Civ2 passes the Test of Time even after Civ4

[DrakeRunner]

Wait, someone else plays Test of Time!?

Gahhh!? GAHH!? GAHHHHHHH!?

Okay, shocked over.

A lot of us don't have the talent to mod Civ2. And the others move on to more flashy things.

Plus I have NO IDEA how to mod ToT graphics.

 

[Mercator]

Where are the editing of the Civ? Civ2 really has it's own charm(Civ4 is better, it is the best of all Civs, but Civ2 really has things, no other civs have), but DEFINETELY needs to be improved.
There MUST be declaration of war in diplo screen(it is always more pleasurable and real to declare war, but not to break treaty).

There must be AI level increase. Or at least the aggression of AI(it is very peaceful even on Deity, especially if you make alliances).

There must be diplomacy change. It is ridiculous, when even the 100000 times weaker civ demand something in diplo screen.

May be some other rules need to be changed. IMHO, improving game engine is more important and valuable, than creating "scenarios". It will really make game more interesting.

Then please tell us how to do all that, oh enlightened one.

Your ideas so far seem to be playing as barbarians, adding difficulty levels beyond Deity and playing with more than 7 civilizations. The first two things have been known for years, the last thing is impossible, unless you happen to be an above average computer programmer and know about things like assembly, reverse engineering and those sorts of terms. Do you?

 

[RoboPig]

I play Civ games since Civ1. I was so addicted to it so I could sit and play for days and nights. It's a great game.
Then Civ2 came out. It was even better. The wonder and council movies made me stand in front of the PC drooling. The "feel" of the game was the same as in Civ1, just got much better now.
Then Civ3 came out. I was enthusiastic about it, but... After a couple of games I lost interest. (I grow older now and I'm not the teenager I used to be when I was spending days and nights playing Civ1 and Civ2. Maybe it's me. Not the game.) Yes, I did play Civ3, but it's not like "it used to be". I gave it a chance again and again after every expansion was out but nothing... the addictive streamlined gameplay was gone.

Now Civ4 is out. I was reading so many reviews on it and everybody was amazed by the detail of the game. Now, when finally I got it and started playing... Yes. It's great...simulation. The graphics are pretty, there are so many things to think and watch for. There's even religions (What is a simulator of the human civilization without them?) Complicated computer simulator eating lots of resources. Nice. But... the fun gameplay is not here either. May be it's me...

So I dig out my copy of Civ2:ToT, installed it and went on quick rampage over the ugly darkish world with my uglier 15K color units wasting the whole day.

Civ2 still rules and it's a hellava good GAME

i love civ3! it's awesome! civ 2 however is a bit too dark for me, it feels like being trapped in a tunnel. the AI is also too weak in civ 2, but i like the civ 2 modern age better than the civ 3 modern age, kinda.

 

[yoshi]

Has it passed the test of time? Just how many people that are playing Civ4 have played Civ2?

IMO, what has kept Civ2 alive is the fact that Civ3 and Civ4 are each missing things: Civ3 lacked player-scripting. Civ4 lacks things that Civ3 had in an attempt to "simplify." At present, Civ4 is not the "modder's dream" it was meant to be (although this is more likely a tactic to keep modding to a minimum until most bugs have been worked out and people play the vanilla game for a time before they start new stuff).

Even when Civ4 reaches it maximum modding potential, CIv2 will have something that the other cannot compete with: fast performance. Granted, Civ2's AI is anything but brilliant but it is likely that were Civ2's AI to be beefed up and player able to play against 100 civs, performance would still be better than the later versions.

That said, Civ4 is an impressive piece of work.

I'd like to see any changes to Civ2 be in the direction of first perfecting the existing game and then adding more functionality, without taking away from the 'coziness' of the game.

 

[Woodswallow]

Having tried Civ3 and fiddled with Civ4 I went back to Civ2. One of the appealing things about Civ2 is its simplicity, both in concept and design. 'Overdeveloped' is the word for the newer games; in spite of all the bells and whistles the zing has gone. Compare first three Starwars with the three lumbering clodhoppers that
arrived over the last few years. Should a Civ5 turn up my advice to the would be developers is to go back to Civ2 and reboot! Please?

