Civilization III - or Civilization?

Having bought and played Civilization for the Commodore Amiga for several years, I bought Civilization III thinking it would be better.

Oops.

Civ III is IDENTICAL with the exception of better graphics. Gameplay was the same.

I should have realized.

Maybe this is why the big gaming industry doesn't want emulators on PCs; maybe the ability to replay old software does interfere with their ability to make money.

As usual, corporations (and those who support them) want to rob us of our freedoms.

The game is much deeper, with better rules and enhancements.

The core engine and "look-and-feel" are the same, yes, but IMO that is actually an advantage for long-time followers of the series.

YMMV.

DTH

There's no doubt Civ3 is a big improvement from Civ. But the change from Civ2 to Civ3 isn't quite as dramatic. Civ3 has a reputation as being a Civ2.5. Not quite an advancement, and less appealing in some ways. YMMV

I kind of like Alpha Centauri, though it's a bit buggy. It has some interesting concepts like the unit design workshop. It's the story of the spaceship you send off at the end of Civ :)

and never played civ or civ 2. Civ 3 came with a bonus civ 2 CD, and I finally got around to installing it the other day.

I cannot believe how utterly asinine civ 2 is and I am astounded people actually payed money to buy it. The graphics were circa early 80s, the gameplay was limited, and the whole concept of, oh, nations was muddled.

It's unbelievibly awful, and I would have given up on the civ series if civ 2 had been my only exposure to it.

Civ 3 is a fun game, and I highly recommend it to thinkers.

is the reason for the graphics disparity. But for those who've played civ2, civ3 isn't as large a change as desired. That's why they called it civ2.5 informally. Check the poster lower down who describes his experiences.

If you're judging purely by graphics, then any game that is later in date will seem more impressive, whether the gameplay justifies it or not. Civ3 is a step backwards since it removed some of the innovations developed in Alpha Centauri, like the unit workshop. It has improvements in some other areas, but it also went backwards as well.

Sid Meier developed the games in the followig time sequence: Civ, Civ2, Alpha Centauri, Civ3. Although he's credited with all of them, they're not really all his brainchildren. Civ was Sid's baby. Civ2 was Brian Reynolds doing the bulk of the design work and learning much from Sid. Alpha Centauri was entire Brian Reynolds (despite having Sid's name on it). Then Brian left. Sid tried to work on Civ3, but he didn't focus as much on it as he should have. Thus it came out substandard, losing a lot of the innovations that Brian made with Alpha Centauri. Civ3 is better than Alpha Centauri in many ways, but it is also worse in many ways -- hence why it's called Civ2.5.

If you're going to go by purely graphics, than obviously whichever is later would have the best graphics. But gameplay is a better judge of quality in my opinion. And a lot of the "improvements" that you saw in Civ3, came from Alpha Centauri. So they didn't weren't improvements to the fans. Been there, done that -- that's why they call Civ3 substandard. As a matter of fact, many improvements like the unit workshop were not added from Alpha Centauri to Civ3. They did add things that weren't in Alpha Centauri, like "Culture."

It's a pity Brian left Sid's company. I'd have liked to see him do an Alpha Centauri 2, or at least fix the bugs in Alpha Centauri.

Now you know why people consider Civ3 a substandard follow-up to Civ2 and Alpha Centauri.

frankly, civ 2 is unplayable imho

Civ3 is widely regarded as a substandard follow-up. That's why I always do research on reviews by fan communities. These are more trustworthy than the reviews from gaming magazines and gaming sites that have a vested interest in promoting games.

I've heard rumors and conjecture that companies want to make it so they get to see a review before it gets posted and that unfavorable ones be removed.

Obviously it won't fly in the face of "free speech" but for corporate america to even think of such a tactic is another reminder that their system is utterly wrong.

I might be mistaken, but I believe their NDAs specify that any benchmark reports or comparisons must be approved by them.

Why doesn't anybody sue them in a gigantic violation of the first amendment?

Microsoft is an American business. Based in America. Born in America. Bred in America. It must follow American principles.

Of course, they're starting to outsource as well so it's a matter of time before they move offshore entirely and find other ways for their fascism to be conformed to.

You cannot claim that it inhibits your free speech, if you sign a contract agreeing to letting them do so. You are free not to sign the contract, but then they are also free to deny you access to the data, since its their personal property. And nothing in the constitution says they have to give you their private property. See the logic?

It sucks, but it's the law, and they are well within their rights. No one can FORCE them to give away their private property, and trade secrets.

It's like when a famous guy settles a sexual harassment charge. In the settlement, they may have a contract that says they can't speak about it to reporters. This doesn't violate first amendment rights, because you're free not to sign the contract and settle.

And if you don't sign the contract, then Microsoft won't give you access to their private software. They paid for it, developed and created it, and own it after all.

