Which did u like better? Civ/Col

[The Snug]

For those who played both civ1 and the original Colonization, which did you like better?

I think I actually liked Col better until the later enumerations of civ.

 

[Niptium]

Yes, I liked Colonization better because I love the colonial era.

 

[Shurdus]

I liked Col better, because quite frankly I could never really get into civ1.

Besides, people who bother to come to this part of the forum - a part that is mostly dead - will probably be dying for col to come out and re quite biased towards col.

 

[Supr49er]

CivI for me.

 

[nbcman]

Civ for me too-Col was too repetetive with too much management of trade routes.

 

[Lord Shadow]

Colonization for me. I never could quite get into Civ1. Having played Civ2 first, I just had no motivation to plow through a full game of the prequel.

 

[Lord Chambers]

Colonization captured my interest in history much more strongly than Civilization 1, which was my first turn-based strategy game. Civ1 to me, was a frustrating experience trying to understand concepts like buildings, shields, and a tech tree, and learning to navigate the horrendous SNES interface. Colonization meanwhile was a primer for all the US history I would study in 5th grade and so much more relevant to my life.

And undoubtedly as a result of both Colonization and Civilization I'm a history major.

 

[Lubricus]

Civilization was a great game, and I absolutely loved it. But Colonization was even better for me - and I played it a lot more than I had the first Civ, which is saying A LOT! Still, Civ 2 was even better - it is by far the PC game I have spent most time with. Colonization and Master of Magic second and third, BTW.

 

[GoodGame]

Hard to say, but Col looked way better.

 

[Wolfwood]

Civilization all the way - Colonization was too restricted to one period and was also much too "American", when it could have been a more generic game of colonization.

Civilization I offered more exploration and more varied experience than Colonization ever did

 

[henryMCVII]

Colonization was too restricted to one period and was also much too "American", when it could have been a more generic game of colonization.

I halfway agree with Wolfwood: The game was (and the new one is/will be) to much US-American.
- cutscenes, videos, screens are showing US-flags, US-Congress, US-View of things,
- in Col(1) you had no choise, even if playing Spanish, Dutch or French your colonies got an early US-Ensign when fighting for independence,
- the list of founding fathers was very US-centic as well (even the name "founding fathers" is US-american, i think)
- much more .....

Col could have been much more "neutral" or general without loosing its flavour.

Anyway i love the restricted time span of Colonization .

 

[Wolfwood]

Anyway i love the restricted time span of Colonization .

Upon second thought, a such a restriction could be a very good thing indeed, if the period was something that I like: such as "Civilization IV: The Middle Ages" or "Civilization IV: The Age of Sail"

 

[ACEofHeart]

Eventhough Civ II has always been considered one of the top strategy games of all time, Civ I , though thought of as innovative at the time , never attained that kind of status..
The original Colonization had it's hard core fans but it came and went pretty fast..and I think it took almost 14 years for a sequel mainly because of that..
My choice though would be Colonization over Civ I ,, that's probably because I'm American and being attracted to it's historical factor more than it's gameplay.

 

[Honolulu Blue]

Colonization was (and is) one of my all-time favorite games. Civ Classic, though a good game, didn't wow me the same way.

 

[Rexflex]

Thinking back on it, both the Civ I and Civ II games got more of my time individually than Col ever did. As previously mentioned in this thread, Col had a more restricted game in many respects and so there was less interest for me to play many new games with new goals, countries, worlds, etc. On the other hand, the trading/resource component of Col was always more interesting than Civ I/II.

So I answered the Picard/Kirk way. Without that option I would probably go with Civ on the basis of the time I spent with it, but at the same time I wouldn't have wanted to not have ever played Col.

So the lastability is the remaining concern I have with the upcoming new Col. Civ IV opened up so much with the modability and game play styles, I think that the goal posts for Col II will be so much higher. After the fun of the new graphics and the nostalgia of the trading/resouce from the old game, will the game prove the test of time for me? While there is modability, will the nature of the Col style of game play work as well with the modding?

 

[Abegweit]

Colonization for me. I never could quite get into Civ1. Having played Civ2 first, I just had no motivation to plow through a full game of the prequel.

This is so unfair! Is there anyone on earth who would prefer CivI to CivII? It's basically the same game except than Civ2 had far better graphics, a new and better tech tree, more wonders, a vastly improved combat system, less AI cheats, and assorted other stuff. Plus I so loved the advisers.

It's not a prequel. IT'S THE GAME. In the end, Civ2 is to Civ1 as BTS is to Civ4. Better done. More mature. More features. But still basically the same game.

The bottom line is that you never really experienced the original civ. Since you didn't, you should ask yourself which you prefer - the sexier version or col.

 

[Dirk1302]

I liked Civ1 much more than Col, i'll play the new Colonization for a while but i'll be back at Civ4 pretty soon i think. From what i remember Col was interesting in the early game but midgame to endgame you were doing the same thing over and over again. Not much seems to have really changed in this respect. I've always felt this game misses a tech tree though it's indeed impossible to implement one realistically.

I liked Civ1 more than Civ2 btw, while strictly speaking Civ2 was a much better game in all respects (probably also better then Civ3) it just was too easy even on its highest level, as i remember Civ1 was tricky on emperor (the highest level back then) due to ai cheating. Strang things could happen in that game, once the Apollo program was built 1 AD. Civ4 is my favorite followed by Civ1

 

[MarchandDeBoeuf]

I loved Colonization, but I played more Civ I. In fact I played it more than Civ II, which for me was only the same game with more useless graphics (like the 3D in Civ IV is useless for me compare to Civ III). I was enjoying more Colonization, maybe because I found it harder, civ I was getting very easy with unbeatable strategy (especially having the Great Wall).

Le Marchand de boeufs

 

[Skwink]

Nice bump bro!

 

[plasmacannon]

Civilization 1 and it's definitely Kirk.
Nothing beats the original.

Well, sort of.
Civ4 is great, but, ST Voyager was lame, lol.

I'd still take Kirk punching Klingons over Baldy quoting Shakespeare.