversial decisions, ii)You have not elementary options like betraying your ally (i.e. in a mutual protection pact war is declared automatically. You cannot at least renounce this pact without war!!) and every diplomatic option should have its opposite match (i.e. offer in negotiations that you will renounce a mutual right of passage with a 3rd civ not participating in negotiations).

No try to improve AI. On the contrary they decided to solve the problem of bad AI by reducing the options of the player (technological tree, the way a wonder can be built).

Finally the creators did not take any ideas from the similar SMAC and reality has really destroyed the game. For instance bombers and artilleries are almost useless and definetely very expensive comparing to what they do. Similarly with ship bombardments.

Doesn't compare to Civ2

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 5 / 11
Date: June 10, 2005
Author: Amazon User

First off, I won't go into much detail as to why I think Civ3 was a major let down. Other posters have commented on the negative features of the game and I generally agree with them.

Briefly, Civ3 is the result of the designers building upon and removing various aspects of Civ2. The whole problem with what they've done though, is that I've found they've taken some good bits of Civ2 and added in useless bits. As an example: Civ2 had a hitpoints and firepower concept to prevent bizarre situations such as a Phalanx beating a Battleship from occuring, as they did in civ1. However in Civ3 the designers have strangely taken back this much needed feature. Don't say I didn't warn you when your Panzers get blown up by some Longbowman.

The interface has also somewhat taken a step back from the 1996 version of this game. When I first started Civ2, I found myself right-clicking all too often on a particular terrain square to see its yields. This handy feature is now gone - each time you want to look up what a square produces, you have to click on a civilopedia button at the top of your screen, find the "terrain" topic then look down a list for your terrain, for example. Given that terrains yields have changed from civ2, (Forests and Hills add trade with roads, mining a plain/grassland will produce +1 shield) this is a bit annoying at first. There's no control panel on the right either, so there's no way of telling if that square that you want to improve already has, say, mining over it without squinting over the screen to check for it.

Overall the changes made to civ3 has, to me, made it feel more sluggish, tedious, and less strategic. It's like they've toned down the strategic nature of Civ2 and added some redundant RTS flavour to it. (RTS being, the games like Command and Conquer, Age of empires, etc)

Well, that's my view. You can probably tell I like my games to be heavy on thinking, with graphics being a negligent factor. However I know there are those out there who played Civ2 "command and conquer" style - that is only caring about building, and conquering without giving much thought about the finer points of the game. Or, basically the ones who couldn't handle, or didn't enjoy, Deity mode in Civ2. If you're one of these players then you'll probably get a kick out of Civ3.

An utter disappointment...

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 5 / 11
Date: January 07, 2002
Author: Amazon User

Cid should be ashamed of himself...

Your money would be better spent buying premium gasoline for a rented automobile.

Great for rich people who can afford new computers

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 7 / 19
Date: December 26, 2001
Author: Amazon User

I will never understand why some people insist on taking a simple yet great (and hugely profitable) thing, adding excessive special effects, and selling it to morons who ooh and ahh over marginally fancier graphics and a worse overall gaming experience.
Unless you are one who can afford to go out and buy a new mainframe supercomputer every year, DO NOT PURCHASE THIS GAME! I tried to load it onto my computer, 233MHz with 4 GB HD, and it literally took several minutes to move units, take turns, and look at option screens. I am deleting it and returning it for a refund. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. I looked over the system requirements for Civ 2--15 MB HD, 33MHz processer, 8 RAM. Any gamer with a 10 year old computer could play it. It wasn't fancy, it worked well, and the whole point in playing was not to be visually stimulated, but to be intellectually challenged. The end result? Civ 2 was one of the best and most enjoyable games of all times. Civ 3, however, requires 700 MB of hard drive (over a third of the total space on many 3 year old computers), a 300-500 Mhz processer, etc. Why?! There is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for needing that much space to run a stategy game of this type! ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE! I personally, and probably many of you reading this, do not have a a computer of that magnitude, nor have the money to buy one, nor have the need for one, except for playing this game. The thing that made Civ 2 a great game was the game itself, not how fancy it was or how much it did. I was perfectly happy watching a stationary unit slide across the map. I do not need to see them run back and forth. Such things are great, but are of tertiary importance in a strategy game. The most important things, which made Civ 2 popular, were the quality of the game itself and the fact that it worked quickly and properly. Civ 3 is just the latest in a long string of hollywood special effects wonders with no attention paid to anything but visual stimulation. This is an extremely poor addition to the civilisation series, designed for braindead imbeciles who flock to see rubbish films of the same genre. I for one do not recommend its purchase, nor will I be looking forward to any further editions.

A disappointment

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 2 / 2
Date: July 21, 2003
Author: Amazon User

I thoroughly enjoyed Civ2 and Alpha Centauri, and I eagerly anticipated the release of Civ3. What a major disappointment.

