"One step forward, three steps back."

To be frank, when the next installation of the popular Civilization series came out I was really excited. I had bought Civ 2 back when it was released so many years ago(and hence the countless hours playing:-)), and played the semi-sequel Alpha Centauri when it came out as well and was extremely pleased with both games. However, when Civ 3 came out I started getting conflicting POVs about the game. One was that it was the Strategy Game of the Year, while others were very disatisfied with it. So I just decided to borry the game from a friend who'd had it with the game, and believe me, I am glad I just borrowed it.

Now I will give a fair warning to say that this review will lean more towards the flaws of Civ 3, since I am getting inumerable number of people and sites who are hailing it as a great game, yet I feel they are mainly repeating over and over again the argument that it is a great game due to the two newest additions: culture and resources. Why? Because most of these rave reviews rarely seem to delve into the problems of Civ 3, which quite profoundly affect the entire game itself and nullifies these supposed improvements.

Also, since Civ 3, by definition, is the third installment in the series, then it should have picked up a couple of tricks from its predecessors. Expect a lot of comparisons between Civ 2 and SMAC(Sid Meir's Alpha Centauri) here.

Graphics- The graphics aren't that bad. In fact, they are probably the best I've seen for a Civ game(or any turn based strategy game for that matter, save the Panzer General II Series of SSI). You can see your little workers busily mining those hills, frigates bob up and down in the ocean, all the standard gimmicks that make it a nice game to look at. The problem is that Strategy Games don't have to be pretty, they have to be FUNCTIONAL, and there are a lot of annoying little things that cropped up in Civ 3.

For example, it's quite hard to figure what stacks are made up of now, since you have to right click to show a _list_ of units in the stack, which is a bit more difficult to sort out than Civ IIs right handed display of all units on the square(with the unit icons AND health bars for better viewing). It's a bit harder to figure out who's happy or unhappy in a city since they're no longer color-coded like in Civ 2, and there's also a few slight terrain perspective problems that may come up as well in the map unless you turn on the grids.

Also, the removal of the menu system, though making the interface a lot sleeker than Civ 2 or SMAC, has some problems. For example, the all important espionage button is a tiny little button on the right edge of the screen, barely visible unless you look at the manual(which people rarely do). Also, a lot of actions have to be accessed by right clicking(like establishing an embassy) or clicking on buttons that don't look like buttons(like the shield icon on the enemy's capital to spy on that Civ), rather than just a straight out easily visible button or menu selection like in Civ 2.

There's also a couple of little things, like a slightly rushed looking diplomacy interface(Old Civ games put you into an entirely new interface with neat backgrounds, here you just get the dialogue options and the ruler's amusingly animated face), and maybe an over-reliance on 3-D graphics. Frankly, I think the miniter graphics in particular have gotten worse, since they seem a bit more cartoony than SMAC's serious looking faces or Civ 2's very funny bunch of live action actors(who also had live action wonder movies by the way). They're not all that big a deal as it's more subjective, but I did add them to say that even its pretty graphics has a few rough edges.

Anyway, my overall point is this: The game has good graphics, but functionality shouldn't have been sacrificed any for it. Moreover, I have a feeling that the Graphics had a profound influence on another part of theg ame(combat) which is probably the main reason why Civ 3 disappointed me so much.

Sound- Excellent. It fits the mood well and should be how CIV games should use their sound departments in future installments. It's one of the places where Civ shines, but the problem is that sounds aren't that big a deal for strategy games, and thus isn't a big plus for its overall score. It is however, an excellent way to keep people from getting bored playing.

Gameplay- If anything makes or breaks a game, it is this category. That ever so important aspect called gameplay. So let's break down its pros and cons...

* Culture- Undoubtedly the best feature added into the Civ series in this installment. It's not only realistic(just count the number of American movies being around the world for example), but it makes peaceful expansion a much better proposition. Basically, culture is used for expanding your borders, but this is important as high cultures allows you to win the game, take over needed resources, or even subvert enemy cities. It, as a friend of mine puts it, turns Civ 3 into more of a game of Go(Japanese version of Chess), where you need to surround you enemies rather than beat them in battle. Shrewd city planner may now choose to carefully place their cities to ensure maximum cultural coverage on enemy cities to limit their resources and to take their cities. Plus, since it's provided by a lot of highly necessary improvements(like temples) anyway, it's a new feature than should prove to be not too great a hassle for most players. This is the only REAL step forward made in this installment, and for the most part it's really just based off the game of Go.

