I managed to found at last why Civ 2 is the best

[Older than Dirt]

This subject is not ripe for discussion, inasmuch as Civ 4 is not a finished product. Let's wait a few more days, months, perhaps years before we make such monumental decisions. (Civ 4 would be a much better game if, when Judaism or Islam is spread to a city, there were screams of the men in pain from the circumcision and the defenders of that city get a negative combat modifier for the next turn.)

 

[Pratputajao]

I posted a thread here not long after Civ 4 release basically stating Civ 4 got boring way too quick, many people agreed. So i basically agree with the OP here. I remember playing civ 2 until dawn, going to sleep, waking up for another 5 hours game play; with Civ 4 NO WAY! After about an hour I am done. I think within the posts here the problem has pretty much been found and its not any one thing. It is many things but the one that I think may be the most problematic (for me anyway)- its the graphics and the problem with game speed that came with the 3d graphics. Still after all the patches the game will begin crawling at about 1400 and only get worse. I dont know how many times I would like to fire up a game just to change my mind becouse I know it will take better than 3 minutes to load a game (granted- using All civs mod. Still takes one minute without any mods though) and then the game will just draggggg. I am in that situation right now- I am winning the game but dont want to finish it becouse its too much of a chore to deal with the slow/choppy graphics. I believe a change in something as simple as graphics could REALLY help the game for many. As Raloth put it- the snappyness of civ 2 is gone- Boy aint that the truth! Others have pointed out how "crowded" it all is now on the map- I dont know how many times I have been pilliged becouse I couldnt see the barbarian who was standing right in the middle of my empire? I like the graphics in a way, but not enough to sacrifice ANY of the game play.

I for one do hope someone comes up with a mod where Icons are used insted of "little men". Maybe that will help some? I have faith in the Modding community; I do beleive the best is yet to come.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

All I hear is nostalgia. Civ4 is better and will only get better. That being said, please look at the top of the screen. What's this board called? Ah yes....Civ4- General Discussion. I'm sorry, as you have well quantified, Civ4 isn't Civ2 and never will be, thankfully...

 

[T.A JONES]

Just that I'll probably never know, that's all.

Sure! You'll realize who I was refering to one day but for now thats the best way I could discribe them

Well Im glad were finnaly talking about that little delay from the moment you hit the key to the moment your unit moves. isn't it funny how no matter how much cash you throw in your kit, its always there, ruining the replayabilty. Who knows mybe the modders some day far far away will find secret. The idea I quoted seems like it has a chance. I notice many people don't seem to mind it anyway, ether that or they just like to good debate, but can anyone honestly say this is not a problem for them?. I would like to know what it takes in cold cash, specs, or drugs not to notice this crippler

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hmmm, now lets see. Civ4 is the FIRST Civ game which I felt was worth playing online. It is the first Civ game that I have played for more than 8 hours at a stretch and it is the first Civ game where I have come away from a marathon MP session, only to go straight into an equally long SP session.
Lastly, it is the ONLY civ game where I have actually ENJOYED the Modern Age, and seen it out to final victory. I concur that much of the love which is being expressed here regarding Civ1b....oops, sorry keep forgetting, Civ2 is really just the Rose Coloured glasses of nostalgia. If any of these people actually went BACK to Civ2, I reckon they would get sick of it very quickly!

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[T.A JONES]

well Ive never played 2 but if you reverted to Civ2 style or better Civ3, units clumsyness might be fixed. No rose glasses needed. I just hate those delays. all the other ideas like limited movement on railroads( I really like that!) would still be in place.
A lot of people who never liked the originals love the way were headed. this proves Civ4 has spawned a new breed of player. If your sayin streamline strategy dosn't effect your idea of a enjoyable 800 turn epic, thats cool. I was wondering what could make my time more enjoyable, less delay when the unit moves,You know? Ok here come the glasses: like the previous versions back in the day.

Whats wrong with liking smooth gameplay its important to streamline the best strategy franshise in the compter entertainment history. Lots of strategy fans have come to expect this, Let me give the ignorant another timeless example: Its like enjoying a game of chess when your hand starts to stutter ever time you move a piece.
Now Im not suppose to notice this? or mention it, without remarks like this?Well I guess they just like livin in the past
Im glad Civ4 is attracting new fans but if their all like some people, its going in another direction and many loyal players will be going elsewhere or staying where its at for the moment. (Conquests ala mod)

 

[DrJambo]

Civ II had some features that I still miss today or haven't been done as well in Civ IV. For example, setting up trade routes with caravans and having worthwhile diplomats and spies that offered an interesting alternative to conquering. However, Civ IV is a far better game overall. Nothing's in the game unless it has a clear use or purpose and one that the AI can utilise. Civ II had so many exploits, so many ways in which the human could profit at the Ai's expense and largely these have been ironed out in Civ IV.

