Originally posted by thestonesfan "Supreme" players prefer Civ2? Civ3 is a heck of a lot harder than Civ2, no doubt about it. The AI is far better. The first time I played Civ3, I played it on Chieftan just to get a feel for the game, and it was actaully challanging. The first time I played Civ2 was also on Chieftain, and I had the world dominated in a night.
Maybe this is true for those of you who still play the AI
I don't, haven't played the AI since the last millenium...AI is, as the name suggests 'artificial', 'simulated', 'assinine'.
I only play humans, and humans are rather cunning, calculating, carniverous and crusader-ish (?) or catapult-ist and that is why civ 2 is glorious. oh and the wonder movies
Originally posted by EdmundSpenser Let's face it...it's obvious now, after these ten pages, that the rookies still prefer civ 3 and the vets, experienced, expert or supreme players favor the more 'classic' civ 2.
Rookies prefer civ 3???? I've been playing since the original civ came out and i think civ 3 is the best game in the series. If you ask me rookies like civ 2 cause its sooooo easy to beat. No offense though.
So Ed, when Play the World comes out with Multiplayer, Civ3 will be the better game?
You can't compare it on the basis of multiplayer. Civ2 didn't have multiplayer either for a while. Was CivNet better than Civ2? Heck no! You can compare the single player, and Civ3 is a better game.
Of course the AI is not going to be as cunning as a good human, but if you aren't challenged on the Deity level, I envy you.
I started a new one...poll of civ 2 vs civ 3 in the civ 2 forum. I didn't want to tell all u civ 3 ho's and junkies just yet cause at the moment, civ 2 is like 98% to civ 3's 2%.
Thus, relatively speaking, civ 2 is ultimately winning this season of polls.
Originally posted by EdmundSpenser I started a new one...poll of civ 2 vs civ 3 in the civ 2 forum. I didn't want to tell all u civ 3 ho's and junkies just yet cause at the moment, civ 2 is like 98% to civ 3's 2%.
Thus, relatively speaking, civ 2 is ultimately winning this season of polls.
That is a flawed poll. Only those afflicted with stubborn nostalgia or a 386 PC even bother to read the Civ2 forum.
This poll is not flawed, because it is read by both Civ3ers AND Civ2ers (because those who are saying Civ2 is better secretly know that Civ3 is better and are living vicariously through our gaming).
Ed's a troll. I was surprised to see this thread still kicking. If he is who I think he is, he's wouldn't produce a save from one of his cakewalk deity games. I doubt he'll actually show up to play multiplayer Civ 3 either. He's best ignored.
Moderator Action: Speaking of ignore, you'll have no choice but to be ignored for 3 days with any more outbreaks like this. Calling someone a troll is in itself trolling. This thread is one of the few threads about civ2 vs. civ3 that was able to survive w/out major trolling and it will NOT start now.
Originally posted by Ironikinit Ed's a troll. I was surprised to see this thread still kicking. If he is who I think he is, he's wouldn't produce a save from one of his cakewalk deity games. I doubt he'll actually show up to play multiplayer Civ 3 either. He's best ignored.
It does seem that Ed here just likes to cause some controversy. I don't know if I believe he's played either game, since his whole basis of arguement is that Civ2 is so vastly superior because of multiplayer. I don't think he's mentioned any other reasons.
What's with all the Ed bashing? Can't we all just agree he's wrong and that's it? Everyone knows Civ 3 is better so why argue? There's no need for attacks. Can't we all just...get along?
Civ3 has introduced new concepts into the Civ world (like resources, multiple alliances, culture, armies etc) which make Civ3 a more strategic, thus a better game. What Civ3 is missing is 'grace', which Civ2 has plenty of. Why was Civ2 more graceful? A short list:
- better music
- wonder movies
- talking advisors. They were great fun to listen to.
- trade caravans.
- cease fires and ability to donate units
- diplomats and spies. Embassies actually gave useful information.
- terraforming and farms
- the risk of a civ splitting in 2. Capture a capitol or be in civil disorder for too long, and the civ would split in 2.
Even Civ1 had grace:
- victory march by troops which capture cities
- a happy science advisor with heralds after each advance
- earthquakes, floods, volcanoes and pirates.
Civ3 could have been 'the perfect game'. It was obviously rushed to market, to beat the Christmas rush. It needed more polish, or a little more fine tuning to become perfect. All hope is not lost, however, since the expansion pack should address a lot of the shortcomings. Hopefully, PTW will forever kill our nostalgia for Civ2, the most graceful of the Civ franchises.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
![[party]](/images/smilies/partytime.gif "Party [party]")
I've been playing since the original civ came out and i think civ 3 is the best game in the series. If you ask me rookies like civ 2 cause its sooooo easy to beat. No offense though.
It's been up for more than a year!
