Civ1 much better than Civ2

[darkChild]

hey all

im new here, but i started playing civ1 in like 92. thats 10 years ago. now that i think of it...

i have many, many FOND memories of that game, its probly one of my favoite games ever, after starcraft and diablo1, blizzard rocks az. and is it just me, but are the first games in a series usually the best? usually, of course (caeser3 way WAY better than the first 2) i also have alpha centuri, that is also a very good game. (it and starcraft got the highest pc gamer mag ratings ever) but i have to say, the other civ games were awesome, but they wouldnt even exist if the original wasnt so good.. if it sucked they wouldnt make a sequal.

so my vote goes to civ1 ALL the way.

 

[Doubtful Teeks]

If one looks at the games on even ground, I would have to say Civ2 is a better game. If not, I get tied up by nostalgia and the fact (as mentioned) that Civ1 was an extreme achievement , concidering there was no game like it. The Civ concept is a great idea, but it only makes for a smashing game such as Civ1 because
Sid and his gang knew what to include and leave out. They found the balance between God- and kingview.

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

Ok, I just read through this post and realized something. Most of you have probably never given CivII a chance. You got so used to civI's view that you saw civII and stopped dead in your tracks. If you give the isometric view a chance, you really do get used to it. In my opinion, civ1<civ2<civ3. However, since each works on and improves on the last, civ2 and 3s success is related closely to civ1. However, if you want fast play, you need to play civ I or II as 3 is a big resource eater. Oh yeah, don't worry, nothing can ever rival the late nights spent discovering every corner of civI. Not even civIII!

 

[Cedric Greene]

Well I've been playing Civ since 94 I think and I loved the first game. (Hell yeah Romans kicked ass). I got Civ 2 not too long after it came out. I eventually got used to the isometric view (with the help of the grid) and then loved the extra features especially Leo's and Sun Tzu's. I think it's much easier to see roads and rail in Civ 1 and also easier to go in the right direction but I think Civ 2 has quite a few merits of its own such as movement by river, a useful monarchy and improved other governments, (I usually played Civ I all the way through as a despot.) and a better tech tree. I still love the DOS graphics for units anyway and wish they had used those in CivNet. If I had to pick one version over another I would be hard pressed but I think I would go with Fantastic Worlds just barely beating out Civ DOS for single player. Multiplayer there is no contest MGE beats CivNet for diplomacy options alone but it is always fun to play the old ones now and again. As for Civ 3 I think it has the potential to be the best as long as they work out the bugs and give it excellent multiplayer support.

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

Ditto.

 

[Ralendil]

The culture concept is too good... And there are more improvement. Yes there are more add-on and new concepts like conscription. Yes it's difficult to abandon our habits.... but when you master it it's THE BEST GAME FOR NOW.

Try it 2 games and judge.

 

[Arek]

Well as much as I liked Civ 1 Civ 2 was much better (umm it didn't take me long to get use to the Isometric style) (infact I never even noticed it.) also believe it or not when I first played Civ 2 I turned off the hit points and etc. to play the classic civ way. (it worked ok until Barbarians took most of my cities with warriors) when I was defending with phalanxes.

and I have quite an oppinion on 3 well I dislike the units in it as in civ 3 i can't tell units apart. (I can't tell a pikemen from a riflemen nor a spearmen.)

Of course my favorite graphics set was Civ 1's graphic set (I especially liked the civ 1 settler) of course I have to say the civ 2 graphic for a Chariot was better than 1's. Overall the only civ game I have trouble playing is Civ 3 (I still haven't completely finished a full game on it) I mainly say Civ 2 is better because of some of the new effects of wonders (and the new wonders) also believe it or not I enjoyed most of the wonder movies.

Well that's my two cents

 

[Zwelgje]

I like the maps in Civ1 much better than those in Civ2. I haven't played Civ2 very often but every time I played I got a map with one huge continent and maybe one or two tiny islands. I liked the map in Civ1 where there would be several big continents and many smalll islands still big enough to have two or three cities on it. Another thing that annoyed me in Civ2 is that the continents are connected to the land mass at the poles so that you can't sail around the world.
I'm not saying Civ1 is better than Civ2 but I like it better....