* Resources- Another excellent concept, if only some flaws in other aspects of gameplay had been taken out. As it stands on it own, the increased happiness from luxury resources and the necessity of certain raw materials for advanced units make it a great addition and require players to do some real strategic planning(and probably a greater understanding why Americans have to deal with Mid East oil and other situations). Moreover, the necessity of connecting cities via roads, hrabors and airport are not only realistic, but it would provide interesting scenarios involving sieges and embargos. A definite fun addition to this game, as I said, it gets nullified by some flaws.

* Trade- Now I said that there were some other flaws in gameplay that affected strategic resources, and one of them is trade. Sure, you can trade special resources, but the age old standard commerce can no longer be generated by merely having peaceful relations with a foreign nation. They MUST now be initiated between governments and governments alone(so your democratic cities won't get more commerce bonuses by being the sole trading post on a foreign continent), which isn't entirely realistic. What ever happened to private enterprise?

Fortunately, trading in diplomacy is more flexible now, and its streamlined form makes it easier than using those slow moving Caravans. But it still makes you wish you could get that extra four or five commerce points per city as you did in SMAC or Civ 2, especially with a few other bad aspects of gameplay, like very high corruption and a slow research rate which those commerce points could have helped out. Overall, not enough to be a flaw, but not enough to be an improvement.

* Diplomacy- I don't really see anything that new in diplomacy other than improved trade(though SMAC had that improved trade feature), and you have to wait an unrealistically long time to get more advanced diplomatic options. Also, espionage, though better streamilined, has become more of a pure offensive games than and offensive-defensive game. I don't think there are many ways to stop espionage once initiated against you by your enemies. Leans more as a flaw than and improvements, but not by much.

* Combat- I said in my topic that this games took three steps backwards, and two of them were taken here. Combat in Civ 3 isn't just bad, it's horrible. In good old Civ 2 and SMAC, technologically advanced units WILL cream any ancient troops, and a small, excellently trained, armed and equipped force can overcome a much larger army if used right. In Civ 3, that's gone. Gone are the advantages of modern units in the form of high hitpoints and firepower, back is the age where stone age spearman can miraculously detonate a fully armored M4 Sherman. Now you may say that's it's not a big deal, since the odds for winning are still pretty low for that spearman(about 9:1), but when you see a battleship and two destroyers(veteran all of them) get sunk by a primitive regular Caravel in a single turn, and the Caravel HP bar didn't even go to the red area, the game ceases to be an accurate representation of warfare, not to mention being totally frustrating.

Now it may not be a big deal, since Civ is not purely a war game, but it has so many effects that it virtually wipes out many of the game's best aspects. Strategic resources are now USELESS(which is terrible since they had just been implemented ^_^), since if your battleship is going to be sunk by Caravels anyway, why bother getting oil? It takes a LOT of effort to make modern units, and getting a slight advantage for them isn't enough to justify all the new added costs. If you're going to war, it's going to just come down to making the biggest army you can build, regardless of what techs you'd come up with. Veteran and Elite status are less useful, though getting them home more often is nice(but it's a huge loss compared to the 50-100% Attack/Defense bonus you could get in Civ2/SMAC) Terrain is also seemingly less of a factor, and gone are the days which a few well positioned men can hold up an army(especially with the removal of ZOC rules), making a large army necessary even in peacetime if somebody decides to go to war on you. So what you're left with is a war of attrition, and no more brilliant Inchons or Gulf Wars, just good old 60,000 casualty a day charges towards the enemy line. And attrition, is NOT strategy.

A personal observation of mine however, makes me feel that the combat system was designed this way to better suit the combat visuals of the game more than anything else. A typical Civ 2 combat, if played out using the Civ 3 engine, would take a minimum of 10 rounds(and hence, ten recylings of the combat animations), more with more modern units. A typical Civ 3 battle would take a maximum of 10 rounds unless you're using armies, which is, though fast enough to make the game bearable, would STILL be annoying if it was your battleship getting sunk by the Caravel..

