 "Fatal flaw" | 2008-08-28 |
| - Reviewed By mike71921 |
This game has the potential to be one of the greatest all time games of the genre. If it weren't for a fatal flaw which dooms it from the start. I'm talking about the concept of strategic resources. Or at least the haphazard, illogical way they are implemented.
One of the things that Civ3 brings to the table is the idea of strategic resources. Certain resources that are vital to certain technologies. Obviously its hard to make an internal combustion engine without oil. This is an interesting concept, but its implemented in such an irrational manner that it makes the game laughable. For instance, coal is required to make the railroad. This is perfectly logical in the early stages when trains were pulled by coal fired steam locomotives. But this restriction remains in affect permanently. Which means long after the discovery of oil, the railroad is still forbidden without coal. Even though, by this time, trains would be powered by diesel/electric engines. Oil is required to produce things like automobiles, tanks and modern ships. But it doesn't seem to be a requirement for airplanes and airports. In one game I played recently I lacked saltpeter (no guns) and oil (no tanks, etc). This led to the ridiculous idea of building airports in my forward cities and using aircraft to transport my long bowmen into battle. In another game, I lacked oil, which put modern ships such as destroyers, cruisers and transports beyond reach. Which means that very late in the game I used sail powered gallions to transport my troops to enemy shores, escorted by nuclear submarines. The contradictions are too many to list. I was able to research and learn the secret of steel, even though I had no iron (a strategic resource) in my civilization. How do people who don't have access to iron (or even know what it is) develop steel? The result is that in the later stages of the game I'm able to build modern cities, factories, and yes, that nuclear submarine....all without iron. Of course I still couldn't make swords. They need iron. It's just so silly. I get the idea that the whole strategic resource thing was a last minute addition. One of those "Hey wouldn't this be cool" ideas that get implemented without adequate thought.
Of course, these issues, in themselves, wouldn't make the game unworkable if it wasn't for the fact that the designers of Civ 3 never took Geology 101 in school. The strategic resources are WAY too scarce in the game. I know you don't want dozens of them scattered everywhere. If everyone has easy access to everything, what's the point? But I played one game where there was one, only one, oil resource ON THE ENTIRE WORLD MAP. And it was on a tiny island consisting of three squares. Noone found it until the game was almost over. It would improve the game so much if the quantity of resources could be adjusted as a game parameter.
Oh, and before I go, I don't want to pass up my other MAJOR gripe with this game. Mandatory end time on the game. Huh? You're playing along and then "Times up. Game's over. Having fun? Too bad. Get lost. Go do something else". I just love playing a really big and involved game for hours and hours, and just ready to see my grand plans take shape and the game designer says "Sorry, that's enough, go away". What idiot came up with that idea? Again, it should be an option, or adjustable.
This is is a game with great potential looking for a way to express it, but its been boxed in by the short sighted designers. It could be so great if there were just a few options that let you adjust the game mechanics to your style of play. But the designers seem hell bent on making sure that you play the game EXACTLY they way THEY want it played. |
| |
 "i have a question" | 2008-08-11 |
| - Reviewed By Anonymous |
| i used to have the origanal civ three and it was great. does this run on a mac g5? on the product page it says mac but on the checkout it says windows dvd. ??? is that normal or am i acedentally going to buy a microsot game??? |
| |
| "Civ 3" | 2008-05-31 |
| - Reviewed By User: A15DJP25YNTU9P |
[...]
