From a NOOB to Both Gamez:Civ 2 is clearly better..

Discussion in 'Civ3 - General Discussions' started by x_fiend, Mar 30, 2002.

  1. x_fiend

    x_fiend Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2002
    Messages:
    4
    Location:
    texas
    :egypt:
    I have recently discovered a true Gem..Civ 2..
    I ran out like an idiot an bought Civ 3,because "It must be great,Sid Meier's name is on it"..I am a newbie to both games,
    so I am able to give a somewhat objective opinion..

    Well my opinion is that Civ 3 has better graphics and more options
    such as culture,but the overall effect is far inferior to my experiences with Civ 2..Maybe I'm not an advanced strategist,but I can tell which game appeals to me more,which one draws me in more..
    That game is Civ 2..

    I feel like they were trying to make some money off a well known,well marketed product.Similar in the way the Rocky movie franchise developed..I also believe that there are probably some who are afraid to admit that they wasted $50 on a bad game,and are therefore compelled to justify their purchase.

    In my experience,sequels generally suck..This is no exception..I will admit ,were I able to beat Civ 3 a game or two my opinion might be different..However,I simply don't feel like investing the time to do that..Hopefully Heroes of Might and Magic 4 will be a worthy sequel..I think I will trade off Civ 3 at EB and find out..

    My Top 3 games based on addictiveness factor:
    3)Civ 2
    2) HOMM 3
    1)Counterstrike

    I'm out,


    :king:
     
  2. Rain

    Rain Marquesa

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    699
    Hmmm u couldn't beat it so its a bad game? Did i miss something there?
     
  3. x_fiend

    x_fiend Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2002
    Messages:
    4
    Location:
    texas
    Let me rephrase:
    I couldn't beat it without investing a ton of time into it ,so it's a bad game for ME..I suspect it also a "bad" game for anyone else
    who is not thrilled with frustration..If i hadn't played Civ 2 first,i probably would have loved it..However,aside from graphics it seems to me to be a step bacwards,rather than forwards..

    If you like it great,but I think it's too damn hard for the average
    gamer..
     
  4. God

    God God

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    1,354
    Its really not that hard.
    I played my first Civ 3 game as the Iroqoius and i was beaten so badly on Chieften! I had about 200 points or something. I played again and did ok. I played again and won.
    When you start winning after a few times you really want to play on a harder level and it gets alot of fun.
     
  5. x_fiend

    x_fiend Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2002
    Messages:
    4
    Location:
    texas
    Thanks for the constructive comments..
    Perhaps I should give it another try before I give up on it..

    :)
     
  6. Selous

    Selous King

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2001
    Messages:
    766
    Location:
    aussi
    u could also try Alpha Centuri also x_fiend ... is the game before civ3 when the legality issues were up in the air and it is a far superiour game, exept for the graphics which are quite dull :( , but every other aspect of the game is much better :) ... there is also an alien crossfire expantion for alpha centuri that was quite good also

    i also agree that the experience for the first time playing civ2 and civ3 makes civ2 a much much better game and while civ3 is "obviously" technically better ... civ2 is a much more superiour game ... and then if u take into account the fact that civ2 is over 5 years old
     
  7. MrBiggBoy

    MrBiggBoy High Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    196
    Location:
    AEGIS Cruiser
    ya taking it from that point of view, civ 2 was WAY AHEAD OF ITS TIME. civ 3 might be right around perfect for its time, but really advanced games are coming out too.
     
  8. Zouave

    Zouave Crusader

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2001
    Messages:
    1,603
    Civ II was and is clearly better - and far more enjoyable.

    Civ III is a beta product that came out six months too soon with a crappy mod, idiotic values, and a variety of intensely irritating things. For example, I just quit a game of Civ III as I got sick and tired of the AI's diarrhea of settlers flooding into every open tile near and around my territory, including deserts and tundra. No rational actual civ would ever do that because in doing so they are spending precious resources being annoying instead of developing better their own land and infrastructure. It didn't happen in Civ II. I HATE it.

    With 1.17 it got worse. Nowas soon as I raze a captured enemy city (another crock thanks to Culture Flipping) every civ instantly somehow knows of it and sends a settler right there. They do it so quickly I am convinced the AI gives the nearest rival unit a free settler.

    Yesterday I played a game where I KNOW I turned off the Diplomatic Victory option. But the game ended with a DV anyway! I won, but that's not what I wanted.

