Should I play Civ II

[DukeofDokken]

I'm totally new to Civ (iv) and I know I'll spend many hours still dedicated to the game, but with what I hear about civ II (and even 1/3) do I owe it to myself to play it?

 

[Magic_gorter]

Between civ 1 and civ 2 is in my opinion no big difference. Graphics are somewhat nicer and the gameplay is a bit different. Civ 3 I never played so I can't compare with the others. Civ 4 is however a big different game then civ 1 or 2. In civ 2 it is possible to do a lot of micromanagement while in civ4 everything goes pretty fast without a lot of micromanagement. In civ4 there are also a few more ways to win (domination, culture, etc.).

So I don't know if it helps a lot playing also the other civ games. If you like civ4 it does not mean you will like or won't like the older civ games. But perhaps knowing how the game change is nice to know.....

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You owe it to yourself to at least try it. Civ II is FUN!

 

[DukeofDokken]

Yea I'm gonna have too. I'm already cringing at the hours of time that will be lost and the fury this will unleash on my girlfriend. I was gonna get the chronicles, but somebody outbid me. Is that even worth it? Or just get each one individualy?

 

[ThinkTank]

I think civ 3 is the end of the line 1-2-3 and I prefer it, though civ 2 is a great game too.
I agree with Magic_gorter that civ 4 is really a different game (which I do not know very well).

 

[LuciusAlexander]

I've played them all, and I keep coming back to CIV II. Specifically, CIV II, Multiplayer Gold Edition, which I consider the pinnacle of all Civilization. To me, the subsequent games were not improvements.

But I'm sure that a lot depends on what you want from the game. What I love most about CIV II is that I have never seen ANY other game that is so malleable - I can literally tear it down to the foundations and rebuild it from the ground up as a completely different game.

But if you're playing it "as is" without modification or scenario, it's still a great game; but among the differences you'll note is that there are only two paths to victory (conquer the world, or make it to Alpha Centauri) and the theme of "cultural domination" is practically non-existent; I've seen a city revolt and join itself to a "culturally superior" nation, but only a couple of times in years of play! Scenarios of course can have different victory conditions, but I don't know any way to make the "East Berlin Effect" happen more often. Another difference you'll notice is how "Diplomacy" works - Diplomats and Spies are military units that allow you do a number of interesting things, notably including bribing enemy armies to come to your side.

But it looks like you've already decided to try it, so you will find out first hand the ways it is like and unlike the later versions.

Lucius Alexander

House of the Palindromedary

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yea I'm gonna have too. I'm already cringing at the hours of time that will be lost and the fury this will unleash on my girlfriend. I was gonna get the chronicles, but somebody outbid me. Is that even worth it? Or just get each one individualy?

Whatever you choose, do try Test of Time. There's a Fantasy world, a Science Fiction world, an Extended Original game where you can play the Alpha Centauri aliens trying to get to Earth, and a Midgaard game that is absolutely fiendish.

Edit: I tried to post a screenshot of my current Test of Time game, but it didn't work. I'll try again later.

 

[Tarkhan]

I may be silly, but there are things about Civ2/3 and 4 that I love. I have all 3, though I really wish Civ3 had better windowed mode support. As far as graphics...well the only thing I like is how I can see more of the world on my screen at once in Civ4...nothing to do with animations or anything.

Though I find it comical when I fire up Civ2 and it asks if I have 16MB of RAM. Some games NEVER get old

 

[Catfish]

Most people seem to consider Civ2 and Civ4 as classic games, with Civ3 being a bit of a dud. I skipped Civ3 and moved on to Civ4. Right now, I think I prefer Civ4 to Civ2.

Specifically, CIV II, Multiplayer Gold Edition, which I consider the pinnacle of all Civilization.

I've always considered MGE to be the most redundant version of Civ2. Vanilla Civ2/FW has the better AI diplomacy model; ToT trumps MGE at every level, especially if you intend to 'tear it down to the foundations and rebuild it from the ground up as a completely different game'.

 

[DukeofDokken]

Thanks so much for the advice. I'll definetely have to give Civ II a try. It's interesting to see everyone's point of view. It's amazing how some of you guys have a biased towards one particular Civ.

 

[Spoonwood]

Most people seem to consider Civ2 and Civ4 as classic games, with Civ3 being a bit of a dud.

I certainly don't know where you get this "most" from. Plenty of players over at the Civ3 site will tell you things like that they prefer Civ3 to Civ4, or that they started playing 4 and went back to 3. The civIII HoF and XOTM competitions still have activity every month as do the forums. That doesn't mean more people prefer 3 to 4, but it does imply that civIII coming out as a "dud" seems more like propoganda than truth. So, where do you get this "most" from again?

 

[Marlos]

First of all, Duke, definitely try Civ2. The graphics will not compare well against Civ3 or Civ4, but the gameplay is worth it.

I can't speak to "most" spoonwood, but I can say that Civ3 has the lowest rating at metacritic.com among the three games.

