If you change your tone, and post your trouble with corruption as a thread, there are many people on this forum that can help you combat it effectively. We can be rather helpful on occasion, but not with that attitude.
Civ 2 versus Civ 3: Bring It!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter EdmundSpenser
- Start date
If you change your tone, and post your trouble with corruption as a thread, there are many people on this forum that can help you combat it effectively. We can be rather helpful on occasion, but not with that attitude.
Arrian
Warlord
Tough question.
I played Civ II from 1996 to 2001. Five years, on and off, but mostly on. Suffice it to say that I love that game. It was amazing for the time, and I was happily playing it up until the release of Civ III.
However, I don't think I could go back to Civ II now. There are things in Civ III that I absolutely love (culture, air missions, bombardment, diplomacy/trading). Clearly, Civ II MGE was more polished than the current incarnation of Civ III. But MGE was what, the third version of Civ II? So I don't think one can propery answer the question until Civ III reaches its final form, ala Civ II MGE.
-Arrian
I played Civ II from 1996 to 2001. Five years, on and off, but mostly on. Suffice it to say that I love that game. It was amazing for the time, and I was happily playing it up until the release of Civ III.
However, I don't think I could go back to Civ II now. There are things in Civ III that I absolutely love (culture, air missions, bombardment, diplomacy/trading). Clearly, Civ II MGE was more polished than the current incarnation of Civ III. But MGE was what, the third version of Civ II? So I don't think one can propery answer the question until Civ III reaches its final form, ala Civ II MGE.
-Arrian
EdmundSpenser
I Am 007
Like I told u blokes (and ironic warrior aka drfell - pay attention),
I am now a civ3 convert; the corruption and other bugs have been fixed by the patches and I have let go of the assumptions that Firaxis is bad for making a hard game
The truth is a hard game is a good, challenging game and im up for another six months or so of taking down the deity AI
Civ 3 rox...
and it sure as hell beats freakin "call to poo-er"
ed
I am now a civ3 convert; the corruption and other bugs have been fixed by the patches and I have let go of the assumptions that Firaxis is bad for making a hard game
The truth is a hard game is a good, challenging game and im up for another six months or so of taking down the deity AI
Civ 3 rox...
and it sure as hell beats freakin "call to poo-er"
ed
Supercilious
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2002
- Messages
- 44
Man, over 30% here prefer Civ 2!
On the Apolyton boards it's likely almost 50%!!
That's hardly the success Firaxis hoped for.
On the Apolyton boards it's likely almost 50%!!
That's hardly the success Firaxis hoped for.
Ironikinit
Prince
Yeah, I bet selling all those copies has them crying all the way to the bank. "Boo hooty, we're in the top ten again."
Remember, people were saying that TBS was dead. Infogrammes and Firaxis took a risk putting Civ 3 on the market.
Remember, people were saying that TBS was dead. Infogrammes and Firaxis took a risk putting Civ 3 on the market.
tory_kev
Chieftain
To all those saying civ3 you really need to look at the fact it has no multiplayer option so until the day when Civ3 has this it has to be Civ2 ToT
brody
Pathetic Loser
Look at current games out there and find one that is 100% polished within even a year of release. Hell, D2 (good game until you realize your whole life is being spent on one big item hunt) wasn't REALLY even complete until you bought the expansion!
What I'm saying is Civ3 may seem unpolished now, but I'm more than confident that history will show us that once all is said and done, Civ3 will be the winner.
When I first played Civ2 I thought I was playing a shareware game. No offense to the designers, but compared to Civ1 it was very confusing and didn't offer anything that was obviously new... yes, it had new features, but nothing totally groundbreaking like culture or the new diplomacy options... (trade embargoes rock) I played it probably 10 times and was less and less impressed each time.
Civ3 immediately impressed me. It's more rich (minus the "oh-so-cool" wonder movies - "Ooh, another movie to watch, how exciting this TBS game is!"), has way more real trade options, etc. etc.... I couldn't go back to Civ2 if my life depended on it. Granted I do wonder about missing things (espionage anyone?), and the delay between turns just SUCKS, but I'd go back to Civ1 before Civ2...
MP? MP??? You're all joking right? Civ2 didn't ship with MP, so why are you all whining about Civ3? Multiplayer takes a huge effort for a game that's already complex. I'm personally glad they spent time making a great game instead of making another Civ2 to appease the MP fans.
