I managed to found at last why Civ 2 is the best
- Thread starter Naokaukodem
- Start date
armchairknight
Warlord
T.A JONES said:Armchair knight: Respect. I gotcha.Im still pullin for Civ4 I put a few bucks in the kit to make it happen when the time comes. The modding aspects will hold the key for me.
later man
Well, regardless which Civ we like best, we're all Civ fans and that's cool.
Salamandre
King
Civ 4 is like Morowind or Oblivion/it needs about 2-3 years to come out with full potential.The game in itself is good, not amazing. But we have (almost) the source code, the tools and such. This is the revolution. Watch for modders, they will change the world. If anyone played "Fall from heaven"mod by Kael, he knows what I mean.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,997
I prefer to put this in this forum for several reasons:
1) I believe I have better chances to hit developpers attention in this forum. Civ4 is THE working forum, I don't want to miss that.
2) It is more interesting to confront different ideas, especially when the arguments are good. I have nothing to fear of what others say when I feel mines are ok. I you don't have any, just don't bother.
3) There's a point to put this here, as it compares Civ4 to Civ2. I didn't post on Civ2 forum for the reasons above. I have absolutely the rights to do it, because I played both games. Not only I have the rights, but it is pertinent: Everybody can express itself. If it annoys you, just try to write a letter to the developpers, and maybe they will do MAJOR changes for your feelings of 'annoyance'!
4) I will not "go play Civ2" right away, a least. Here is a space of discussion, not play.
Grinder: I probably am nostalgic, as I said, but I don't think that my arguments are minored in this sense. That's about what is Civ for me, and what Civ is not anymore. I tried to insulate the reasons why I didn't enjoy Civ4, COMPARED to Civ2. Not that I would want that Civ4 to be only a better version of Civ2, because I played Civ2 to sickness. But when Civ4 is new and different, I think it lost some things. Never I said I didn't want Civ4 to add new things. But those things should have respect the original in a first place, and make the game a lot more deep in a second place, not only different. An environement can be different but integrate the principles that make it what it was in the first place. If it is about nostalgy, just make sure that you emphasis or modify things in order to reproduce the original feeling, no matter how the final game looks like. But when A+B=C, it is true no matter the time you look at it. If by something A+B becomes D with time, with a X factor for example, just change the equation in order to obtain C anyway. So to succeed in any case, make sure you put A+B, +E in the case of a X factor. That's probably what tried to do the developpers, but they minored the A and the B, and minored the E as well. Instead of (A+B)X+E=C, you have (a+b)X+e, which isn't equal to C.
1) I believe I have better chances to hit developpers attention in this forum. Civ4 is THE working forum, I don't want to miss that.
2) It is more interesting to confront different ideas, especially when the arguments are good. I have nothing to fear of what others say when I feel mines are ok. I you don't have any, just don't bother.
3) There's a point to put this here, as it compares Civ4 to Civ2. I didn't post on Civ2 forum for the reasons above. I have absolutely the rights to do it, because I played both games. Not only I have the rights, but it is pertinent: Everybody can express itself. If it annoys you, just try to write a letter to the developpers, and maybe they will do MAJOR changes for your feelings of 'annoyance'!
4) I will not "go play Civ2" right away, a least. Here is a space of discussion, not play.
Grinder: I probably am nostalgic, as I said, but I don't think that my arguments are minored in this sense. That's about what is Civ for me, and what Civ is not anymore. I tried to insulate the reasons why I didn't enjoy Civ4, COMPARED to Civ2. Not that I would want that Civ4 to be only a better version of Civ2, because I played Civ2 to sickness. But when Civ4 is new and different, I think it lost some things. Never I said I didn't want Civ4 to add new things. But those things should have respect the original in a first place, and make the game a lot more deep in a second place, not only different. An environement can be different but integrate the principles that make it what it was in the first place. If it is about nostalgy, just make sure that you emphasis or modify things in order to reproduce the original feeling, no matter how the final game looks like. But when A+B=C, it is true no matter the time you look at it. If by something A+B becomes D with time, with a X factor for example, just change the equation in order to obtain C anyway. So to succeed in any case, make sure you put A+B, +E in the case of a X factor. That's probably what tried to do the developpers, but they minored the A and the B, and minored the E as well. Instead of (A+B)X+E=C, you have (a+b)X+e, which isn't equal to C.
troytheface
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,262
i agree with the poster that questioned why someone is writing about Civ2 on a Civ4 forum. However , I can put my finger on it....
