Civ1 much better than Civ2

[Redemtion]

I just tried Civ2... and i've given up...

I'm sorry, but Civ is NOT supposed to be 3d! To be honest, the gameplay looks very cool, with the new wonders and cool units like spies... it seems much more... realistic, more things that would actually exist... but it's 3D!! I cant stand the movement.. im just supposed to right click to move somewhere... and the maps it creates ... civ1 did a MUCH better job... so... im back to civ1... (although i wasnt gone for long... and this is my first post here) which isn't a bad thing.... i guess you never can beat the original, the flaws are just too much (3d and poor map generator)...

 

[CoolLizy]

It's not 3-D, it's isometric, and so is Civ3. It just doesn't work in Civ2 because the tiles are so... jagged...
Anyhow, mymain problem with the game is that they added too much instead of fixing the few problems Civ had, just making for a mess!

 

[Hamlet]

Na, civ 2 is better than civ 1!

 

[CoolLizy]

That could be debated. As I said before, I think they added too much instead of smoothing out the wrinkles of the first one.

 

[Napoleon Hitler]

Wow! I had no idea that people actually existed who think that Civilization is better than Civilization II. That is amazing. I would have to go back to the stone age to think that. I found that Civ2 is a major improvement. Sure, it takes some getting used to, but just turn the map grid on if you have to.

Now, if you think that Civ2 is better than Civ3, I can see where you're coming from. But Civ2 is so so so so so much better than the original that it's not even funny.

 

[CoolLizy]

Originally posted by Napoleon Hitler
Wow! I had no idea that people actually existed who think that Civilization is better than Civilization II. That is amazing. I would have to go back to the stone age to think that. I found that Civ2 is a major improvement. Sure, it takes some getting used to, but just turn the map grid on if you have to.

Now, if you think that Civ2 is better than Civ3, I can see where you're coming from. But Civ2 is so so so so so much better than the original that it's not even funny.

I have to disagree. And about the grid, it hurts my eyes! It's too jagged! There are MANY people who think the original is better than the sequel. In fact, it's old time style rivals even Civ3! As I have said on many an occasion, Civ2 just added a bunch of stuff without streamlining the problems of the first.
By any chance, did you play Civ1 or Civ2 first?

 

[Zwelgje]

I have been playing Civ1 for Windows now for a few weeks (some people are just slow in finding out about great games, I am one of them.....) and I must say that I can hardly imagine that any game is better than Civ1. It's such a basic game, there are no distracting graphics or anything, all the attention is focused on the great concept of the game, that's the great thing of Civ1.

 

[stwils]

I agree with Civ1_addict. Civ1 is the best.

I started playing Civ2 last year. (By then you couldn't buy Civ1.) I just could not get into Civ2.

And then the October Computer Gaming magazine included Civ 1 for Windows on the CD and I have been playing Civ1 ever since.

Yes, I bought Civ3. But I like Civ1 best. Like you said, it is basic, non distracting, straight forward, and fun.

And now finally I, too, am saying "Just one more turn."

I never said that with Civ2. And I doubt I'll say it with Civ3.

stwils

 

[scwawcaac]

I play CivWin in 16 color mode. I will admit, it *is* a little grainy, but it runs *fast* on anything newer than a 386!

Also, I like the top-down view. I agree that Civilization just wasn't meant to be isometric. No, if it was combined with Transportation Tycoon and SimCity, it would make some sense ...

 

[AustralianJerem]

Played Civ1 first, then Civ2, then CivNet, then Civ2 MP, now Civ3.

Have to agree with NH. Not quite certain that Civ3 is a huge leap over Civ2 (although it might well be after patching) but... how could anyone prefer civ1 to civ2, the pinnacle of game design? To get disturbed by the isometric grid just seems a bit ... shallow. Graphics aren't the point of civ. Civ2 expanded the strategic options and made it a better game - no more phalanxes killing battleships, reputation, more choice of govt types, espionage, more diplomatic states... etc

(Note to self: may be wise not to be cantankerous in first post to new board. Oh well)

 

[nklatt]

I can't put a finger on why, but I had more fun playing Civ 1 than 2. Civ 2 was definitely beautiful, but... Like I said, can't put a finger on why. I haven't played 1 in a loong time, but I downloaded that DOS environment thing for Win2000 and it makes Civ 1 run *great* so I think I'll try it again soon. 'Course, Civ3 is getting much of my limited free time right now.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Civ1 was an incredible game that revolutionized gaming. I was addicted from the moment I watched my friend play it.

