User Reviews (21 - 31 of 369)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

Excellent!

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 23 / 30
Date: November 02, 2001
Author: Amazon User

I don't get it. Why the heck would you review something you haven't played yet? Well, for the past few days, evening, wee hours of the morning I've been plugging away at this one. At first I was let down slightly by the overall similarity to Civ II, since its basically the same game with some improvements. However these improvements in graphics and several other areas add a condisderable amount of depth to the game. You no longer have to mess around with trading (caravans) which is a tremendous improvement. In addition, resources have been tweaked to make them a foundational aspect of success. This also blends into the deep diplomatic elements of the game. Overall, a very good improvement to Civ II and Alpha Centari that is just as time consuming as its forerunners. Excellent!

A vital component of a turn-based gamer's library

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 16 / 18
Date: November 15, 2001
Author: Amazon User

If you have ever played any of the Sid Meier games before (well, except Colonization), then you already know what you're in for. If you've never played any of his games, I won't be able to describe this one for you. Suffice it to say that they are extremely enjoyable, provide great depth and great challenge, and provide relationship-threatening hours of entertainment in front of your PC. "One more turn" will be your new catch-phrase.

A brief description: you are one of a number of leaders in ancient times, many thousands of years B.C. Your goal is to conquer the earth. You start with a small village, and by tilling the land, exploring and meeting other tribes, and various other means, you learn new technology, expand your empire, and watch your civilization grow through the ages, from spears and chariots through miniaturization and interstellar travel. I know, I know, that's hardly anything to go on; just buy the game and trust me.

My impressions of it, as a veteran of the Civ series: as the documentation points out, if you haven't played any previous games, you won't have any bad habits to break. How true! I was never very good at earlier games and have had to start on the easiest level of this one just to learn the new tricks. Other reviewers are right on target by suggesting that culture is the key. Your area of influence is determined by each city's culture, gained through time from certain improvements and wonders. Develop enough culture and you can even seduce your opponents' cities to join your civilization. If, like me, you thought Temples were a crutch for over-militaristic societies, throw that one out the window. Trade? No longer an advancement. The Apollo Program? Can't rely on someone else to build it for you; you'll need your own.

That's right, your own wonder. There are now "Great" wonders, which are unique, and "Small" wonders, which can be built by any civilization meeting the requirements. Terrain now plays a greater role: in addition to defense, the random items that appear are now vital for certain units and actions. Want a Swordsman? Better have access to iron. No coal? No railroads.

The technology tree looks a bit smaller and is divided into Eras. Want to develop a straight-line path to Space Flight? Nice try. You need to discover all required technologies in one era before advancing to another. I think it helps a lot in terms of managing your development; the order in which you discover them gives you variation from game to game, but you don't have to worry about too many wrong turns because you all pass through the same gates.

The influence of the previous game, Alpha Centauri, is most evident in the concept of unique abilities for civilizations. In the past, the only real differences between the groups was in leader name, adjectives, city names, and color. Not any longer. Each civ has two specialty areas (out of 6, so with 16 possibilities, two civs have the same and the rest are unique), starts with two techs based on those, and gains special things based on those areas. Also, each civ has a special unit that is superior to the unit available to others. For example, the Americans get an F-16 in addition to the Fighter that everyone else uses. It's better and does more things ... but once the Fighter's been surpassed, the F-16 loses its edge. I really like this - it's one of the things that caused me to shelve Civ II for Alpha Centauri. Now, you'll replay the game not just to try alternate strategies, but to see what the difference is between the Aztecs and the French.

Air units have been changed quite a bit, by the way. You no longer "fly" based on your range, miscounting your squares to crash into the sea. Instead, you have areas of operation, and can perform one (or more) actions within that area. It takes a little getting used to, but it's a nice improvement.

Oh, one more important change: your score is an average now, not a total. No more jacking up your population in the final turns to max out your score. It's averaged over all your turns, so if you started out as the weak civ on the block, you may never catch up; alternatively, if you can get that big, early lead, you may be able to coast home. (Watch out for the UN, though.)

I really can't explain much more without going into details that you should discover yourselves, or without totally losing those who've never enjoyed a Sid Meier game. I will point out that this is version 1, so there are a few little things here and there (no male Russian? no female American? What's with calling me Mr. in a Democracy?). They're minor. Trust me. And most will be fixed.