What I'm saying is Civ3 may seem unpolished now, but I'm more than confident that history will show us that once all is said and done, Civ3 will be the winner.
When I first played Civ2 I thought I was playing a shareware game. No offense to the designers, but compared to Civ1 it was very confusing and didn't offer anything that was obviously new... yes, it had new features, but nothing totally groundbreaking like culture or the new diplomacy options... (trade embargoes rock) I played it probably 10 times and was less and less impressed each time.
Civ3 immediately impressed me. It's more rich (minus the "oh-so-cool" wonder movies - "Ooh, another movie to watch, how exciting this TBS game is!"), has way more real trade options, etc. etc.... I couldn't go back to Civ2 if my life depended on it. Granted I do wonder about missing things (espionage anyone?), and the delay between turns just SUCKS, but I'd go back to Civ1 before Civ2...
MP? MP??? You're all joking right? Civ2 didn't ship with MP, so why are you all whining about Civ3? Multiplayer takes a huge effort for a game that's already complex. I'm personally glad they spent time making a great game instead of making another Civ2 to appease the MP fans.
Scipio Africanu
Consul
You people seem to forget how long it took Civ2 to become this progressed. Heck it took a couple of years for the Multiplayer Gold edition to come out, and stack another 8 months ontop of that for ToT. Come now, Civ3 has been out for about 4 months or so? (im not sure, my short term memory is shot) Civ2 was still in its baby shoes at this stage. Give it some time, so far every patch seems to be increasing the gameplay and options available in Civ3. Imagine what an expansion might bring, which won't take nearly as long as the MPG took. I must admit at first it seemed less progressive then one would like, but it grows so quickly on you its hard to remember where your Civ2 discs are.
The no multiplayer isn't exactly a thing to relish, however the improved AI, and expansion of map size and number of opponents makes the SP game that much more enjoyable. I have an inclining feeling some people either cant get a faster computer or CivIII because if you play it in normal mode, with a mod, or with a user made map it can change the entire game in a second.
I won't deny Civ2 was a good game, one of the best. So was Quake though, spit and shine does a lot but new options you love are priceless.
The no multiplayer isn't exactly a thing to relish, however the improved AI, and expansion of map size and number of opponents makes the SP game that much more enjoyable. I have an inclining feeling some people either cant get a faster computer or CivIII because if you play it in normal mode, with a mod, or with a user made map it can change the entire game in a second.
I won't deny Civ2 was a good game, one of the best. So was Quake though, spit and shine does a lot but new options you love are priceless.
TheDuckOfFlanders
the fish collecter
Being a civplayer for almost ages now 
i can tell you AT THIS MOMENT i play civII more than CivIII ,because of the fact that it has scenario support and multiplayer support ,the thing's i mostly play if i play civ. (well mostly scenario's)
Know though that this is not a statement that i like one above another.It's already mentioned here that civIII is yet kinda young ,and i fullharty agree.CivIII will probably improve to a more refined game than civII ,as civII was a more refined game than CivI.In no way i think one of those is better ,they are only DIFFERENT and one is an improved version of the other.in term's of gameplay Civ will always rock my world ,civIII at this moment not yet ,but i'm sure that one day i will set civII aside to play a scenario in CivIII.
I did not voted.
i can tell you AT THIS MOMENT i play civII more than CivIII ,because of the fact that it has scenario support and multiplayer support ,the thing's i mostly play if i play civ. (well mostly scenario's)Know though that this is not a statement that i like one above another.It's already mentioned here that civIII is yet kinda young ,and i fullharty agree.CivIII will probably improve to a more refined game than civII ,as civII was a more refined game than CivI.In no way i think one of those is better ,they are only DIFFERENT and one is an improved version of the other.in term's of gameplay Civ will always rock my world ,civIII at this moment not yet ,but i'm sure that one day i will set civII aside to play a scenario in CivIII.
I did not voted.
filmic10
The Polish Flash
They should have playtested the game for a little longer if they wanted success. BTW, I voted for Civ 2
.I know this might sound stupid but I think that Civ2 and 3 should be seen as two distantly related games.
Though they both come form the same designer, and Civ3 is an evolution of Civ1 and 2, but people should not put like for like.
Civ3 is not an update, with new options and abilities, as some people seem to think. Civ3 has been built from scratch, its a different game, with the same aims and objectives.