 

[Irish Caesar]

After playing civ3 and civ1, I have to agree that the isometric view is a bit of a pain. The number keypad on the keyboard seems to be made for a simpler grid setup.

 

[Thoth]

I started playing Civ 1 back in '96 on my roomate's Mac. We were both immediately addicted. Tried Civ II about a year later. It took some adjusting to get used to the isometric grid, but I found it to be a much more versatile game. Loved both of them, and I've got CivWin, MGE and TOT (with modded graphics) installed on the HD. I still play all three, and enjoy all of them.

civ III I found to be very disapointing. I don't like the graphics, the gameplay feels "mushy" (this may be my machine ) and it just doesn't have the immersive "just one more turn" feel for me. I find every game winds up the same. I've played one game since January (mainly to try out the 1.17f patch), and I suspect I won't be playing any more, at least until scenarios are supported.

 

[Ace]

I will go with Civ 2. I started playing civ in 92, and when civnet came out with internet play, it was the greatest. got civ II when it first came out, tried it and got tangled up with the 3D grid. threw it on the shelf and never looked at it for a couple of years. than one day, out of boredom, tried it again and never looked back. grid made perfect sense. >)

civ was (and still is) great, but civ II is best. I have tried III, but just cannot get "into it" yet. maybe its just too different.

 

[Pointman]

Originally posted by Redemtion
I just tried Civ2... and i've given up...

I'm sorry, but Civ is NOT supposed to be 3d!

EXACTLY what i thought when i tried civ2 for the first time EXACTLY.

(yes, yes, i know it's called isometric, and it's not 3d - but i'm not a grammar-nazi)

Hang in there, give Civ2 a few more tries, play for the redeeming values of the game, and "look beyond" the isometric blur youre experiencing.

It'll grow on you like fungus (then try Civ 3)

 

[dunk]

Civ II is better for one reason...

You can initiate the diplomacy screen in Civ II. In Civ I, you have to wait until the computer player decides he's ready to talk to you.

That's it, end of story.

 

[stormerne]

Originally posted by dunk
You can initiate the diplomacy screen in Civ II. In Civ I, you have to wait until the computer player decides he's ready to talk to you.

Not true! Send a diplomat over to a foreign city. Hit on it, select "Meet with the King", and there you have your diplomacy screen.

 

[Lovro]

While I gave Civ2 a fair go and am currently playing Civ3, I have to say not one of those two games has been able to recapture the original Civ 'feeling' for me.

Although the sequels are (rather obviously) better and I don't play Civ1 anymore, I still consider it the ultimate game.

 

[dunk]

Originally posted by stormerne

Not true! Send a diplomat over to a foreign city. Hit on it, select "Meet with the King", and there you have your diplomacy screen.

I forgot about that.

It's still very difficult. I would much rather use the foreign advisor screen. Plus, the computer civs don't need to send a diplomat unit to you.

 

[GoalieCivPi]

I don't know how any of you can say one Civ is truly better than the others. Civ 1 was simple (simple is always a good), without costing the gameplay. and, IMO, the best ( not realistic) graphics. I also loved the random events and was saddened when I didn't find them in Civ II. Personally, I liked the non-isometric veiw more, but I can work with the isometric view. Civ 2 added a much better diplomacy, and HP and firepower. Also, it was designed to be customized easily, and scenarieos made easily. Then Civ 3 came along and added culture, which I liked, as I did the resource system and further improved the diplomacy. Of course this made it more complicated, a bad thing. So, to me, it all really balences out, I play all of them 1-3.

 

[Chieftess]

Long debate.

I actually still like Civ1 (although, my cousin has my CD... somewhere..). I have the DOS version (5th version, I think). I actually liked the graphics (even though they're not as good). Now, it's just nostalgic.

Here's where I think Civ1 excels over Civ2 (and even Civ3 in a few cases)

Random terrain didn't seem as chaotic.
It had a territory view (at the end of the game) unlike Civ2
It had a newspaper style popup for WLTKDs, and other info
It showed the first techs (and units) discovered/made.
The science advisor looked like my physics teacher! (Maybe they (Microprose then) went to Essex Community College? )
The advisors (and diplo. screens) had nice backgrounds.

 

[Santors]

where can i find civ 1 for free

 

[Zwelgje]

Not another one with the same question.......