There are a few pluses in this game. The enhanced graphics produce more realistic looking terrain and units. Trade and diplomacy is more realistic than in Civ2, with extensive haggling, development of trade routes, and placement of luxuries and natural resources.

That about does it for the pros. The game has six pathways to victory, which should be a major pro, but turns into an unbelievable con. I love a challenge, but the AI seems to focus on beating your civilization, rather than have seven other civs competing with yours on an equal footing. If you try to win by conquering, rival civs will team up on you, force you to make peace, and then re-take your possessions with cultural expansion. It is extremely annoying to conquer a major rival city, and then have it rejoin its mother civilization -- while the rival civilization takes your conquering army because it is busy pacifying the resisting city!!

If you try the peaceful route and beautify your cities with cultural monuments, somehow the aggressive civs find you, target you, and wipe out your pitiful army while carving up your civ. And you can forget trying to change strategies midgame -- if you don't stick to one goal, you are doomed.

Basically, it seemed that in Civ2 it was possible to balance production, military force, and keeping a population happy. The added cultural dimension of Civ3 makes it too difficult to manage. I was able to be competitive up to the king level in Civ2, and in this game, I struggle mightily with the regent level and eventually get whipped. Maybe its me, but I don't think so. I checked a few of the online strategy guides, and it surely is possible to win at the higher levels -- but only by using seemingly unorthodox methods that betray the spirit that made the game so addicting in the first place. Who wants to build cities one square apart in horribly overlapping radii so they can win the cultural battle?

Finally, they ruined the air and artillery units. I liked Alpha Centauri's system much better, which allowed a gamer to craft air units with specific functions, and target enemies in unit-to-unit combat.

I hope Civ4 will take the best parts of Civ3 (trade and diplomacy) and Civ2 (military management), and create a challenging, but fair game. The cultural dimension could be cool, if it was done properly.

You'll love this, all you strategy fans.

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 2 / 2
Date: April 20, 2004
Author: Amazon User

This game is a greeeaat game! really. It alows you to do any thing you want from declaring war to building a CIA headquarters in your capital city. Who do you want to be? Honest Abe of America or her majesty Queen Elizabeth of England. Charge cavarly into battle or bombard cities with battleshps and cannons! Trade spices for fur or incense for wine. Fight over oil, land. And in this game land truly means power not just military. Build the biggest highways in the world, or just capture slaves and make them build your Pyramids.March loyal infantry into battle or burn down cities with your raging cahriots. What I'm trying to say is: IT YOUR CHOICE IN THIS GAME!

If it's your type of game, you should love it

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 2 / 2
Date: April 08, 2004
Author: Amazon User

Basic summary: awesome, well done strategy game. But it might not be your type of game. It is more well balanced than Civ 2, and more realistic too. The diplomacy, especially trading, makes a ton of sense. It has most of the good features from Call to Power, Alpha Centaurii, and Civ 2, including:

Realistic Bombardment: In real life, catapults and such can't annihilate troop concentrations, but are good in seiges.

Capturing units: workers( they build roads and such) and artillery-type units can be captured instead of destroyed

borders: you can actually see them; none of this "you're in my city radius" crap

However, it does lack some fun aspects of Civ 2, such as fundamentalist governments (not very politically correct) and the ability to choose between a male and female leader (each leader has different portraits for each mood and time period, plus they're animated like a Harry Potter photograph. On the plus side, no stupid emissaries.)

Also, you'll need to readjust your strategies if you're used to Civ 2. While there isn't any cheat menu, if it's too hard you can just re-load the game after critical battles. Also, you can just accept the fact that you can't build every wonder, or even be sure of winning the game, even at the easiest difficulty level. Another waste of time is watching the enemy painstakingly reshuffle his troops every turn, especially in a large, modern world. This can easily be avoided by turning off animation for people you're not at war with. You still have to watch them move, but they do it at a comically fast rate.

In general, better than any other game of it's kind.

Civilation III

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 2 / 2
Date: April 06, 2007
Author: Amazon User

Absolutely addictive, better than Sim City, rather than building a city, you get to build an empire with CivIII. Tried Civ Complete but found it more difficult to play though the added features were great. In Civilization III, you start with a dark world you have to send explorers out to discover. Build as many cities as you can, trying to add as many luxury items (wine, spice, silk, etc) and strategic items (iron, horses, coal) into your empire while building common items (libraries, banks, etc) and wonders (pyramid, colossus, pentagon). The game starts in the BC era and continues through the 21st century as your technology advances, you win or lose wars, establish diplomatic ties with neighboring countries and continue to build. A first class game of strategy.

One of the best games ever

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 2 / 2
Date: July 07, 2006
Author: Amazon User

Works great with Windows ME and is both fun and challenging. There are also some great cheats to download if you like that.

Review Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next 

Actions