Comparing the games should be done only occur if we look at them as separate, rather than comparing whether you can use diplomacy in Civ3 better than you could in Civ2.
Test of Time, Call to Arms and AC are the updates, with all the new options that appear in Civ3 being tried for the first time. Some of these survived (bombardment from AC) and others didn't (Terraform also from AC).
Civ3 should be judged upon its own merits, rather than harking back to a game that will soon be a decade old. Civ3 combines the very best from all the previous versions and succesfully (I think) creates amix of realism and fun.
of course there are problems, I agree with those who miss the spy units, or the ability of aircraft to destroy ships, but on the whole Civ3 is very impressive.
And afterplaying it for some time now I have to say that Civ3 is the best turn based stratgey game available.
Judge Civ3 for its own merits rather than for percieved nostaliga.
Though they both come form the same designer, and Civ3 is an evolution of Civ1 and 2, but people should not put like for like.
Civ3 is not an update, with new options and abilities, as some people seem to think. Civ3 has been built from scratch, its a different game, with the same aims and objectives.
Comparing the games should be done only occur if we look at them as separate, rather than comparing whether you can use diplomacy in Civ3 better than you could in Civ2.
Test of Time, Call to Arms and AC are the updates, with all the new options that appear in Civ3 being tried for the first time. Some of these survived (bombardment from AC) and others didn't (Terraform also from AC).
Civ3 should be judged upon its own merits, rather than harking back to a game that will soon be a decade old. Civ3 combines the very best from all the previous versions and succesfully (I think) creates amix of realism and fun.
of course there are problems, I agree with those who miss the spy units, or the ability of aircraft to destroy ships, but on the whole Civ3 is very impressive.
And afterplaying it for some time now I have to say that Civ3 is the best turn based stratgey game available.
Judge Civ3 for its own merits rather than for percieved nostaliga.
SlowwHand
King
Civ III won't have a chance of displacing Civ II until/unless it's MP.
SP against AI's is for wimps.
That said, the graphics and other points addressed in III are a definite improvement.
SP against AI's is for wimps.
That said, the graphics and other points addressed in III are a definite improvement.
Angelic_Tyrant
Tyrannical Despot
Hard one to decide. My nostalgia says civ2, but the gameplay in civ3 os much better.
Steve
Chieftain
Civ 3, hands down. Civ 2 is a very, very solid game and the designers could only improve on it. This they did. The play is more intense and the game more engrossing as a result. Can't wait for the MP Edition and some scenarios.
I prefer Civ2 and it might be that it was something new when I first played it.
I got a happy feeling when i played it :jump: and my body was filled with excitement :jump: .
It was always fun to try out new strategies on the evil civs and pure joy filled my soul we I :rocket3: them back to the stone age.
But now with Civ3 it feels like a bad replay
(w/ better graphics) and why play Civ3 SP when you play Civ2 MP ?
When I'll be able to play Civ3 on MP then I might be drawn back to the pool of adictment.
I got a happy feeling when i played it :jump: and my body was filled with excitement :jump: .
It was always fun to try out new strategies on the evil civs and pure joy filled my soul we I :rocket3: them back to the stone age.
But now with Civ3 it feels like a bad replay
(w/ better graphics) and why play Civ3 SP when you play Civ2 MP ?When I'll be able to play Civ3 on MP then I might be drawn back to the pool of adictment.
DarthVeda
Warlord
Civ3 is the most giant pile of crap on earth. Even CtP was less stunningly bad.