A couple things to note: it is much like Civ II, so if you are expecting great differences, you won't find them here. Buy Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. It mixes some of these elements with a completely different storyline. Another is that along those lines, you will find that despite all the automation at your fingertips, the game drags on in the waning years. I like that, because it shows how my civilization has grown - Rome wasn't built in a day, and you can't run it in an hour these days either. However, you may prefer a quicker ending.

If you have any interest in turn-based strategy games, and don't have other people who expect to see you around over the next month or so, get this. Now. Scroll to the top of the screen and buy it. If you're female, available, and really like this game, call me! No, seriously, buy it, enjoy it, and prepare to spend hundreds of hours relishing the work of the team. This is one of the best games I own (and I do own a lot), and I've never been disappointed with a Sid Meier game ... except for Colonization ... so I recommend this one for everyone.

Decent, but not well balanced

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 14 / 15
Date: May 08, 2003
Author: Amazon User

Civilization. The name should conjure forth in a player's memory countless hours of "One more turn", how much coffee the human body can consume, and the true meaning of the word "Addiction".
I poured more time into Civ2 than I have *ever* put into any other game, hands down. To this day I find myself playing it for hours at a time...the game is perfect, has seemingly infinite replayability, and is a blast in multiplayer. So when Civilization III was slated to come out I was beside myself with joy. I was an almost daily visitor to the game's website, inputting my own questions alongside the other thousands of fans.

But how do you explain this game? To really understand the problem, one must look at both the inherent pros and cons of the game itself. In my humble opinion Sid got some things dead right, things that really do add to a game like this. And others it's like he forgot (God forgive me for saying this about a computer gaming legend like this) and got completely backwards.

In it's favor Civ 3 is very pretty to look at for a game of it's type. Animated units run across the landscape and terrain has a fresh and real feel to it. Another plus to the game is the addition of borders. I love it when I can take over a rival city bloodlessly and intact. And it offers incentive to throw production into buildings that otherwise might be sidelined in favor of military applications: Libraries and the like. The research tree makes a little more sense than it did in Civ 2, but I'll be the first to tell ya that I miss the old one a lot more. I keep hitting Philosophy and expecting to get a free advance, and when nothing happens I can't hide my disappointment. The animated battles are nice to watch, and I like the addition of levels of experience for your troops, ie "Veteran" and "Elite". The end of the game, as I watch my Civlization's borders expand on the overview area, I can't help but think back to that turn and say "I remember that!", when certain events happen or Wonders are built. These are all great things about this game to me, and it's one of the reasons that I continue to try to win at it.

But the whole effort is hamstrung by some rather critical problems, ones that I'm surprised the gaming community doesn't seem to want to acknowledge, and those that do do it reluctantly. Here's some examples...

- Units are horribly unbalanced. This has gotten a little better with the latest patches, but the fact remains that a guy wielding a sword should be NO match for a guy firing a rifle. It's frustrating to see advanced units fall before Medieval weapons...it makes no sense. I could forgive the game every single fault it had, if not for this single problem.

- I have played, and played, and played. And yet I cannot seem to advance beyond Industrial Age despite the outrageous amount of time and effort I put into expansion and science research. I do not know what the American F-15 Special Unit looks or plays like. Nor the German Panzer. These will probably remain mysteries to me for as long as I play the game, and that bothers me. Civ 2 rewarded the player who put the most time and effort into Science by giving them technological edge over rivals and enemies. This, along with the unit imbalances mentioned above, seriously hamper the entire experience for me. Someone write me and tell me they've at least *seen* a Spaceship without cheating. I want to know if it's possible.

- Diplomacy is a mixed bag. It starts out civil enough when dealing with other Civs, but I cannot see the sense in Hiawatha demanding that I give him World Maps, Money, and my latest Scientific Discovery, just so I can get useless World Maps in return. World Maps + 200 Gold + Printing Press does NOT equal World Maps, no matter how much of the globe he possesses.

- The Corruption thing is a little out of whack. What incentive do I have to expand my empire when I know that my fringe colonies will never be able to build anything because they'll always have just one production shield? And yes I'm a Democracy, with a Police Station, Courthouse, Roads, and a Harbor. It makes me not want to expand because it's almost too much trouble.

As I said, I could let the game slide by with 4 stars if the unit imbalance issue was corrected, but even after all these patches I still can't get over the fact that a Veteran Swordman can take down an Elite Rifle unit while only taking 1 hit.