To that effect I don't really think Civ II and Civ IV should be compared, as it's not really a fair comparison anymore. Civ II was the benchmark so to speak, the game all future Civ titles had to better, and to me Civ IV has pretty much succeeded here. It's perfected many failings and improved and included many strategies. To me the big disappointment was Civ III - it was awful.

 

[imagod284]

I'd just like to say that although Civ IV is the best game, it was no Civ 2. Civ 2 was head-and-shoulders the best game ever for a LONG time (until C3C). I think Civ2 is always gonna have a special place in our hearts. But have you ever gone back to play it? No borders, so the AI builds an annoying city right on the road between my two cities? My tanks being torn apart because the city i'm attacking has walls? Being able to use your enemy's railroad system? (that was the worst, it was a HUGE disadvantage to build railroads) My whole army being destroyed because ONE unit lost so the whole stack has to die?

Civ IV is clearly an improvement over Civ2, they took what was weak and improved it. But i agree, it's missiing some of the 'feel'.

 

[Beetlebug]

"All I hear is nostalgia." Lance O Llawny

Gotta agree there.

Some of the points about Civ IV vs CII & CIII are well taken, but those games also had lots of flaws as have been equally well documented.

I played Civ II endlessly for about 2 1/2 years, but at the end the predictability was well........ boring.

Ditto for Alpha Centauri although I really thought the graphics were cool.

Civ III meh! Never got into it at all. It was most certainly was my fault because I was playing Civ III like it was Civ II and never bothered to learn the rules. But, after AC the graphics were so similar to Civ II that it was hard to think of it as a separate game.

After a short time of playing Civ III, like two months, I drifted around looking for games I could like and settled on the Total War Series. Hands down the battles in Total War (Rome or Medieval) leave any Civ game in the dust. Yes, sometimes one battle literally took hours, but that is part of its appeal. I spent the last year and a half playing Medieval Total War and never bothered to come up for air once. After I got tired of the vanilla game I tried one of the mods and after that got too easy I tried another.

OTOH, in defence of the Civ series, there is something soooo applealing to working the tiles around your city while you build a library or monastery or something. And the diplomacy in Total War is so elementary even compared with Civ I that it is laughable.

So far, I am finding the changes to Civ IV, while not perfect, they are enough to refresh the game and although I am probably the only one who would like to see RTS style battles instead of the stupid ways battles are fought in Civ, its not THAT bad.

And when I get tired of Vanilla Civ IV there's a number of mods to try and if the mods get boring MTW II is out for Christmas.

 

[Naokaukodem]

That's not only about nostalgia. While Civ2 is not perfect, that's for sure, Civ3 and Civ4 removed some crucial aspects that made Civ a particular experience. Not talking about graphics or sounds (THAT is nostalgia), but about essential rules like mentioned above. Well, that's my personal vision of Civ, not everybody is due to share it with me, although I think you miss something of the truth.

I myself thought that Civ2 could not be played endlessly, and I don't think a game -versus an AI, at least- should be as so, not even Civ4. But I don't think Civ4 rejuvenated the series, in the sense it makes the original feeling reborn, no matter how, but just brought new elements that streamlined the gameplay, in spite of the feeling. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it is a bad thing to add new elements and streamline the gameplay, but that it just missed the essential that made the franchise so appealing to me.

Not only Civ4 missed the fundamentals, while it should have not passed over them in the first place, but it also is just about the old same thing again and again, while it should have create something more deep to equal the former experience. The part of nostalgia is for sure into this: the surprise and the originality is null, Civ4 is just the same than Civ3. Civ Dorks can always argue the changes are 'huge', but as a proud mainsteam player I can easily say it is barely untrue.

I would even say that it is the old players that defend Civ4 who are nostalgic, being lured by the power of the legend and by their own experience, unable to discriminate the true from the untrue. I'm not trying to think in terms of what's added, what had to be changed, I'm just answering to personnal overall feelings in complete honesty and detachment.

