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

[sd5]

The thing I like about civ2 is that you can wage a "modern war" (with tanks, nukes, etc) without having it take forever. When mulitple civs have mobilized their armies in civ3, turns can last a ridiculous amount of time. Also, from my experience, civ3 games are pretty much already decided before you even have the technology to build modern units. In civ2 you could have a significantly weaker civ and still be able to cripple (and often defeat) a much more powerful and advanced enemy through the use of espionage (bribing/stealing technology/planting nuclear devices). It just doesnt seem like such tactics are nearly as effective in civ3. Also, I always liked to use fundamentalism in times of war, but I guess in light of recent world events its probably good they took it out (with its fanatic unit and all).

Also, I miss some of the little, seemingly insignificant things about civ2, such as the wonder videos and the how the palace improvements evolved over time to different ages of development. Plus I thought the music was better and liked the greater variety of civs available.

I do like the addition of resources, the abilty to play on a 16 civ map, the way army support is handled,and the AI is obviously much better in civ3, but after like 6 years between the release of civ2 and civ3, i would have expected more improvements.

I guess my final verdict is that civ3 is a better game overall, but I agree with others that civ2 was probably more fun to play, and civ3 didnt live up to my high expectations.

 

[Magnus]

I loaded up civ2 for the first time in a month a few days ago and it looked so cheap and cheezy. Civ3 is a glorious achievement in my opinion - yea it has bugs but what new games don't? I owe Civ2 the debt of being a wonderful game that brought me into the civfanatic world (today is roughly my 1 year anniversary of playing PC Civilization). but Civ 2 is the balloon and Civ3 the jet fighter. Kinda the same thing, but one is sooooo much better!

 

[Crusader]

Civ 3 is to the Civilization saga what Jar Jar Binks is to Star Wars....... it is the mutated deformed hellspawn of a proud family of games. Sid Meier should chain in up in his basement and never let it see the light of day again. I'm sure people wouldn't be so bitter had it not been such a highly anticipated chapter in the Civilization series.

 

[General Maximus]

Civilization 1,2 and 3 are supposed to strategy based war games. Build your civ, take over the world, or go to space.

Tell me exactly how animated units, contribute to your strategy. Tell me how eliminating caravans, contributes to strategy?

Civ2 improved on the "pong" appearance of civ1.
civ 3 turned into another game, like Pharroh.

Civ3 is not real civving, you can't even play against another human. a MP patch will have to be major, to make this game playable.

yes i have civ3, and i uninstalled it. it was a waste of time and money. Firaxis didn't listen to our requests, they made another game, and put Civilization III on the box.

 

[EdmundSpenser]

YEH


NICE TO HEAR SOME CIV 2 BOYZ GO AT IT!!!

ED

 

[atawa]

Originally posted by Magnus
I loaded up civ2 for the first time in a month a few days ago and it looked so cheap and cheezy. Civ3 is a glorious achievement in my opinion - yea it has bugs but what new games don't? I owe Civ2 the debt of being a wonderful game that brought me into the civfanatic world (today is roughly my 1 year anniversary of playing PC Civilization). but Civ 2 is the balloon and Civ3 the jet fighter. Kinda the same thing, but one is sooooo much better!

So what does civ3 make such a better game then civ2? Or is it only the fancy (****ing slow) graphics? And WTH does it matter if the graphics look good or not, its a strategy game

Go back to your freaking playstation.

Moderator Action: You'll be left, "going back to your freaking playstation" for a few days w/anymore flame episodes like that. I strongly suggest you watch yourself.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Publius]

Right now, at this moment, I have to vote for Civ2, but that's for only two reasons: MP and a fully-functional scenario editor. These two things add so much more variety and flavor to the game. OK, I really like 3, but I wish I could fight WW2 or colonize Mars or escape from the ice planet Jharlei or something like that. And I like that the AI is much better than in 2, but no computer can compare to human competition.

Still, Civ3 has some excellent additions, especially resources and culture. And yes, the graphics are a helluvalot better, but for me that actually has one drawback to it. In 2, I struggled mightily with unit graphics, and then they still looked rather cartoonish. Now I would have to give them views from 4 angles AND make them move?? Forget it, there's no way I'll be able to do that.

Anyhow, if Civ3 gets MP and a real scenario editor, I'll change my vote.

 

[Ironikinit]

Maybe instead of making an entirely new unit graphic you could customize existing ones. Or Fireaxis could sell a bunch of them to people who want the extra ones in a scenario modifier's kit sold seperately or so.

I was thinking about it and civ3 could maybe be a really good MP game if both people knew what they were doing. It's just such a ruthless game that I'd be afraid of crushing the other guy. It would be nice if you could play as allies and that 2 could win.

 

[atawa]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
I was thinking about it and civ3 could maybe be a really good MP game if both people knew what they were doing. It's just such a ruthless game that I'd be afraid of crushing the other guy. It would be nice if you could play as allies and that 2 could win.

