Portuguese
Vassalising Spain
Very strange theory, but I fully agree with it!!!!!
CIV1 - love it
CIV2 - played it
CIV3 - modded it & love it!!!
Civ II Wasn't All That Good Compared to III
- Thread starter MirandaCore
- Start date
Very strange theory, but I fully agree with it!!!!!
CIV1 - love it
CIV2 - played it
CIV3 - modded it & love it!!!
Cade Foster
Chieftain
civ 2 is ok but its old and nobody plays it anymore. plus the graphics are kinda gay. it was good in its time but its just inferior to civ 3 now. and after ptw comes out u will get laughed at for even mentioning civ 2
actually u already are hahahahahahah CIV3 RULES
actually u already are hahahahahahah CIV3 RULES
Zouave
Crusader
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,603
Lots of people play Civ 2. And it had legs for over five years; some people have already burned out with Civ 3.
The graphics of Civ 3 are overdone and juvenile and help cause slowness with the game. I'm convinced 100% that Firaxis aimed its Civ 3 graphics to appeal to a less mature audience to increase sales - part of the general simplifying and dumbing down of the game. Graphics should be, BTW, one of the least important parts of a game.
I never said Firaxis didn't know how to MARKET this ponderous turkey to juveniles who like graphics.
Oh yes, I'm convinced a lot of people who picked Civ 3 never even played Civ 2 because when Civ 2 came out they were six years old and didn't have a computer.
The graphics of Civ 3 are overdone and juvenile and help cause slowness with the game. I'm convinced 100% that Firaxis aimed its Civ 3 graphics to appeal to a less mature audience to increase sales - part of the general simplifying and dumbing down of the game. Graphics should be, BTW, one of the least important parts of a game.
I never said Firaxis didn't know how to MARKET this ponderous turkey to juveniles who like graphics.
Oh yes, I'm convinced a lot of people who picked Civ 3 never even played Civ 2 because when Civ 2 came out they were six years old and didn't have a computer.
Cade Foster
Chieftain
whats so bad about civ 3? the ai cheating and culture flips? big deal those only a wuss would quit civ because of that.maybe u know a few people who still play civ 2 but i sure dont. so keep playing your old outdated game its your life pal hahaha sucker
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
??????????????????
What the f***? You know, today, in the car, I was thinking about how sometimes people get so wrapped up in a cause that they start to rationalize anything just to make it consistent with their initial beliefs. And this post has to be an example of this.
1. Re: speed, it's not my fault you can't afford the kind of computer that civ3 deserves
.2. I am at a loss as to how you can turn good graphics that actually make things relatively clear and visible into a FAULT. If anything, Civ2's graphics had "juvenile" appeal, and made the game seem like a cartoon. Like, what the hell was with the spy? And the diplomat? And the ulta-generic fighter? And the maps that looked like, uh, crayon drawings?
3. Dumbed down? Juvenile? As I said above, I happen to think that it's been smartened up in several areas, including borders, an intelligent system to deal with artillery and so on. To repeat, in the "smart" Civ2, I won most wars by building up endless quantities of artillery and then shoving them down a railway line. The ratio of guns to soldiers in my armies would be like 8:1. Yeah, that's "smart." Maybe a spearman wins against a tank now and again, and maybe the SE and diplomacy features of SMAC should have been included
. But to suggest that the overall game is "dumber" than the mundane civ2 is a little ridiculous.I'm well over the average age of CFC posters, and decent graphics appeal to the adult in me. Graphics are our window into the game experience, and are the representation of all of those little computations you care about. Civ games are games you sit in front of for 10 hours. I would rather not spend 9 of those hours wondering why the units and the maps are so out of sync with the rest of the play experience.
R.III
I played civ3 for some time after I first got it, but now I'm back at civ2 again. I'll probably give civ3 another chance someday but right now I simply don't feel like playing civ3 when I have games like Civ2, Alpha Centauri or even Colonization to play instead.
Not that civ3 is a bad game, it's just that I've got better ones.
Not that civ3 is a bad game, it's just that I've got better ones.
Reboot
Privateer
I'm a sucker for nice graphics, so I'm going to say that CivIII is a vast improvement from CivII in terms of that. Not only are the units animated, and the terrain refurbished, the interface is very no-frills. (although I still can tell the difference between "you have global pollution" from "some of your plains are going to desertify soon"... nevermind, it adds suspense.)