After that, 'course Civ4 is not a bad game, it is even a particular good game, but it is not even near of what I was truly expecting, or, if one consider that we should not expect anything of any game, what I was truly unexpecting. Well, I was ok with Civ3 waiting for any bit of new candy stuff, but with Civ4, it was different, I needed a complete requestionning of the game. One may say it is the case, but I will argue that the game has been requetionned too much and not enough in the same time, as I said above.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

You know what I REALLY don't like, Naokaukodem? Its that you never preface any of your rather broad statements with phrases like "In My Opinion". This is important because, at the end of the day, everything you say is ONLY your opinion. You say that CivIV removed crucial aspects? Well I say it removed bugs and exploits. You say CivIV doesn't rejuvenate the series? Well I say that it retains all that is great about civ, whilst taking the series in a brave new direction-one which I find VERY refreshing. You say CivIV has missed out on the fundamentals? Well I say they have actually gotten BACK to the fundamentals-and rebuilt the game from a VERY solid base (something they should have done in Civ3-IMO). You say that CivIV is the same thing over and over again-and then have the audacity to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is a lier!!! I say that you must be referring to Civ2, because that was certainly my experience. No matter what civ I played, it always came out the same way. Expand, Expand, Expand-conquer everyone you can until you can build a spaceship. BORING. In CivIV I can choose to play a Civ which is fnancially strong, or one which is expansionist. I can choose a civ with a strong early unit, or one whose military strength doesn't show until much later (which can be challenging). I can pursue religion in the tech tree, and get all my neighbours to love me (or hate me if their religion is different) Or I can pursue a more economic and industrial path down the tech tree-and just adopt someone elses religion as is conveniant. I can conquer the world, or get the world to make me their leader. I can build a spaceship or build cities which are the envy of the entire world. As I said above, YES I believe CivIV is imperfect, YES I believe it still has a way to go before it reaches its full potential, but even at its 'worst' I BELIEVE Civ4 is 1000x better than Civ2 at its full growth. If you don't agree with me, then fine-go and play your precious Civ2-but don't come here and turn your OPINIONS into FACT, and then try and label all those with OPPOSING OPINIONS as being untrue-it is both RUDE and OFFENSIVE (and is one of the key reasons why I spend so little time in the general forums anymore!)

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[DaviddesJ]

I should not have to wait a second after moving one unit to move another. The snappiness of Civ II is gone. When a unit is moved, there is a noticable delay before it goes to the next one or brings up the 'End of Turn' display. This has nothing to do with the speed of my computer.

I think it does have to do with your computer. Play on a really fast computer, with high-end graphics, and set the right options, and movement is as fast as you want it to be. There was a "next unit" delay problem in the original release, which showed up particularly on huge maps in the late game, but that was fixed in 1.61.

It may be true that the system requirements for good performance in Civ4 are higher than you would like them to be. But it's not true that it's slow regardless of what hardware you have.

 

[Raloth]

I think it does have to do with your computer. Play on a really fast computer, with high-end graphics, and set the right options, and movement is as fast as you want it to be. There was a "next unit" delay problem in the original release, which showed up particularly on huge maps in the late game, but that was fixed in 1.61.

It may be true that the system requirements for good performance in Civ4 are higher than you would like them to be. But it's not true that it's slow regardless of what hardware you have.

I do have a computer with high-end graphics...and it still delays with all graphics set to the lowest they go . The frame rate is perfectly smooth in the the early game but I still get the delay. It feels more like an intentional timer than a graphics lag issue.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Aussie_Lurker

I did it several times, contrary to most of Civ Dorks posting here.

If your not happy with different opinions, just don't bother to read them.

Re-read my first post though, and you will see what is missing to Civ4, IMO.

Oh and calm down, I would not want to be responsible of something happenening to your heart.

As to its possibilities, they are valid for Civ2 as well... I would even advance that in Civ4, if you don't go military early, all your land is RUSHED by the AI, so one find oneself with a ridiculous portion of land. (you can see the AI making a circle around your cities, while the land near its capital is EMPTY ) So before encensing Civ4, you should think twice.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I think it does have to do with your computer.

I have the same problem... I played recently to Civ2, and hell, there is no comparison! Particularly at the end of the turn...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

You speak like someone who has actually never played Civ4. If you had, you would know that-if anything-the AI is a little too weak on attack. Also, I have read your posts-especially your two most recent ones-and have yet to see you state that these are your opinions ONLY. Throughout this thread I have found you to be increasingly RUDE, OBNOXIOUS and UNREASONABLE-and I especially find your constant use of the term 'Civ Dorks', to describe anyone whose views do not coincide with your own, as highly insulting. Truth is, I found Civ2 REALLY exciting on my first 2-3 games, then wondered what all the fuss was about -given that every game played exactly the same AND that it was really just a graphically enhanced version of the original Civ game. So yes, ff you hate being challenged, if you hate not having lots of bugs and exploits which you can abuse for easy victory then-by all means-play civ2. If you want a game with depth, challenge and replay value, then I highly recommend you play Civ4.