Pining for youth and the past - when things were "better".
In so far as influencing developers....lol-talk about delusion....
I think i will start a thread about Civ3's UU's and Civ1's city names.
Pining for youth and the past - when things were "better".
In so far as influencing developers....lol-talk about delusion....
I think i will start a thread about Civ3's UU's and Civ1's city names.
I played Civ2 for years. That's what got me involved in the whole Civ mythos, including posting here.
However, there were a lot of things I didn't really like in Civ2. I hated how the AI would stick a city in the one unoccupied tile in my homeland. I hated the way an AI caravan would cycle between the same three tiles for hundreds of years. I hated how Leonardo's Workshop forced me to hold off discovering Automobiles for as long as possible (and I could never understand why there was only one way to upgrade units).
So I'm not nostalgic about Civ2. It was a good game and I enjoyed playing it. But the only way I'd play it again is if I had to spend a long time at a computer that only had Civ2 loaded.
However, there were a lot of things I didn't really like in Civ2. I hated how the AI would stick a city in the one unoccupied tile in my homeland. I hated the way an AI caravan would cycle between the same three tiles for hundreds of years. I hated how Leonardo's Workshop forced me to hold off discovering Automobiles for as long as possible (and I could never understand why there was only one way to upgrade units).
So I'm not nostalgic about Civ2. It was a good game and I enjoyed playing it. But the only way I'd play it again is if I had to spend a long time at a computer that only had Civ2 loaded.
Armorydave
Prince
As a couple have said already, I loved Civ 2, it was a great game. Possibly the best in the franchise when compared to other games of its time. I certainly played it more than any video game before or after. That said, Civ 4 is a far superior game on essentially every level. Civ 2 was still badly broken and winning was trivial if you followed a relatively simple formula. It was still fun as hell which is a great credit to the designers but it was deeply flawed when compared to its succesors. I feel the same way about Civ 3 but presumably you could mod out some of the more egregious problems.
I think the problem some people have is that they expect to get the same fresh, fun feeling from the newest version of Civ that they got from the first game they played in the franchise. It's just not possible because the underlying engine is so similar. Even SMAC which was an entirely new theme for the engine felt like past Civ games pretty quickly (at least for me).
You can only lose your virginity once and it never feels quite the same thereafter.
I think the problem some people have is that they expect to get the same fresh, fun feeling from the newest version of Civ that they got from the first game they played in the franchise. It's just not possible because the underlying engine is so similar. Even SMAC which was an entirely new theme for the engine felt like past Civ games pretty quickly (at least for me).
You can only lose your virginity once and it never feels quite the same thereafter.
The thing about Civ 2 is that it seemed exactly like Civ 1, only correcting as many flaws as it had. I mean, the diplomacy statements and phrases are exactly the same in the two games. Civ 1 had some absolutely ridiculous flaws. Like the two unhappy faces from all units not in their home city. And absolute combat resulting in battleships falling to barbarian diplomats. There were still problems, but we accepted them because we didn't know what the developers were capable of. It's ridiculous when you have: Armor vs. fortified Mech Inf behind city walls: 10 vs. 21; Howitzer vs. fortified Mech Inf behind city walls: 12 vs. 9. But there were never any problems that ever stopped me from playing.
Then came Civ 3. I'm surprised it's even drawing so many comparisons to 2 and 4 because I think it's the worst of the three and it's not even close. The only thing it had going for it was cultural borders. Everything else was just "Let's take all the ways people used to win Civ 2, and eliminate them!". Not to mention the new graphics engine that would tell me "please wait" for up to 3 minutes between each turn throughout the 4th quarter of every game. It's not because it was working the computer too hard; it's just that the game was trying to process everything that was going on and it couldn't do it very efficiently. So I was playing 2 more than 3 during the time that 3 was out.
But I love the improvements from 3 to 4. The religions: nice. I like that you can still flip cities, but it's harder, and you won't lose the 50 units that are stationed in the city that flipped out that are only there to begin with to prevent the flip. The Civic system owns and it doesn't take nine turns to make a revolution anymore (although I think it still takes too long on epic and marathon) No more civil disorder collapsing the government and destroying buildings: awesome. Collateral damage, units with specific dis/advantages, the promotions and XP: sweet. Being able to make great people without fighting a war was a no-brainer. I still can't run huge maps (I just bought another gig of RAM which will triple what I have now, so hopefully that'll solve it), but everything else is tolerable at the very least. And you don't have to set aside time for the AI to make all its moves before you move anymore. There still are things about Civ4 that I'd fix, but that's because the game is so complex now that obviously there will be things for everyone to pick nits about. I just think Civ4 was an unbelieveable step up from its predecessor and that's why I love it.
Then came Civ 3. I'm surprised it's even drawing so many comparisons to 2 and 4 because I think it's the worst of the three and it's not even close. The only thing it had going for it was cultural borders. Everything else was just "Let's take all the ways people used to win Civ 2, and eliminate them!". Not to mention the new graphics engine that would tell me "please wait" for up to 3 minutes between each turn throughout the 4th quarter of every game. It's not because it was working the computer too hard; it's just that the game was trying to process everything that was going on and it couldn't do it very efficiently. So I was playing 2 more than 3 during the time that 3 was out.
But I love the improvements from 3 to 4. The religions: nice. I like that you can still flip cities, but it's harder, and you won't lose the 50 units that are stationed in the city that flipped out that are only there to begin with to prevent the flip. The Civic system owns and it doesn't take nine turns to make a revolution anymore (although I think it still takes too long on epic and marathon) No more civil disorder collapsing the government and destroying buildings: awesome. Collateral damage, units with specific dis/advantages, the promotions and XP: sweet. Being able to make great people without fighting a war was a no-brainer. I still can't run huge maps (I just bought another gig of RAM which will triple what I have now, so hopefully that'll solve it), but everything else is tolerable at the very least. And you don't have to set aside time for the AI to make all its moves before you move anymore. There still are things about Civ4 that I'd fix, but that's because the game is so complex now that obviously there will be things for everyone to pick nits about. I just think Civ4 was an unbelieveable step up from its predecessor and that's why I love it.
i like the old versions of civ better too. they gave me more freedom then civ IV does. in civ IV, i'm forced to limit my expansion, instead of having the option to either expand or just create a few cities. in civ IV, i have less options in diplomacy, less freedom to create situations that are more fun for me, like creating world wars, because so many diplomatic options are red-lined. in civ IV, its pretty much a death sentence to be at war for the entire length of the game, i no longer have the option to gain techs through military means, like capturing a city and gaining a tech, or threatening civs and gaining techs. no, im forced to build up my economy and research almsot everything. really, i liked having the option to do whatever i wanted. i never really understood why they took so many options away.
after reading these boards, i think i finally know why. some people like playing this game a certain way. they like imposing what they prefer on other people, and have no respect for other peoples opinions, and dont consider what other people may enjoy. some people preferred to have the developers change the game itself and force they way others play, rather then use the many options the old versions of civ provided to make the game what they wanted it to be.
for example, if someone thinks that the civ2 terraform ability is ''unrealistic'' then maybe that person should just not use that ability. there was no reason to take it away, it added alot to the game and made starting locations and terrain more balanced. it gave me the option of changing the terrain. if someone thinks a certain strategy is ''exploitive'' and ''cheap'' then maybe that person shouldnt use that strategy. i never used any strategies that i considered exploitive, but if some people want to, whu should anyone else care? if someone dislikes expanding everywhere, then maybe that person shouldnt expand everywhere. why limit expansion like it has been done in civ 4? rapid expansion isnt even an option anymore, i HAVE to build up infastructure, or else i will drop to 0% science and my units will disband. and no, it doesnt have to be either rapid expansion or no expansion, they could of at least left an option to expand early, like a civic that removes city distance and maintenence costs but reduces the science rate by 80%.
seriously, civ is a single player game, why do people care so much how other people play? there was no reason for the developers to enforce these peoples opinions and restrict the freedom of everyone. now, because they have, civ is alot less fun for me. i cant do what i want to anymore, i cant have fun like i used to. and this is all just one reason i dont like civ IV as much as the old versions.
another reason is the engine, its slow and laggy. even if they fixed the game play i still wouldnt like this game because of that alone. as has been mentioned before, there is a pause between giving units commands and them following them. having it so laggy and choppy really detracts from the game. this really takes away from this games potential, even with the mod making capabilities the engine of this game will always be a piece of crap, no one can ever fix that.
another problem is the graphics. everything is so jumbled together its hard to tell tile improvements apart. half of the water mills i make i cant even see, it looks like the tile is clear because the watermill graphic isnt even on the tile, its beside it, usually overlapping with a tile improvement on an adjacent tile. unit graphics are horrible too, they blend in with the landscape and are hard to see. earlier versions of civ had everything so simple. because of the resources these graphics require the zoom level and the world sizes and the number of active civs have been greatly decreased, which really detracts from overall game for me. i liked being able to play on gigantic maps with 31 civs at once, but now that option is gone. i dont think ill ever understand why the devs made the graphics the way they are. maybe they decided marketing was more important then their customers?
really, civ IV has added alot of new things that are good, such as great people, and i really like cottages and the emphasis on city specialization. but because the engine is so horrible and the graphics are so bad and player freedom is so restricted i think over all its just a huge step backwards. i still play civ 1 and have more fun with that then civ IV because of the laggyness alone. i think its unfortunate that the devs listened to a few vocal minorities, hopefully they wont make the same mistake for civ 5, and instead of changing things to better suite a few playstyles they will give more options and make the game more diverse.
as it stands now, the game pretty much is the same for the first 4000 years, after a few early wars i expand until my economy cant take anymore, then i spend the rest of the game with my hands tied while the AIs maximize their score and race for the spaceship. even the few times i get a starting location that would allow me to take over the world early, the game gets so laggy and choppy halfway through i just quit before i get anywhere.
ive noticed there are a few people here who cant stand someone having a different opinion then their own, but dont worry, i have my flamesuit on.
after reading these boards, i think i finally know why. some people like playing this game a certain way. they like imposing what they prefer on other people, and have no respect for other peoples opinions, and dont consider what other people may enjoy. some people preferred to have the developers change the game itself and force they way others play, rather then use the many options the old versions of civ provided to make the game what they wanted it to be.
for example, if someone thinks that the civ2 terraform ability is ''unrealistic'' then maybe that person should just not use that ability. there was no reason to take it away, it added alot to the game and made starting locations and terrain more balanced. it gave me the option of changing the terrain. if someone thinks a certain strategy is ''exploitive'' and ''cheap'' then maybe that person shouldnt use that strategy. i never used any strategies that i considered exploitive, but if some people want to, whu should anyone else care? if someone dislikes expanding everywhere, then maybe that person shouldnt expand everywhere. why limit expansion like it has been done in civ 4? rapid expansion isnt even an option anymore, i HAVE to build up infastructure, or else i will drop to 0% science and my units will disband. and no, it doesnt have to be either rapid expansion or no expansion, they could of at least left an option to expand early, like a civic that removes city distance and maintenence costs but reduces the science rate by 80%.
seriously, civ is a single player game, why do people care so much how other people play? there was no reason for the developers to enforce these peoples opinions and restrict the freedom of everyone. now, because they have, civ is alot less fun for me. i cant do what i want to anymore, i cant have fun like i used to. and this is all just one reason i dont like civ IV as much as the old versions.
another reason is the engine, its slow and laggy. even if they fixed the game play i still wouldnt like this game because of that alone. as has been mentioned before, there is a pause between giving units commands and them following them. having it so laggy and choppy really detracts from the game. this really takes away from this games potential, even with the mod making capabilities the engine of this game will always be a piece of crap, no one can ever fix that.
another problem is the graphics. everything is so jumbled together its hard to tell tile improvements apart. half of the water mills i make i cant even see, it looks like the tile is clear because the watermill graphic isnt even on the tile, its beside it, usually overlapping with a tile improvement on an adjacent tile. unit graphics are horrible too, they blend in with the landscape and are hard to see. earlier versions of civ had everything so simple. because of the resources these graphics require the zoom level and the world sizes and the number of active civs have been greatly decreased, which really detracts from overall game for me. i liked being able to play on gigantic maps with 31 civs at once, but now that option is gone. i dont think ill ever understand why the devs made the graphics the way they are. maybe they decided marketing was more important then their customers?
really, civ IV has added alot of new things that are good, such as great people, and i really like cottages and the emphasis on city specialization. but because the engine is so horrible and the graphics are so bad and player freedom is so restricted i think over all its just a huge step backwards. i still play civ 1 and have more fun with that then civ IV because of the laggyness alone. i think its unfortunate that the devs listened to a few vocal minorities, hopefully they wont make the same mistake for civ 5, and instead of changing things to better suite a few playstyles they will give more options and make the game more diverse.
as it stands now, the game pretty much is the same for the first 4000 years, after a few early wars i expand until my economy cant take anymore, then i spend the rest of the game with my hands tied while the AIs maximize their score and race for the spaceship. even the few times i get a starting location that would allow me to take over the world early, the game gets so laggy and choppy halfway through i just quit before i get anywhere.
ive noticed there are a few people here who cant stand someone having a different opinion then their own, but dont worry, i have my flamesuit on.
You know what I miss most about Civ2? The fact that the AI seemed to have some form of Tourette's Syndrome whenever you do diplomacy.
Your opponent is "Worshipful." So you offer 100 gold for a certain tech. The AI says no. Then you offer 200 gold, the AI says no....
"Can I please have it for 250 gold?"
"No."
"What about 350 gold?"
"No."
"400 gold?"
"We're tired of your insolence! Prepare for war!"
I always got a good laugh out of that, especially since the AI was still "Worshipful." 'Nuff said.
P.S. Seriously though, I wish they'd make it so you gain a random tech again when you take an enemy city sometimes. Not only does it even the game out for warlike civs (who otherwise inevitably fall behind), but it's also MUCH MORE REALISTIC! I mean, think of how many civilizations throughout history have learned new technology by capturing it from an enemy city.... For the life of me, I can't figure out why they took that out starting in Civ3. In my opinion, probably the worst move the devs ever made in developing new versions.
Bring back tech on city capture! Otherwise the game is just horribly out of balance if you're in a position where you have to rely on military conquest to expand.
Your opponent is "Worshipful." So you offer 100 gold for a certain tech. The AI says no. Then you offer 200 gold, the AI says no....
"Can I please have it for 250 gold?"
"No."
"What about 350 gold?"
"No."
"400 gold?"
"We're tired of your insolence! Prepare for war!"
I always got a good laugh out of that, especially since the AI was still "Worshipful." 'Nuff said.
P.S. Seriously though, I wish they'd make it so you gain a random tech again when you take an enemy city sometimes. Not only does it even the game out for warlike civs (who otherwise inevitably fall behind), but it's also MUCH MORE REALISTIC! I mean, think of how many civilizations throughout history have learned new technology by capturing it from an enemy city.... For the life of me, I can't figure out why they took that out starting in Civ3. In my opinion, probably the worst move the devs ever made in developing new versions.
Bring back tech on city capture! Otherwise the game is just horribly out of balance if you're in a position where you have to rely on military conquest to expand.
I really enjoy "Fall from heaven" and it still has much promise.Salamandre said:
As far as Civ2, I remember it was too easy to conquer a civ by buying up their cities. Spy was way too power in civ2.
So Civ2 was one of my favorite games until of course I learn how easy it was to exploit the AI. I would recommend anyone new to civ to buy civ2 without reading about all the exploits/strategies in the civ2 forum. It was fun while it lasted.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Now just for starters, when you say Civ2, are you talking about TRUE Civ2 (aka Civ3) or are you talking about Civ1b? (AKA Civ2)
You see, right there you have my biggest gripe regarding Civ2-is that it WASN'T Civ2 at all. It was Civ1 with a graphics upgrade, and rules heavily skewed towards WarMongers. I mean, there were really only two forms of victory (conquest and spaceship), and you could get to them in identical fashion, regardless of what civ or leader you played. In fact, what civ you were was irrelevent beyond the name.
Civ3 (Civ2), OTOH, at least made an effort to add some genuinely new concepts and ideas (culture, resources that actually MATTERED, improvements to diplomacy-yes it still sucked, but it was improved-and civs/leaders who were brought a distinct colour to the game). Yes it got off to a bad start-but I think that was in part BECAUSE it was such a radical re-design of the game from Civ2 (not to mention the problems they had with their design team during development), as well as their seeming unwillingness to bring in the better elements of SMAC or even CTPI and II. However, by the time Conquests came out I think they had it really bedded down, and I was REALLY getting addicted to the whole civ3 experience when Civ4 was first announced. For me, Civ3 was the first time where each game was truly different from the one before. Was I playing the Rome? Well that meant a very different strategy to if I played China or England or France. Then, what if I had no iron, well that meant I would have to pursue yet another different strategy. Do I go for an early GA, or do I wait? Do I go for culture, military or spacecraft victory? You see, lots of different victory paths and totally different stratagies each time.
Now, Civ4 has taken this to the nth degree, IMO. With Religion, Great People, a massively improved diplomacy system-and AI-than in Civ2 or 3-one where you can cultivate truly long-term friendships/alliances or enemies-with leaders who seem to have genuine personalities and preferences, and heaps of new terrain improvements to choose from (many of them resource dependant). Aside from this, Civ4 also has significantly improved culture and resources IMO, and improved all of the various victory conditions (especially diplomatic). All of which means far, FAR more strategic options and gameplay depth than Civ2 and Civ3 combined. Is the game perfect? Well, no, and I can think of LOTS of different ways in which it can-and I believe WILL-be improved upon. However, even in Vanilla form, I believe that Civ4 is the standout game in the entire series-and certainly worlds better than Civ1b....oops, sorry, I meant Civ2 
.
Aussie_Lurker.
You see, right there you have my biggest gripe regarding Civ2-is that it WASN'T Civ2 at all. It was Civ1 with a graphics upgrade, and rules heavily skewed towards WarMongers. I mean, there were really only two forms of victory (conquest and spaceship), and you could get to them in identical fashion, regardless of what civ or leader you played. In fact, what civ you were was irrelevent beyond the name.
Civ3 (Civ2), OTOH, at least made an effort to add some genuinely new concepts and ideas (culture, resources that actually MATTERED, improvements to diplomacy-yes it still sucked, but it was improved
-and civs/leaders who were brought a distinct colour to the game). Yes it got off to a bad start-but I think that was in part BECAUSE it was such a radical re-design of the game from Civ2 (not to mention the problems they had with their design team during development), as well as their seeming unwillingness to bring in the better elements of SMAC or even CTPI and II. However, by the time Conquests came out I think they had it really bedded down, and I was REALLY getting addicted to the whole civ3 experience when Civ4 was first announced. For me, Civ3 was the first time where each game was truly different from the one before. Was I playing the Rome? Well that meant a very different strategy to if I played China or England or France. Then, what if I had no iron, well that meant I would have to pursue yet another different strategy. Do I go for an early GA, or do I wait? Do I go for culture, military or spacecraft victory? You see, lots of different victory paths and totally different stratagies each time.Now, Civ4 has taken this to the nth degree, IMO. With Religion, Great People, a massively improved diplomacy system-and AI-than in Civ2 or 3-one where you can cultivate truly long-term friendships/alliances or enemies-with leaders who seem to have genuine personalities and preferences, and heaps of new terrain improvements to choose from (many of them resource dependant). Aside from this, Civ4 also has significantly improved culture and resources IMO, and improved all of the various victory conditions (especially diplomatic). All of which means far, FAR more strategic options and gameplay depth than Civ2 and Civ3 combined. Is the game perfect? Well, no, and I can think of LOTS of different ways in which it can-and I believe WILL-be improved upon. However, even in Vanilla form, I believe that Civ4 is the standout game in the entire series-and certainly worlds better than Civ1b....oops, sorry, I meant Civ2
.Aussie_Lurker.
armchairknight
Warlord
eg577 said:
Of course, you might also want to mod the gameplay. This seems to be the kind of thing the SDK was meant to do.
Considering the love for II, I'd be surprised if someone doesn't eventually do this. 
armchairknight
Warlord
acidsatyr said:
I'll have to take your word for it! eg577 said:
This is my hope. Ive seen the modders work wonders with only a Conquest bic. Only time will tell I guess, In the mean time, Conquest ala mod is my happy meduim. I woudn't be surprised if by that time( a Civ4 performane upgrade is added), something big like a source code break,or a vital new program hits the conquests sceane. I hear one popcorn player and another mystery shaker are up to something big. Work from guys like these are the reason we are glued to the mods coming out over there, Civ3 evolved way past its vanilla life span compared to Civ2.
What Im saying is more people are happy to continue with the ever evolving mod developments in Conquests, comparing the Civ2/Civ3 transition to our current situation is futile. Civ2 mods just couldn't save the fan base like the other has, the proof is in ratings on the view board I imagine, but tell me if Im wrong cause I never followed this place till Nov
Just like to say i agree with the overall view here. I play civ since civ 1 and while civ 4 is better then civ 3 it is moving away from civness and more into the mainstream game feel. Which is play for 20 hours then it's boring. They must bring back the rapid responce of civ two, not just in unit movement but in windows pop-up info screens, and everything else. I never play big epic civ 4 games more then half way and even though they streamlined gameplay it has become more work because of all the little slow downs.
armchairknight
Warlord
acidsatyr said:
Just that I'll probably never know, that's all.
Similar threads
