Ren
Communist Nazi
Exactly, me too.
I Want Civ 3
- Thread starter Robster_Howizer
- Start date
Garvarg
Playing with fire
OK, OK, I get the picture. Like many others I have waited for Civ 3 but after all I have read here I will wait until I find a copy in the "Resale" bin at the CD swop shop.
It's sounds like they put some of the aspects of "Ceaser III" into this version. I never did like trying to please the senate in order to win.
One day I will have to try Civ3 just to see for myself, but for now I'll keep going back to Civ 2.
It's sounds like they put some of the aspects of "Ceaser III" into this version. I never did like trying to please the senate in order to win.
One day I will have to try Civ3 just to see for myself, but for now I'll keep going back to Civ 2.
Heffalump
Proboscidea Heffalumpus
Ok, I'm not sure I wish to take the side of Civ3 over Civ2 (since I'm not sure which is the better game, if such a thing can be objectively determined) but I find it odd that a fair number of posters here haven't tried game. To me the idea of not trying a new version of Civ is inconceivable.
There are some things I like better about Civ3:
*much more fun going to war. the AI has gotten less dumb.
*borders (even if the culture system is badly implemented)
*strategic resources
*trading (strangely, unlike the posters here, i never got that much of kick out of moving all those bloody freight units around)
The downside of Civ3 is that it feels like a less wide open game. I feel pigeon-holed sometimes by artficial constraints (like corruption) and the illogical outcomes that sometimes result (like how the culture system effectively encourages you to raze captured cities). And, realistically, how could Civ3 ever live up to the expectations a lot of us invested in it?
I don't what game is better. Maybe Civ 1. That was my first civving and a lot of my most fun and memorable games were Civ 1. Then maybe that says more about me than the game.
There are some things I like better about Civ3:
*much more fun going to war. the AI has gotten less dumb.
*borders (even if the culture system is badly implemented)
*strategic resources
*trading (strangely, unlike the posters here, i never got that much of kick out of moving all those bloody freight units around)
The downside of Civ3 is that it feels like a less wide open game. I feel pigeon-holed sometimes by artficial constraints (like corruption) and the illogical outcomes that sometimes result (like how the culture system effectively encourages you to raze captured cities). And, realistically, how could Civ3 ever live up to the expectations a lot of us invested in it?
I don't what game is better. Maybe Civ 1. That was my first civving and a lot of my most fun and memorable games were Civ 1. Then maybe that says more about me than the game.
I agree wholeheartedly with Smash and Ren.
I own both Civ II & III, and have just been disappointed by 3. I had an immense anticipation of Civ III in the moths before it came out and bought it almost immediately, but found it much less playable and less interesting when it did work. I recall a Sid interview from a year or so before Civ III's release where someone asked him point-blank if Civ III was going to be all about snappy graphics or gameplay, and he answered something to the effect that the snappy graphics would be kept to a minimum. That obviously isn't what happened in the final product.
I downloaded all the Civ III patches, tried several times to get into a game, but each time found myself forcing myself to stick around, to keep trudging on for posterity. I lost interest. I finally, a year later, gave up just last week and decided to make room for other stuff on my hard drive by unloading Civ III.
One thing I'd like to add to the excellent points Smash & Ren made about Civ III's play shortcomings is that expansion is so limited in Civ III. I loved being able to build or conquer so many cities in Civ II, and the list of my cities was a badge of honor. I am unable to repeat those long lists in Civ III.
That all said, Civ III does bring many innovations that I liked to the genre and would hope to see them in a next generation game; the border concept and the colored map that came with it, the expanded diplomatic abilities (though they're still weak), the greater customization abilities, etc.
Ho hum - I guess I'll just stick to my beloved Civ II for the while.
I own both Civ II & III, and have just been disappointed by 3. I had an immense anticipation of Civ III in the moths before it came out and bought it almost immediately, but found it much less playable and less interesting when it did work. I recall a Sid interview from a year or so before Civ III's release where someone asked him point-blank if Civ III was going to be all about snappy graphics or gameplay, and he answered something to the effect that the snappy graphics would be kept to a minimum. That obviously isn't what happened in the final product.
