 |
| |
|
|
Mahdimael
|
 |
Sandy Eigo, CA, USA
May 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
Hey all, there's a review up at adrenaline vault. They gave civ3 4 out of 5 stars. Go check it out.
Lots of positives mentioned, some negatives:
-AI was unreasonable in diplomacy.
-Modern age feels unfinished (lack of units, wonders)
-Modern units routinely destroyed by ancient units (mech inf vs swordsman) (a bug?)
-Screen scrolling is very jerky/slow (a bug?)
-Corruption/ War Weariness are problems (duh)
Overall, I thought it was a fair assessment, though I do question the reviewers comments about Corruption and War Weariness. I'll have to play to see if his complaints are valid or if they're just misguided.
The game sounds great, and if there's anything that sounds disappointing, it's the fact that the modern age seems unfinished. Again, I will have to play the game to see, so who knows
link:
http://www.avault.com/reviews/review_temp.asp?game=civ3
edit: interesting...the IGN preview says that the spearman/battleship thing isn't a big deal...be interesting to see who's right
Last edited by Mahdimael on 30-10-2001 at 11:31
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
 |
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:15
|
|
Holy God ... this review basically made me want to avoid Civ3 like a plague. Let me explain:
quote:
In fact, it's impossible to move smoothly when you drag your mouse pointer to the edge of the screen, so I ended up clicking on the mini-map to speed things along. |
This is unacceptable in a modern game.
quote:
This brings me to the negative aspects of Civilization III's gameplay, and unfortunately there are many. For starters, a number of units -- mostly those in the Modern era -- are either underbalanced or unrealistic in their lack of potential. For instance, while relocating a Cruise Missile to one of my other cities, it happened to stop accidentally in an open tile. During the enemy's turn, an Archer shot down my Cruise Missile, instantly destroying it. Just how an Ancient era Archer is capable of hitting a Cruise Missile moving at 300+ MPH and destroying it with an arrow is beyond me. Unfortunately this trend continues with other units; as experienced Civilization players recall, it was sometimes possible for a Phalanx to destroy a Battleship in prior titles. This is no longer possible in Civilization III, since sea units (like those in the air) can now only bombard ground targets. However, it is possible for Mechanized Infantry (the best defensive unit) to be destroyed quite easily by an Ancient Swordsman (an attack rating of 3 vs. a defense rating of 18, in case you were wondering). Allowing for some random chance, as the manual states will happen, such cases should really only occur once in a great while, but unfortunately, they happen routinely. |
I hope everybody reads that one carefully! Absolute garbage! And this is Civ3?!
quote:
Lastly, it seems as if Firaxis reached the Modern era and then stopped short. While there is a full slate of technological advances, this era is almost barren of Wonders and new unit types. In fact, some of what was in Civilization II, such as launching satellites into orbit and eliminating the fog of war, is missing here. Furthermore, while the Diplomacy system is more robust than before, it's also a bit lacking in feeling. For instance, the use of nuclear weapons or razing a city is considered an atrocity and in Civilization II, the computer players would let you know it. Here, such things are par for the course, and many nations routinely go razing cities, nor do they get all that upset when you lob several ICBMs their way. |
Great. Yet another installment of: Bore yourself in the end game. Brilliant. Just brilliant.
quote:
Once Firaxis implements multiplayer, there won't be any reason to avoid this game, which again proves itself to be both fun and addictive to play. |
In other words, SP sucks. That's what he's saying ... and your best hope for a good game will be MP. Any questions?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The Big W
|
|
U.S. of A.
Feb 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
Let's face it: every game ever made has any number of things about it that could be complained about and criticized...the only time that we really start tearing down a game is when we come to the conclusion that the positives do not outweigh the negatives.
The bottom line is that each of these reviewers have said that, in the end, Civ3 is well worth playing, has a high degree of replayibility, and is a great deal of fun, and in the end (after all, we are talking about a game, here), fun is the only thing that really matters in the end!
Plus, let's remember that Civ3, in a manner similar to its predecessors, is almost endlessly customizable, which means that if you don't like a feature, change it, improve it, or delete it! There was a lot about SMAC that I didn't like when I first got it, but by the time I got finished customizing its options, using its editor, and hacking its files, I was able to custom-tailor it into a game that I loved in virtually every respect, which is one of the greatest strengths of this type of game...
Of course, I haven't played Civ3 yet, and it's possible that it is a truly awful piece of software, but judging from the overwhelmingly positive conclusions of the 2 online reviews that we've seen so far, the positives may very well outweigh the negatives by a significant margin.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SnowFire
|
 |
New York City, NY
Jan 1970
time: 00:15
|
|
yin: I agree, that review doesn't fill me with tons of hope, but on the bright side, there's the eminent possibility he doesn't know what he's talking about. This reviewer is apperantly being challenged on merely Prince difficulty level, so I can pretty well ignore all comments on diplomacy and effectiveness of the AI. Also, the review was a bit rough around the edges (Reagent difficulty? Fun chemistry, there...), so we can only hope.
As for modern vs. ancient: this was never a problem in Civ2. HP and Firepower insured that musketeers unholily wiped out veteran pikemen. Now HP is far less important, and there is no such thing as firepower. OF COURSE the problem is going to come back, duh. Better than CivI with only 1 HP per unit, of course, but it'll still be there.
LaRusso: The Afghans were armed with far better than pikes (maybe they'd count as Alpine Infantry) and had massive defense bonuses from the mountains (+200%). Of course they slaughtered the Russkies.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-10-2001 11:20
The corruption and war weariness comments lead me to believe that.
)
I'll place my faith now in the mod community. Why, oh why, didn't Firaxis use Apolytoners to test? 
|