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

[david_t1]

Civ3 has 2 major disadvantages:

1) It's much harder to "control the game" (moving the cursor, clicking on the ground, entering a city etc.) than in civ2.

2)There's only 1 mode of play: "Start a new game" in which the player must always start from the beginning and play a long tiring game. There aren't even scenarios!
In civ2 there are lots of plat mods: start new game, scenario (ww1, ww2, napoleon, rome...)-- faster games for those who don't want to start from the beginning. There are also many mod packs which make new units, cities etc. (you can even play with dinosaurs and aliens).
And you can create your own scenarios!!!
civ3 is for only 1 sort of players. civ2 is for everyone who likes strategy (and that's why civ2 is played until today even after civ3 came out).

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Please join me in a prayer that some rogue genius will take all of the rules and features of Civ 2 and give them the improved graphics of Civ 3.

And as far as scenario creation, I hope that we are given an encyclopedic unit gallery and an easy system to click and choose them when the scenario builder for three comes out.

 

[Cade Foster]

just look at the poll theres ur answer

 

[Portuguese]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
Please join me in a prayer that some rogue genius will take all of the rules and features of Civ 2 and give them the improved graphics of Civ 3.

And as far as scenario creation, I hope that we are given an encyclopedic unit gallery and an easy system to click and choose them when the scenario builder for three comes out.

Another vote for that "encyclopedic unit gallery" idea. Good input. Hope to see it...

 

[BachMusic]

Here's how I rank them:

1. Civ3
2. Alpha Centauri
3. Civ1
4. Civ2

Civ2 is the only game on this list that was merely good. The problem with Civ2 was an excess of units leading to long tedious late game turns. More effective worker automation in Civ3 [Shift-A] has removed to a remarkable degree the tedium of long turns that one found in Civ2. Loves the terrain forming worker actions of Alpha Centauri.

 

[BachMusic]

I see people are complaining about how long turns take. I haven't noticed any problem, but then I have an Athlon XP @1.466 GHz and 512 MB of RAM. By the way, I got a new desktop b/c my old laptop couldn't play Civ3 at all. Then, ironically, Civ3 sat on my shelf for a several months, while I caught on all the action and RPG games that I hadn't played yet, b/c they wouldn't run on my laptop.

 

[:)civ2]

i'd have to go with civ 2 for one reason i dont own civ3

 

[LittleDragon]

Civ III offers many improvements over Civ II, but is let down by some very frustrating flaws, especially in diplomacy and AI. At first I thought the improvements outweighed the flaws, but now I am not so sure.

I think it is inarguable that Civ II was a much better game at the time of its release than Civ III was at the time of its release. Civ III is probably still a little better, tipped over the line by the superficial aspects of graphics etc.

It is difficult to go back to Civ II after being spoilt by the improved features of Civ III. It is frustrating for these features to be combined with those I listed above bundled with a clumsy interaction system and an extremely limited editor.

To me Civ III has ruined the entire Civilization experience really. It is still an enjoyable game in a sense, but far from great as its predecessors.

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by LittleDragon
. . . Civ III is probably still a little better, tipped over the line by the superficial aspects of graphics etc. . . .

To me Civ III has ruined the entire Civilization experience really. . .

You are too kind.

Superficial is the word to use, and that will especially be so with this PTW thing they want to stick us with at $30 a pop.

Did you see that TV commercial for the brokerage company, the one making fun of Merrill Lynch? "Let's put some lipstick on this pig". I immediately thought of Civ 3 and PTW.

 

[darwinite]

After 5 years of playing civ I, I thought it was the ultimate game, on occasion I played it so long that, like screen burn, images of irrigation and roads were burned into my eyes. Along with Pirates! it filled my teenage years.

Then Civ II came along, and I never looked back.

After 10 years of civving, the only game I've found to surpass it is Alpha Centauri; it's clever use of 3D terrain, factional differences and total freedom in unit design hooked me.

I eagerly awaited Civ III, and while initially impressed by things like borders, resources and the new advisors, the game just isn't fun like it's predecessors.

I can't really point to any specific problems, except perhaps the restrictions on irrigation, but Civ III, while technically superior to Civ II, is nowhere near as fun to play.

