User Reviews (31 - 41 of 369)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

Good, but Civ 2 WAS better

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 10 / 10
Date: May 11, 2002
Author: Amazon User

I really enjoyed this newer version of Sid Meier's all-time masterpiece. Simply the fact that he is back in the saddle and on the market with this game was enough to make me purchase it.

However, with this game - although his reputation remains untarnished - Sid falls below the standards of Civ 2, effectively consecrating Civ 2 as one of the greatest strategy games, if not THE greatest strategy game, of all times.

Whereas the graphics are literally breathtaking in Civ 3, and whereas the dimplomatic and trade options have been improved to irreproachable heights, there is a very real problem with unit imbalance. Horses and knights regularly defeat Panzers and tanks, and a single spearman unit can wipe out several infantry units. Whereas that may be comforting to the down-and-outers, when you've spent billions to develop a combat-ready army and you're invaded by a weaker civilization, the initial losses can be rather discouraging before sheer numbers turn the tide back in your favor - and then only at a terrible cost that might turn you into a down-and-outer yourself on the diplomatic scene.

And speaking of war, you might as well try to play without resorting to warlike acts as any offensive automatically triggers riots and revolts among your populace - effectively shutting down production and, in the case of a long-winded war, causing the destruction of city improvements.

On the other hand, the aerial units are very much improved - and the bombing runs are simply fantastic. Too, the concept of an expanding border around each city based on cultural achievement is one of sheer genius. Together with those improvements, the diplomacy alone - being able to talk with allies and enemies alike, and to have increased flexibility in those conversations - makes Civ 3 worth playing.

All in all, Civ 3 is an enjoyable game. Civ 2 may still reign supreme, but there are still quite a few good reasons to keep Civ 3 installed to your PC.

- Benjamin Gene Gardner

Who's pickin' da Banjo here?

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 57 / 113
Date: September 09, 2001
Author: Amazon User

I am one of the truly blessed, having been an (unofficial) beta-tester for CIV III. Those who discovered a new meaning for life via engagement in CIV I or II will not be disappointed: for the newest installement contains the essence of the old versions (which made the game the most talked-about of its genre, ever!), with selective (and impressive) upgrades...skill-wise, graphics-wise, diplomacy-wise, combat-wise, resource-wise, history-wise; all of course allowing on-line play. The product's performance, even at the Beta-stage, was very good (or rather, outstanding, if one compares it to the appalling reliability offerred by any Microsoft product...by the way, anyone see the recent revolting motivational video that starred Steve Ball[Bald-)mer? Available on the Net for FREE). Buy this game, and you will loose your friends, your wife/husband, your girlfriend/boyfriend (or both of the latter, haha!), ... the hair on your chest, that nasty smokers-hack (unless, of course, you puff away in front of your computer), your tan (pasty-whiteness by the time you relinquish the game), your will to do anything but play CIV III. Mark the release date on your calendar...or run up into the hills of West Virginia and become a Mountain-man (a la 'Deliverance')-it will be the only way to stop you from playing this game!

Its ok, but Civ 2 is still better.

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 14 / 17
Date: April 25, 2002
Author: Amazon User

While the graphics and new units are great, the game play is not all that great. its certainly not better than Civ2. Probably the one thing that really bothered me more than anything else was the fact that a unit on horseback could defeat my TANK! Are you kidding me?! The game is so-so. It is definitely not 4 or 5 stars like these 12 yr olds say it is. Get Civ2, its cheaper and better.

Great, but a rushed Civ III is still a rushed Civ III!! :(

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 11 / 12
Date: December 04, 2001
Author: Amazon User

(...)

Here is what I think of Civilization 3.

This game definately feels that it has been rushed. After so much anticipation for this game, I must admit that I am slightly dissapointed, even though my CIV addiction still compells me to play this game when ever I get the chance.