 

[extrapolator]

I too have been playing Civ2 since 1997 or so when it first came out. I have played for days on end and am still enthralled.

As soon as Civ 3 came out I rushed to the shop to get one yet was so disappointed at the slow game play, the difference in structure and the bells and whistles that I have not even finished one game.

My question is, is Civ 4 any more like Civ 2 than Civ 3?

Or should I just stick with Civ 2 like I have been doing?

Many thanks for your input

Civ2 still rocks

 

[yoshi]

My question is, is Civ 4 any more like Civ 2 than Civ 3?

Well the idea behind it was to go back to the basics and add some new elements that would keep it fresh. Civ2 is much easier on your system though.

If you're into modding, then Civ2 is still on top just because it's so much easier to mod (even though it lacks the functionality that Civ4 has).

 

[gunkulator]

I occasionally play a Civ2 scenario but the regular game has long ceased being a challenge. Even scenario play becomes limited because the Civ2 game mechanics just aren't all that configurable. I mean, there's just so many ways to rename Sun Tzu, Temples and Diplomats.

On the whole, Civ3 is a lot more moddable and added some interesting new concepts like culture, civ traits and resources while fixing some really annoying Civ2 shortcomings like stack death and ICS.

I just got Civ4 and haven't played a game yet. From the manual it looks like Civ3 on steriods, i.e. more of everything plus some cool looking new concepts like religion and civics. The combat system is something completely new.

I'll always have a special place in my heart for Civ2 but I've mostly moved on. Civ3 gave me a better civ experience with more gameplay options and less repetive "be-the-first-to-[cavalry/spies/fundamentalism/howitzers]-and-win". I'm hoping Civ4 goes even one step further.

 

[Skyer]

I occasionally play a Civ2 scenario but the regular game has long ceased being a challenge

Play on the most difficult level. It is the hardest and the most interesting play in all four Civilizations, IMHO.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=149983

 

[MikeLynch]

Guys, do you REALLY like Civilization 2? If so - why are you so passive? Why is this forum such rarely refreshes?

Because we're too busy playing Civ2 to post.

 

[The Person]

Because we're too busy playing Civ2 to post.

Yeah, unlike you Civ3/4ers who do nothing but spam the forums instead of doing what these boards were made for.

 

[Iron Beagle]

I play 3 and 4 and after reading about it I want to try this one now, but all the different versions confuse me. Which is the best civ2 version to get?

 

[KevinLedland]

civ3 can't hold a candle to civ2, the most enjoyable classic game that stands the test of time.

for civ4, it's as good as civ2 but i think it didn't inherit civ2 epical atmosphere.

Originally Posted by MikeLynch
Which is the best civ2 version to get?

Test of Time is the latest, i think. However, in my opinion, it sucks. if possible, get MGE instead.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

civ3 can't hold a candle to civ2, the most enjoyable classic game that stands the test of time.

for civ4, it's as good as civ2 but i think it didn't inherit civ2 epical atmosphere.



Test of Time is the latest, i think. However, in my opinion, it sucks. if possible, get MGE instead.

Test of Time is my favorite Civ game, period. In fact, I'm in the midst of a Fantasy game right now, and doing just fine.

My suggestion is to try Test of Time and then decide for yourself if it's any good. We all have our own preferences, and it's not fair to dissuade anyone from trying something just because of a personal antipathy for it.

 

[MikeLynch]

Originally Posted by MikeLynch
Which is the best civ2 version to get?

That wasn't me asking, that was Iron Beagle.

And my answer to the question would be that Test of Time does not suck, its graphics suck -- it's better otherwise than MGE. But if Iron Beagle is new to Civ2, he certainly won't want to dive right into modding ToT so that it won't look like crap. I'd recommend MGE for starters. ToT is probably so cheap that you can pick it up later if you really want to get into modding.