There are some nice advanced concepts added in, like artillery and air mission system. The former was an overall nice addition, but the latter has some small problems. I'm a fan of the air mission system after I saw its implementation in People's General, but it does add a complication in Civ 3 since air units can't completely demolish units like in Civ 2 or SMAC, making carrier to carrier battles an impossible affair. Armies are a ''nice concept'', but are too inflexible to be great(move only one square at a time). If you get a leader, I suggest you just send it over to help finish the nearest Wonder instead ^_^.

In other words, combat here is now a messy, and badly flawed business, thus emphasizing the game as more of a ''builder'' game, rather than more of a war game unless you really want to do some serious head bashing. But unfortunately, the ''builder'' aspect isn't as great a part of the game either.

* Technology- a mixed bag rather than an overall improvement. More streamlined than the earlier versions, but its importance has been marginalized by Civ 3. Tech advances not only come slower, but you don't get as much bang for the buck. Combat units, as I said, are less useful, and though it's needed to get improvements and wonders, but they aren't that great either, which will be discussed in the next aspect of gameplay.

* Civil Development- Now since you couldn't go to war very well, at least you could concentrate on making your own little Utopia, right? Well... not exactly...

The improvements haven't been improved since Civ 2 or SMAC. IN fact, you get LESS improvements, and less interesting wonders(which are mainly cultural weapons than real improvements now). Moreover, gone are many, many, resources improvements that were omitted from Civ 3 like farmland(which means that technologically advanced machine wielding farmers will STILL produce as much as ancient farmers), and a lot of nice additional terraforming techniques from SMAC are also omitted. The lack of terraforming abilities isn't a big loss(we're only talking up to 2050 after all), but at least they should have made or at least kept some of those food or commerce improvements like Supermarkets, Terrain Transformation and Highways from Civ 2, and maybe added some more. In fact, to be frank, once you get all those squares irrigated, mined and railroaded, you workers will have very little to do, and unless your cities are dying with corruption(which is extremely likely), you'll run through your list of buildable improvements rather quickly. This is another leap backward as SMAC has shown that large numbers of improvements are not only manageable, but a lot more fun as it lets you build those REALLY big and beautiful cities.

* AI- It STILL cheats(or in a more euphemistic way, is given more advantages). It gets TWO settlers at the start in Deity mode for example. It STILL adheres to the old ''send every unit to the nearest city'' war strategy. And its dialogue in diplomacy doesn't reflect how mad or distrusting they are to you anymore so you can't tell if Queen Elizabeth is just a little ticked or thinks that you're the next Hitler(in Civ 2, you have your reputation AND changing dialogues like ''Oh most untrusworthy one...'' to figure out how much they hate you). And it LOVES to continue using ancient units even in the modern era. Obviously, it hasn't improved much, though it seems to realize now that war is back to the numbers game.

Well, to sum it up, it would have been a great game with the addition of Culture and Strategic resources, but by messing with the rest of the well-working system from Civ 2 and SMAC, they just made the gameplay a whole lot worse. If you're used to Civ 1 then it would be a great improvement, but unfortunately greater games like Civ 2 and SMAC have already come along and had provided ready major fixes for all of the gameplay's major flaws. Unfortunately, it seems these lessons have mainly been ignored.

Replay- more replayability than its predeccesors due to more factions/civilizations, and a more interesting world, but ALL Civ games are insanely replayable anyway ^_^.

In the sum here's what Civ 3 is not a bad game per se. In fact, it would probably appeal more to newbies with its graphics and more modern interface design and should probably be more rated as a 5 than a 3 to them. But if you've played Civ before, especially Civ 2 or SMAC, it just isn't worth it as a game. The old game options like warfare and civic development have been washed away through either flawed design or over simplicity, giving the feeling that the whole game has mainly become a game to accumulute culture more than anything else, since outside of culture, there really isn't that much to do without great frustration or limitation. This greatly limits the fun in playing the newest installment of Civilization, as you now have to play how the designers want you to play. Not how YOU want to play.

In the sum, here's my advice: If you REALLY want a game in the historical setting, play Civ 2 and pretend money is culture(hey... money makes the world go around). If you just want a great Strategy Game, play SMAC, and do the same thing to Energy(the money in SMAC). If you're new to Civ, then maybe give this game a shot. If you just want to play the game because you like the culture concept in this game, just follow my friend's advice and play Go. It'll be a whole lot cheaper that way.

Reviewer's Score: 3/10, Originally Posted: 01/02/02, Updated 01/02/02