What I didn't like about the souped up graphics was that it actually restricted the customizability of the game. It does feel right to call yourself Ramses IV with Cleo's face, or Sun Yat-sen with Mao's face. Also, I do miss the custom unit sprites in CivII.
*sigh* you lose some, you gain some.
What I didn't like about the souped up graphics was that it actually restricted the customizability of the game. It does feel right to call yourself Ramses IV with Cleo's face, or Sun Yat-sen with Mao's face. Also, I do miss the custom unit sprites in CivII.
*sigh* you lose some, you gain some.
Portuguese
Vassalising Spain
I also prefer CIV3, but we have to be fair: MANY people continue to play CIV2 and love it. Just see the downloads available for the 2 games and you see the difference (and downloads are still getting out!!!). Don't assume that nobody plays it just because you don't! See CIV2 foruns and you'll see it...
JustListenen
Congenital Grouch
Another old goat!
I don't have time to play CIV2 anymore .. too busy playing CIV3.
boca
Ahau of the Mayas
There are more downloads for Civ2 because it is an easier game to modify. It's easier to create your own units and leaders.
As much as I enjoyed Civ2 I don't think I'll ever be back.
Civ3 is here to stay!
As much as I enjoyed Civ2 I don't think I'll ever be back.
Civ3 is here to stay!
For me, once I learned the big secret to Civ2 it wasn't worth playing anymore. The big secret being: 1. Build cities. 2. Build more cities. 3. If you think you've built enough cities, build more cities.
It used to be that I would create fewer cities on the best land I could find. Then I changed to - keep building settlers and build everywhere.
It wasn't much fun after that because I knew that I'd win. Sure, I'd be behind for a few turns at first and miss out on a couple of early wonders - but after a while that didn't matter as I would be so far more advanced that the other civs would just crumble.
This is what is so great about Civ3. First, the Settlers cost a little bit more. Second, building too many cities causes too much corruption.
It used to be that I would create fewer cities on the best land I could find. Then I changed to - keep building settlers and build everywhere.
It wasn't much fun after that because I knew that I'd win. Sure, I'd be behind for a few turns at first and miss out on a couple of early wonders - but after a while that didn't matter as I would be so far more advanced that the other civs would just crumble.
This is what is so great about Civ3. First, the Settlers cost a little bit more. Second, building too many cities causes too much corruption.
jpowers
Emperor
I agree about the city frequency thing, but the early building of cities 2-3 tiles apart while the AI always maintains 4-5 apart makes a similar problem in Civ3. I think it is improved for a lot of other reasons, however. I HATED the Civ2 diplomacy, and would frequently go a whole game speaking to other Civs once or twice. Now with resources and better trading options, it's fun to interact with the AI.
Reboot
Privateer
And yet the most general strategy for any goodly sized map is... build more cities (before the AI snatches all the land away).
'Copter Pilot
Chieftain
The strategy is 'build more cities, because you don't know where that oil/rubber/aluminium/uranium is going to appear'.
I've played Civ 1-3 and SMAC, and they are all great. The problem with 2 is that it's now a middle release, not as original as the first one, and not as refined as the latest offering. But then again, it had Elvis as your luxuries advisor!
Graeme the mad
Certified Maniac
'Oh yes, I'm convinced a lot of people who picked Civ 3 never even played Civ 2 because when Civ 2 came out they were six years old and didn't have a computer.'
ITS SO FUNNY ZOUAVE you big hypocrite
I played civ2 religiousluy but compared to civ3 its so bad.
I mean was there an AI in civ2?????? - I never saw it.
I mena diplomacy was non existent in any useful sense. Combat involved say one elgion killing 10 sprearman at a go -
And people complian about tank vs sperman I mean really.
ITS SO FUNNY ZOUAVE you big hypocrite
I played civ2 religiousluy but compared to civ3 its so bad.
I mean was there an AI in civ2?????? - I never saw it.
I mena diplomacy was non existent in any useful sense. Combat involved say one elgion killing 10 sprearman at a go -
And people complian about tank vs sperman I mean really.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Zouave just can't accept that maybe, just maybe, he's not holding the sacred truth that all opinions should be built around.
