Civ 2 versus Civ 3: Bring It!!!!!!!!

[EdmundSpenser]

K u civ 3 blokes and nasties...ed spenser here from the real game CIV 2 Forums...
civ 3 sux...
civ 2 is da bomb...

bring it...


ed

 

[dannyevilcat]

I don't know what kind of hostility you expected, but I for one am not about to tear apart my all-time favorite game (Civ2).

That said, nostalgia must make way for a clearly improved game (Civ3). More so than the improved graphics, improved trade screen, fun features like draft or mobilize (which I virtually never use), it the AI that makes this game SOOO much better. It's certainly not without flaws, but I'll wait the long period between turns any day over sneak attack nuclear war and unwarranted hostility. In Civ 3, at least, when you are powerful you can still have "friends", granted they are bought with trade.

The only thing I miss about Civ2 now is that I can't make my own graphics (animated ones are too time consuming for me) and of course multi-player and most of all--scenarios. But these things are coming, or so I'm led to believe .

How can you like Civ2 and not Civ3? I honestly don't get it.

 

[The Art of War]

IT sounds like someone doesn't have the money to purchase Civ 3!

I like Civ 2, but I really do enjoy 3 better.

 

[Smash]

Civ2 is a better game overall but there are some things in 3 I'd like to see in 2.
Bombard...we can do it in 2..kinda...with spys but I like this 3 feature.
Capture-this would be good in 2.I'd love to pirate and capture players caravans.
Strategic Resources..This is a very good idea.I like it very much.

The "improved" diplomacy becomes more of pain in the ass than anything else and doesn't hold a candle to some of the stuff you can do in Civ2 multiplayer games.

Did I mention 2 has MP?

 

[Ohwell]

I agree with Smash, Civ 2 is a much easier gameplay and is easier to activate. But many Civ 3 features are great, I love the game. Civ 2 is still my favorite.

A branch off - Sadly, I have never played a multiplayer game , so I have never truly realized the great game Civ 2 is, not to mention my skills are horrible.

Spy bombard! I forgot about it. Not useful at all, only in Multiplayer games to annoy, I guess .

 

[Toni1]

I must say that Civ 2 MPGE (multiplayer gold edition) definately seems like better game than Civ III in its current state. I for one wont even consider buying Civ 3 without at least completely functioning scenario editor and before most of the remaining bugs are fixed. And ofcource editor and game must be for prize of one game before I buy it so I probably just have to wait till Civ III MPGE is released to get what they promissed with correct prize.

 

[EdmundSpenser]

Originally posted by Ohwell
A branch off - Sadly, I have never played a multiplayer game , so I have never truly realized the great game Civ 2 is, not to mention my skills are horrible.

OMG Ohwell...

Allow me to pray to the Civ Godz for thee:enlighten

This situation must be rectified...



Thou must not live another day
Without MultiPlayer civ, to Play


ed

 

[rodgersmc]

I agree CivII in its current state is a more finished program, but lest we forget, it didn't sell with MP either (and everyone screamed... we had to wait for Multiplayer Gold to come out). Despite the things Civ2 does right (game speed, simplicity, etc), I'll never go back. I tried to the other day for a Multiplayer game and nearly lost my mind. What? No resources to strategically fight over? No luxuries to chase after and trade? My computer ally just joined with 6 other players to attack me to control "American Aggression" even though I've been at peace with everyone for 5 thousand years?

I must say, when Civ3 goes multiplayer, it will be amazing. The depth of gameplay allowed in a game due to luxury and resource fighting will be completely new. Right now the AI does a "decent" job of going after your resources and protecting their own, but nothing like two humans will do. Most of the mods seem to be turning up the frequency of iron and other strategic resources. I for one will be turning them down when multiplayer comes... I'd love to have a map with only 1 or 2 irons on it that huge wars are fought over. As it is now... its pretty easy to come by. But I digress.

Civ3 is better.

 

[Ironikinit]

Civ 3, easily. I've only played 2 player civ 2 once and it wasn't all that fun waiting for the other guy.

 

[Smash]

LOL...if you don't like waiting then civ3 is not the game for you.Especially a civ3 mp game.Its gonna be slow going....

 

[atawa]

Hmm civ 3 mp, cant wait for the 15 min turns at 3000b

This game needs to get a lot quicker if it is ever going to take off in mp, nice to get an invasion going with 25 animated units..... and then off course you cant even hold the city

 

[Troyens]

As for enjoyment, Civ II wins.

