User Reviews (81 - 91 of 369)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

Don't Believe the Hype

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 12 / 19
Date: December 26, 2001
Author: Amazon User

Civ III is a very plain derivative of its predecessors, Civilization II and Alpha Centauri. While the game had a lot of potential, it is a weak final product that becomes boring quickly. There are a lot of design flaws and plain bugs that ruin the fun or make the game tedious as it progresses. It's a rush job by the developer and publisher. I would hold off on this game until it has been thoroughly patched, or wait for the inevitable expansion pack to be released and then you might pick it up cheaper.

I hate to say it, but this game was an enormous disappointment.

Keep Looking

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 15 / 27
Date: January 16, 2002
Author: Amazon User

I loved Civ 1 and Civ II. I played those for days as a time. I itched to see what this one was going to be like. After 2 weeks of playing the game, I find several things..that I think are not yet cooked.
Yes, nicer graphics... like the culture idea...
AI is extremely difficult, even at the lower levels. I had to play at warlord just to get into the industrial period. Little control over the governor and that bugs me. I spent way too much time trying to figure out how to queue up builds and finally found the answer on a fan website.

Here I am getting pounded on 4 sides and the AI says the people really think I should build the Forbidden City.. hah... use 50 turns while 4 civs are bearing down on me....

You must have at least a 700mhz machine.. preferably something faster with lots of RAM if you want to play on one of the huge maps.

There is no way to a manage the corruption... goverments, police stations, courthouses, all that make a little difference. I actually found a fresh continent in the industrial period.. put up some cities.. it took 150 turns for a pop 10 city to build a temple.. .that's how bad corruption is.

I think I like the Call to Power version better, in spite of their bugs...

YOU MUST BUY THIS PRODUCT!!! (honestly)

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 9 / 13
Date: March 12, 2002
Author: Amazon User

Sid Meier designed a game EVEN better than Civilization2. It is hard to imagine that this could be done, but it has!!!

This game has everything:
Trade
Diplomacy
Scientific advances
War & Peace
Exploration
Culture
Money
Space Race
EVERYTHING

For those who are not familiar with Civ2, I will explain as simply as possible: The whole idea of the game is to build the BEST CIVILIZATION possible.

What does this mean? MANY THINGS.

YOU CAN WIN IN MANY WAYS:
1) Build a Civilization that achieves military dominance...CRUSH THOSE WHO OPPOSE!
2) Build a Civ that overwhelms all over Civs, so they want to be like you...IF YA CAN'T BEAT 'EM, GET THEM TO JOIN YOU!
3) Accumulate points that you are awarded for population, happiness of citizens, and even gaining knowledge. BE THE BEST YOU CAN BE!
4) Expand. Just be the BIGGEST Civ and you win by owning 66% of the world's land! GO WEST/EAST/SOUTH/NORTH YOUNG MAN!!!
5) Be elected UN Secretary General by the players ...PLAY NICE WITH OTHERS!!!
6) Win the Space Race. FIRST ONE OFF THE PLANET WINS!!!

Now, you may ask: Well, how do I do this? GOOD QUESTION.

The answer is simple:
Build Cities
Have Wars/Declare Peace
Trade resources/luxuries
Gain Knowledge

All of this is done at the macro and micro level. You can control cities' production of units, improvements, and wonders of the world. This can also be given to a COMPUTER governor (AI). This will speed up the game. But if you love strategy and you love detail and control...YOU CAN DO IT ALL. NONE of it remains out of your control...if you want.

This game is perfect because it allows you to control what you want, and nothing you don't. The AI is good, the graphics excellent, the concept SUPERB, and the overall game STUNNING.

You will want to play this ENDLESSLY. Strategy, action, tactics...it has it all!!!

However, should you buy this game and you listen to my recommendation...DO NOT BLAME ME FOR ALL THE TIME YOU LOSE IN YOUR LIFE...

YOU WILL LOVE THIS GAME!!!