Therefore, if people says Civ III is better than II, it'S because they never played II. Because we all know Civ II could NEVER, oh but NEVER be said to not be as good as the piece of crap with cheating stupid AI that is III.
It would be utter stupidity.
Never mind that I started posting here first in the Civ II scenario forum, and have been a major fan of Civ II since it came out or so, and that I loved the demo of Civ I I played before.
Never mind that many of us were on these boards before Civ III came out. (Not me, I was on Apolyton for a while, though).
We just can't have played Civ II.
Because otherwise, we'd know how great it is and how crappy Civ III is in comparison.
Therefore, if people says Civ III is better than II, it'S because they never played II. Because we all know Civ II could NEVER, oh but NEVER be said to not be as good as the piece of crap with cheating stupid AI that is III.
It would be utter stupidity.
Never mind that I started posting here first in the Civ II scenario forum, and have been a major fan of Civ II since it came out or so, and that I loved the demo of Civ I I played before.
Never mind that many of us were on these boards before Civ III came out. (Not me, I was on Apolyton for a while, though).
We just can't have played Civ II.
Because otherwise, we'd know how great it is and how crappy Civ III is in comparison.
Zouave
Crusader
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,603
In your silly arrogance and juvenile name-calling you miss the main point.
Civ 2 and Civ 3 cannot be directly compared because one is over five years older than the other - a generation in computer terms.
So those who like "purty pictures" and cute graphics and sounds and other SUPERFICIAL STUFF will of course like Civ 3.
Never was there the kind of disappointment, frustration, and anger about the game when Civ 2 came out following Civ 1 - the kind of disappointment we've seen with buggy Civ 3. People universally loved Civ 2 when it came out, and it wasn't a buggy mess when it did come out and, yes, you bet it had scenarios.
I said this many months ago and I say it again. Civ 2 had legs for over five years, and even now remains one of the great Classics of Computer gaming. I still have scenarios I have yet to get to. Civ 3 is already losing its legs as posters speak about "Civ 3 burnout". You can be certain that over five years after its release Civ 3 - unlike Civ 2 - will NOT still have legs and will NOT be considered a Computer gaming classic. Five years after November 2001 Civ 3 will be just a fading memory. That is for sure.
Civ 2 and Civ 3 cannot be directly compared because one is over five years older than the other - a generation in computer terms.
So those who like "purty pictures" and cute graphics and sounds and other SUPERFICIAL STUFF will of course like Civ 3.
Never was there the kind of disappointment, frustration, and anger about the game when Civ 2 came out following Civ 1 - the kind of disappointment we've seen with buggy Civ 3. People universally loved Civ 2 when it came out, and it wasn't a buggy mess when it did come out and, yes, you bet it had scenarios.
I said this many months ago and I say it again. Civ 2 had legs for over five years, and even now remains one of the great Classics of Computer gaming. I still have scenarios I have yet to get to. Civ 3 is already losing its legs as posters speak about "Civ 3 burnout". You can be certain that over five years after its release Civ 3 - unlike Civ 2 - will NOT still have legs and will NOT be considered a Computer gaming classic. Five years after November 2001 Civ 3 will be just a fading memory. That is for sure.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
And once again Zouave proves his fanaticism toward the Holy Truth of Civ III's craptacularishness.
Yes, Civ III is a generation younger than Civ II. We're all aware of that. But you're the one who's been going around saying "Civ II better this" and "Civ II better that".
And once again you mention "juvenile namecalling" when YOU have been insulting us since the start of this topic about how we, according to you "like prutty graphics". Stop playing the offended virgin Zouave - the insulted started on YOUR side.
Oh, and yet again you go back to your pointless argument that those who prefer Civ III does because of graphics.
Well, sorry to tell you, but if you had bothered reading the thread instead of jumping the gun at us poor foolish heretics, you'd know that we all have a number of reasons :
SUPERIOR resource and trade system. It could done other ways, perhaps, but at present it CERTAINLY is superior than the old one, would it only be because of the increased value of Luxury and Strategic resources.
SUPERIOR (yes, superior) AI. An AI which doesn't use the Battlefish Ponds strategy. An AI which doesn't use the "Great Wall of Antartica" strategy. An AI which doesn't build 50 palaces per game. An AI which doesn't send a lone poor-defense unit rushing alone in enemy territory. (IE Catapult rush).