EDIT: Oh, just to be sure, I have checked the ENTIRE thread for the word 'Opinion' or IMO or IMHO-and found NOTHING until my post-so you must be one of those 'Civ Dorks' you were referring to, Naokaukodem. Now, run away and go play that kiddie's wargame that you love so much, and leave Civ4 to the REAL strategy gameplayers.

Aussie_Lurker

 

[acidsatyr]

You are absolutely right, Aussie Lurker.
Civ 4 is superior game compared to both civ2 + civ3, from the concept to the gameplay, let alone other stuff. I love every Civ but fact is a fact.

 

[armchairknight]

You are absolutely right, Aussie Lurker.
Civ 4 is superior game compared to both civ2 + civ3, from the concept to the gameplay, let alone other stuff. I love every Civ but fact is a fact.

Yeah! What he said!

 

[Smidlee]

I do have a computer with high-end graphics...and it still delays with all graphics set to the lowest they go . The frame rate is perfectly smooth in the the early game but I still get the delay. It feels more like an intentional timer than a graphics lag issue.

Units movement is fine with me. I haven't notice this delay. I do remember watching the AI moving the same unit back and forward between the same squares ever single turn in Civ2 though. If I remember correctly in civ2 I had to move every single unit in a stack instead of moving the whole stack like civ4 which to me is a lot better and faster since I move units in stacks a lot. I also love the ability to click on the map where a unit to move instead of having to manual moving a unit one key at a time.

So I fail to see what so great about civ 2 interface especially when it came to moving units across the board even if there was a small delay. 5 years from now there will be a lot less people with this delay as more upgrade to a new pc.

 

[Naokaukodem]

You speak like someone who has actually never played Civ4. If you had, you would know that-if anything-the AI is a little too weak on attack. Also, I have read your posts-especially your two most recent ones-and have yet to see you state that these are your opinions ONLY. Throughout this thread I have found you to be increasingly RUDE, OBNOXIOUS and UNREASONABLE-and I especially find your constant use of the term 'Civ Dorks', to describe anyone whose views do not coincide with your own, as highly insulting. Truth is, I found Civ2 REALLY exciting on my first 2-3 games, then wondered what all the fuss was about -given that every game played exactly the same AND that it was really just a graphically enhanced version of the original Civ game. So yes, ff you hate being challenged, if you hate not having lots of bugs and exploits which you can abuse for easy victory then-by all means-play civ2. If you want a game with depth, challenge and replay value, then I highly recommend you play Civ4.

EDIT: Oh, just to be sure, I have checked the ENTIRE thread for the word 'Opinion' or IMO or IMHO-and found NOTHING until my post-so you must be one of those 'Civ Dorks' you were referring to, Naokaukodem. Now, run away and go play that kiddie's wargame that you love so much, and leave Civ4 to the REAL strategy gameplayers.

Aussie_Lurker

Funny ****, really... maybe you want to hear that's my opinion suck, from my mouth? You're a pretty funny lad you know... if you try to bring the attention on how a 'bad person', arrogant and so on I am, you might be satisfied as indeed, I will begin to be what you will take for arrogant in face of such a disproportionned and ridiculous reaction of your Dork of Civ's state.

The fact is that it is not my 'ONLY' opinion, and as you can read, if you can , other persons agree with me. Not too fussy huh?

And please, read or re-read my first post, all is here, no need to 'argue'. It is there, and I would want to keep it there, so if you want to low your tone, I'll thank you.

Now if I refer to Civ Dorks, that's not to insult anybody, that's just how I name the people that play Civ by Civ-passion, like you seem to do. Just know that I made an interesting poll asking who is considering himself as a Civ Dork, and most of the people answered 'yes', and the other answered as you I was a monkey , not that one have to consider they are not Civ Dorks as well!

So don't feel insulted by this, or angry, or both, it is just meant to name the people I described how I think they play to civ, without detachment, as I argumented above.

Ah!!! The AI 'a little too much weak on attack'... what a BIG DEAL... you see, that's precisely the kind of thing I do not debate on, and doing so is what I'm calling being a Civ Dork.

Oh, and don't forget: "cold blood is seen as arrogance through the glasses of anger".

So yes, ff you hate being challenged, if you hate not having lots of bugs and exploits which you can abuse for easy victory then-by all means-play civ2

READ.MY.POSTS !

Now, run away

OMG. Saying he will call me arrogant in a minute.