Was it worth it to you?

[TheDS]

Now that the game's been out a little while, and you've had a chance to play it a few times, what do you think of it?

 

[The_Dwarf]

No Point to discuss that before a patch is out.

 

[krasny]

My juror's out until we see if the patch clears up the mess.

 

[Doomed_UK]

patch then vote

 

[Refar]

There will be at lest 3 more of these votings before the patch. And another half-dozen after... So no harm in voting more than once.

Would also help documenting the impact (shift of opinion) the patch has

I for my part strongly dislike the game mechanics, and do not believe a patch can make enought difference there (The basics are not likely to change.)
I still think for the price of a expansion it is worth it - be it just because of the great modding possibilities.

 

[Shurdus]

When the game is finished and polished we can vote. this game made me go back to Civ IV in no time.

 

[Mundungu]

I actually never enjoyed / understood CoL 1, like CoL2 (play it a lot still) the way it is, think it will be great after some patching. The Price Tag should have been an indication right away that not much development went into it, but nothing that cant be fixed...

 

[Gliese 581]

I miss the "give me a better game than the original or die" option. Just kidding, or am I? But it's kind of what you'd expect from a sequel right?

Col felt better for its time but to go back to it now? Not a chance..
Not that I don't play some old games. Bioware's BG2 is still going strong as is Panzer General by SSI.

 

[Captain Pugwash]

The comparison with the original is of no interest. I never played the original. The poll question doesn't have the right options.

Oh and I think the game is well worth the money. Beautiful graphics. All Civ Fans should sprint down to their local store and buy it immediately !

 

[Sir Ralph]

At the moment it's not worth the money, and the original is much better. A patch may be able to fix the worst mess but I don't hold my breath. Shame you can't even ebay it, as there are so many up for sale.

 

[Falk]

The comparison with the original is of no interest. I never played the original. The poll question doesn't have the right options.

I second that.

Col II is one of the worst products I ever bought. So I also think we should wait for a patch before casting votes.

 

[Shurdus]

The comparison with the original is of no interest. I never played the original. The poll question doesn't have the right options.

Oh and I think the game is well worth the money. Beautiful graphics. All Civ Fans should sprint down to their local store and buy it immediately !

Should employees of Firaxis be allowed to vote on this one?

Serious though, nobody had anything but praise for the graphics. Unfortunately, the game is not all that interesting as it discourages you to actually build up a profitable economics system. In fact, the game encourages turtling with just a few settlements, maybe harrass a fellow European for the XP, bash some indians to get some promotions for your soldiers and declare independence ASAP.

The game was clearly not intended to be as one-dimensional as this.the graphics cannot save the fact that the vanilla-version is a mediocre product at best.

 

[r_rolo1]

Never played the original

But my opinion is simple: CivCol has potential, a lot of it ( I always wanted to be able to carry food and citizens from one city to another in Civ IV and the economical system is quite decent ). But with the current ruleset ( a over-emphatise of the REF-LB features ( c'mon, am I the only one that thinks that LB represent too much stuff? They sum 3 or 4 Civ IV features ... not mentioning that making beating the REF the only non-SimCity ( i.e : disable Europe victory and enable time victory ) path to win really makes the game to feel a little more than a turn-based shoot-em-up in the final turns .... ) and a number of other things ( lousy European AI, inability of seeing what do the natives consider as their land, the converted issues,..... ) the game is clearly the worst Firaxis title I had in hands so far ( from a pool of 5: SMAC ( including all expansions), Civ III ( idem ), Civ IV ( idem ), CivCity: Rome ( that one IMHO is better than Ceasar IV ), CivCol ). Too bad.....

 

[senturus]

I definitely like this new version. I would not say it is better than the original one , it's just a remake with some modifications, some of them are goods (founding fathers, promotion, combat system, constitution choices...), others are bad (I really miss the foreign intervention and european wars ; the liberty bell system for royalist force has to be adjusted ; american maps are awful ; and a few other things...).