Star Control 3. Master of Orion 3. Civilization 3. Bad things come from Infogrames in 3's...

Lots of changes to Civ 2 - some good, some not so good.

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 18 / 22
Date: November 27, 2001
Author: Amazon User

I've been a huge fan of Civilization since the very first DOS version - and enjoy this one as well. They've really improved the graphics as well as the gameplay. I love that they've included culture and have increased your diplomacy options. Beware though that this version of the game is much more difficult to win than Civ 2 ever was (and there is no cheat mode to make sure you can't lose). The computer opponents are much smarter this time and even on the easiest game setting don't hesitate to form alliances against you (both military and economic).

They've also done away with spys, diplomats and caravans - though I'm not quite sure why. You have to set up trade with other kingdoms via the foreign advisor screen and isn't the easiest thing to manage. As far as spys go, I don't understand why they've done away with them. They're functions are all part of a new wonder "intelligence agency". No more buying your opponents cities.

On the negative side though - gameplay has certainly slowed down. In one complex game I played I would literally have to wait almost a minute every time the computer moved. This was the biggest detriment to the new version. And while I love the new foreign advisor screen if you're playing with more than 7 other civs - there's no way to check intelligence on them. They don't show up on the foreign advisor screen at all. Another nice function they could have built in would have been an automatic file manager for saved games. The saved files can reach over 3 MB each and have to be manually deleted.

Yeeeeeech - *disappointing* (...) I wish I'd waited...

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 19 / 24
Date: December 04, 2001
Author: Amazon User

(if I could give it 3 1/2 stars, I would; but I can't honestly even give it a 4-star rating)...

There are some improvements in this game:
*)Animation is fantastically improved, the unit detailing is striking....
*)The "specific unit specialty" for countries is a great touch.
*)The sound quality is exceptional....

...some things about the same:
*) the AI for diplomacy, while it gives one more choices, is still somewhat braindead/inbred at times when you try different things with another culture who rejects your first offers...
*) I think some of the limitations are set up a bit too high (for example, that triremes sink when more than 1 square away from land...I have played about 8 games up to this point, and even crossing a small sea strait, my triremes sink about 75-80% of the time...)

...and quite a few disappointments:
*) the aforementioned Wonder movies. Whether you care for them or not, you should have the option of viewing them. They were *fantastic* in Civ 2. One spends a significant amount of time in each city building Wonders: when you built one in Civ 2 and got the movie, you *felt* rewarded for the effort you put into it. In Civ 3, you get a stupid picture of a structure with a big *thud* from the bass drum. BIG DEAL!!! I quote from the Civ 3 website (...) ...:

"We have created a beautiful and fun world in Civ III and felt that the Wonder movies of the past would take you out of that world and interrupt the gameplay experience. In Civ III, building a Wonder triggers a unique reward screen that captures the flavor of the Wonder movies without disrupting the flow of your game."

Pardon my language, but if that reward screen gives you the flavor of the Wonder movies, then I guess a (...) gives you the flavor of a well-cooked steak. The pictures are BLAND and BORRRRRING. They should have included Wonder movies, and given you the option whether or not you want to play them. I don't think I've ever been so surprised, disappointed, or insulted as a game purchaser.

*) While I appreciate the added AI during combat, I find it ludicrous that archers can typically take on tanks and win more often than not. I think if the attack/defense difference is too great, you should make it a flat 1/1000 chance of taking out a unit. I would find that much more realistic.

*) I find the ranges of most of the modern weapons quite limited...jet fighters *and* cruise missiles have far more range than the creators of Civ 3 seem to grant them. 4 squares is hardly anything at all...

*) If the above 2 things don't bother you, just wait till the computer's AI decides to send an army of warriors and archers (let's say 20) up against your walled city, with infantry and tanks contained therein. It's ridiculous the "barbarians" would gain access to the city -- yet they often do.

*) The computer does not handle diplomacy very well when it comes to the other nation removing armies from your territory - it only seems to work about 50% of the time. Otherwise, you might find a settler with a 1 army escort plunking right down
in the only 3x3 open spot of land you have in the middle of YOUR nation. VERY irritating.

