I'm totally disappointed with Civ3

[Heraclitus]

How can this game be so much worse than Alpha Centauri, which came out years ago?

* No video cutscenes;

* No 3D models of units;

* No multiplayer (mind you, turn-based multiplayer isn't as good as real-time, but it's better than no MP option at all);

* No animated faction leaders;

* Bad writing? No writing at all, apart from the Civilopaedia, which reads like a help file;

* Almost no new wonders. Magellan's Voyage? Shakespeare's Theatre? They've had years and years since the last Civ game. Could they really have not come up with new wonders since then?

What happened? Given how good Alpha Centauri was, I was expecting great things here. I can't imagine why so much of what made AC a really good game was simply omitted here. Why does this just feel like a skin-job on Civ2?

 

[Scorp]

that's what i thought of it first time i played too.. disappointment. give it some time though, it does get a bit better, though still not as great as civ 2...

 

[HexVector]

I thought it was pretty fun in the beginining, they should of added more cut scenes for new technology.

However, at the end, the...game...went...painfully...slow - Not that my machine wasn't fast enough, just there were so many automated workers and units running around I could go and sleep for 10 minutes before I made my next move. Boring.

So right before I was about to invade the Chinese, I lost interest.

 

[damocles]

The one thing that really annoyed me was no 'stacking' of units - war rapidly becomes a big yawn

 

[Dundain]

Well...you can always go play StarCraft The strategy in that game...oh wait...I forgot it took about 20mins to learn the strategy in that game...but atleast you have Video Cutscenes! (Though those were damn good)

 

[NakaNaka]

you can stack units but you need to earn a leader, it is extremly dumb.

I don't care about video cut scenes but I just don't think Civ 3 was as fun as Civ 2. Yes diplomacy is better but everything having to do with culture and resources bogs you down with too much information. Civ3 is pretty boring when all you have is peace, I love building huge armies and having a massive attack like D-Day and kicking some ass. Culture and all that might be realistic but just not fun enough for me.,

 

[damocles]

Sorry, i meant assigning units to groups and moving them in stacks

Well...you can always go play StarCraft The strategy in that game...oh wait...I forgot it took about 20mins to learn the strategy in that game...but atleast you have Video Cutscenes! (Though those were damn good)

Maybe to beat single player, SC is really a multi player game and 3 years after its release it is still more popular than Civ 3 will ever be

 

[Nefrodite]

btw thers a new patch that fixes quite a few things. and no.. 3d models of units would have bogged the game down with most current pcs

 

[nirgis]

I don't know...

I would agree that it acts really slow and such, and I personally don't care about 3d figures. I did like the new features added. The resource addition was pretty cool. However it didn't seem like unique resources were that unique. Diplomacy was much better imho. Culture was so-so, I liked that it directly linked to borders and that you could impress cities. Corruption was horrible though...

Oh well, now only to wait for moo3

 

[Nefrodite]

corruption is fixed by the newpatch

 

[Raspewtin]

it really isn't a very good game. it's best elements are borrowed, and it removes most of the best parts. the only creative element is culture. really it doesn't deserve the reviews its getting, but nearly all reviewers are really reviewing the entire series, not just Civ3.

 

[Heraclitus]

<< 3d models of units would have bogged the game down with most current pcs >>



I didn't really mean 3D sprites on the battlefield. In Alpha Centauri, when you examined a unit (as you would in the Civilopaedia in Civ3) you got a nice rotating 3D model of it. Further, you could make adjustments to your units, customizing their appearance and such.

Nothing of the kind in Civ3.

I don't think that the absence of any one of the things I mentioned (like video cutscenes for wonders or for civ advances) is all that bad by itself, but when you add them all up...

It's just that Alpha Centauri was so good. Apart from the prettiness and the video, it also had really good writing. Each civilization advance was accompanied by a (voice-dubbed) quote from one of the sacred texts of one of the factions. Civ3 could easily have done that (with the added advantage over AC that they could have used real quotes from actual texts rather than having to invent them). They didn't even use voice actors in the game at all! Was the budget that slim?

Again, I'm as much mystified as I am disappointed. Surely they didn't take years and years just to implement the diplomacy menu?

BTW, I agree with Raspewtin: reviews tend to wax lyrical about the series and its historical place in gaming, rather than assessing what Civ3 brings that Civ2 didn't have.

