Re: Am I the only one to think Civ 3 was better ?


"Michael Mils" <mickmils@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dk2845$hcr$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I'm not a "back in the days, games were better" ***, but
> honesly. Why the slow 3D ? Why the clunky interface ?
> Remove that, and you get Civ3. I really can do without
> the new work/religion/etc systems. And I like having a ton
> of cities...
>
> The world maps seem smaller too.
>
> So I'm surprised I haven't seen a thread already about that.
> Am I the only who think Civ3 was better ?

Hm, from my first impression, Civ4 might be the best civ since the original
(speaking from the point of view of enjoyment rather than as a game per say
.... of course the newer Civs are more polished games, but the impact of the
first Civ way back then was amazing, the ultimate 'just one more turn'
game).
Neither Civ2 or Civ3 had anything like that, perhaps because they were just
refinements of good old Civ. But Civ4 has some of the element of having to
work out strategy again (Civ3 had a bit of that, but it was a minor
adjustment
for the most part). Actually I never got into Civ3 that much, played it
from
time to time but it never kept me up late ... not sure why, other than by
the time you got into the modern era the micromanagement was so tedious
that I rarely finished games.



.

Quantcast