Civ3-a regression

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 8 / 11
Date: April 19, 2002
Author: Amazon User

Civ3 is good for those who have never played a turn-based strategy game. But it is by far an inferior product relative to Civ2 or Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. There's no improvement of the AI since all it does is still the old fashioned cheating. Given the same circumstances the AI builds units faster, is less susceptible to social unrest, has an uncanny ability of building cities where the undiscovered resources are-just to name a few. Though the culture and the resources are good ideas in Civ3, they are not well incorporated into the game play. The corruption makes it impossible to increase your power by expansion, which results in a stalemate in the mid-game that makes the game unnecessarily dragging and boring. I often ask myself how am I going to end this game, win or lose I don't care-a question that never occurs to me when I play Civ2 or SMAC.

Civ 3 is a regression rather than a progression. It regresses from the multimedia of Civ2 and SMAC (movies, human voices) to the monomedia of dumb still images. It regresses from well designed games of Civ2 and SMAC to a poorly thoughtout current iteration, a non-game. I have given up on Civ3 dispite all the patches, because even great patches can not fix a program that is poor at the core, the design.

Best Civilization of them all

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 5 / 5
Date: July 25, 2003
Author: Amazon User

It surpassed my dreams. There were several problems with Civ II. The biggest was the diplomacy. In real war, when one sues for peace after virtually destroying the other civlization, the vanquished usually gives up money or cities to beg for mercy. The idea of trading cities, paying money per annum, and rights to enter each others territory (in Civ II, I started too may wars because enemies caravan units would block my roads) were terrific improvements.

Another great addition is resources. In Civ II, it simply didn't make sense for a Legion to be created when your civilization didn't have any iron, cavalry without horses or tanks without oil. This has completely changed my strategy (much more realistically), where resource monopoly is key to winning. With most of the oil or rubber, you can demand the terms of trade and then with greater war chests, build massive armies to conquer more resources. Also, this has spawned wars on every front to get resources; much more realistic.

Culture is another genius addition. While it is frustrating when you conquer a city, and it returns to the rival civilization, it represents the truth much better. Not only that, buch with suprerior culture, you can take others' cities without enter one unit into them, and there are no diplomatic consequences.

One of the reviewers made a good point that it does take an entirely new look at Civ, and your old strategy must change. Despite the resources, the biggest change in strategy is the wonders. No longer are Leonardo's Workshop, Adam Smith and Michaelangilo's Chapel the most important; you will have to find out which ones are, I'm not giving away my secrets. There is another wonder change - minor wonders. These are a selection of wonders that every civilization can build, and when one is built, it does not deny others from building their own minor wonders.

There is one thing that is a problem - all the other players eventually team up against you, but only if you are the superpower. However, this might be more realistic (has anyone read the papers recently?). There is another aspect which irks me, corruption. While this isn't a new concept to Civ, it can have paralyzing effects on over seas cities. But this again is true with non-Democracies, so it is another truthfull aspect of Civ III.

In the end, it is a great game, and I recommend it for all Civ fans!!

Good Game

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 5 / 5
Date: November 13, 2001
Author: Amazon User

I just finished playing a game. It has been a very different game with civ 2 --- I would say, more reasonable and much harder.

I must admit civ 2 is a very easy game for me (even deity level) --- because everything can be gotten with trade/money --- and trade is so easy to be increased --- by cravans and building road, I need do nothing but be commercialized and get everything with trade/money. So usually in Deity Level, my comp rivals can build no wonders at all (When I saw the warning that they will finish it, I rushed the wonder with money). Say frankly, in civ2, if you built the Pyramid and the Great library, you had already won. Usually in Civ2's deity level, I would unite the world (of a large map) around 1940AD with my mighty spies and money, and I might left a city not conquered and kept developing the future techs and population to get a tremendous score(I would not launch the spaceship until the game is to over).
But in civ 3, this will not happen: you cannot rush anything when you are in depotism or Monachy govenment, so money is not so important in the beginning. And the deity level of Civ3 is tremendously hard! --- I played the deity level of this game when I got it. Then when I was developing republic, I found one of my computer rivals was building Leonado's Workshop! So I quitted angrily and watched the replay --- I found why --- I had only one settler in the begining while my rivals had 2! Because in Civ 3, the building of a settler needs 2 population (not 1!) of a city, one settler means too much in the begining. And in the deity level, it's almost impossible to get any tech or anything really valuable from the huts, while the computer rivals can often get them easily (because they are playing Prince Level while you are playing deity level!), so usually your tech cannot match your rivals in the beginning.

