Old timer's, what are your thoughts so far?

[m15a]

Civ I.

I was 10 when I was first exposed to it on my cousin's computer. I was looking for something to do and just stumbled across this file named "civ.exe" (these were the DOS days). I ran it and was blown away by the intro.

I had no clue what I was doing. I learned that game from 100% trial and error. I remember my first play-through was with Ghandi, and I kept building cities literally on adjacent tiles to my first city because I thought that's how I was expanding the city borders. So I had a 9x9 grid of cities dominating the Indian continent.

That's better when I started and didn't know how to switch production. Militia for days!

 

[Thormodr]

Still remember railroading fish in Civ I as well as improving tiles in one turn by selecting the settler unit over and over. Lol.

Those were the days.

Foibles and wackiness aside, I do hope that Civ VI captures some of that wide eyed wonder that I felt when first playing Civ I.

 

[Gorbles]

That's an attitude I find fascinating, you see. A lot of gamers, especially as they grow up, expect games to recreate the wide-eyed wonders of their childhood favourites.

But some of us aren't young anymore, and most of us certainly aren't children anymore. To expect the same reaction to a game that came out 23 years ago is simply setting yourself up for disappointment, and indeed I think is a key part of modern gamers' expectations being so easily shattered these days.

 

[Westwall]

Foibles and wackiness aside, I do hope that Civ VI captures some of that wide eyed wonder that I felt when first playing Civ I.

Agreed. I think it's safe to say that most Civ titles, with the exception of Civ 3 and BE, have met or even surpassed expectations. If the developers do their job right, we shouldn't expect any less. I was no less satisfied by Civ 4 or 5 than I was by, say, Civ 2 or SMAC.

Sure the genre might've been more familiar by then, but I felt each brought something new and interesting, as well as innovative to the franchise.

Only Civ 3 and BE fell short of expectations, with the former really being more of a graphical update of Civ 2 and the latter basically being just a bad reskin of 5 at the end of the day with poorly implemented mechanics tacked on.

 

[Bibor]

The only Civ game that truly stands the Test of Time is Civ4: BTS. All the other versions (including Alpha Centauri) had their moments, but are ultimately a flop.

And I disagree on games not being able to induce wide-eyed wonders. I'm 39 and I'm still pretty easily amazed by some of them. New or old, big or small, doesn't really play a role.

 

[rastak]

The only Civ game that truly stands the Test of Time is Civ4: BTS. All the other versions (including Alpha Centauri) had their moments, but are ultimately a flop.

And I disagree on games not being able to induce wide-eyed wonders. I'm 39 and I'm still pretty easily amazed by some of them. New or old, big or small, doesn't really play a role.

You have 2000+ posts on a forum called civfanatics and consider every single version a flop except one, and even then only with a specific expansion?

Ok.

 

[Bibor]

You have 2000+ posts on a forum called civfanatics and consider every single version a flop except one, and even then only with a specific expansion?

Ok.

Yes. Not only that. I sunk probably around 5-6 thousand hours into "Sid Meier's" strategy games over the last 25 years.

 

[dexters]

Only Civ 3 and BE fell short of expectations, with the former really being more of a graphical update of Civ 2 and the latter basically being just a bad reskin of 5 at the end of the day with poorly implemented mechanics tacked on.

I don't think you've played Civ3, or possibly played it in a dream.

Moderator Action: Please don't accuse posters of not actually playing games that they are describing.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Gorbles]

The only Civ game that truly stands the Test of Time is Civ4: BTS. All the other versions (including Alpha Centauri) had their moments, but are ultimately a flop.

And I disagree on games not being able to induce wide-eyed wonders. I'm 39 and I'm still pretty easily amazed by some of them. New or old, big or small, doesn't really play a role.

Your expertise in deciding which video games "flopped" and which didn't aside, you missed my point completely.

You can be amazed at a new game. However, if the new game encroaches on an older game or one that you subjectively value above others, that likelihood diminishes rather rapidly. And instead of perhaps looking at the older game with a critical eye, you pan the new game as simply being derivative . . . because you're more able to criticise the newer product.

This isn't that the older product isn't better, or that the newer one is. It's simply that we're all blinded by nostalgia to some smaller or greater degree (I for one consider Tomb Raider III one of the best in the series, as an off-beat example) and more and more we're trying to justify to ourselves why new games don't measure up to the market. We're able to be harder on newer products because they don't hold sway over our childhoods, or our history playing video games. We're able to employ that expertise we've spent years or decades improving. We can't apply it so well to older games, or we fall back on making truisms out of opinions.

 

[CelticBlood]

The only Civ game that truly stands the Test of Time is Civ4: BTS. All the other versions (including Alpha Centauri) had their moments, but are ultimately a flop.

That's a pretty bold statement. Too bold. It's one thing to say you prefer one version over the other or to dislike all other iterations, but to call all other Civ iterations except for Civ IV BTS total failures?

Come on. That's not an opinion, that's hyperbole.

But hey, to each their own.

 

[Westwall]

I don't think you've played Civ3, or possibly played it in a dream.

What you think is irrelevant to what I remember.

And I remember it played like Civ 2 but with better graphics, borders and workers that could be automated.

I even remember how ridiculous many of the leaders looked as they transitioned into more "modern" clothing.

 

[dexters]

This isn't an argument.

You're right because you're wrong .



edit: oh stealth edit changing tone of entire post

What you think is irrelevant to what I remember.

And I remember it played like Civ 2 but with better graphics, borders and workers that could be automated.

I even remember how ridiculous many of the leaders looked as they transitioned into more "modern" clothing.

You remembered wrong. I know being petulant and petty is generally allowed here if expressed respectfully but I hope people still stick to facts?

Moderator Action: Please stick to the content of the games being described instead of other posters attitudes.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Westwall]

None of that is an argument either.

 

[dexters]

None of that is an argument either.

What isn't? And why so serious.

 

[Westwall]

None of what you said is an argument.

I'm sorry you really liked Civ 3 but I found it to be a shallow facsimile of Civ 2, which it is.

 

[dexters]

None of what you said is an argument.

I'm sorry you really liked Civ 3 but I found it to be a shallow facsimile of Civ 2, which it is.

I'm not really arguing with you, but you seem to think so.
You're just factually wrong.
Whether I like Civ3 or not is irrelevant.

 

[rastak]

None of what you said is an argument.

I'm sorry you really liked Civ 3 but I found it to be a shallow facsimile of Civ 2, which it is.

The army mechanic and corruption changes completely altered Civ 3. Completely.

 

[Westwall]

I'm not really arguing with you, but you seem to think so.
You're just factually wrong.
Whether I like Civ3 or not is irrelevant.

Factually I'm right. Feel free to disagree.

Civ 3 was garbage and Civ 4 was a vast improvement.

 

[rastak]

Factually I'm right. Feel free to disagree.

Civ 3 was garbage and Civ 4 was a vast improvement.

I assume by extension Civ 2 was also garbage?

 

[dexters]

The army mechanic and corruption changes completely altered Civ 3. Completely.

Not to mention global unit maintenance, small wonders, culture, cultural borders, the trade table we're use to -- it's like it has the genesis of all the mechanics and features we expect in modern Civ.

Factually I'm right. Feel free to disagree.

Civ 3 was garbage and Civ 4 was a vast improvement.

You seem to have some repressed rage. There's no need to get personal, your statement earlier has nothing to do with perceived quality or your opinions, which I don't really care for. It was just factually wrong

Moderator Action: Please don't accuse other posters of having repressed wage
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889