The "PC Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Considering Civ 1/2 are just behind Legend of Zelda OOT and Metroid Prime as the best game/s ever made, is Civ III really really really really good or a disappointment?
Page:
oooo Nashhh!
I have sent address, which you should have got by now. Yus.
I have sent address, which you should have got by now. Yus.
I recieved address.
I am sorry my friend.
You must either wait until Monday until I can post it, or take your own Civ 3 related actions.
The choice is yours.
I am sorry my friend.
You must either wait until Monday until I can post it, or take your own Civ 3 related actions.
The choice is yours.
I wouldn't say that civ 3 was that bad is just had mighty big shoes to fill following civ II.
And also one of the reasons it wasn't that much better was because Brian Reynalds who was one of the main people who developed the game
And also one of the reasons it wasn't that much better was because Brian Reynalds who was one of the main people who developed the game
You gave Nash your address? What were you thinking? He draws you in with promises of turn based strategy games... Then he pounces. He's a docter you know.
Thanks Nash, Monday shall be fine.
AS long as you don't come with it. :)
AS long as you don't come with it. :)
Presedenté Nash wrote:
> Cyclone wrote:
> If it's cheap as very cheap chips.
>
> No, I'll give it you. Like, for free.
>
> I hate it because unlike the previous 2, the computers seem to
> advance really fast. You'll end a game, and they'll have about 4 more
> cities than you.
> I didn't give it much of a chance, I admit, but at least you can get
> it for free instead.
>
> It's not so bad when it's free.
>
> Also, Civ 1/2 = brilliant.
Try putting the difficulty setting down a few notches.
Civ 3 is designed as Civ:Masterclass. The gameplay itself is really no different to Civ2, and in fact I'd go as far as to say the game is better.
> Cyclone wrote:
> If it's cheap as very cheap chips.
>
> No, I'll give it you. Like, for free.
>
> I hate it because unlike the previous 2, the computers seem to
> advance really fast. You'll end a game, and they'll have about 4 more
> cities than you.
> I didn't give it much of a chance, I admit, but at least you can get
> it for free instead.
>
> It's not so bad when it's free.
>
> Also, Civ 1/2 = brilliant.
Try putting the difficulty setting down a few notches.
Civ 3 is designed as Civ:Masterclass. The gameplay itself is really no different to Civ2, and in fact I'd go as far as to say the game is better.
Page: