This is not a game...

[Öjevind Lång]

I absolutely love this game. Sure, it could be a lot better. But it will be, once the patches and mods start rolling.
I've always played Colonization as more of a sandbox I guess. I like playing around exploring new lands and setting up supply routes of resources.
I'm not a fan of this rush-to-independence thing either.

patrick, I don't think we should cut them any slack for releasing an obviously unfinished product. This is the only industry where a company can give you a half finished product and then go back and fix it later on (if they want). It's like buying a car without wheels and having to wait a month for the next upgrade.
Finish your damn product before selling it to me.
This game can and will be awesome. It just needs to be finished.

Here's hoping. I agree that it could be pretty wonderful, but that would take a thorough overhaul. And what's with the pole-to-pole continent? What on earth is the thinking behind that?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

While I agree with most of the negative comments above, I still enjoy playing Col2, but I guess this is because I don't play to win! I do like watching my little colonies grow and prosper, and just forget about the rest.
Overall, Col2 isn't unfun. It's just not what we could expect... But there's still room for patches and mods.
As for the original being "almost perfect", you have to be kidding. How can you so easily forget the bugs (such as the infamous "integer divide by zero" crash), the non-existent diplomacy, the other powers invading you without declaring war since there were no borders - as in Civ1 -, the beyond-ugly graphics, the clumsy interface, the borderline exploitive custom houses, etc. Not to mention I can't even make it work on my state-of-the-art PC.
Also, keep in mind that each time a sequel game is released, we all start whining over again: Civ3 was "so much worse" than Civ2, Civ4 "so much worse" than Civ3, etc. We all seem to focus on the negative part, like spoilt children.
Bottom line: Col2 needs a lot of improvment, but I'm glad it's here and I don't regret my 30€.

Well said

Many people are looking to col1 through them good-ol'-day goggles. we weren't spoiled back then as we are now. I can remember the clumsy interface of the oldies. I was reminded about them when I got an old pc for free and decided to install my old games again. Boy I was in for a shock.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Interesting! I'm skeptical but I see where Falk may be coming from. It's definitely true that a lot of the stuff you need to build a successful independent nation can be skipped. But you have to have enough gold, I would think, to buy the cannon. And you have to have enough exports to make the gold. And your colonists have to eat while they're making cigars. And you need as many people as possible, don't you? So which parts of colonial management are dispensible? For example, you can definitely dispense with building a dock, let alone a drydock, unless your (hopefully one) seaside community has a rich fishing square. But how 'bout roads? They're cheap and quick to build.

If you just create export workers and buy cannons, can you dispense with attracting future professional or citizen-soldiers almost entirely?

Also see my thread "One way to Win"

Your comment "hopefully one seaside communit" says it all, really. Something is wrong with a game where you should build all your cities except the first one inland so the king's soldiers can't capture them...

 

[Öjevind Lång]

People are unwilling to concede that they had fun with it in the beginning. It's like this with a lot of games, they pour hours and hours into a game then all the sudden the game "sucks." Well gee yeah, it sucks now that you've figured every little thing out (civilization is the exception to this of course )

I loved the original Colonization and actually dare not think about how much time I've spent playing it. The same goes for X-Com and most certainly Civ I to IV. I buy very few computer games, because generally they do go stale very swiftly. However, I thought they couldn't go wrong with an updated version of Colonization. Unfortunately, I was mistaken. When a game that has such potential becomes boring after a week, something is seriously wrong.

To sum it up: they could have produced a great game based on the original great game, but they couldn't be bothered to do so. And I don't want to "bite the hand that feeds" me, even if it might make them drop my money so I can get it back. I have a bad taste in my mouth already.

All right - a really thorough, well conceived revision in a patch would make me change my mind. But after the shambles over BtS, I have a rather jaundiced view of them ever producing something like that.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Well said

Many people are looking to col1 through them good-ol'-day goggles. we weren't spoiled back then as we are now. I can remember the clumsy interface of the oldies. I was reminded about them when I got an old pc for free and decided to install my old games again. Boy I was in for a shock.

I played the original Colonization quite a lot while waiting for Col II to appear. I still have and old compueter that supports the game in DOS. I actually think I enjoyed that more than playing Col II, despite the annoying bugs and the weak memory resources. Moreover, many game features were actually less clunky than in Col II. There were the advisers you accessed at the top of the screen who very clearly showed you exactly which units you had and where; your trade balance with the mother country; the garrisons in your cities; your relations with the various Indian tribes; the location, destination and cargo of all your ships; literally everything. And the opening animation was beautiful and haunting, not least the tune. And the king was a selfish so-and-so, but he was funny, not disgusting like the present crowd of rulers. The Indians actually showed some aggressivity from time to time, as did the other colonizing powers. The king could upset your plans by forcing you to go to war against your will. He could also be helpful, in the early stages of the game. The tax increases weren't insanely paced the way they are now, and the REF wasn't made up of supermen who could only be beaten by the exploits already mentioned by many. And don't get me started on how simple it is to reassign garrisoned units or create or edit trade routes compared to what the case is in Col II.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

This could be. But that doesn't change the fact that many people etc etc what i said before. And I also said before, although in another thread, that I share some of your criticisms and told you you were right to be a bit upset.

So, don't worry, I won't get you started. Better yet.

 

[Tatran]

I didn't play Col1 so i don't have any nostalgic sentiments.

I do and from what I remember 14 years ago, Colonization 1 was a disappointment compared to Civilization 1.
It will never have the same addiction. Nevertheless Col 1 was enjoyable but repetitive.

I was very sceptic when I saw the announcement of Colonization 2.
The title "Sid Meier's Civ 4 : Colonization 2" got me thinking.
Thanks to this forum I won't be fooled again by an unfinished Firaxis product.
Minor bugs always happens, but bugs which affect gameplay is unacceptable.
I've seen too many of them in Civ 4 and I've had it to be one of their semi beta testers.

Firaxis is going down. It's a shame they can't do any better then this after 14 years.
But I'm not surprised, guess who was the programmer of col 1?

 

[cairnsy44]

The most annoying feature to me is that they player is actually punished for building a successful colony. TO me, there should be a reward for successful strategies and economy building. The most broken feature to me is the liberty bell curve. There should be a hard coded amount of liberty bells regardless of population. That would prevent the early win exploit mentioned above and reward players who take the time to build several large cities.

I agree. I would have liked to see a victory condition where you can gain independence by reaching population and/or financial goals as well.
Not all former colonies achieved independence via warfare....see Canada.

 

[Dida]

Had they made this an expansion pack for civ4 none of these complaints would be valid. The game is selling for $30, the same price as an ordinary expansion pack (full game usually goes for $50), so expect to get what you paid for.

 

[cairnsy44]

2) A fixed REF per difficulty level. The REF should be something you have to overcome by colonial expansion. You shouldn't be able to overcome the REF with one size 10 colony. Having a fixed REF will give you an incentive to expand and grow your empire as the only way you will be able to beat it will be to have lots of people and lots of guns. The higher the difficulty, the larger population you will need. The REF will still grow every once in a while, but only by a small amount, and very infrequently.

I agree with those who say that in Col1 you didn't think about how the REF grew because it happened so naturally. The entire game felt natural, you hardly thought about the mechanics at all. This game just doesn't have that, and I really do hope they can fix that in a patch, because if they do, the game will go from being average to being absolutely great.

Great point, this.

 

[Refar]

You are right about the game beeing sold for the price of a expansion.

Complaints about buggy behaviour are allways valid however.

 

[Bad Brett]

But I'm not surprised, guess who was the programmer of col 1?

Brian Reynolds?

 

[Öjevind Lång]

But I'm not surprised, guess who was the programmer of col 1?

Brian Reynolds, wasn't it? And I believe Jeff Briggs was involved too.