Is it just me....

[Ace]

I don't consider Civ1 and Civ2 to be different games. Technically, they are, but, in my opinion, Civ2 is really a major patch to upgrade Civ1. Its the same game, but with some good improvements and upgrades to make it more interesting. And that is the same reason I don't like Civ3. 3 is not "Civ" as I know it, it's a completely different game, "not Civ"....

Does anyone else see it this way?

 

[Dominus Romae]

Ace, I think they destroyed the essential structure of the game. No diplomats? Weak artillery? That, and several other things made it distant to its predecessors. And those graphics... Once my sister, who does not know anything about civ, said it was a "clone" of AoE! Well, It is not like Civ2 and 1.

 

[The Person]

I don't know as I have no experience with Civ1.

 

[Smash]

yes.2 was an /upgrade/improvement etc over 1.

They listened to feedback on how to improve the game.Not remake it.One of the biggest remakes(very successfully) was the combat system of Civ2 for example.

Other things were added just because game making got better and more was possible.

As I read "suggestions for civ3" here and elsewhere,I could see bad things coming.Firaxis chose to listen greatly to SMAC players over Civ players and tryed to create a new game.

As we played 3,we felt somewhat familiar,but somewhat lost at the same time.

Civ3 is a shadow of Civ2 and a black cloud of what could have been.

I don't have a good feeling about 4 either.Actually less optimistic than I was for 3.

 

[Dominus Romae]

The future is dark ...

 

[Ace]

My thoughts exactly. I looked forward to Civ3 with great expections and felt very disappointed after I started playing it. (Especially when I realized that there were NO spies OR frieght in the game!)

Althrough I miss the effects of "famine, fire, and volcanoes" in Civ1 if one didn't have granaries, aquaducts, and temples, the was offset by the many improvements made in Civ2. The combat system in 2 is light years better than in the original. The old blood pressure used to go dangerously high when I would lose a battleship to a settler!!!

And the upcoming release of Civ4 has not stirred any anticipation as far as I am concerned.

 

[Ace]

disregard this post.

 

[Specialist290]

Does anyone else see it this way?

I do, most definitely.

Civ3 was a relatively solid game all things considered, but it felt more like a remake of Civ1 than an upgrade of Civ2. I really disliked the whole premise of culture defining the national borders and the concept of "culture-flipping" cities (although I can certainly see the logic behind these two). I also missed being able to trigger civil wars by capturing the enemy's capital (unrealistic though that may be, it certainly is enjoyable).

I probably would have been able to tolerate the axeing of Spies as separate units if espionage was handled more like it is in Master of Orion III, where you still had to train and insert agents instead of simply "buying" spy missions at exorbitant prices. I can also understand the makeover of the trade system (and still, to a degree, think that the type of resources you have access to should determine the quality and composition of your military), but completely removing the money-making aspect of it was a bit much for me. I would rather have preferred either keeping the Caravan/Freight units around or, again, adopted something similar to the MOO series, where you can form trade agreements for a certain "initial investment" that promises increasing annual returns as long as the agreement remains in effect (and that can be "improved" through further investments).

 

[Andu Indorin]

And it's always been my opinion that Civ2 is better educational tool for teaching history than Civ3. Which is to say, I found the lack historical (and scientific) accuracy in Civ 3 to be most disappointing. (I cannot accurately express my feelings concerning Civ 3 because when I do, I get knocked off these forums for expressing politically incorrect opinions... )