Colonization before Sid Meier's 1995 classic?

[IfNecessary]

I think I played a version of Colonization even before Sid Meier's 1995 classic came out, but my memory's really hazy. Like maybe in the '80's, on a friend's C-64, even before I got my Apple2.

About all I recall is that there was a lot more emphasis on exploration and getting treasure by contacting the native tribes. You'd go up to a village, hoping it'd be friendly. When you entered it, the screen would change to a squarish picture of a village, with a king toward the center or top of the village. You'd have to go talk to the king, and (if you were smart) offer him a token gift.

This didn't guarantee success. Especially if you'd had problems with that tribe in the past, the whole village might try to make war on you right then. If it was a weaker tribe, you could probably just kill them all. But if it was Incas or Aztecs, you'd just try to run away from them and head for the exit from the squarish village area.

It was a fun game, but I can't recall many more details. Sid Meier's 1995 version, with its WoI, FF, and city management, seems more complex than the version I vaguely recall. So I'm pretty sure I've never played Sid's version.

Does anyone else recall a really primitive (but fun) version of Colonization anything like the version I vaguely remember? I tried looking for it on the Internet, but all I found is a few references that Sid's version is supposedly similar to an earlier C-64 version.

 

[CaptainVW]

I believe you're thinking of The Seven Cities of Gold... an old Sierra game that I don't think Sid had anything to do with. I remember playing it in the mid-to-late '80's - it won some awards, if I remember right.

 

[jenks]

sounds good, anywhere I can download it?

found some screenies !

Spoiler :

 

[Supr49er]

I'll also have to hunt for this game now.

Good memory IfNecessary, and welcome to the Forums.

 

[IfNecessary]

I believe you're thinking of The Seven Cities of Gold... an old Sierra game that I don't think Sid had anything to do with. I remember playing it in the mid-to-late '80's - it won some awards, if I remember right.

Thanks, CaptainVW. I googled the title and sure enough, that's definitely what I played a lot of. It was a lot of fun at the time, but by today's standards, the graphics are beyond primitive. About all that it's got in common with today's version is the choice you made between plundering the natives or making friends with them.

So I doubt I ever played Sid's first Colonization, though some of the screenshots look vaguely familiar. From all the reports here, Sid's first version was more balanced, more of a finished product. For our game, there will no doubt be an official patch/update or two -- but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it.

IMO the game designers bit off more than they could chew, because they decided to make the game so radically different from Civ and (I'm guessing) from the previous Col. The drastic dimishing returns, especially in education, crosses, and low-tax revenue, mean that your beautiful world quickly turns to crap.

If your outrage at this treatment is aimed at the fat king, then the game designers have succeeded, for that's historical. Even ramping up the liberty bells at the last minute is historical, for the colonial sentiments went from being loyal British subjects to patriots in just a decade or three.

OTOH, if your outrage at the game's radical changes, and resulting imbalances, is directed at the game designers...I'm sure your feelings are justified.

But because I enjoy the game more than any version of Civ I've ever played -- even more than SMAC -- I'll keep on searching for some ways to play it to make it feel balanced and fun. That means trying different strategies and noticing what works and what doesn't. Which is why these forums are so great, because brilliant strategies like Turinturambar's would never have occurred to me in my wildest dreams. And until I try strategic options like his -- and discover that for me, at least, they're not as fun as a longer game -- I really won't have explored this new world.

I still most enjoy creating an economy that really hums along. For some unknown reason, I enjoy it here more than in other games. The game's diminishing returns keep me from enjoying it for long, though. Whether I'm prepared or not, I can -- and must -- militarize everything quickly for the upcoming war.

Thanks for the welcome, Supr49er.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I still most enjoy creating an economy that really hums along. For some unknown reason, I enjoy it here more than in other games. The game's diminishing returns keep me from enjoying it for long, though. Whether I'm prepared or not, I can -- and must -- militarize everything quickly for the upcoming war.

You sound as if you really would have liked the original "Colonization". It worked just the way you say you'd enjoy Col II better if it did.

 

[Dale]

IfNecessary:

Please don't compare Col to Civ. It's the equivalent of saying Fallout and Mario Bros are the same.

 

[Thorn]

IfNecessary:

Please don't compare Col to Civ. It's the equivalent of saying Fallout and Mario Bros are the same.

I know that there are those here that will disagree, but I'm right there with you Dale. They are two very different games. I will say, however, that I wish Firaxis had re-done Colonization from scratch instead of utilizing existing Civ 4 graphics/code/etc. I think it would have been a much improved game over the original if they had done that. It might have been more of a Colonization 2 than a remake of the classic- another statement that gets made here a lot in error. This ain't Colonization 2.

 

[IfNecessary]

IfNecessary:

Please don't compare Col to Civ. It's the equivalent of saying Fallout and Mario Bros are the same.

I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, the whole point of everything I've posted is that Col is radically different from Civ. Therefore, if any readers try to play it like Civ (as I did at first), they won't do very well.

Besides, blame the folks at Y2K. By marketing it with the current title, they're implying that 1) it's a variation of Civ4, and 2) you can think of it as just an expansion pack, or a scenario of Civ4. Nothing could be further from the truth, but then marketing departments usually act as if lying's a virtue. Grrrr.

When you read what people say here in the C4Col forums, perhaps roughly a third are experts who find the game unbalanced or too easy. For example, beating up on your European rivals early in a single-player game feels too much like an exploit. These experts have valid points.

But maybe two thirds of the problems with the game come from newbies who are finding it too difficult, even on the easier levels. If you'll take the trouble to read their posts, you'll see that they're finding the game so hard because they're playing it a lot like Civ.

It's not like Civ. And strategically, it's not even supposed to be like Civ. And so my posts have been saying, "Here are the reasons why your Civ strategies aren't working, and here's what you might want to consider instead." A lot of helpful posters here in these forums are being kind to newbies. To all those who have helped, thank you.

Because of the deceptive way the game is marketed, a lot of us who bought the game have played Civ before, but probably haven't played the older (and better?) Col before. But even if the marketing has been deceptive, and even if it's not really like Civ, it's still a great game -- once you learn how to play it.

Dale, you think more like a game designer than I do. The game designers were no doubt basing this game on the first great Col game. When they saw their own company marketing their brilliant effort as a variation on Civ4, they were probably outraged at their own company. But so what else is new? The creative geniuses and the marketers seldom see eye to eye.

Yeah, you gotta sell the game to make enough profit to keep employing the geniuses. But when the advertisers lie (as they usually do), they're just hurting everyone in the company. They might sell a little more product in the short run. But pissing off your customers is like shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[Dale]

Yes, the marketing backfired severely.

This marketing has caused lots of problems here on the forums too, as you say, most newbies to Col play it like Civ.

But then a company must survive by any cost, and whether that means deceiving your customers now to produce a game later, then you do it. Gamers in general are very forgiving. I mean, how many times have you said "I'll never buy another blah blah" and then later down the track saw a fantastic game on the shelf and bought it, to discover it was "blah blah's"?