09-01-2002 03:10									#1
	the 2 questions Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Fine, we have whinners and fanboys and there have been many threads about our common hatred. As a 'whinner', I seek here to specify exactly why I am very disappointed in Civ3. Any other whinner can add their thoughs (thoughtful critism please, not just personal grudge) and fanboys can also tell us why they like it (again, thoughtful, not mindless praise).

Civ3 is a sequel, part of a series, and the most illustrius series in TBS games. As such, much like Godfather 3, it should rightly be judged not only in comparison to other TBS games but to its predecessors and the growth and development of the line. So, when judging Civ3, I have two fundamental questions:

1. Is Civ3 as good an improvement in the series over Civ2 (the previous standard) as Civ2 was over the original?
2. Considering all the advancements in TBS games, is Civ3 as good as we could hope (not seeking perfection, just a higher standard than its competitors)?

And my answer to both is, unfortunitelly, NO.

1. Civ3 is certainly more revolutionary than Civ2. Civ2 added new particulars (units, civs) but really did not add any fundamentally different game concepts over civ. Civ3, with culture and resources, certainly has. I belive that their implementation is slightly flawed, but they are still fundamentally new and do affect gameplay dramatically. But in some aspects, the series went backwards- the combat system had various major improvements but one massive step back. The problem with endless expansion and endgame micromanaguement (which until governor A.I.'s are very good is unavoidable in these types of games, as you grow) was made worse, in my opinion the interface is not that great and less userfriendly for me than Civ2's, and in the greatest sin of all, while Civ2 had the ability built in to make primitive historical scenerios from the get-go (with the cheat mode) Civ3 has no such inbuilt ability.

2. There have been many TBS games since Civ2, including SMAC, the CtP series, and I would even add MOO2 (which actually is a contemporary of Civ2) and they all had various new game concepts that they contributed to TBS gaming. I believe that Civ3 did not look at these games enough to bring in those concepts and mechanisms that make other TBS games enjoyable. Stacked movement is a glaring example. 5 years separated Civ and Civ2, and Civ2 did make use of the advancements not only of computing in general, but of TBS games also. The development of both computing and TBS has been far more radical in the past 5 years that separate Civ3 from Civ2, but in my opinion, the team making Civ3 did not take full advantage of them. Thus, Civ3 is not even the best game we could have, given the technological and ideological (turns) limits imposed on it.

Thus, I am disappointed with Civ3, but do not go as far as some to remove it from my game lib. Improvement is possible, and yes, I am willing to pay more to get good scenerio making capabilities (though, as i have said, I am very unhappy about it). Thus, I will stick with Civ3 for a bit longer. But if improvement does not come relatively soon, new games will come and take me, and many other fans of this series, away.