Sucks, but not illegal.

That's why you should trust fansite reviews instead, since the fans don't sign NDAs to get access. The only drawback is that not signing the NDA (non-disclosure agreement) means they have to wait and buy the product like everyone else. While the magazine reporters who sign the NDA get advanced copies of the software to review and publish about before the product hits the streets. And the clause saying any benchmark testing or comparison results must be approved by Microsoft before being published is built into the NDA.

I have Civilization III and I thought it sucked. Age of Empires is much more fun, IMHO.

Civ, Civ3, Alpha Centauri, MoM -- these are all Turn-based Strategy (TBS) games. Thus, the gameplay will be similar.

Age of Empire is a real-time strategy (RTS) game. I think one of the best RTS is Starcraft. Classic, and great multiplayer.

RTS and TBS both have their plus and minuses.

Of course, I always preferred the single-player games to all that multiplayer nonsense.

Civ 3 is like Civ 2 on steroids. Pretty much the same game with a few improvements and better graphics.

pm me if you wanna have a go at me sometime. i'm awful though, i'll warn you now.

My wife and kids like it a lot too.

between Civ I and Civ III. Having played all three a great deal, my opinion is that the game has become increasingly anti-war. With Civ 3, the disadvantages of going to war are such it can make it a very distasteful experience, unless you are already enormously wealthy and powerful. War was a standard feature of my games in Civ 1 and 2; much less so in 3.

The other big difference is the importance of natural resouces in the game. This is a very real-world touch they added, and it's a major influence on strategy and decision-making. If you haven't got access to oil, you better get some by hook or by crook, or you're sunk. The game makes war-for-oil (or iron, or coal) a real possibility, and that's a big departure from the earlier versions, where war was just about taking cities away from your opponents.

I like Civ 3 a lot, but I have to admit I have not had any real white-knuckler games like I used to have in the earlier versions. It's either I'm kicking ass or getting mine kicked, so far. I also think the new prominence that corrpuption has in the game is a mistake, or should be further modified. Corruption as a function of distance from the capitol should go away once electronics is discovered, and should be lessened by the discovery of railroad as well. Also, I hate the way railroads look on the map!

Dirk

I think that corruption should be reduced as a function of roads (ie access), population, railroads and electronic communications. I build nations that would rival the modern US in power, but it just seems silly that a province as far away from the capitol as say Los Angeles is from Washington DC would be riddled with corruption.

One thing I LOVE about this though, which is not present in civ 2 is the concept of national frontiers. You are building a nation that has borders, like, oh, the real world. If a resource isn't inside your nation, you don't have access to it. Other nations get upset if you station troops within their borders. It's not just a bunch of "independant" cities dotted on the map, but a real state with real territory.

Yes, that's a third significant difference in Civ 3 I forgot to mention. It very nicely simulates the exploratory spirit present in past history that caused people to found cities thousands of miles away from their home capitols. Always a fun little project, getting those distant resource towns linked up to your trade network!

The national borders is an old idea, created in Alpha Centauri. That's why people say Civ3 is Civ2.5, b/c it didn't really add that many new features. The borders is an old feature.

and you're right I love to play a big map against a lot of different players and the corruption, even in democracy makes it so that peripheral cities cannot get past 5-6 improvements before timing out

They neatened up the appearance of the railroads somewhat, but they still look like crap. I preferred Civ 2 in that area because rails weren't even necessary in many squares because they conferred no benfit. And I kind of liked the neat grids in Civ 1.

Of course, maybe it's deliberate. The map is generally beautiful until the industrial era comes along with those GD railroads and pollution...hey, just like the real world! But then again, rails don't represent late 20th century travel modes very well. Highways would make mores sense; and when you hit superconductor you should be able to build mag-lev trains!

maybe making railroads a more movement but not free would allow for highways/meg-levs.

I agree Civ II had the best rail graphic, and that annoyed me no end when they came out crap in civ III. I also liked the improvement to farmland, and this one doesn't have that which is dissapointing

n/t

and cannot be arsed to figure out how to play it. I generally move a little guy around and click on stuff 'til it tells me the game's over, at which point I'm immensely satisfied and glad to be able to get back to DU. Stoopid friggin' game.

there are some better features. I like the fact that you can play many more people than before. but I prefer to create my own scenarios (like my super pan-continential nations) and that requires cheat to start.

Civ II is better I think though

I'd recommend that.

Civ III is forty bucks that I wasted. Graphics are better, I'll give it that, but gameplay is confusing and sloooow. I generally play my games in the morning while drinking my cup of coffee, and I'd like to get in more than one turn in a half hour.

I'll sacrifice good graphics for better gameplay any day.

but that's because i have never quite gotten the hang of those strategy games, and Civ2 is easier. Gameplay is better in Civ3, IMO.

addictive as hell too