Here is a review left by a customer on a product. Would you say he was satisfied or dissatisfied?
Title: JUST A BAD FANTASY GAME PRETENDING TO BE HISTORICAL
Review: Civ 3 remains an unworthy successor to the great Civ 2 for many reasons. I could go on at length about the flawed concepts and bugs within Civ 3, but I will keep this short.Civ 2 was FUN; Civ 3 is not fun and can be very irritating with cumbersome interface, in-your-face AI, tedium, and other wacky things. Besides that, the history and "realism" has been made a mockery of. Civ 3 doesn't even pretend to attempt to simulate history or even give the appearance of doing so. So much of it, from stupid unit values to pathetic naval warfare, is just NOT HISTORICAL. Civ 3 is in actuality, a bad fantasy game pretending to be historical. Well, superficial graphics of Joan of Arc or Gandhi won't do it for me. No sale, even with its crummy expansion, PTW.