    And no Cheat Mode or Scenario Building in Civ III?? No doubt they want us suckers to buy their CD of lame scenarios for $29.95.

    I have over a dozen downloaded scenarios for Civ II I have never played yet. I likely will be getting back to Civ II real soon.
    :(
     
  9. Northstar5757

    Northstar5757 Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Messages:
    112
    I do agree that civ3 was somewhat a disapointment but it's still a great game. For people like you who just discovered civ2 I can understand why you feel like civ3 hasn't evolved much. But for people like me who have been playing the civ series since 1993/94 civ2 wasn't much of an evolution.

    Civ1 and Civ 2 have more similarities than civ2 and civ3. Aside from allainces (which were in civ1 but only for computer civs) civ2 really didn't change anything game play wise, even with the new techs and units the game was basically the same.

    Civ3 made the nessesary changes to allow vets to keep playing without getting too bored. I never played alpha centauri so maybe it is a better game, but the progression from civ2 to civ3 was far better (aside from the bugs) than civ to civ2.
     
  10. Northstar5757

    Northstar5757 Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Messages:
    112
    I do agree it's too hard for newbies though.
     
  11. korusus

    korusus Dictator

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    57
    Location:
    North America
    They put games into genres for reasons. I can't think of a strategy game to date that I have played that I couldn't beat without investing a ton of time and energy into. That's just what it takes to play a strategy game. The reason you don't like it is prolly because you aren't a strategy game person.

    Now as far as liking civ 2 or civ 3 over the other. I like them both, and I don't see one being better than the other. They are both different and unique games with similar/identical features and inspiration. What I can understand is having an emotional attachment to one that makes you like it over the other. I have an emotional attachement to Civ 2 just because it was the first strategy game I had ever really played. Civ 3 just doesn't get me that way but it doesn't make me like it any less. (i.e. I am not disappointed in it)
     
  12. Capitalist

    Capitalist Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2002
    Messages:
    6
    I really dont think it's too tough for newbies, Im a newbie and tried Civ II CTP, and found that a lesson in frustration. Civ III seems pretty simple, and actually more times than not, I feel that the game is just playing itself, and Im along for the clicking to get to the next turn.

    It's really not difficult once you get the hang of it and watch what the ai is doing and then figure out why it is doing what it is doing.
     
  13. Badluck

    Badluck Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2001
    Messages:
    234
    i really don't agree that it'S to hard for newbies.

    i payed civ 2 before, but at my first game of civ3 i played at Warlord ( because you have an avantage and it'S your first game giving the Ai an advantage making it equal) and i won. 4 game after my first i could beat emperor, but i must admit i never tryed deity, i am just not interested, maybe because i am too afraid of losing, like in civ2 and when i finnaly tryed it, it wasn't very hard ( civ2)


    But when i first played i was reading what every building and troop was doing not to build useless stuff and everything went well.

    All that to say that if you don'T put the time you won'T get anywhere... except if you are very talented, wich i am not.
     
  14. x_fiend

    x_fiend Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2002
    Messages:
    4
    Location:
    texas
    :) Update:

    I have traded off Civ 3 for HOMM 4..I haven't regretted one second of it..
    HOMM4 is a good step up from HOMM 3 ,but not so radically different that it's unplayable..

    I now have a game I'm a lot happier with that is a lot more user friendly,more rewarding and less frustrating..FOR ME anyway..

    Went back and tried Civ 3 one last time and came to the conclusion that the ROI(return on investment ) was just not there for me..

    (Civ 2 will always be a masterpiece however..)


    Thanks for the input,
    I'll see you all on the Civ 2 boards..
     
  15. Northstar5757

    Northstar5757 Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Messages:
    112
    BTW when I said it was too hard for newbies i mean people new to the WHOLE civ series, at least in the other civ games someone who had never played the series could remain competitive on chieftain. If you've played other civ games, even colonization civ3 isn't very hard to adjust to. Personally though civ 1 had a better tutorial built into the game then civ3. Most strategy games have great tutorials nowadays. There is no excuse for civ3 not having a decent one.
     
  16. cat98

    cat98 Pharaoh

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2001
    Messages:
    132
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada (or: Egypt
    ( lol, I have no idea as to why Zouave still bothers to post of the Civ 3 forums... Its gotten to the point that many of us dont even read his/her posts.):confused:

    Anyway, I can understand why you dont like Civ 3 x_fiend.;) It has its flaws, and it takes a looong time to finish a game, but I like it. There seem to be different types of strategy gamers... :goodjob:

    1) old school (Whatever that means)

    2) civ 2 lovers (never played it...*sniff*)

    3) civ 3 lovers (Thats me!)