I like many features of the game, like leaders, borders, mini wonders, etc, but would prefer that they could be patched into Civ II.

I think the problem is that the developers became too fixated on what the Civ fans - through forums like this - wanted, rather than allowing Sid the freedom to develop a _new_ game.

If Microprose had hobbled it's designers in this way we'd never have gotten Colonization, a game I consider the second best game ever written, and which I still play regularly.

Let's just let Firaxis and Sid develop games their way, without trying to second guess them.

 

[Portuguese]

Originally posted by darwinite

I think the problem is that the developers became too fixated on what the Civ fans - through forums like this - wanted, rather than allowing Sid the freedom to develop a _new_ game.

If Microprose had hobbled it's designers in this way we'd never have gotten Colonization, a game I consider the second best game ever written, and which I still play regularly.

Let's just let Firaxis and Sid develop games their way, without trying to second guess them.

I can't speak for myself, but Zouave and others have beem saying the other way arround in these foruns...

 

[Marx]

I voted for civ2.

Where is Civ1?

 

[Portuguese]

Here is as I rank them.

Most loved:
1: CIV1
2: CIV3
3: CIV2

Most Played:
1: CIV3
2: CIV1
3: CIV2

 

[murewa]

This poll is asking gamers themselves what is the better game. And it so happens that there are more people who visit and post in the Civ3 forums(Gen Discussions go 74k for Civ3 and 11k for Civ2.) So when the poll shows that 70% of poll-takers say Civ3 rules over Civ2 don't nobody blame it on the fact that this is because it is posted on the Civ3 forum.

Furthermore, this poll is not a valid argument to directly say that one is better than the other. Just that most people like Civ3 over Civ2 and nothing more.

 

[Portuguese]

But at least in CIV3 forums, people say CIV3 is better.

I was starting to have doubts about that...

 

[Cade Foster]

wonder why u wont see a civ2 vs civ3 thread in the civ2 forum?? becuase it sucks and nobody goes there. therefore civ 3 rocks and civ2 is inferior end of story

 

[XetrO]

I like Civ2 better, but there are some things which I find better in Civ3:

- The Units have the colours of the specific civ (all japanese troops are green, for example); in Civ2 you could think you're in a circus, the Phalanx were light blue, the Marines green, then there were these yellow Paratroopers... I mean the real millitary of a country has nearly the same colour (even if they are complete different types of units).

- Customized maps: When you choose "continent(s)" you really get 1 or 2 huge landmasses. In Civ2 you have always these fractalized land-chaos, it never looks like a real continental world.

- In Civ3 you can upgrade your units for an amount of gold, in Civ2 you have to rebuild them.

- 8 Civilizations instead of max.7(Civ2)

- More diplomatic options in single-player-mode (it's another question if there is a chance that other civ's agree on e.g. trade of cities ("we give you [amount] Gold, you give me city [XY]")
But even Civ3's many diplomatic options can't beat the thousands of options you have in Civ2 multiplayer-mode, by the way!

But that's all - maybe it's only my opinion - but the rest is (far) better in Civ2, (excluding the AI, haven't played Civ3 on higher skill levels yet). Civ3 seems to be a good game, but which was made half-hearted, how could the leave all the editors and so on?

Note: with Civ2 I mean the so-called "Ultimate Civilization II Classic Collection"

 

[Portuguese]

Are there many differences between my normal CIV2 copy and the others... (I don't play CIV multiplayers... so not counting that...)

 

[XetrO]

Well, first there was the normal Civ2, then Microprose brought an add-on called "Conflicts In Civilization" (This were mainly new Scenarios) After that there was another Add-on called "Fantastic Worlds" (I think with this version they repaired some bugs).
The final thing Microprose brought out according Civ2 was an Ultimate Classic Collection, where these things were united (separatly install- or patchable) + the multiplayer function...

And in addition there was an update (mainly for Multiplayer options) available on the internet, which fixed almost everything what was buggy.

I think the main differences are some bug-fixes and with "Fantastic Worlds" you got a lot of built-in editors in Civ2 (Tribe-, City-, Unit-Editor, etc.) But gameplay must (nearly) be the same.

 

[:)civ2]

CIV3 will smoke Civilization 2 MGE Beacause of the new patch by Fraxix