Don't get me wrong, you will get your money's worth. Especially for those who never played CIV II before. However, there is an overall looming feeling that this game was rushed, leaving the game to feel incomplete and sometimes very frustrating. Sometimes after long hours of playing, you would quit the game just to frantically search for a patch on the civ3.com website, only to find none. Eventually you will return to the game, but you will not be able to escape the impression that this CIV is a step backwards than a step forward, even though diplomacy, trade and resources suprisingly make the game more interesting.

Why is this the case?

By looking at the credits, and seeing that Sid Meier did not actually work on the design of CIV III, but oversaw the development, then it comes clear why this game is a STEP BACKWARDS from the improvements made in Alpha Centauri.

So what's really eating me up?

The biggest gripe that I dislike about the game is the lack of polish. Even though the graphics are great and definately welcome, there is an overall lack of polish that I wouldn't have expected from Fraxis's based on their previous games. So much is left out from CIV III, that was included in Civ II and Alpha Centauri, even though the new improvements to this game help you cope. Thus, I get the sense that I am playing only half a game. It seems to me that all of this unnecessary frustration that you will seldomly find at times throughout the game (especially in harder levels) lies at the heart of Infogrames putting pressure on Firaxis to get CIV III done in a jiffy before the holidays. For me, that was a terrible mistake.

Now, I am forced to play a game that is great, but I know could of been much better if someone only took the time to iron out small problems and inbalances within the AI, include scenarios, and incorperate some kind of multiplayer interface. Units customization, like in Alpha Centauri, while limited could of been an added.

And does anyone know why the CIV III map editor is crappy, with out the ability to set certain nations with certain player starts.

Pros:

-Science Advancements are realistic, but it may take too long to get navigation.
-

The game that won't end

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 12 / 14
Date: June 25, 2002
Author: Amazon User

First, I have played all the prior Civs including I, II, call to power, even test of time... I am a real fan of this genre. This version (Civ III) definitely provides the best game play early on but some serious problems drag you down about 15 hours into:

1) Pollution >> I don't mind it, but I mind having to manually send hordes of workers to clean it up EVERY turn ... An auto-clean mode would be welcome (regular auto mode will have them changing all your mines to irrigation).

2) War weariness >> not realistic. 10 rounds into a justified war and 90% of my cities mutiny -- Cities have to be manually adjusted unless one wants to try one's luck with the governors.

3) Opponent uber troops. Why do I need a 10:1 superiority in numbers even with several levels of technological advantage (can archers really bring down my mountain fortified cavalry?). One tank should be able to walk through a civ using swordsmen. Hell, the civ should fall to their knees trembling and call me GOD if I show up with a tank in their 11 th century development stage, don't ya think?

These three issues are major to me because they detract from the flow of the game - keeping me doing busy work instead of big picture stuff. All in all not worth the $50.

The best strategic game on the market!!!!

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 12 / 14
Date: July 01, 2004
Author: Amazon User