    4) real time click fest lovers (Me too!)

    5) ignorant fools who must be (Uh, never mind...)

    6) Zouave (enough already! We know that you hate the game, leave us in peace!)

    7) other blokes

    Have fun!
     
  17. elastikone

    elastikone Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    15
    Location:
    3rd nut from the left
    Ima n00b to the whole Civ3 series-- At first i was sooo turned off by it, i totally didnt like it,
    however, after coming to this forum, getting some advice on how to play, I am addicted,
    --Im still not that good though, but seems as if there is ALOT of potential as far as replayability, startegy and FUN,
    This is the only game in recent months that I played for several hours and totally lost a track of time....
    --anyhoo, i think people would enjoy this game more if they give a few chances...agreeed however, quite terse to learn....
    cya
    :)
     
  18. Selous

    Selous King

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2001
    Messages:
    766
    Location:
    aussi
    so why do U feel the need to take a side swipe at Zouave?? ... i do beleive he is a big fan of the LWC mod which changes almost every aspect of the game that is changable and his complaints are aimed at the fact that civ3 decided to try to make civ2 with pretty graphics rather than a new game that played different .... i guess u might also be taking at swipe at all those clearly crazy mod makers out there that decide that civ3 is oh so not up to par and radically change the game to their taste
    (and if im wrong please correct me Zouave ... i dont wish to make any assumption on your likes/dislike in anyway)
    and if im right about Zouave ... then i am also in that number 6 catagory

    the benifit of the stratigy genere are that graphics really dont matter to much ... exept if u are going for the crowd that traditionally aint into stratigy games .... the civilization series has turned into a pretty wargame ... without all the gucci wargame options ... and diplomacy game with out all the gucci diplomacy options .... it IS definatly the prettiest civ ever to be made .... but as i stated above ... who really cares about graphics in a stratigy game?
     
  19. Salvor

    Salvor Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2001
    Messages:
    144
    Location:
    Chicago
    Objective, because you didn't have any preconceived notions about it, like some people who think "It must be great, Sid Meier's name is on it"?

    Never played any Civ games, but bought it because of Sid? Were you expecting something like Roller Coaster Tycoon?

    It was inferior to your vast experiences with never having played Civ2 before?

    Which one did you run out and buy soon after it came out just because it had Sid's name on it? What do you mean by "appeals to me" or "draws me in"?

    Of course they wanted to make money off a well known, well marketed product. What's wrong with that? I believe there are definitely some people who freely admit they wasted $50 on a game that wasn't what they expected and are afraid that they're in the minority, so they feel compelled to try to convince others that it's a bad game just because they personally don't like it.

    Umm, ... wasn't Civ2 a sequel?

    I support your decision, though. If Civ3 isn't for you, trade it in on another game that you'll like better and won't have to spend time on. But if your experience tells you sequels generally suck, you might want to pick something that doesn't have "4" in its title.


    So you never played any Civ games before, your favorite games are Heroes of Might and Magic and Counterstroke, and you were compelled to run out and buy Civ3 simply because it had Sid's name on it? Have you ever played any of Sid's games? Did you know what to expect from one? Maybe I'm missing something, but it just doesn't add up from where I'm sitting.
     
  20. Selous

    Selous King

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2001
    Messages:
    766
    Location:
    aussi
    with some of your post Salvor i would be thinking u have never played a sid meier game before?? ... sid meier is THE granddaddy of stratigy games ... with brillant genere making/breaking titles such as civilization, pirates, railroad tycoon, gettysburg and so many others .... the sid meier name has always been one that was associated with excellence and INOVATION so when people see that he has put his name to a game it is assumed (and in the past oh so correctly!!) that u are getting a quality game that far supasses anything ever made beforehand ... so when people blindly go out and buy a game with sid meier on it .... they dont waste there money .... untill now :( .... and did u think for a second that some people are complaining in the vein hope that the game will be improved in subsequent patches??

    and elastikone .... civ3 does have all those qualities but that is only because they are carried over from civ2 (which were carried over from civilization) and it is that fact alone that makes it a good game ..... unfortunatly it is a excellent game from 10 years ago :( ... not really what was expected from the gaming granddaddy sid meier
     

Share This Page