More balanced wonders. No more overpowered Great Library (end sooner). No more overpowered Leo's (everyone can upgrade, it's just cheaper if you have Leo's). Very few "Count as a X in all your cities" wonders.
More inteligent railroad system. You can't use railroad in your enemy's land. Which makes sense.
Units that can't move over mountains/jungles. It's just a matter of making sense.
Culture, which actually makes historical sense whatever you want to believe. Check the debate on this in History.
Disease, which add an element of risk to certain locations.
Better (yes, better) diplomacy. MPP, RoP, Trade Embargo, Resources Agreement, and far more intense bartering possibilities.
Less cheating AI. Instead of having eternal bombers and triremes, they now get a few free units at the start of the game - and you can change that in the rules.
-----------------------
No Zouave, it's not prutty graphics and colors. It's a matter of some - many - of us actually thinking Civ III *IS* superior to Civ II in *GAMEPLAY* aspects. You may believe otherwise, free to you. But don't start accusing and namecalling the second someone decides they do not agree with you, which is exactly what you did in this topic.
There was never the kind of frustration and disapointment when Civ II was released? We have had a number of people here stating that they *WERE* in fact disapointed by Civ II. Weren'T you listening?
As for bugs and crashes, it depend on the computer you ran the game on. Mine had more than a few crashes early on with Civ II, and none at all with Civ III.
And no one being tired of Civ II? Give me a break. It's ludicrous to claim NO ONE had gotten bored of Civ II after ten months of it. They may not have posted about it, but frankly, be serious.
Yes, Civ II lasted five years - after Conflicts, Fantastics and Gold gave it a few new breaths of life by opening swarms of new scenario and modding options. Once the editor then PtW get released, just wait and watch. Civ III will last quite a while on its own just as well once we have scenario editing capacity, even if we do not have a trigger language.
The fact is, you are just blinding yourself to the right of others to have a different opinion than yours without that opintion being automaticaly an utterly wrong, petty, based only on worthless elements opinion. Stop calling "Juvenile people who like pretty graphics" everyone who likes Civ III, and maybe we'll be willing to stop jumping the gun the second you make one of your anti-Civ-III-and-those-who-likes it post.
Yes, Civ III is a generation younger than Civ II. We're all aware of that. But you're the one who's been going around saying "Civ II better this" and "Civ II better that".
And once again you mention "juvenile namecalling" when YOU have been insulting us since the start of this topic about how we, according to you "like prutty graphics". Stop playing the offended virgin Zouave - the insulted started on YOUR side.
Oh, and yet again you go back to your pointless argument that those who prefer Civ III does because of graphics.
Well, sorry to tell you, but if you had bothered reading the thread instead of jumping the gun at us poor foolish heretics, you'd know that we all have a number of reasons :
SUPERIOR resource and trade system. It could done other ways, perhaps, but at present it CERTAINLY is superior than the old one, would it only be because of the increased value of Luxury and Strategic resources.
SUPERIOR (yes, superior) AI. An AI which doesn't use the Battlefish Ponds strategy. An AI which doesn't use the "Great Wall of Antartica" strategy. An AI which doesn't build 50 palaces per game. An AI which doesn't send a lone poor-defense unit rushing alone in enemy territory. (IE Catapult rush).
More balanced wonders. No more overpowered Great Library (end sooner). No more overpowered Leo's (everyone can upgrade, it's just cheaper if you have Leo's). Very few "Count as a X in all your cities" wonders.
More inteligent railroad system. You can't use railroad in your enemy's land. Which makes sense.
Units that can't move over mountains/jungles. It's just a matter of making sense.
Culture, which actually makes historical sense whatever you want to believe. Check the debate on this in History.
Disease, which add an element of risk to certain locations.
Better (yes, better) diplomacy. MPP, RoP, Trade Embargo, Resources Agreement, and far more intense bartering possibilities.
Less cheating AI. Instead of having eternal bombers and triremes, they now get a few free units at the start of the game - and you can change that in the rules.
-----------------------
No Zouave, it's not prutty graphics and colors. It's a matter of some - many - of us actually thinking Civ III *IS* superior to Civ II in *GAMEPLAY* aspects. You may believe otherwise, free to you. But don't start accusing and namecalling the second someone decides they do not agree with you, which is exactly what you did in this topic.
There was never the kind of frustration and disapointment when Civ II was released? We have had a number of people here stating that they *WERE* in fact disapointed by Civ II. Weren'T you listening?