So what's the use of MP then? Its easy enough to beat the AI in SP

 

[Grotius]

Heh, I don't think the AI in Civ 3 is so easy to beat, on higher difficulty levels, if you play "iron man" style with no reloading of saves. I don't reload save games, and I get plenty of challenge from Regent on up.

As for Civ 3 vs Civ 2, well, each addicted me in its own way. But now that I've played both, I doubt I'd want to go back to Civ 2. I'd miss all the cool new features in Civ 3: culture, civ-specific units, and especially strategic resources and luxuries. I just *love* that moment of suspense as you wonder whether or not you're going to have oil or rubber or whatever. So I guess I give the nod to Civ 3, but I honor both games as fantastic achievements.

 

[Magnus]

Originally posted by atawa


So what does civ3 make such a better game then civ2? Or is it only the fancy (****ing slow) graphics? And WTH does it matter if the graphics look good or not, its a strategy game

Go back to your freaking playstation.

I have never owned a playstation, so shove it up your ass.

Civ3 has better and more realistic maps, the ability to play with 16 civs instead of 7, luxury and strategic resourse, in addition to bonus resources, civ3 is much more DIFFICULT (for all you whiny babies who stop playing a game if its in any way challenging), it has a better interface with the AI and has more options relative to dealing with other civs. Civ2 has multiplayer - its only advantage. The choice is clear in my mind - its not even close.

 

[Komoda]

Understand, I did rush out and purchase civIII, not 'cause I did not have the money, but I like playing multiplayer online, and I don't believe that CivIII allows for that. I may be wrong, but I also feel betrayed as player of the civ series by the fact that many ideas from all of us did not change anything in their programming of their game before it was released. so much for the voice of the consumer.

 

[filmic10]

Originally posted by Black Fluffy Lion
Civ1 rules all.

Thank you. Somebody knows a great game when they play it. True story:

After getting frustrated with Civ 3's SRs and bombardment and tanks being nearly killed by spearmen and the insane corruption, I went back to Civ 1 to get a taste of the old days. And boy did it have me addicted, just as much if not more than when I stated playing Civ 3 or 2. It is just so incredible that a game with such limited graphics, units and options could still be soo fun aftr I've played everything else.

After that, I would choose Civ 2 as #2 (even though I now probably won't go back to play it) and Civ 3 in a dissapointing third (new stuff is alright but not when there are so many bugs and unrealistic things [they should have playtested longer])

I'm just really surprised how in the poll, Civ 3 is killing Civ 2 but in the posts, Civ 2 seems to have the edge

 

[Mindless Reason]

No offense to any of the Civ II fans out there, but I seriously think Civ III dominates by a long shot. Civ 2 is just too easy.

 

[Mindless Reason]

I think some people are just jealous of those who have Civ III

 

[cochran4870]

Perhaps I'm more of a general gamer than a fanatic, but I was hooked on Civ III when I saw the first battle animation. I played Civ II for a while but found the lack of "chrome" off -putting. If I want a sterile strategy game, I'll play chess

Alpha Centauri was even more disappointing. All these specialized untis that look like shopping carts, inconsequential battles with no visceral fun.

Every battle in Civ III is exciting. I root for my units and hope for the best. Losing feels like losing. Winning is great.

Now that I'm hooked, I'm gradually getting into the complex systems and strategies. I've played 6 complete games, have 2 victories and am completely enthralled. But it's the chrome that grabbed me.

So that may be superficial, but it worked for me. Civ III is clearly better because it grabbed me.

 

[ih8ualot]

I didn't respond because they are both great games in there own ways:

Civ2:
Videos with wonders
Better wonders
Bribing
Kept it simple

Civ3:
Better Graphics
No Cheats (this is sorta borderline)
Better Units
Wasn't as Long as Civ2

Now, I will probably get a lot of hate mail, so :midfinger

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by rodgersmc
I agree CivII in its current state is a more finished program...

Indeed. As for not having a multi-player function, of all the many problems with Civ 3 that is one of the relative minor ones.

Go see the Sticky threads at the top of the forum for the numerous problems Civ III has.

Bottom Line: it is not that Civ III is a bad game; it is that it should have been a LOT better.

 

[Zachriel]

Most "problems" people complain about are either game decisions they don't like (culture), or features that will probably be added in the near future (mp).

I am very happy that they provided the game in its current version, and have had many hours of fun already. I anxiously look forward to any patches, revisions and updates.

(Though, I am certainly not as anxious as some people who are plain bent out of shape because the game is not what they envisioned, or don't want to wait for mp or can't handle the cultural aspects of the game.)

Civ3 has a great game engine that can support many refinements in the future.

 

[ManinBlack]

Civ 2 is better. Im sorry but Civ 3 doesnt have the magic. Yeah the AI's good but to tell the truth it takes far to long to do anything I've had it since it came out and havent finished it once. Sid Meir has dissilusioned me