 

[CanOWorms]

I was disappointed by it, too. I eventually sold it on eBay.

Civ2 has to be one of my favorite games of all time.

 

[DaveSimmons]

So, for a Civ newbie would you guys recommend Civ2 or Alpha Centauri as the most fun Civ game?

I'm nearing the end of Jagged Alliance 2 (great game) and am looking for some other good turn-based game(s) to play next.

 

[nirgis]

<It's just that Alpha Centauri was so good. Apart from the prettiness and the video, it also had really good writing. Each civilization advance was accompanied by a (voice-dubbed) quote from one of the sacred texts of one of the factions.>

I did miss that, but I thought that civ3 made up in that regard because you actually knew what you were researching not polynanoreplicarophaser beams

 

[Raspewtin]

Civ2 was great IMO! That was Brian Reynolds who did that one, right? His upcoming stuff will probably be very, very good

 

[sandorski]

I dunno, I think Civ3 is great. I loved Civ and Civ2, and think that Civ3 is yet another improvement in the series. However, I agree, the Wonder video was cool in Civ2. Something I really like about Civ3 is setting the Governor to take of things such as corruption and what not. That takes lots of the tedious micro-management out of the game.

 

[Nefrodite]

civ3 "patched" is the most newbie friendly.

 

[Zebo]

<< Civ2 was great IMO! That was Brian Reynolds who did that one, right? His upcoming stuff will probably be very, very good >>



And there is the problem with Civ 3. Brain left half way through development because of internal conflict and the publisher wanted cash. So they pushed a beta game out the door which did'nt have BR signature/work on it who really designed CivII and AlphaC not SID who was working on railroad tycoon. If you want to read how awful Civ3 is readhere.He is now at BIG HUGE GAMES. Dumb name but lats see what they produce. Not only did BR leave firaxis (the Civ3 maker) to form BHG but the top illustrator, programmer and 3d artist left with Brian.

I am very disappointed I bought the "collectors edition". after finding this info out.

 

[dc]

<<* Almost no new wonders. Magellan's Voyage? Shakespeare's Theatre? They've had years and years since the last Civ game. Could they really have not come up with new wonders since then?

yes, let's make up new wonders of the world... lol. i hope i'm not the only that found that quote enormously funny/disheartening. i know, let's add the Forums of Anandtech, decreases civ productivity by 50% but makes 2 citizen in each city happy or angry. lol.

 

[Zebo]

<< civ3 "patched" is the most newbie friendly. >>



What do you mean by this? The Patch was supposed to reduce the corruption bug but it seems to help very little. I have one city 18 squares from the capital which before the patch produced 10 sheilds but wasted 9! After applying the patch the waste dropped to 8 which is still too much for a city so close to the capital containing a courthouse and police station.

Also the nvidia scrolling issue which made scrolling around the screen somewhat miserable was said to be fixed with this patch. I notice no diffference and I'm running the latest greatest balhblah.

 

[Nefrodite]

i havn't fiddled with the game recently, i've been playing armada II and fell back into starcraft again anyhow, supposedly theres a corruption slider or somethign when you start a new game or something. as for your geforce problems. .nyaaaa!!! i own a radeon now so no probs for me course i'll happily start ranting away if you send me a gf3

 

[Davegod]

i was looking forward to Civ3, waiting until next week when ive some time. now i think i will not bother, the above posts say its missing some things i consider vital, thanks for saving my cash, ill stick to RTCW-MP and a borrowed C&C:RA2. ps anyone know hoe to copy that im um worried about scratching it. or something. nero refuses to read it, clonecd just seems dodgy.

 

[dc]

your loss imo.

/me goes back to playing civ3.

 

[Heraclitus]

<< <<* Almost no new wonders. Magellan's Voyage? Shakespeare's Theatre? They've had years and years since the last Civ game. Could they really have not come up with new wonders since then?

yes, let's make up new wonders of the world... lol. i hope i'm not the only that found that quote enormously funny/disheartening. >>



What on Earth does this mean?

Why would they have to "make up" new wonders of the world? There are plenty of other innovations they could have implemented.

Or do you think that there's some fixed and finite Official List of Wonders that they are historically required to follow?

My point was regarding their selection. They could have chosen to put in different wonders, as opposed to the same ones they used in Civ2, but they didn't. Why not? Surely not because their sense of historical innovation is as impoverished and lame as your own.