The Civilizations series produces the best strategy games on the market, bar none. The game came in fine working order but the serial number to activate the game was missing. I had to wait a whole weekend to get Aspyr on the phone to get a new one so I could play. In the long run, not the worst thing that could have happened, but it was a serious killjoy when the package arrived. |
| |
| "Great upgrade to CIV III" | 2007-03-11 |
| - Reviewed By lewisnavy1 |
| Much more sophisticated AI system. Added Civs are nice and make game play more varied. Excelent upgrade to orginal CIV III game. |
| |
| "fighting is bad" | 2007-02-12 |
| - Reviewed By asa2552 |
| i found that the defence on all the units is massive compared to the attck. and the bombardment feater is pittifull it takes the point out of cannons. overall the games defencive nature made it way too easy. i could beat the game easly with a few highly concentrated attaks and waiting and waiting and waiting. the diplomatic relaitions was made much better but one had to have ten units to take down 2 fortifyed units in a city. (exagerated) this made the game imposible easy if you played peasfully and defencivly but imposible if you play all all out war. you just grind forward inch by inch and it becaums more a resorce war then stratigy. i found i was bord with all dificultys fast. i however loved civ2 with was great and much more dificult. |
| |
 "Good, Clearly Lacking In Some Departments" | 2007-01-22 |
| - Reviewed By User: A2VA4WROWMS407 |
Civ 3 for the Mac is another edition of the highly-successful Civ series and Sid Meier deserves kudos for another strong product. Gameplay is entertaining and a clear step up in many ways from its 1996 predecessor. Civ 3 succeeds in being a strategy game, but not one so thick with the strategies that it`ll take months to master it all.
That said I was disappointed by what was not present in the Civ 3: Complete package released by Aspyr. Civ 3 has cut out the Cheat Mode, one of the most noticeable features of Civ 2. The Cheat mode, a backdoor into the inner workings of the game, was the tunnel through which much of the game`s content could be altered by players. As a result of its absence the game is far harder to customize and tinker with. Also missing is the map editor, a feature which saw heavy use by Civ 2 fanatics (just check out the size of some online databases.) The Scenario Editor, through which Civ 2 could be turned into almost any strategy game, has been shown the door. My understanding is that several of these elements were included in the PC version so why aren`t they present for the Mac?
In gameplay terms Civ 3 is a clear triumph over its predecessor. I just wish we hadn`t sacrificed all that customizability in the meantime to get here. |
| |
| "Awesome" | 2006-12-09 |
| - Reviewed By User: A2IXMLO29Z5G8S |
| This is the most addictive turn based game I have ever played, and I don't normally like them. If you looking for a way to lose hours of your life this really is the game to do it with. |
| |
| "Addictive game, but infuriating copy protection" | 2006-11-10 |
| - Reviewed By johnrchang |
I'm a Civ 3 addict. I've lost weeks if not months (to date) of my life playing Civ 3, so I decided to buy the Complete package since Aspyr released a free patch to make Complete (not the original) run natively on Intel Macs. (You can download the patch at Apple menu > Mac OS X Software...)
The enhancements of Civ III Complete are widely written about on the net, but I hadn't read about one thing which I'm particularly annoyed about. The game requires that you insert the DVD in order to start. Mounting a disk image (I tried both Disk Utility and Toast) doesn't work. This is endlessly annoying since the drive is loud, it takes extra time, you have to remember to carry the DVD if you go travelling, etc. If I had known this, I might have just saved my money and stuck with the original Civ 3, which ran fine with a disk image.
The copy protection is hardly effective against determined pirates (I imagine you can clone the DVD) yet it punishes those of us who have paid for a legal copy. What's the point of that? Still, if you can look past that, I wholeheartedly recommend the game. |
| |
| "You Don't Need Civ4" | 2006-08-22 |
| - Reviewed By snootchies |
In late 2002, I took a second job at a major electronics retailer and decided to use my employee discount on what looked like a cool game: Civilization III. That game changed my life... in the gaming sense. It was everything I ever thought a computer game should be: turn-based strategy with multiple avenues to test my ego and self-promoted genius. Above all features of Civ3, however, my most favorite was the customization of the game through the map editor and the wonderful online resources of the Civ community. (I've downloaded more Civ3 files than MP3s.) This allowed me to express my self-proclaimed genius with new rules, technologies, and units (and all the accompanying chronologies and requisites) at my discretion. Nothing could get any better, I had thought.