But I would say this game is more funny. I jusst played a game of Prince Level after I quittd the deity level. Because the computer rivals are also playing Prince level, this can be considered a "fair" game.
The biggest development in Civ 3 I think is the new diplomacy system --- for example, while one civ has a tech, she usually trades it with all the other civs. With this method, I got much from my rivals --- When I get a civ advance, I will keep it as a secret, but if I found one of them had a certain tech (of course I also had it) , I would sell the tech to all the others and get much money. At last, my research is mostly supported by the money from my rivals. And when I built the UN I was elected the secretary general easily because I had ruled half of the world (I played with 7 comps, eliminated 3, and made friends with 2, so be elected).
I still like the government of democracy because of the high productivity and low corruption, but you will find the democracy of civ3 is not so powerful as the democracy in civ2.

I will find out how to beat the deity level computer rivals later when I am free. But I guess the right way is to use the skills of diplomacy and rush the great library at any cost. Although the pyramid is very useful for population, it has to be abondoned to build the great lib. If you can be tech advanced with the help of the great lib, more strategies can be made in the middle ages when the great lib is obsolete.

Any way, I think this is a totally new game --- a great successor of Civ2, a better model for civilization.

A splendid but more isolating CIV--A comment

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 5 / 5
Date: December 19, 2001
Author: Amazon User

CIV III is a powerful update of the CIV series. For those who haven't played Civ, here is a brief explanation.

The CIV series challenges you to build a civilization made up of cities which you found and build. You can battle other computer controlled civilizations, trade with them and engage in diplomatic relations. There are many paths to victory as you strive to become the preeminent force in the world. This is a turn-based game (some of us like that) which means that you have time to plot and plan before making a move. While the various possibilities make the game rich and complex, actually playing is relatively simple and enjoyable. The graphics are pleasing--but remember, this isn't a real-time role playing game or first-person shooter so don't expect graphics like that. The Civ Series has been around for a long time and this one is, overall, the best to date. If you want a turn-based civilization building game combining warefare, economics and diplomacy with a sophisticated yet easy-to-use interface, this game is for you. Warning--it's addictive--days go by without notice as you try to squeeze in "just one more" turn before dinner.

Assuming that you are already familiar with CIV II, let me make a comment on the downside of Civ III.

What surprised me in playing the game is that it seemed a more solitary experience than CIV II. For a time I couldn't figure this out and then it hit me--no high council.

I understand that the new advisors give more detailed information than in CIV II, but the lack of real people talking with you--and arguing with themselves--takes something fine away from the gaming experience. As a player who sometimes does find himself saying "just a little more" at 3 AM, I can say that there were times when what kept me going was the complaint "My talents go to waste, noble leader" from the foreign affairs advisor or the tipsy "no complaints, Sire" from the chain-mailed military advisor. All gone in Civ III--and missed.

This is a small thing, but it says something about the trade-off between large scope and personal scale which makes CIV III, while brilliant, perhaps not quite as satisfying in some ways as CIV II.

I'll continue to play both--but I'll keep hoping--hoping--that the latest patch will include the high council--perhaps in an expanded form.

Update: 6 Months later. OK, I admit it, I haven't played CIV II since I wrote the review and I'm still playing CIV III. I still wish the High Council existed but the game is so rich in other ways that I'll have to live with it.

Civ--You got me again. And I've changed my rating from 4 stars to 5.

Civilized Civilization

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 5 / 5
Date: December 05, 2002
Author: Amazon User

This game is amazing, the details are just endless. There is numerable amount of resources and weopons, such as chariots, catapults, and later in the game, tanks and naval ships. The ONE flaw that this game has is the larger your civilzation is, the longer it takes to complete one round of turns. When i played as France once, I got so far and had so many people on the map, it took five minutes to complete one turn so i stopped playing that level. Another thing is that no two maps are the same. It is an amazing game!