As for bugs and crashes, it depend on the computer you ran the game on. Mine had more than a few crashes early on with Civ II, and none at all with Civ III.
And no one being tired of Civ II? Give me a break. It's ludicrous to claim NO ONE had gotten bored of Civ II after ten months of it. They may not have posted about it, but frankly, be serious.
Yes, Civ II lasted five years - after Conflicts, Fantastics and Gold gave it a few new breaths of life by opening swarms of new scenario and modding options. Once the editor then PtW get released, just wait and watch. Civ III will last quite a while on its own just as well once we have scenario editing capacity, even if we do not have a trigger language.
The fact is, you are just blinding yourself to the right of others to have a different opinion than yours without that opintion being automaticaly an utterly wrong, petty, based only on worthless elements opinion. Stop calling "Juvenile people who like pretty graphics" everyone who likes Civ III, and maybe we'll be willing to stop jumping the gun the second you make one of your anti-Civ-III-and-those-who-likes it post.
Park Ranger
Wonder hog
Here's my two cents, and I played CIV, Colonization, and CIV 2 (for about five years!) before getting CIV3:
CIV 3 had a huge initial appeal to me because of its deeper complexity (especially in trade and diplomacy), the differentiation among the civs (UU's and Golden Ages), and the concept of culture. I was a bit disappointed that the tech tree was trimmed so much, and that artillery and air units seemed to be unnecessary or even useless.
CIV 2, after about a year of playing, became like solitaire. Oh, I'd play, but games kept unfolding the same way. And some of the exploits (2000 gold caravans, rail-howitzers, spies) were impossible to resist. What kept me going were the scenarios that kept coming out, and the editor which allowed me to muck around with techs, units, sounds and graphics.
CIV3: In theory a superior game, in practise marred by bugginess which irritates users in direct correlation to how soon after initial release they started playing. If Firaxis had waited until most of the bugs had been fixed, I bet there would be a lot less burnout/frustration/Zouavism. Imagine if we'd only been playing for four or five months, initially with 1.17 and everyone just recently upgrading to 1.21....
For me, I'm going to sit the fence on this one. I'm taking a break from civ3 (but not from CFC!!) until October or so, waiting for release of an editor/scenario-builder that matches what we got with civ2. If Firaxis can do that, then I predict I'll stay with CIV3 for a while. If not, then I'll find another game by January.
Just MHO.
CIV 3 had a huge initial appeal to me because of its deeper complexity (especially in trade and diplomacy), the differentiation among the civs (UU's and Golden Ages), and the concept of culture. I was a bit disappointed that the tech tree was trimmed so much, and that artillery and air units seemed to be unnecessary or even useless.
CIV 2, after about a year of playing, became like solitaire. Oh, I'd play, but games kept unfolding the same way. And some of the exploits (2000 gold caravans, rail-howitzers, spies) were impossible to resist. What kept me going were the scenarios that kept coming out, and the editor which allowed me to muck around with techs, units, sounds and graphics.
CIV3: In theory a superior game, in practise marred by bugginess which irritates users in direct correlation to how soon after initial release they started playing. If Firaxis had waited until most of the bugs had been fixed, I bet there would be a lot less burnout/frustration/Zouavism. Imagine if we'd only been playing for four or five months, initially with 1.17 and everyone just recently upgrading to 1.21....
For me, I'm going to sit the fence on this one. I'm taking a break from civ3 (but not from CFC!!) until October or so, waiting for release of an editor/scenario-builder that matches what we got with civ2. If Firaxis can do that, then I predict I'll stay with CIV3 for a while. If not, then I'll find another game by January.
Just MHO.
These are the same people who didn't bother to play past the first two levels of Doom2, didn't get to the second disk of Baldur's Gate II, and Rejected Fallout 2 before getting to the first dragon.
Fact is, these people are just upset because they could brag about how good at Civ2 they once were, but now they can't because Civ3 is a different game with new concepts. They want the old days where they could brag about their latest achievements in Civ2.
"Oh, I win every time. I'm the best Civ2 player there is."
"But what about Civ3?"
"Oh, that's not as good. It cheats because I can't win as easily. But let me tell you about the Civ2 game last night where I whooped the Romans. You see...."
They fear change.
Similar threads