When Civ4 was being talked about, however, I couldn't imagine on what grounds they could improve - except perhaps making the game even more customizable and thorough. Well, you've already read about the differing features of the game: less micro-management, more diplomatic and trade features, new technology trees, enhancing popular mechanics found in previous Civ titles, and of course, going 3D with it all.
When playing Civilization IV, you sense an overwhelming POTENTIAL to be a really great game. In my mind, that potential has not been fulfilled, and I hereby advise you to purchase Civ3 Complete instead and forego Civ4 if you haven't chosen so already. If you have already purchased Civ4, let's send a message to Firaxis Games that they need to do better - let's stop purchasing Civ products until they are actually without so many bugs, that aren't rushed to be released for the holidays, and that don't insult our intelligence by requiring expensive "expansion packs" which merely add content that should already have been included in the original release.
Here is a list of comparative reasons to only own Civ3 and not Civ4 and boycott future Civ titles until something changes for the better:
1. There is no map editor in Civ4. Instead, they included a "World Builder" which is so awkward and strange. It is not like Civ3's map editor where you can set starting positions, resources, civilizations, and terrain BEFORE you play the map. The "World Builder" of Civ4 only allows you to alter scenarios from the installation or randomly generated maps. You cannot create maps from scratch - you can only change what has already been created within predefined parameters.
2. Who needs 3D graphics for a turn-based strategy game? Civ4 is not fully 3D; it merely allows a tilting view from ground level to overhead. That can be cool, but consider the offset: it is unnecessary for this genre, it diverts computer resources from other cool and more thorough features, and it makes the game extremely difficult to modify. For Civ3, there are well over 1,000 things you can either download or make yourself and put right into the game. You don't have to know XTML or Python programming languages as you would in Civ4. Civ4 requires advanced education (like a graphics design or computer science degree) to simply alter things like governments, units, buildings, and game rules. Waiting for others to design them (like the amateur online community or the professional expansion packs) isn't so fun anymore.
3. Expanding content for more money? This was a problem with Civ3, as well - its first expansion pack was a total waste of money because everything was later put on the second expansion pack. People bought the first expansion pack because they loved Civ3 so much and didn't know it was a waste. (Many video game makers are taking advantage of gamers in this way, not just the Civilization makers.) My point here is to fight back. We already know what they are going to pull: Civ4 has an expansion pack out there titled Warlords. It basically includes elements intentionally left out so as to somehow formulate a "new" product. In the base version of Civ4, you have the Great People: artists, scientists, merchants, and prophets. Hmmm... now we get the warlords, eh? Oh, and a few other civilizations and buildings left out from before. Nice try... Boycott this type of marketing out of sheer principle. Play Civ3 Complete until Civ5 comes out if you have to. Maybe Civ will be less of a cheap shot then.
4. The last reason why you should be content with Civilization III and completely forget that Civilization IV was ever made is the most simple. Purchasing Civ3 Complete right now (1) will cost you less than half of Civ4; (2) is fully expanded while Civ4 is still looking to make more money off of us; and (3) Civ3 has the very same level of addictive game play as any other Civilization title. If you have already dropped the cash for Civ4, simply do not support Civ4 any longer. In fact, uninstall it and put it in your drawer as a sad chapter of shameless marketing. Yes, Civ4 is fun, but it is does not live up to its potential in most ways. Playing Civ3 will take up your time quite nicely until they release a REAL title that doesn't take advantage of us so blatantly.
To conclude, my overall point to stick with Civ3 and forego Civ4 is this: without an easy, efficient, and overwhelmingly powerful customizing interface (like an awesome map editor that allows FULL customization), we are simply asking for "re-tread" products. The fact that Firaxis did not include a kick-butt map editor proves in my mind that they expect us to wait for their "expansions" to come out and spend at least $150 each before they move onto Civ5. Hold out with Civ3 Complete and wait until Civ4 goes away. |
| |
| "NOT COMPLETE" | 2006-07-14 |
| - Reviewed By bluemonkeyfromkali |
| There is no scenario editor and if you want a manual you will have to print out a copy of the pdf file at your own expense. |
| |
Expedited Available
