|
Ironikinit
|
|
A generally negative review, that was posted some time ago. Tonight was the first time I read it, though.
http://www.gamingxpress.com/review.civ3.html
They gave it a 7.5, which seems odd since I assume the rating only goes up to 10. 75% is better than the text would suggest. For example:
"Overall, the game was quite disappointing, especially considering it is inheriting the mantle of one of the most hallowed games in computer gaming history. Totally average."
The thing is, the hallowed game he's talking about isn't Civ 2, it's the original Civ:
"Although Civ 2 practically copied the gameplay word for word, it just wasn't Civ. It didn't quite capture the same magic and impact of the original."
Had to laugh there, given that I've seen the exact same thing said about Civ 3 not matching Civ 2. I'm not sure which the reviewer disliked more, 2 or 3.
There were some points that I agreed with, for example:
"One thing I am really, really glad for regarding the graphics, though, is that your advisors are no longer dumb-looking live actor clowns dressed in armor or shades or whatever. Now they're cartoony dumb-looking clowns dressed in armor or shades or whatever. That may not sound like much, but it is a HUGE improvement in my book. Why? Because now the dumb-look is completely intentional, a result of the cartoony style. In the former it was unintentional, an unfortunate side-effect of using actors for models. I still look at those days when CD-ROM first came out and "multimedia video" was all the rage as the Dark Ages of computer gaming where people thought just having multimedia in your game made it good. (Wing Commander 3... shudder...)
Gone are those ugly low-res video clips each time a wonder comes out or a civilopedia entry is looked up. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Now all we have are high-res cutesy images that go with text. Much better. Other than that, the graphics are more or less unremarkable. "
I don't totally agree, because there's no way I can believe that the advisors in Civ 2 weren't intentionally stupid looking.
He also didn't like the city view, and again, I got to agree. It's really bad, and when he says the cities look like ghost towns, he not harsh enough. Ghost towns at least have some consistency.
Oddly, he didn't have a problem with cultural takeover. Another odd thing is that he didn't like the combat system. I figure that's funny if he liked the original game, because Civ 3's system reminds me of the Civ 1 system. I'm not saying that one is better or worse, just that Civ 3's reminds me of the original, back before firepower.
Some of his other problems would be helped if the manual was better or if the set up of the game itself was easier to understand. For instance, he complains that there's no button to end the turn (there is, and it's in a handy spot). Another problem he had with having to watch unit animations, and a quick trip to the preference menu could've fixed that right up.
Anyway, I liked the review because the guy's a smart alec and a traditionalist. He's also persuasive. However, I think he was wrong about die hard civilians being the only ones who'll like the game. Seems to me that some of the die hards are the ones who do the most complaining around here.
Last edited by Ironikinit on 03-02-2002 at 08:29
|
03-02-2002 08:13
|
|