And as the original was already very good, this game is very good for me too.
However, I was waiting more than "just a remake", as it is definitely not a "Colonization II". Civilization series has evolved a lot from 10 years, I was hoping more improvements in Colonization too.

 

[Civsassin]

I fortunately don't have the pervasive COL I bias. I like the new game on the face of it. It is challenging and offers many ways to win. I won on the easiest level, but I haven't won since. It is challenging and enjoyable.

It definitely has some glitches that need to be resolved, but the game concepts are excellent. I look forward to a comprehensive patch that will make the game work as it is supposed to. Rock on.

 

[Supr49er]

I like it better than the original.

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

Why are there so many people saying they havn't played col1?!
Moderator Action: Removed. Warned - Piracy. Linking to such sites is not allowed here.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

It'll make you realize how broken the gameplay in civ4col is

 

[duende29]

I haven't played Col1, so what?

Anyway, I found the game to be much of a one-trick poney. Once you get how to beat the game, it pretty much doesn't matter the difficulty settings. I'm doing 169X on Patriot and I think I'm too bored to go on Revolutionary at least till they release some patch that make things a lil bit more interesting. The REF is too on the easy side.

 

[Freddy K]

The singleplayer is pretty much near perfect, and by the factor 10 better than the original. Solid fighting system (not just hiding behind Fortresses), all new diplomacy and natives interaction, challenging and fun War of Independence, which usually is turned around by rising strenght of units due to increasing rebel sentiment. Furthermore full adjustability of game lenghth, size. (seriously how many games can pull that off?). Excellent random maps (A_New_World). No errors or bugs.

Criticism is minor: units not being able to join settlement after movement, transports not remembering their routes once they have been disrupted. Sharing Founding Fathers can be much imbalanced for multiplayer. Ending a game in 40 turns or so isn't great for multiplayer either.

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

The singleplayer is pretty much near perfect, and by the factor 10 better than the original.

I think you're likely to be in the minority with that view opinion!

Solid fighting system (not just hiding behind Fortresses),

* encourages farming experience from the pathetically weak european powers.
* illogical that the best strat. during WoI is to let the king take your cities without a fight, and then slaughter his armies in a counter-attack. Feels forced, and just exploiting the available units & promotions.

all new diplomacy and natives interaction

* same as Civ4 != "all new"
* makes early game a 1-trick pony; sell guns/horses/tools/trade goods to indians for HUGE profit - build army with cash - slaughter indians & europeans for more cash, and population.
* kings tax demands are ridiculous, yet have almost no effect on game - turn 3 (after selling initial guns to natives) - "give me 2000 gold!"
* diplomacy with europeans is pointless when they can be eliminated with a pair of dragoons.
* diplomacy with indians is also pointless, as the indians are far too benign. What happened to the brilliant 'indian alarm' mechanic from the original?

challenging and fun War of Independence

* repetitive, imbalanced & exploitable. REF <-> LB relationship is flawed & encourages turtling in a single city and (due to broken trade weighting) spamming a single trade good, rather than 'colonization' and establishing a viable & diverse economy.

which usually is turned around by rising strenght of units due to increasing rebel sentiment.

* Spamming LB production to reach 50% as quickly as possible to minimize REF size, and continued spamming to improve the strength of your troops?

Furthermore full adjustability of game lenghth, size.

* Fair point, though sort of inherited for free from Civ4.

Excellent random maps (A_New_World).

* broken spawn points for european powers (everyone starts in close proximity to one-another)
* broken spawning of special resources preventing diverse resource production
* even largest map is smaller than the original col1, making exploration & lost city exploration a very short phase of the game.
* stupid curved map radar

No errors or bugs.

You're kidding, right? fan boi alert!

Criticism is minor: units not being able to join settlement after movement, transports not remembering their routes once they have been disrupted. Sharing Founding Fathers can be much imbalanced for multiplayer. Ending a game in 40 turns or so isn't great for multiplayer either.

There are dozens of other flaws, omissions & imbalances that IMO simply ruin this game - just read the forums!