d3dash
Lord of the Dust Mites
ok, ok, ok, we understand that you like to play MP, so play F***** Civ 2 MPGE. That has nothing to do with wether or not Civ3 is a great game. Civ2 has it's good points, the senerios rocked. the rules.txt was great. But there are great things that Civ3 has, the ability to mod, and one of my personal favs the UU. I can't wait for civ specific techs and improvements. The addition of culture Rocks!!! I don't see what the big deal is with culture flips, I have had only a couple culture flips that I lost cities on, most the time the cities culture flip to join me . Maybe if you are having problems with them flipping, focus alittle on your culture to stop it, it doesn't take a genious to figure that out. To the point of curruption, I admit there is a huge problem with a city producing only 1 sheild and 1 gold, that needs to be fixed, but curruption is a good thing. It makes you think. When I first got the game, I was pissed about curruption. But I got used to it. I added the reduces curruption flag to a few buildings, and bam I was good to go. so, my point is this: Stop comparing Civ3 to Civ2 MPGE!!!! this Topic is COMPARE CIV3 TO CIV2!!!!!!!!!! And if you are as experienced as you say you are, CIV2 IS NOT MUTLIPLAYER!!!!!!!!!!! that was a different expantion. And if I remember right, you had to buy it to get MP. so stop complaining about no MP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
. Maybe if you are having problems with them flipping, focus alittle on your culture to stop it, it doesn't take a genious to figure that out. To the point of curruption, I admit there is a huge problem with a city producing only 1 sheild and 1 gold, that needs to be fixed, but curruption is a good thing. It makes you think. When I first got the game, I was pissed about curruption. But I got used to it. I added the reduces curruption flag to a few buildings, and bam I was good to go. so, my point is this: Stop comparing Civ3 to Civ2 MPGE!!!! this Topic is COMPARE CIV3 TO CIV2!!!!!!!!!! And if you are as experienced as you say you are, CIV2 IS NOT MUTLIPLAYER!!!!!!!!!!! that was a different expantion. And if I remember right, you had to buy it to get MP. so stop complaining about no MP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:rocket:
Cant we all just be freinds! IronicWarrior19
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2001
- Messages
- 151
'But there are great things that Civ3 has, the ability to mod, and one of my personal favs the UU.'
UU just imbalance the game. They won't be used much in MP (imagine how well a Persian player with iron would do - just from pure luck). You could mod civ2 as well. In fact there were hundreds of mods for civ2.
'Maybe if you are having problems with them flipping, focus alittle on your culture to stop it, it doesn't take a genious to figure that out.'
You've obviously never played on deity. Early on you can capture cities pretty easily. Sure, I can have civs in awe of my culture early on too. But later you're going to have serious problems capturing any of them, because of AI production advantages. After you take out the closest civ, you basically have to raze any other civs cities. It's ridiculous that 10-15 archers can be wiped out in a size one city.
'But I got used to it. I added the reduces curruption flag to a few buildings, and bam I was good to go'
I don't want to have to mod the game to hell just to be able to play it. You can't have an MP when everyone is playing different rulesets. I'm not too bothered about corruption anymore anyway, there are solutions.
'Stop comparing Civ3 to Civ2 MPGE!!!! this Topic is COMPARE CIV3 TO CIV2!!!!!!!!!! And if you are as experienced as you say you are, CIV2 IS NOT MUTLIPLAYER!!!!!!!!!!!'
Civ2 had multiplayer. Therefore civ2 was multiplayer, so it is fair to compare civ2 (which had multiplayer) to civ3.
UU just imbalance the game. They won't be used much in MP (imagine how well a Persian player with iron would do - just from pure luck). You could mod civ2 as well. In fact there were hundreds of mods for civ2.
'Maybe if you are having problems with them flipping, focus alittle on your culture to stop it, it doesn't take a genious to figure that out.'
You've obviously never played on deity. Early on you can capture cities pretty easily. Sure, I can have civs in awe of my culture early on too. But later you're going to have serious problems capturing any of them, because of AI production advantages. After you take out the closest civ, you basically have to raze any other civs cities. It's ridiculous that 10-15 archers can be wiped out in a size one city.
'But I got used to it. I added the reduces curruption flag to a few buildings, and bam I was good to go'
I don't want to have to mod the game to hell just to be able to play it. You can't have an MP when everyone is playing different rulesets. I'm not too bothered about corruption anymore anyway, there are solutions.
'Stop comparing Civ3 to Civ2 MPGE!!!! this Topic is COMPARE CIV3 TO CIV2!!!!!!!!!! And if you are as experienced as you say you are, CIV2 IS NOT MUTLIPLAYER!!!!!!!!!!!'
Civ2 had multiplayer. Therefore civ2 was multiplayer, so it is fair to compare civ2 (which had multiplayer) to civ3.
This is hardly unbalancing. Immortals are tough, but they are not invincible.
I'd just like to point out that the game is supposed to be hard as hell on deity. Plus, you are wrong that 10-15 archers can be wiped out in a size one culture flip. Since the last patch, that city would not flip because of the overwhelming size of the garrison.
Similar threads
