Sid Meier's Civilization III

The Good
This game is deeper than the earlier ones without being harder to play. It has nifty things like unique units and special abilities to make each civilization different. It has many things that were sorely missing in Civ2, like better air unit handling and national borders.

The Bad
Despite all the great things in it, this game didn't grab me the way its predecessors (Civilization, Civ2, and Sid Maier's Alpha Centauri) did. It somehow lost that "just one more turn" feeling.

The Bottom Line
Despite its lineage and superficial similarities, this is not really a new version of the classic Civilization. For that, SMAC is still the best. This is a new game in the same genre. It has a lot of cool ideas and features, many of which can be accurately described as improvements, but the sum total of the change is enough to make it play so differently that liking its predecessors will give you much of a hint whether you'll like this one.

The Good
I'm not sure that there is any gamer in the world who hasn't played Sid Meier's famous Civilization series at least once before, so it's plus sides are very well known. Civilization was the most in-depth, detailed, highly realistic strategy game of its time, Civilization II was better still, and Civilization III truly dominates, unlike many game sequels of its time. Rich with detailed and accurate information on every possible unit, technology, and building type from the hunter-gatherer dawn of civilization as we know it to modern day times in its Civilopedia, not only is it an endlessly playable game for entertainment purposes, but it would also make a very reliable history and science lesson for your children. If I had children that I wanted to ensure were learning as they were having fun, I'd sit them down in front of this game - you can learn more about the history of mankind just by playing this game that you can in any public school history class I've ever heard of!

The Bad
In my opinion, the best thing about Civilization III (and its predecessors also) is also the worst - its endless playability. This is a game you could sit down at after dinner and say "Oh, I'll just play for an hour or so!", and when it feels like that hour is up, you peer out the window and see the sun starting to rise. If it weren't for the educational aspects mentioned above, I'd probably never let my kids play this game. I couldn't count the number of business deadlines and social engagements I've had to reschedule or arrive late to after unwittingly spending 14 hours in front of this game without so much as a snack break. It's harder to quit than smoking. Even if you get so frustrated with it that you almost hurl your PC out the window, I guarantee you'll be giving it another shot within 24 hours. This game is without doubt the most addictive game ever created.

The Bottom Line
The bottom line? If you have a day job, don't play this game. If you have relationship or family commitments, don't play this game. If you have an addictive personality, don't play this game. If you're not willing or able to sit in front of your PC for 12 hour stints at a time due to health/medical, corporate, social, or any other responsibilities, then don't play this game. But if you're a dedicated gamer with a lot of free time on your hands or godlike willpower, then Civilization III and its predecessors are an absolute must-have for your game collection. You haven't played a strategy game until you've played Civilization.

The Good
It's Sid Meier's Civilization. That alone means it's a really good game. You know the drill - you play a human race from the stone age to modern times and try to use diplomacy, force, science, etc. to beat the other races in varying levels of difficulty. The game is turn-based and very in-depth, while maintaining an excellent in-game tutorial and learning curve. City management, funds allocation, scientific breakthroughs, wonders of the world, diplomacy and more are part of the game, and depending on your choice of game settings, require an incredible amount of micromanagement. There's nothing that's not to like about this game...

The Bad
...except that it's nothing new. It's Civilization I all over again with a few (albeit good) additional features and, of course, better graphics. I haven't played Civ I in years, never played Civ II, never read the manual to Civ III and STILL managed to play the game flawlessly the first time I played it, THAT'S how similar it is. I know, sports coaches always say "never change a winning team", but come on.

I own - and love - Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri an awful lot... in my eyes, perhaps the best game of it's kind ever. And it's four years old. Now, Alpha Centauri has a lot of features that Civ III does not have - awesome mini movies when you build a wonder, a background storyline, voiceover whenever you build a city enhancement for the first time, better unit experience system, customization of units, etc. etc. As a matter of fact, if I showed both Alpha Centauri and Civ III both games to a person who has never seen either, he'd likely guess that Alpha Centauri is the never, more developed game. That's not a good thing, folks.

The Bottom Line
If you don't own the original Civilization, Civ II or Alpha Centauri, go buy Civ III. Buy it now. It's THAT good, but it's nothing new if you own any of the older Sid Meier games. If you are a Sid Meier fanatic, still get it, the additional features will likely be worth it for you.

Put it this way. I work at a CompUSA and got the game at cost for little over $20. I'm happy that I got it. If I had paid the $59.95 or whatever when it first came though, I would likely have been disappointed since it's not really a new game. Perhaps they should have done it like Microsoft - pay the full time if you're a first time Civ user, or a fraction of the cost if you already have the older Sid Meier Civilizations.

Remember Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace? It was a fun, decent movie... but many people were disappointed. Not because it was bad... but because, goshdarnit, it was Star Wars, and it was supposed to be groundbreaking, not just mere "good". That's the same way I feel about Civ III. It's Sid Meier, it's Civilization III, it's supposed to blow me away instead of just having me say "that's a good game".