What's so good about Civ2?
- Thread starter Swedishguy
- Start date
Swedishguy
Deity
So CivII is fun the same way pirates are cool?
Stormrage
Ever Present Taskmaster
Oh, well, in that case - none. Cept it has events, civ3 doesn`t.
4 is heresy, blasphemy and treason.
4 is heresy, blasphemy and treason.
SwedishGuy, I'm guessing you're really asking the question that Lone Wolf is asking.
Civ 2 is another version of Civilization 1. Civ 3 is another version of Civ 1. Civ 3 and Civ 2 have different rules and different features. 99% of the games are the same. So, if you like Civ 3, you should enjoy Civ 2.
Civ 2 has a few scenarios which don't exist in Civ 3. Civ 2 has a War of the Ring scenario which is the best scenario I've seen in Civilization.
Flashy graphics aren't too important to me, so Civ 2 doesn't look inherently worse than Civ 3 to me.
I have no opinion on Civ 4 and I can't compare it to Civ 2.
By the way, Alpha Centauri is a clone of Civ 2 with some extra rules and features. I think Alpha Centauri is the best in the Civ franchise, except the AI is by far the worst. If the AI was better, it would be by far the best. With the enormously bad AI, I think Civ 3 is slightly better.
Stormrage
Ever Present Taskmaster
Well, Phlegmak, the Lord of the Mods is coming soon, and it has some of the best civ3 modders working on it 
Jerrymander
Epistemologist
Civilization II is only 22MB on my system. I drag it around on a USB and play it everywhere I go; it works everywhere on everything and is fun. Granted, Civ3/4 IS better gameplay-wise, etc, but Civ 4 doesn't have caravans! Or Paratroopers (yet!).
bob bobato
L'imparfait
Whats wrong with civ2's graphics? If you zoom up all the way they're terrible, of course, but to me they're pretty good. Comparable to other games of the same basic time, like Starcraft or Age of Empires1, which arent bad when compared to today's.
But Civ 3&4 are kind of scary to me. I play them, definitelly, but I almost never start any wars in them, and civ 4 doesn't seem like civ to me.
But in civ2... I never care about my reputation, and it's a lot more fun than civ 3&4, because you could keep on starting wars and your reputation wont fall, ressourcesz really don't matter, and it has this strange goofy-cartoony feel to it.
But Civ 3&4 are kind of scary to me. I play them, definitelly, but I almost never start any wars in them, and civ 4 doesn't seem like civ to me.
But in civ2... I never care about my reputation, and it's a lot more fun than civ 3&4, because you could keep on starting wars and your reputation wont fall, ressourcesz really don't matter, and it has this strange goofy-cartoony feel to it.
Civ 3 and 4 are scary? What's scary about Civ 3? (I don't care about Civ 4.)
I don't know about Age of Empires 1, but StarCraft is vastly more beautiful than Civ 2. (Civ 2's graphics are fine in my opinion.)
bob bobato
L'imparfait
Well, not scary as in horror movie scary, but scary as in I'm scared to touch it. I never start any wars, because I don't want any bad reputations (which would mean I could never get any ressources I need), while in civ2 I never care about that sort of thing (because ressources aren't that important). Whenever I start a war in civ3 or 4, the other civs can't stop talking about it and refusing to help me thousands of years later. And I cant change how the cities work, or taxes, etc, because that would have so many problems, they might starve, or get angry(that happens I civ2, of course, but I never notice it). In civ2, I never used money, so the tax metre would always be there for science. Civ3 & 4, If I don't have money, I cant do squat.
But that's just me.
Nylan
Characters Welcome
World domination isn't as fun in the other games
I love the Throne Room. Just for fun, I'd do things in the craziest order, such as having the most expensive, sumptuous throne in the dingiest cave, or a little pile of broken stone to sit on amidst all the finished floors, carpets, and fine paintings. 
Graf Zeppelin
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 20
Well Civ II has some flaws (dumb AI,too fast,too easy)but surely the graphics are ok.
Infact when it was released its graphics where top .
Iam playing Civ III for a long time now (Civ IV is uhm how to say...not good in my eyes) and i played for Nostalgia Civ II last year again.
Alot of things came to my mind i cant stand anymore but the graphics are still ok for me.
Infact when it was released its graphics where top .
Iam playing Civ III for a long time now (Civ IV is uhm how to say...not good in my eyes) and i played for Nostalgia Civ II last year again.
Alot of things came to my mind i cant stand anymore but the graphics are still ok for me.
Thorvald of Lym
A Little Sketchy
Amen.More importantly for me is the fan-made scenarios available for Civ2, which is the main reason the game remains installed on my computer. I still play Red Front, Dominion Wars and the Lord of the Rings scenarios every so often, and I haven't really found any sort of similar scenario for the later Civ games that have ever captured my attention, or given me as much fun as these ever have
One of the major plusses of Civ2 is that it is so simple to mod, even a graphical know-nothing like me can produce competent scenarios. Also, one MAJOR difference between Civ2 and Civ3: Civ2 has triggers ('events'). Until playing Civ3 extensively, I failed to register this fact. Sure, Civ4 has scripting, but how many average users are willing to invest the time and energy into complex algorithms for just a little fun?
Because it's versatile, because it's so undemanding, because, as Jerrymander pointed out, it's so small. I've had Civ2 on every computer I've ever owned. Civ3, Civ4 can also be lengthy to load (my old computer used to take 15 minutes to start a new Civ4 game). But with Civ2, you can load it, play for five minutes, minimize, then get back to your job. (Repeat process at regular intervals)
Ultimately, it is a question of experience. I'm sorry you entered the Civ world too late to enjoy this wonderful game.
Lieni
Chieftain
It is probably the lovely design of Civ II that makes it something still worth to play. Besides this, Civ II is as fast as i am. In Civ3&4 the speed of the game seems to be limited.
6K Man
Bureaucrat
Civ2 is good because it has provided a lot of people with a lot of entertainment over the past decade or so.
Apparently it is still very playable in Multiplayer (if you can find the players).
Personally I found the need to keep everything in balance - science, trade, military, happiness - very engaging. It's a different game every time you play.
I also like the exploration aspect a lot. Finding out if you're alone on a landmass, deciding whether to risk popping a hut, wondering if there are whales past that next peninsula. Civ4 isn't quite as interesting in that way to me, just because the AI grabs up all the huts ASAP and settles every single tiny island. I'm not saying that's a Civ4 flaw (it's probably a fix, actually), but it does make exploration less fun when someone else has beaten you to it.
Apparently it is still very playable in Multiplayer (if you can find the players).
Personally I found the need to keep everything in balance - science, trade, military, happiness - very engaging. It's a different game every time you play.
I also like the exploration aspect a lot. Finding out if you're alone on a landmass, deciding whether to risk popping a hut, wondering if there are whales past that next peninsula. Civ4 isn't quite as interesting in that way to me, just because the AI grabs up all the huts ASAP and settles every single tiny island. I'm not saying that's a Civ4 flaw (it's probably a fix, actually), but it does make exploration less fun when someone else has beaten you to it.
Swedishguy
Deity
I've played computer games since 1999. The first civilization game I've played is Civilization III- Am I really too late?
Nylan
Characters Welcome
Too late to have formulated an appreciation for Civ2 without comparing it to the later games.
Similar threads
