Sid Meier's
Developer: Firaxis
Games Publisher: Infogrames
Reviewed by Irony
on 3/26/02
Article
Discussion Forum
First
Impressions:
I
am not a child of the Civilization franchise. I never really
worshipped at the feet of Sid Meier, and I played Alpha Centauri
before I ever played Civ II. Why would I review Civilization
III, then? Well, I caught the Civilization fever from
playing Call to Power (for which can't use "Civilization"
in its title any more, thanks to the lawyers), and I liked the idea
of the game. Plus, I'm surrounded at all times by Civ addicts.
What I can give you in this review, then, is the view of someone
coming to Civ III on its own merits, not indoctrinated by
years of Civ II. For what it's worth, I enjoy the game very
much, but I definitely have a few bones to pick.
The first, and hopefully only, rant I will subject you to is
not specific to Civ III, but rather to the computer gaming
industry itself, and this is it: bugs. Making a game is a difficult
process, no one disputes this, but a level of professionalism
is required by consumers. I bought Civ III the day it was
released, paying top dollar. I took it home, installed it without
a hitch, and proceeded to play. It was more than a week after
the release date that I figured out that modern air units wouldn't
work. A patch came out in due time, but up until that point, you
could either start your game over after tweaking the program to
take out air units entirely, or you could just sit back while
the computer bombed your cities into kindling while you had no
way to shoot down those planes. That's right, anti-aircraft
SAM sites wouldn't work; neither would jets. To say the situation
was frustrating is an understatement.
I'm playing with the latest patch of the game right now, and
taking a look at the bug list to see all the things I didn't know
were going wrong, I have to say a few words about this phenomenon.
There are developers out there who flat out won't release their
game until it's up to spec. There will always be a few bugs, but
games have been released with bugs so severe it was impossible
to win the game (Ultima: Ascension, anyone?). It doesn't
kill a game to wait until it's finished. Blizzard and Bungie,
for example, are developers who will push back a release date
before releasing a sub-par version of their games, and it would
be nice if every developer had that level of professionalism.
As a gamer, I don't want to be treated like I'm 13 and don't know
what the words "consumer" and "responsibility" mean. I earn my
money, and I expect a quality product. End of rant.
Anyway, on a whim, I bought Civilization III, and brought
it home. Instantly, my two roommates had to buy it, too, and educate
me on the finer points of civilization building. Firstly, they
taught me a hatred of the Zulus, which they had developed during
marathon Civ II sessions, presumably from getting their
butts kicked by the Zulus. I haven't seen anything to warrant
this Zuluism in Civ III, but I've developed a keen hatred
of the English through my own adventures, as well as the French
and the Iroquois.
Graphics:
Visually,
the game is wonderful. There is great attention to detai in the
way your archers pluck at their bowstrings, your knights gallop
gallantly down the road, and your F-16s scream across the sky
(at least after you patch the game). As your civilization progresses
from mud huts to skyscrapers, your cities change in appearance,
and your advisors in the advisor screen don pointed wizard hats
or business suits as appropriate. Of course, graphics aren't the
key to these games, so nothing spectacular is required.
Sound/Music:
The
sounds are well done, with swords clanging, waves waving, and
such. The music is not annoying, which is the best that can be
said. Again, music and sound are extras in this kind of game,
so anything is fine as long as it doesn't subject you to anything
alarming for too long a time (the music in the modern age of Call
to Power 2, for example, was horrific and could cause
nausea in small children, or at least in me.
Gameplay:
Basic
game play is intuitive enough. You have a main view with a map,
a smaller map for navigation purposes that serves as your world
map, and all the tools you need. You can access the Civilopedia
from any screen and get information on units and wonders. You also
have advisors to tell you things about trade and foreign relations,
and give you advice. These advisors aren't really all that helpful,
but it's nice to see a friendly face once in a while, especially
when the English are picking on you.
A few things were added to the game with the latest patch, and
let me tell you, they make a nice difference. The first is stacked
movement. Now, instead of moving each unit individually, you can
move like units in a stack. That's the catch, though: like units.
The only way to group units is to make an army (a kind of unit),
and that option is dependent on a number of factors. Another command
new with the patch is the Sentry ability. Now, instead of waking
up your fortified units when a threat approaches, you can set
them in Sentry mode to wake up when enemies are nearby. Workers
get an upgraded skill, too. Now you can set them to improve cities
without destroying any existing upgrades.
Enjoyment:
I'm
torn. I enjoy the game, but I find myself longing for Call
to Power 2 instead of booting up Civilization III.
Some of my favorite aspects of these types of games are missing
from Civ III. I understand they wanted to make moving,
changing world leader portraits, but I would almost prefer no
portrait at all to a limited choice. One of the things I always
found intriguing about these games was the possibility that, with
the right guidance, the Scottish might just take over the world.
I support the idea of more civilizations, not less. Also, I loved
the wonder movies, both in Call to Power 2 and in Civilization
II. They just have pictures in Civ III, and their FAQ
indicates they thought wonder movies "disrupted the flow of the
game." Personally, I felt they enhanced the game, and conveyed
the importance of each wonder in a unique way.
Multiplayer:
There is no multiplayer for this game.
Overall
Impression:
Overall,
the game doesn't excite me. Sure I play it for hours at a time,
but that's more due to "one-more-turn" syndrome than to the game
itself. The wonders and technologies available in the game's modern
age are underwhelming, and I find myself wishing the game were
longer, or that there were another age: Call to Power,
for example, allowed you to colonize the sea; in Civilization
III, the sea is pretty much useless except for sailing. I
also miss the ability to choose male and female for each civilization.
The interactive pictures of rulers are nice, but it would be fun
if you could import a picture to use (your own, or a character
sketch like in Baldur's Gate). Also, out of 16 civilizations,
only four have female rulers. However reflective of "reality"
that might be, Civ III is a game about bucking reality;
about proving that the proper woman might have conquered the world
in the name of womankind. Plus, I don't remember Joan of Arc ruling
France at any point, so "reality" can't really be a sticking point.
Some players probably don't care who their avatar is, and would
gladly play as Joe or Jane Average so long as they could conquer
the world. I, however, like customization, and, sometimes, it's
the little things that count.
Marketing
Efforts Towards Women:
The
marketing isn't gender-focused, and the game itself doesn't demonstrate
a bias. See more on the depiction of women in the actual game
in the Overall Impression section.
|
