I played the original Call to Power two summers ago. It would've been a marginally enjoyable game, if, that is, I was spared from bouts with my machine every ----ing time I attempted to save; it simply crashed, returning to Windows without warning! Perhaps, I surmised, it has to do with my low-end computer. No; it did the same on a Dell with a 400mhz processor with 32x CD ROM drive (in addition to running slowly).
I have compiled a brief list of shortcomings:
It was a resource PIG (a Sardinian one at that).
It ran poorly, often crashing (the patch worsened this problem).
The interface sucked (a blunt statement <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0>).
Warriors could destroy attacking tanks behind city walls; archers could sink battleships, etc.
The graphics were messy and the wonder movies were not only crappy, they crashed my computer.
Technological advance yielded no satisfaction (research this tech, then another).
The futuristic units/governments were surrealistic and ludicrous.
The purpose of the first half of the game is to prepare for the the latter (I believe I encountered this observation in a review).
Now, for my question. I've seen the screenshots of the sequel (which dropped the Civilization name). I could discern no difference between them and the game I certainly played. Yet Call to Power II, as I have been told, is a far, far inferior game. Why is that?
PS: Abolitionists, Slavers, etc., were in the prequel.
[This message has been edited by bvd (edited July 13, 2001).]