I'd have to completely agree with the review of 1 person on a computer gaming magazine site, when he said this game smacks of something that was rushed out the door without being *fully* tested, for Christmas. It's disappointing at best. If there is a Civ 4, I'm going to hang back and wait 3 months this time instead of just blindly rushing out and buying it.

Good game but a disappointing upgrade

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 17 / 21
Date: November 29, 2001
Author: Amazon User

If you don't have Civilization 2 and like strategy games, Civ 3 is highly recommended. But if you already have Civ 2, you might want to wait for the price to drop a bit so you feel you got your money's worth. There are some improvements, notably in diplomacy and trade. And there are some disappointments, such as the elimination of the beautiful video clips when you build a Wonder. The interface is simpler, but clunky at times: It takes NINE mouse clicks to save game and exit. Unlike other reviewers I've had no problems with stability and responsiveness (on a Pentium IV running Windows Me). But the game just isn't fresh enough to entice me to spend as much time on it as its predecessors.

Not a big improvement over Civ II

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 11 / 11
Date: November 26, 2001
Author: Amazon User

I am somewhat disappointed in Civ III. Although there are some new features, I don't think it warranted a new release. Don't get me wrong, it's a great game, but if you own Civ II, there is no real reason to buy this game.

Additionally, I found a bug that causes the game to error out when trying to load a saved game. It happened a couple of times which ruined a great game of mine. (I lost about 30 hours of work). Oh well.

If you are new to the Civ series, you should definetly get this game.

Civ III....well......

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 12 / 13
Date: February 12, 2002
Author: Amazon User

It's interesting to read these reviews as most are raves or rants - with very little gray area. The complaint of one ranter, is the high point of a raver.

Having developed multimedia and games for Microsoft and others via 3rd party development Cos. my first point - Know thyself when reading these reviews!!!!

Some points. The 'improved' AI - Civ III is much harder, even after the shakedown period. Many of the same complaints were made about Civ II being too hard, cheating too much, etc. But we figured out how to do it. That said, let's not mince words, it's not 'better' AI, it's just more of the same cheating that has always gone on with the Civ series - free production, not having to support units, automatically locating goals whether they be resources, enemy cities/units and of course the mad sharing of technology with every other civ. These are just a few.

Live with it, Sid ain't gonna change. He and the development team consistently kept the machine cheating, and consistently tried to eliminate the cheats that folks have used to get around it.

Corruption problem - there is the bug factor, I don't think that it was supposed to be this severe...but again, see above

Slow, bloatware approach to the game. Again, Civ II was an improvement graphically, but a slower game, Civ III is NOT even an improvement IMHO, it goes down the CTP and Colonization path which, Sid you listening? Didn't exactly go over very well did it? It's way too large, and way too slow - I wish Sid would have realized that when he dumped the throne room of Civ I it was a GOOD thing - you look at it once or twice and turn it off - now every screen is a static throne room display with slow loads.

I keep getting the impression that Sid and crew was furious with the fact that people were playing the game their way, not his way and has worked to force everyone to play the game his way. It is possible to win that way, but very, very slow and the game play (itself very slow)doesn't provide the punch to get you through. The Wonder movies, a small item, gave a sense of progress and marking the time - this game feels like nothing is going on for hours without anything really happening. The visuals get old - and when they do.....well.....we would really like to have something happenalong the way.

It's an OK game - the culture concepts are interesting, but only half developed and historically not terribly accurate (don't pretend parents!!!). I can't really recommend it to the Civ addict, because the feel of play is different and slushy,but for a non-addict, or someone new to turn-based, it's a decent, not great game.

Caveat Emptor - this game is a disappointment!

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 19 / 26
Date: May 21, 2002
Author: Amazon User

I am not faint of heart nor am I unschooled in playing pc games - there was a time when I played Civ II so much I could barely get to work the next day. This incarnation of the game looked and sounded fun so I bought it based on the raves I heard.... The graphics are fun, its nice to have everything in 3D but that is about the only upside to this game.

The things that I was looking forward to the most, new trade and diplomacy options, are a bust. Trade is easier now but you just really cannot get anything useful out of it. Trade does not function well. You have to have a sea route or a land route to an AI country to trade with it. Once there is a sea route you and the AI need harbors. But the AI's don't build harbors for centuries, even when they can. For a land route, you have to build a road. You can expect that the closest AI will also always be your enemy so good luck trading with them or though them (you can but you lose the route when you go to war with your neighbor. All the AI's almost always demand more than the trade is worth. Then they are very happy to drop trading with you and trade amongst themselves, cutting the human player out totally.

