User Reviews (1 - 11 of 36)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

Game Of The Year?

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 60 / 64
Date: November 22, 2002
Author: Amazon User

This "Game of the Year" edition includes an extra CD that includes a few extra maps, a "making-of" video, a few chapters from the strategy guide, and frankly is worthless.

Civilization 3 itself brings a few new ideas to the mix with culture, strategic resources, and civ-specific units as well as revised units and wonders. The graphics have been updated and the map is very pretty if not always useful. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish terrain types without reverting to right-clicking on the square. Units now feature animations that are entertaining at first, but you'll soon tire of seeing cavalry attacking musketmen for the 100th time.

The scale of the game has grown and it is not uncommon to have a civilization of 20 or more cities at the larger settings. Luckily there are now governors to automate some of the more routine tasks of city maintenance.

The combat model is changed with the air arena being much different than previous versions. However, some combat seems to have taken a step back and it isn't uncommon to see older units defeat newer technology. You'll need new strategies to win here so don't expect your Civ 2 experience to guarantee success.

With version 1.29f, the game is relatively stable and most of the bugs/issues (rampant corruption) from early versions have been addressed.

I personally believe this game is inferior to Civ 2, but the price of this new version certainly makes it more attractive.

Great, but too time consuming

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 25 / 28
Date: February 10, 2003
Author: Amazon User

When reading another review of this product I felt obliged to write something more balanced. If you are used to playing Civ you might get a little annoyed with this game at first, since it is so different from its predecessors.
The economical system is quite much remade and the first thing you're going to notice is that the corruption makes most of your cities useless, even under higher forms of government. Since only a few of your cities are going to help in the scientific research, this makes the game a lot more even. Also smaller civilizations get a fair chance to keep up in the science race.
But after playing a while you'll find out that having lots of cities is not such a bad idea after all. The most important reason why you need'll all your cities is because all those neat resources you find around the map now have become essential to your whole civilization, instead of just being a bonus for the local city. The more luxury resources you have snatched, the happier your people will be. And you'll need the strategic resources like iron or oil to be able to build certain units.
The culture adds a completely new dimension to the game. Now it is possible to win the game without ever having to attack your enemies, just focusing on the welfare and glory of your empire. But don't forget the defenses because your enemies are very likely to get jealous on your prosperity!

The only disadvantage I find in this game is that it is far too time consuming. Of course, that is a part of the all strategy games, but in my opinion it is a little too much administration. Of course you can have your advisors to do this for you, but since I'm a perfectionist, I want everything to be done exactly as I had intended it. OK, I guess I have to blame myself on that point, but still it reduces my overall mark of this game to a 4.

CivII + I

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 13 / 13
Date: January 12, 2004
Author: Amazon User

I am sort of amazed at the complaints I read here.

First, the diplomacy is not the be-all, end-all of diplomatic relations, but the system does allow for more varied trading than what CivII had to offer. I consider this a plus, even if it isn't quite as in-depth as it could be.

Second, the addition of culture really adds another dimension to gameplay. No slash and burn here, you'll lose your cities. A strong culture is a win-win scenario for your own cities, it makes your citizens happier and can cause other nations cities to defect to you.

Third, the resources also add significant depth. Luxuries and strategic resources both are very important for success.

Fourth, back to diplomacy. Its touch of realism becomes more obvious now, you have to be bartering from a position of authority, either in culture, resources, or power, in order to get good deals. This can be difficult if you're not in a position of power to begin with, but once you're there, keep dealing. Having an advisor that basically tells you when a foreign leader will accept a deal really helps. Other civs must respect or fear you, otherwise they will sell you down the river. Frustrating? Maybe. Realistic? I'd vote yes.

Fifth, I can't say much yet for military battles since my strategies have always been based on science. But since Fundamentalism is gone it seems the military might is harder than it was in CivII, which I think is a good thing. Though the leaders obviously give you an advantage, I'd have to say that anyone relying on leader production probably doesn't have a very good grasp of strategy in the first place. Consider leaders like stumbling upon a vital resource: count yourself lucky.

Sixth, "small wonders". Some wonders are not limited to one civ building them. For instance, the Apollo program, exposing all the world map, requires that each civilization builds it to gain its benefits. I think this is a much better addition.

Seventh, the so-called "tedious" end-game. Um... no kidding? For me, end-game was where I finally pulled everything together. It wasn't tedious at all, but sure it takes a long time to take a turn. What else would you expect from a very large civilization? You've been growing it all these years, you have so many cities and units to manage, of course it will take some time.

All in all, I find this to be a welcome improvement over CivII. With intriguing modifications, most of my strategies from CivII carried over well. I'd recommend it without reservation if you enjoyed CivII.

Well thought out, but tiresome . . .

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 24 / 33
Date: May 09, 2003
Author: Amazon User

I have never played Civ II, so Civ III was a new experience for me. It seems that the creators expanded the number of ways one can win, which is nice, but the game is still in rough form. I must agree with another reviewer who advised waitng for Civ IV.