I remember many years ago when the acclaimed Civilization II came out. Just 2 years ago I bought Civ II. At first the game took some getting use to, but it was very addictive, and after a while became.... repetitious. I was thrilled to learn that a new game was added to the Civilization series, Civilization III, I immediately got online found the cheapest price on the internet and bought it! To me, the new Civ III, is a whole new world. You can actually conduct politics, lol. I know it sounds funny, and sure there's nothing complicated, or extraordinary about the process, but this feature is something that changed the game entirely. No longer do you HAVE to completely whip out your enemy or be the first into outer space, you can win diplomatically. You can trade, buy, sell, loan: resources, cities, money, workers, technologies. There are more features too that just completely change the game, the graphics.... are great, and they add a sense of energy to the game. Sure to some people they get old and repetitive, but you can turn them off. Something else the old game lacked that the new Civ III makes up for is the MUSIC!!!! I don't know about everyone else's copy of Civ II, but mine didn't play much music, and if it did, it only played one song then stopped. The new Civ III has pretty good music, and it changes as the game progresses. Yeah the music is pretty good, up until you reach the modern age, then it becomes some techno-80's music, lol. Another great feature that I haven't mentioned is the Map edit. The new map edit is much, much, improved, especially if you download the Civilization patch off the internet. You basically can control the way the game functions completely with the map edit. You can change how powerful units are, how much the cost, you can control, what technologies a nation has when the game starts, you can control how units function, the technologies, the wonders, even how much food a tile produces. You have actual resources you can gather, exploit, in a number of ways in the Civ III. You can gather them normally or colonize them to receive their benefits. Another pro of Civ III is that you can tell the cities, in the game, how to govern themselves, what units to produce or not to produce, what improvements to produce, what the new citizens become, and whether or not to build wonders. Overall there is soooo... much that the new Civilization offers, and the only way to truly cover all of it is just to recommend that you buy it. If you have never played a civilization game BE PREPARED, it is very different from most games. Some people will either love it... or find it boring and/or confusing. The new features such as the cities being able to govern themselves takes a lot of the repetition out of playing the game. The turn based strategy gives you time to think in the crucial parts of the game, unlike in Command and Conquer, Rise of Nations, or Cossacks. If you like bloody action packed adventure... then this game is not for you. If you like a game with unlimited options, politics, and chess mixed together, then you'll love Civilization III! I, myself, love the game. It runs excellent on a laptops or low end computers. I play it on my laptop all the time. Yeah the game can be lengthy-anywhere between 1 hour and a month. Most games last between 4 and 6 hours. But the game only lasts as long as you want it. When I usually go to play a game, I'll design my own elaborate map, for a day, then the next day play the map, and like I said the game usually will take up a whole day to play. But if you love these types of games, this game is completely worth all the money you pay!!!! I guarantee you that if you like the game that you will play this game longer than any other game you have ever owned. There will be times when you grow tired of it, you may not play it for 2 months, but eventually you will go back to playing it and you will play about 100 more games than grow tire then repeat the whole process. Unlike other games where after you beat the game you never touch it again, Civilization III will keep you coming back to play again.

Once again it's completely worth its price, if you like the game you will play it for hours at a time, on and off for the next hundred years or until the next game in the series arrives.

It's not "Civilization" anymore.

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 9 / 9
Date: November 07, 2001
Author: Amazon User

For people like me who loved the previous Sid Meier Civilization games, Civ3 is a bitter disappointment. There are two seemingly paradoxical reasons for this: not enough has changed, and too much has changed.

On the one hand, there have been very few improvements to interface and gameplay. All the things you liked about Civ2 will be too familiar to seem fun, and all the things you disliked about Civ2 are still there and just as frustrating as they ever were. The AI is still berserkly aggressive and will attack you constantly, even when it has no hope of winning and even when there's nothing to be gained from fighting. There is a way to group units to simplify movement, but it is only available as a random result of combat (leaders) or as a capability of a rather high-level tech (military academies) that does not become available until relatively late in the game. Thus, moving armies around remains a tedious and time-consuming process of giving go-to orders to each unit individually. Master of Magic allowed you to group units for movement back in 1994. Why does Civ3 still withhold this obvious labor-saving measure 7 years later? Most of the time, this game looks, feels, and plays just like Civ2 did.

On the other hand, building almost all military units now requires the player to acquire access to certain "strategic resources." This is an interesting idea in theory, but the concept was implemented so severely that it cripples the game. For example, if the random map generator did not happen to place an iron mine near your starting position, you will not be able to build swordsmen, gunmen, frigates, canon, or even build railroads across your empire. You may have researched techs well into the modern era, and still have to fend your enemies off with longbows and spears because the resource rules won't allow you to build more sophisticated units. On their website the game's designers say they intended for players to be able to trade with other civilizations to acquire these neccesary supplies. Anybody who's tried to negotiate diplomatically with the previous Civ games' AI rivals knows how laughable this is: you're expected to rely upon good-faith trading with those same guys who delcare war on you every few turns! And without a source of strategic resources, you can not build any of the worthwhile military units and your aggressive AI rivals will eat you alive. It's just that simple. Complicating matters is the fact that the number of strategic resource tiles is proportional to the number of players in the game. The larger the map you play on, the harder it will be to find just those few terrain squares that have the essential resources. Since I prefer to play on large maps, I found myself unable to acquire iron in most of the games I played, and I never, not even ONCE found a source of saltpeter on my starting continent, which in Civ3 means no muskets and no canon. (Civ3 shipped with an editor that is supposed to allow you to alter the rules to your liking, but I'm afraid that when I tried this the game crashed.)