Of course, Civ III is, overall, better - but it SHOULD be better considering it has been many years since Civ II and not only are PC's much better there have been hundreds if not thousands of improvement ideas from fans over those years.

As have been posted all over these forums for many weeks, Civ III has problems, and clearly was rushed for Christmas without enough playtesting. It's still good with many important improvements, such as borders, culture, and no more "all units in a stack destroyed if one is destroyed" nonsense.

But the problems it has are serious. Read current and past threads. The huge time lag between turns, even in the Medieval Ages, is most annoying.

 

[black_adder2]

Biggest thing civ2 has over civ3... the building of wonders... makes you feel like you built something! Those little movies OWN.

The new style of a screen splash window is CHEESE.

It's like "Oh, another J.S. Bach's Cathedral. Great. Yes I would like to produce a Bank next... that should be more exciting."

They could have just ported the sound and movie files to this game, I would have been happy enough.

Manhattan Project... remeber that one? They were all cool though, including the music.

 

[Ironikinit]

If you ask me right now what I'd rather play, I'll take Civ 3. The AI is so much better than Civ 2 and there's so much more to it. Plus I'm still discovering stuff about the game. Someday I'll get sick of it like any other game.

Out of all the games I've got for my current computer, and that includes:

Heroes of Might and Magic 3
People's General
Age of Empires
Zeus
Civ 2
Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 (haven't really played these two a buddy lent them to me)
Age of Conqueror or Kings whatever same deal as Baldur's Gate
Europa Universalis
East Front
Majesty
SMAC
Quake II
The Sims + Livin' Large

Civ 3 is best IMO right now. I've played some games as much as I currently play Civ 3, but Civ 3 is like a whole step up. It's no wonder turns take a long time because there's so much for the CPU to deal with. It runs okay on my computer and mine's 3 years old though. Almost 4 years old. It's a big memory hog, I have to shut off everything to run it and sometimes it crashes esp. when I'm exiting or restarting it. I think I got used to games that crash my system playing Sims and EU. And games that need patches, for that matter.

I wish there was a MP so other people would stop talking about how much it sucks that there isn't one. There's no multi player for the sims and nobody *****es, multiplayer sort of sucks on EU from what I hear and nobody much plays it anyway. I don't, anyway. To tell the truth I don't really think Civ 3 is suited for MP. I do admit that MP Civ 2 sounds like it could be a blast. I also want to look into the scenarios people talk about for Civ 2 but all my game time is taken up by Civ 3 currently.

While there isn't a scenario editor really there IS a map editor, I haven't checked it out either. But people could put their efforts into making cool maps. Remember that less is more if you make maps standard or large is fine. Huge maps are a no go for me.

 

[Cerryl]

Civ 2 was too easy to beat.

The AI was passive, didn't know how to conduct war.
Zones of control were cheesy.

Sorry to hear you think Civ 3 sucks, everyone should have as wonderful a time playing as I do, I love it.

 

[eyrei]

I agree. CIV 2 was far too easy. The chieftan level of civ2 was so easy my dog could beat it. I actually got creamed the first 3 times I played chieftan in civ3. The AI is simply a lot better. Even handicapped by production and science penalties, it was still hard to beat. This same AI given production and science bonuses provides a lasting challenge.

 

[LaZZyCaKe]

Played Civ I until Civ II came out and played Civ II until Civ III and hope a Civ IV will come out someday !

Just to say that each time a new version come out, I found it better than the last one so I choose Civ III over Civ II. I didn't see anything better in Civ II that I coudln't do Civ III (except MP of course)

And for all that flaws, I think I would not make a good beta tester cause I don't have any problem... no speed prob, no bugs, everythings fine for me, even before the patch so I supposed that influence my choice a lot compared to some people that seems to have a hell lot of prob...

Anyway, loved Civ II but now, make place for Civ III as Civ I did for Civ II .... well, not completly, still have Civ I installed

 

[Black Fluffy Lion]

Civ1 rules all.

Next, I would say civ3, then civ2. Although I haven't played civ2 that much.

 

[Wolfe Tone]

I like all the civ games and there should be a Civ1 option in the poll
But there is one thing that sways be towards Civ3. The support system. I prefer that units are supported on gold instead of shields. I means I can easily turn a city into an industrial powerhouse without units draining shields away. I also prefer that settlers and workers are now seperate units

 

[VoodooAce]

Easy.

Civ2 has MP.

Civ3 doesn't.

Winner by a long shot, Civ2.

Winner by a long shot in a couple months after Civ3 has MP? Civ3, easy.