The biggest problem of all, of course, is the amount of time it takes to play the game. At the easiest game setting, it can take 13 or 14 hours to reach the end game. This is not a game for those who like to finish everything in one sitting. Expect frequent game saves.

The diplomacy features are nicely done, and I would look forward to an expansion of possible dialogue options. Yes, the AI can pick on you and ruin your fun (some people complained about this in other reviews), but that is how real life works. This is a great game for seeing the different theories about how civilizations grow and expand in action. It definitely requires thought about how you will handle the situation given to you at the beginning of the game. (I will say that you can win in any situation, even when you are on an isolated island, provided you adapt to the hand that fate dealt you.)

My complaints about the design include an impossible espionage interface. I could place spies, but could not get them to do anything. Also, others have noticed with amusement that the battle resolutions are a bit odd. For example, a 16th century galleon was able to damage and sink a 21st century nuclear submarine. The battles are supposed to be based on attack and defense factors (assigned numbers plus defensive walls, population sizes, etc.) with some randomization, but the random influence needs to be scaled back a bit. I would suggest creating classes of combatants that could reasonably be expected to fight each other. If two units of different classes meet, the unit from the more advanced class should have an easy win without randomization.

Leaders should be explained in more detail; I have never been able to create one, even after setting barbarians to raging and destroying major enemy civilizations. The communications panel should be expanded to allow cantact with all known civilizations, as well. (You are currently limited to seven, or I have know idea how to do it if this is not the case.) Finally, the manual should be expanded or done away with. You spend to much time going back and forth between the help files and the booklet. In addition, the game takes three of four days to learn (along with about 100 pages of reading.)This isn't so bad for what you get back, but some may not be willing to invest that kind of time in a game that takes half a day to win.

Overall, this is a good game for perfectionists with a god complex. (Deity is one of the difficulty settings.)

However, it is a very bad game for those who prefer action or first person adventure.

Eyecandy over substance

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 19 / 27
Date: July 10, 2003
Author: Amazon User

First of all, let me make it clear that I am an old Civ series fan. I played it back in 1993 on the Mac and Amiga, and I've loved it since then.

But Civilisation 3 is a sorry affair. To make a long story short:

Stroing points:
+ Good, detailed graphics
+ Sound less repetitive than Civ II
+ Generally simpler interface than precursors
+ Somewhat easier city management
+ Generally an interesting simulation

The downsides:
- As another poster wrote, the diplomacy system is a joke. It has an interesting form, but it is confusing in the end.
- Insane difficulty level, even at the lower diff. settings. Computer players get technologies way faster than you do, and their civilisation grows much faster, as well. Very unfair!
- as said elsewhere, the tech advances tree is almost the same as Civ I & 2, which is boring and disappointing! Same is to be said for city improvements.
- Boring and "accellerated" archaic ages... from 4000 BC to 0 AD, there are almost no advances happening, compared to the former Civ Games, and this part of the game feels very "hollow".

Summarised, I am thoroughly disappointed by this game, and I'm at a loss to explain why Sid Meier & the game designers did not include the huge advances we saw iN Alpha Centauri - highly customizable social designs, build-your-own units, etc.

It feels like Civ I with new graphics slapped on top. Oh, yeah, dont forget that the original Civ took up 5 MB of HD space. This gigant takes up 100 times that! :(

THUMBS DOWN!

Very overrated and very mediocre

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 9 / 13
Date: June 30, 2003
Author: Amazon User

I don't think that I have ever been as disappointed in a game as I was in this one. I used to think that if the game had "Sid Meier" on the box, it had to be a masterpiece. I guess I was wrong. "Civilization 3" is the original "Civilization" with a graphics upgrade, and then a few new features, most of which are extremely annoying. The only good aspects of the game are what was included in the original, and they haven't been upgraded to stay ahead of the competition. What's new is basically bad.

To start with, this games most glaring problem is its "Diplomacy". Any professional reviewer who writes about this great new "diplomacy" system should resign in shame. "Diplomacy" in "Civilization 3" is a complete and utter joke. The game's new diplomatic options are pointless. Each civilization that you meet is extremely warlike and aggressive, and declares war on you shortly after you meet them unless you give in to their blackmail demands to fork over all of your gold. This means that instead of building cities and researching advances, you are fighting a two or three-front war before you even reach the Middle Ages. I played at least 10 games on various difficulty levels to see what would happen, and it was the same result every time. Since the computer advances faster than you even if you are spending all of your money on science, then it's only a matter of time before you are wiped out.

Another annoyance that has been increased in the game is civil disorder. Cities erupt into civil disorder much earlier than the original game, which means that your citizens are rioting before you even have time to build a single structure, unless you station a bunch of military units there.