Civ2 - 94
Civ3 - 90
Civ4 - 94

Granted, on a scale from 1 to 100, these scores are not that different. But Civ3 is the lowest. And personally, I agree that Civ3 is not superior to its predecessor. Civ3 was a very underwhelming follow up to Civ2, IMO. But I am one among many, and there are many that love Civ3.

I've never played Civ4, only because I don't have a PC powerful enough to run it. But I'm in the market... maybe soon.

 

[Catfish]

I certainly don't know where you get this "most" from. Plenty of players over at the Civ3 site will tell you things like that they prefer Civ3 to Civ4, or that they started playing 4 and went back to 3. The civIII HoF and XOTM competitions still have activity every month as do the forums. That doesn't mean more people prefer 3 to 4, but it does imply that civIII coming out as a "dud" seems more like propoganda than truth. So, where do you get this "most" from again?

It's a general observation; that much should be obvious from the way I phrased the remark. I'm not keeping stats, are you? You are hardly going to get a fair cross-section of opinion from people who still post in Civ3 forums 8 years after the game's release. Try the off-topic forums. Is it the word 'dud' that bothers you? Of those who've played Civ2, Civ3 and Civ4, most seem to like 2 and 4, but consider 3 to be a disappointment. A fair number actually loathe Civ3. This is what I've observed. If you wish to start polls in the off-topic forums here and at Apolyton, be my guest. I have also seen Civ1, Civ2 and Civ4 frequently placed high up in various lists of all-time great games, not so for Civ3. So while Civ3 might not be a total failure, when you consider the benchmarks set by the others in the series, comparatively it can be seen as 'a bit of a dud'. As I said, I skipped Civ3 (the lack of events scripting killed any interest for me), so this is not my opinion of the game.

 

[LuciusAlexander]

Most people seem to consider Civ2 and Civ4 as classic games, with Civ3 being a bit of a dud. I skipped Civ3 and moved on to Civ4. Right now, I think I prefer Civ4 to Civ2.

I've always considered MGE to be the most redundant version of Civ2. Vanilla Civ2/FW has the better AI diplomacy model; ToT trumps MGE at every level, especially if you intend to 'tear it down to the foundations and rebuild it from the ground up as a completely different game'.

I tried Test of Time. For me, it didn't pass the Test.

Lucius Alexander

So I fed it to a palindromedary

 

[Spoonwood]

It's a general observation; that much should be obvious from the way I phrased the remark. I'm not keeping stats, are you? You are hardly going to get a fair cross-section of opinion from people who still post in Civ3 forums 8 years after the game's release. Try the off-topic forums. Is it the word 'dud' that bothers you?

I don't see how it's a general observation. Don't forget this. Your "not keeping stats" just confirms that you don't have anything to substantiate your claim.

 

[Marlos]

I don't see how it's a general observation. Don't forget this. Your "not keeping stats" just confirms that you don't have anything to substantiate your claim.

Relax. He said that it was his opinion. You don't have to substantiate your opinion, just express it.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

I have played Civ1 and Civ2 extensively, Civ3 a little, and only read about Civ4. I definitely prefer Civ2 to Civ1. In almost all aspects it is a superior game. I have not played Civ3 enough to have a solid opinion but the little I have played has not impressed me.

 

[Catfish]

I tried Test of Time. For me, it didn't pass the Test.

Once you strip it down to the engine, the interface differences between MGE and ToT are minimal, but ToT is the more capable of the two.

I don't see how it's a general observation. Don't forget this. Your "not keeping stats" just confirms that you don't have anything to substantiate your claim.

The statement was based on the sample of opinions that I've encountered; maybe you have a different experience. If so, then that's all you needed to say. Just because I haven't quantified every opinion I've ever read or randomly sampled 10 000 people, doesn't make it invalid, it just makes it imperfect and unscientific. Do you maintain a database for everything you read? I'd also claim that most people think Test of Time's default graphics are ugly, yet I could find examples of people who think they're great (there's one in this thread). I don't need to keep stats to reach that conclusion. I think I began the original comment with 'Most people seem to consider...' before you started tossing the word propaganda around.

I performed an off-topic forum search at Apolyton, and this was the first thread I found discussing the Civ series. A good number of those posters have played the last three incarnations of Civ (which is why I chose that forum). Maybe this sample is unrepresentative of the entire population of Civ-players, but those comments are typical of what I've read previously.

I guess you were going to find somebody who put Civ3 on their top games list; in place of Civ4, what's more.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I tried Test of Time. For me, it didn't pass the Test.

What didn't you like about it?

 

[LuciusAlexander]

What didn't you like about it?

It's been a while, but a couple of things I remember offhand -

No editors. As far as I know, the editors menu in Gold Edition was the only one that ever existed.

Animated art. The terrain, units, etc. in Gold, or any other CIV II for that matter, were easy to work with. That's how I like it. How anyone could find Test of Time easier to modify is beyond me.

Lucius Alexander

Gold Edition Palindromedary