The Best Game I Have Ever Played

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 7 / 9
Date: June 20, 2005
Author: Amazon User

Civilization III is the greatest game I have ever played, up until I got its sequel, Civilization IV. I got it soon after it came out. It was fantastic. I was addicted to it. I couldn't stop playing it. I caught 1-more-turn syndrome right away. It's very different from other historical games. For one, it's a good turn-based game. Turn based does differ of course from RTS games. In Turn Based you build things in a number of turns whereas in an RTS you build them in real-time. Civilization has everything. It's not just a military game. It has depth. You can build more wonders of the world than in any game I've ever seen and those wonders actually have very useful impacts. There's a technology tree that span all history that is actually accurate! The units are accurate, the unit relationships are accurate! And the combat sequences actually have a complex mathematical formula which ensures that the same thing doesn't happen every time one unit attacks another unit. All in all, it's a great game, only to be bested by the sequel, Civ IV, which I would greatly recommend to all. But if it's too advanced for your machine or you don't have the money, Civilization III is still a great game and will be a classic for years to come.

Not As Good as Civ II

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 7 / 9
Date: April 01, 2005
Author: Amazon User

Civilization I, Civilization II, and Civilization III are all outstanding games to various degrees. But on the "curve" with its two predecessors, Civ III comes up short.

Part of the "problem" is that most of the major weaknesses of Civ I were remedied in Civ II, which means that any improvements would likely only be incremental. For instance, the diplomacy function took a quantum leap in Civ II, which means that the Civ III improvement took place only at the margin. (I like the idea of being able to trade away a far-flung city to an ally to keep it out of the hands of a hostile third party.)

One interesting, if unfortunate, new feature of Civ III is what I call "nationalism." This is reflected in the fact that some civilizations are made more religious, and others are more industrious, or scientific, or commercial or militaristic, in line with their historical experience. Each civilization also gets one new military unit that is better than other civilizations' counterparts, which also reflects history. Finally, captured cities are less productive than home grown ones, because of "slackers" who pine for the old regime.

In other respects, however, the game designers "crippled" Civ III by taking discretion away from the human player. For instance, caravans are worth only about half of what they were in Civ II, because they can no longer be used to rush the building of wonders. The function instead, is the province of "leaders," usually heroes on the battlefield. While this feature accurately reflects Europe in the Dark Ages, it provides an unfortunate example for modern times. It breaks the link between the (human) ruler and the "common people" (computer-controlled population units in the cities) who get a permanent wonder in exchange for sacrificing temporary benefits from trade goods. And it puts too much power in the hands of elites who are wrongly believed to have a monopoly on the power to make things happen. (This is the main rationale for excessive CEO pay.) It also creates an incentive to go to war in order to solve internal problems, another dilemma that America has been facing in real life in places like Iraq.

The "spy" (diplomat) function is similarly hobbled, with spies being able to operate (and only rarely) in capitals, instead of out in the field, where they belong. In Civ II, this function did give a slight advantage to the human player (I would occasionally raise cash by selling all my improvements to make a "strategic" acquisition, something the AI wouldn't do), but the AI used diplomats competently, and had the advantage of being able to bribe my units without a diplomat.

Apparently, the designers tried to create a game that helps the AI enough to crush human players hubristic enough to play at the Deity level. In this regard, they succeeded, but they also made the game less playable at lower levels; "King" no longer gives an "evenly matched" game with one's peers. In so doing, they also set an unrealistic hurdle. The AI is still "less smart" than the best human players, but at least as smart as the average actual ruler in history. Thus, the challenge is for the human player to beat such "historical" rulers. In real life, America was founded because its leaders were much smarter than an "average" king like George III; it's possible that the American Revolution would never have succeeded against Elizabeth I.

For all its faults, Civ III is a fascinating game, just not up to the standards of Civ II or an appreciable improvement over Civ I.

Review Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next 

Actions