The result is that it no longer matters how happy your people are, which techs you've researched, and which wonders you've built. Despite its name, this game is no longer about building a prosperous and happy "Civilization." Winning or losing Civ3 depends solely on the blind luck of being granted a source of strategic resources by the map generator. If you want to fight over a few scattered resource tiles essential to mere survival, then buy Civ3. But if you want to manage and grow a prosperous empire, save yourself $ and break out your old copy of Civ2.

Interesting but frustrating :o/

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 9 / 9
Date: November 28, 2001
Author: Amazon User

The long awaited Civ3 is a mixed bag. Sure, the graphics are nicer and the negotiations are far more intricate than the simplistic and limited interface of Civ2. The strategic resources and luxeries are a nice touch, as they often force you to work with your neighbors to get what you want. The addition of culture was also a welcome feature.

I have two serious complaints, however, about this game. First of all, it suffers from difficulty level inflation. That is, playing at difficulty level three in Civ3 is like playing at level four in Civ2.

Additionally, at level three and above, the AI civs spawn settlers and new cities like jack rabbits. This causes what I call the "Great Early Game Land Rush". Rather than spending resources building up existing cities and infrastructure, you are forced to quickly build new settlers (at a serous cost to your cities' growth)in an attempt to get the choice city building sites before the AI's do. Conversely you can go to war, but of course, this creates its own set of problems and can be risky in the extreme.

As a corallary to the above issue, it seems that the small but efficient Civilization always seems to loose out to the larger ones. I guess in the Sid Meier scheme of things, bigger is always better. :o( This is especially irritating, however, when you see what terrible ground the AI's often place cities on as opposed to your own cities.

Anyway, the bottom line is that this game can be very, very frustrating; much more so than Civ2 ever was. In my mind, frustration quickly translates to "a whole lot of no fun". :o(
I thought Civ3 would be a shoe-in for game of the year, but in all good consciousness, I must give the nod to Sierra's "Empire Earth"; a much more enjoyable gaming experience.

Conceptual complement

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 9 / 9
Date: November 14, 2002
Author: Amazon User

In addition to the other complementary reviews, I'd like to add a more conceptual view...

I've played other games like Empire Earth, Samurai, Age of Empire, CTP, Emperor, etc. But, this is the only AI that really adapts, assimilates and maneuvers around you like a thinking person -- only a lot faster and smarter. If you play the game a lot then you change one of your basic tactics slightly, you can see the shift in the AI -- that is impressive. Never does it go into a predictable "routine". I know it all comes down to equations and probabilities in the AI program, but especially at expert-level, its unbelievably intelligent.

I've played this game 10x more than the other games. Its value for money and its a thrill.

Hats off to Sid Mier! I can't image what the Civ XII will be like in 2020 or whenever -- may be it can cook me dinner!

Still, a DEEPLY FLAWED Game. A poor successor to Civ 2.

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 13 / 16
Date: November 29, 2002
Author: Amazon User

A year ago Civ 3 was released, being rushed to market in time for the Holiday buying season - just as its company, Firaxis, has rushed the Expansion for Civ 3, Play the World, to market.

It took over half a year, and four patches to get Civ 3 free of most bugs and major problems; however, it remains a deeply flawed game with many bad concepts. It simplifies history compared to the great Civ 2, makes user interface cumbersome, and creates various annoying quirks with Espionage, Diplomacy, among others, all that while giving us lots meaningless superficial cute graphics.

Civ 3 was missing many vital aspects, such as Multiplayer. Play the World, finally, gives us MP, but even that is messed up. It needed an immediate patch, which is inexcusable, and even then slows down an already slow game even more, while causing occasional crashes.

Even with PTW, Civ 3 remains a huge disappointment, and an unworthy successor to the classic. Civ 2.

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

Actions