I downloaded all the Civ III patches, tried several times to get into a game, but each time found myself forcing myself to stick around, to keep trudging on for posterity. I lost interest. I finally, a year later, gave up just last week and decided to make room for other stuff on my hard drive by unloading Civ III.
One thing I'd like to add to the excellent points Smash & Ren made about Civ III's play shortcomings is that expansion is so limited in Civ III. I loved being able to build or conquer so many cities in Civ II, and the list of my cities was a badge of honor. I am unable to repeat those long lists in Civ III.
That all said, Civ III does bring many innovations that I liked to the genre and would hope to see them in a next generation game; the border concept and the colored map that came with it, the expanded diplomatic abilities (though they're still weak), the greater customization abilities, etc.
Ho hum - I guess I'll just stick to my beloved Civ II for the while.
sumthinelse
civ investigator
I have played civ3 quite a while. I still find myself dissatisfied in some respects, but I wonder if that is because I haven't played civ2 in so long that I forgot about its problems?
It's downright tedious to get things right in civ3. If you have a number of civilizations that is not the default (less than 16 on a huge map) the game's map generator makes resources too scarce, and so you have to build a road 50 tiles long to get to waste a settler to build a very corrupted city (because of the distance from the capital) to get access to iron. All resources will be too scarce.
I have to edit the resource appearance probabilities and quite a few other things to make a reasonable game.
There are ways to change things in the editor, but why is the game so unsatisfying with default values?
Civ3 just doesn't make sense in some ways. If you go to war in a democracy you can go into anarchy from "war weariness." But if you don't go to war it is impossible to get a "great leader" to complete your Forbidden Palace to mitigate corruption. You build science improvements out the wazoo and spend all your money on science and the AI still gets ahead in science. (Yes I know that you can set research to zero, save up your money, and hope the AI will research and sell techs to you, but if you do that are you really playing "Civilization"? Is that fun? For me, no.)
Laser guided
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2002
- Messages
- 188
Despite the faults Civ3 is better. Civ2 is truly for warmongers and empire-builders only. Civ3 doesn't lend itself to warmongering on the Civ2 scale and empire-building is way hampered by the corruption concept. It is truly and honestly more realistic than Civ2 except for the combat system.
Gen_Kasebrot
Chieftain
net fu whats your email? I need to add to my colection anyway, I still play Civ 2 myself, and only borrowed civ 3 for like 2 weeks from a friend and gave it back.
EdmundSpenser
I Am 007
don't bother General
Even for free, Civ 3 aint worth the Box it comes in
waste of a game: civ 2 is far superior
Ed
Even for free, Civ 3 aint worth the Box it comes in
waste of a game: civ 2 is far superior
Ed
Gen_Kasebrot
Chieftain
aight man, thats cool. I just wanted a better chance to compare the 2 but all i got for civ 2 is regular old civ 2. there any patches or things you could advise me to get for civ 2 again? I got more maps, i got scenarios, but i saw theres patches and stuff, but i dunno which are good to have if ya have any advice for which ones to get lemme know.
Originally posted by funxus
I believe Civ3 is a better gameand it got a lot of good critics, but it gets boring after two weeks. Civ 2, though, I've been playing for at least four years and is still my favorite game
. If you buy Civ3, make sure your computer's fast enough.
Civ3 has done one thing that should have been that way all along. It has brought the end of entire stacks being wiped out when 1 unit was killed. And thank god, I see no reason to play Civ2 anymore and haven't for years.
Marlos
Christian Soldier
To an extent, I disagree Commander. If one tile represents a finite area of land, where do the other units "hide" when a cannon, for example, comes in to attack the strongest defensive unit? In modern warfare, wouldn't a cruise missile kill many units occupying the same area? You may have been frustrated with Civ2's approach to this situation, but it is not entirely illogical.
In the Civ3 forums (when I briefly played that game), I recall hearing someone say that the AI invaded their territory with a stack of 255 units, and they were in the same tile!
So where did everyone sit down before the attack started? 
philippe
FYI, I chase trains.
On each ohter of course 
Hookah
Hand of NOD
Play the world 1.14 patch makes it so it won't load so I'm sticking to civ II
Similar threads