Civ2 was an improvement but also had alot of problems which I don't feel like getting into right now.

Civ3 seems to be a solid improvement over Civ2 but may be a little disappointing given the high expectations.

Overall, I would give the following ratings out of 10 in the categories of graphics/sound, gameplay, and innovation

Civ1
Gra - 6
Gam - 9
Inn - 10

Civ2
Gra - 8
Gam - 9
Inn - 6

Civ3
Gra - 9
Gam - 9
Inn - 5

BTW Has anyone played Civ2: Test of Time? What a disappointment!

 

[Achinz]

I'm with the Civ2 is better side. The greater complexity makes for greater replayability. There's more scope for scenario-making for another thing.

I didn't like the random disasters eg volcanoes with mountain terrain etc.

 

[IceCascades]

Civ2 was better, definitely. I think that was largely because I only had the original Civ2 on Playstation, and never played it much, and then I had MGE given to me. The scenarios really made the difference - about four years of Civ1 had me a bit tired of the standard game. As for Civ3...well, the jury's still out there.

 

[The_Newbie]

BTW Has anyone played Civ2: Test of Time? What a disappointment!

Civ2 Test of time is only dissapointing if you expect a new game rather than an expansion pack which doesn't need the original game. It changes everything MGE changes as well as allowing more events and multiple maps.

 

[Rowan]

I haven't played Civ III yet , but I reckon that each version has it's place[dance] [dance], luv them all

 

[skullers]

though I agree that CIV1 > CIV2, there are some bugs in CIV1 that make it not as fun at late game, when population gets very high...

BUT CIV1 STILL OWNZ!!!

 

[cpl_kanga]

im definatly wit hsaying that civ I is soo much better than civ II but to be aknoladged as one of the best games to play (not just look at) is why im adding my two cents worth

 

[Sir Beebles]

When I was playing Civ1, I was only 6, so I don't remember much of it. Still, I remember loving it. And man, I kicked but with those Romans! However, I can't say I remember it all. It's graphics were pretty good for the time, so I loiked those. When I saw Civ2 (I got it because the other one was wearing out graphic-wise), I admit I was a bit surprised at the isometric design of the map. It took about a month to get used to it, but eventually I was playing it.
Then, after 3 years of good service, my dog stepped on the CD. I was furious! So, I got Civ2:ToT, not realizing just how horrible it was. I couldn't possibly get used to THOSE graphics.
This time whne the game went ballistic and showed whales as triremes and mountains as buffalo, (that's a true tale) I wasn't that mad. I learned about Civ3, picked it up, and here I am now.

 

[voodoo chile]

I just brought a pack with the original Civ 1, original Civ 2, and Civ 2: test of time and thought i might say a few words...

1. Damn, it is SO hard getting used to the isometric view!!! compared to civ 1, getting a hold on where your units where you want to place them is bloody unbearable!

2. And the unit graphics themselves! some units look virtually indistinguishable from each other (well, at the early stages of a game anyway).

3. it is also very hard to tell where railways and roads are compared to civ1

BUT the Diplomatic funtions and options when interacting with other Civilizations are absolutely magnificent when comparing to Civ 1! Also the Hit point (or meter or whatever) for units is a HUGE improvement!

In my opinion (bear in mind ive been playing Civ 1 for 6 years and Civ 2 for only 3 days!!!), Civ 2 is big leap in gameplay improvements but the way its presented (ie Graphics) might look pretty at first, but for a experienced player, Civ 1 is hugely superior in being able to quickly assess the map/situation/your units position and terrain.