The only improvement that has been made to the combat system is the use of hit points, which prevents a caveman from defeating a tank. That is the only improvement. The rest is mediocre, especially when you compare it to other strategy games out there. It is also unbalanced. Some units, like catapults, have been neutered so bad that they are completely useless. The way to take a city in the game is to just build up a massive army of the same unit and beat on a city in a war of attrition. Combat is oversimplified and devoid of the strategy and tactics that you find in good turn-based strategy games.

These faults might be acceptable if the game could run without crashing, but even with all of the patches, this game locks up and crashes constantly. I had more trouble getting this game to run than with any other game released in at least the past 3 years. The graphics aren't exactly pushing the limits of today's systems, so I don't know what the problem is.

If you don't mind getting the old game with just a graphics upgrade and a few bad new features, then you might like Civ 3. On the other hand, if you are looking for a great turn-based strategy, you have a lot of other options to choose from. The rest of the turn-based strategy world has caught up and surpassed Sid Meier's work. Skip Civ 3, or go see if you can find the original somewhere.

Very good RTS, one of the best

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 5 / 5
Date: September 10, 2003
Author: Amazon User

When I bought this game along with my new Logitech Force 3D Wingman, I basically threw this game in a corner and forgot about it for a few months. I will never do that again, because I have learned my lesson. I was swept away to plow a powerful empires way into the world, defeating the evil Babylonians, and make the Great Wonders of the world. I have traded all computer social life for romping other civilizations. Warning: VERY long gameplay(10-11 hours), and not good for fighting gamers, people who like seeing carnage.

Not as good as Civ II

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 6 / 8
Date: March 07, 2003
Author: Amazon User

After carefully reading all the reviews I finally bought my own copy of Civ III. First, if you are not sure whether you like strategy games, do not start with this one. For those who have played Civ and/or Civ II (which I have) this review is more for you. Civ III is a low budget version of Civ II that corrects some of the problems with Civ II but looses much of the magic that made Civ II so much fun to play. For example, gone are the actors who would evolve with your advance from cavemen and cave women to Elvis, General Patton, etc. Instead we have gone back to a Civ I approach where your advisors are inanimate goofs that do not give you any helpful advice. "Compared to them your military is unimpressive." Unfortunately "them" is never defined. Plus, although you can play with up to 16 diferrent civiliazations as opponents, you only communicate with 8 of them ! Where is the logic in that. The instruction manual [is not good]. It took me forever to figure out what to click on to start an embasy in a foreign nation. All told, Civilization is still a great game. Compared to Civ II, though, Civ III lacks style and fun. If the creators ever combine Civ II with Civ III and create a Civ IV I think we will have the perfect game.

It's a sequel - deal with it.

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 5 / 6
Date: March 06, 2003
Author: Amazon User

Warning: Lengthy review ahead:

Anyway...this game is pretty good, although the AI isn't terribly good. The game centers around four major points:

* Culture: Your empire's borders are defined by the strength culture of its cultural identity in its city and empire. If you take over a French city, you still have a city full of Frenchmen; unless you wow them with your superior culture, you'll still have a bunch of (...) Frenchmen after many years, who are itching to revolt.

* Resources: Strategic and luzury resources are extremely neat, although the luxury resource model is a little skewed. The AI isn't agressive enough to take strategic resources, and if you get all 5+ luxury resources, you're pretty much guaranteed victory from the happiness they provide.

* Military Power: While other reviews are correct that axe-wielding warriors do sometimes beat tanks, this is realistic. The Zulus managed to wipe out a regiment of British riflemen with spears and shields.

* Diplomacy: The diplomacy model is pretty nice, although if you're significantly larger than your trading partner, you're going to get hosed in trades for luxuries (since luxuries are more valuable to you than your partner).

The game unfortunately loses some replay value in being a wee bit too close to Civ 2. If you've played Civ 2 for a long time, this probably isn't new enough to blow a few years of your life on. It's good in its own right, and definitely worth the money.

If the version you buy isn't 1.29f, immediately download the patch.

Why "game of the year"?

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 4 / 4
Date: June 06, 2003
Author: Amazon User

Civilization II is a great game that I played for long hours . Starting a new game was always like starting a new book. The infinite details that you should take care off and the adjustment of the right balance between might, wealth and development is amazing and requires a lot of patience and intelligence. The game could even change your point of view to lot of things in every-day life!

When I first bought Civ. III, I was actually expecting higher graphic, better tools to control the game and smarter ideas. Unfortunately, none of these was available. Instead, the game became more complicated (with details that you definitely cannot acquaint and deal-with in each civilization build-up), boring and unnecessary lengthened in some parts. The music is almost awful, the graphic is better than Civ. II but not matching today's standards and battles are less enthusiastic with incomprehensive rules of winning and loosing.

Civ. III get one star rate in comparison to Civ. II, but I gave it 3 stars in comparison to other RTS. Hoping that Civ. IV would be an upgrade and not a set-back.

Review Page: 1 2 3 4 Next 

Actions