Trade and diplomacy are inextricably linked now. This gets to the biggest disappointment - diplomacy worked much better in Civ 2. Diplomacy is a misnomer in this game. AI's demand, you basically have to give in. You ask and MAYBE can get what you want by giving up everything you have, only to have the AI become annoyed or furious with you anyway. This is not because I do not know how to negotiate - I do it for a living, you just cannot get anything but a bad deal in this game.

So that leaves just waging war mostly. Here, the game has picked up one of the more unfortunatel traits of Civ 2. The AI's do not have to build any city improvements BUT YOU DO TO KEEP YOUR PEOPLE HAPPY. The upshot is that they have the time and the money to spend building armies that you MUST devote to building other things. A few good tactical victories during the inevitable war usually gets the AI to the peace table but you have to start rebuilding everything destroyed from scratch wasting more time and money. The AI just goes back to building Wonders and military units and then blitzes you with dozens of units the next time around. It becomes dull and repetitous.

I would have been happier if they had just taken Civ 2 and improved the graphics - that would have been enough. Instead they ruined the game. Now, I am mostly just bored by Civ 3.

So slow it kills the fun

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 10 / 10
Date: November 13, 2001
Author: Amazon User

I'll get to the details in a second, but the overwhelming problem with this game is that it is so incredibly slow. As others have said, it is hard to enjoy the game when, in the later years, I make my moves and have time to go make a sandwich in the kitchen before the AI is finished with its moves. SO SLOW it drives me crazy. This is the number one priority for fixing this game. A game that would have progressed nicely in an afternoon on CivII now takes a few afternoons. It's almost impossible to comment on the new features and changes because the slow pace of play gets in the way. In addition, I've had to contend with several crashes and a few annoying situations where a unit had finished bombarding but would not accept the "Hold" command. So frustrating.

On the positive side, the ability to conduct trade and diplomacy through your advisors instead of having to build units is a big time saver and makes more sense. Also, the ability to irrigate along the diagonal, something which seems minor, is actually a major improvement. No more irrigating non-city squares just so you can get around a mountain to your own city squares. And there have been some time-saving changes in military units. For example, it's nice to have a bomber simply choose a square to bomb without having to move the damned thing to the target and back.

Aside from the pace of game play, there are a few issues that need to be tweaked.

1) Manual - Often the manual gets you 85% of the answer, but you have to figure out the rest through trial and error. Opening the Civilopedia takes forever and is often just as unhelpful. For future buyers, I hope they revise the manual. The index is terrible and needs to be expanded. Some major game concepts are not listed.

2) Resources - In one game, I had bombers, fighters and F-15s (as the Americans), but I still had to take cities on the ground with swordsmen because I couldn't find rubber. What are the wheels on those planes made of, wood? I was the largest civilization by far, yet I couldn't find rubber anywhere within my borders, nor could I trade for it. Very frustrating. I have yet to find horses in any game I've played and, because the AI is reluctant to trade them, I have yet to build a mounted unit, even in games that last until the late 1900's.

Also, the conditions for making a colony over a resource seemed inconsistent. It was nearly impossible to predict when I could and could not build one.

3) Corruption - It seems incredibly high compared with CivII, even in Democracy. Maybe I am missing something in the manual.

4) AI Cheating - This has always been my gripe with Civ. Even in CivII, the democracies I was fighting seemed to produce military units by the ton with no discontent. Nothing has changed. In a recent CivIII game, I was attacking a civilization with four small (less than size 6) cities left (the others had fallen to my cultural influence) and (on top of the fact that I was using bombers to crush those four cities) this civilization was STILL cranking out what appeared to be ten units a turn.

5) SPEARMAN DEFEATS TANK! - I cannot believe that it would be that difficult to assign each unit a "technology" level that would prevent this kind of silliness. No unit that does not have gunpowder at the minimum should be able to survive at all versus armor or mechanized infantry. I've got to believe they could write a patch to fix this problem and make combat more realistic.

For the moment, I have to give it only three stars because the pace of play is so excruciatingly slow compared to CivII. It's hard to comment on the new features because I have trouble enjoying the game when just a few turns end up taking thirty minutes. If they can fix that problem, the game may turn out to be an improvement.

Review Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next 

Actions