Why do you still play Civ2?

[Supreme Despot]

Originally posted by MikeLynch

Which ones, specifically?

I ask because I've just converted TOT to look and feel more like traditional Civ2, and I've been wondering whether it's possible/worthwhile to do the same with Civ3.

I like the idea of "influence" that Civ 3 has. Also, the different levels of "skill" the units have. Alpha Centauri has this as well. I also like the fact that you can name your units in Civ 3. I can take an "elite" battleship and call it what I want, makes it easier to keep track of, plus allows control freaks even more power

 

[MikeLynch]

Say, that IS nice, being able to name units. Previously I've just tried to only build 1 battleship per city, so that I can identify the U.S.S. Chicago, the U.S.S. Naples, etc.

I shall have to start hanging out in the Civ3 forums, finding out if anyone's done a Civ2 total conversion.

 

[Tsargrad]

Main reason for playing Civ II, is my computer has been too unstable and old to try Civ III - but I upgraded last week, so Civ III will be purchased when this pack is released on Friday.

I just hope I like the style of play. I found Civ II compare to the original was a bit of an adjustment, in which I am still not entirely happy with.

 

[MikeLynch]

Hear hear. I still have some gripes about Civ2 compared to Civ1 too. The biggest one is the fact that the shoreline is no longer animated. I could spend a solid half-hour just watching the waves lap up against my pixelated land.

 

[funxus]

Originally posted by MikeLynch
Hear hear. I still have some gripes about Civ2 compared to Civ1 too. The biggest one is the fact that the shoreline is no longer animated. I could spend a solid half-hour just watching the waves lap up against my pixelated land.

Yes, I remember that. I wonder why they didn't use animated gifs for all the graphics in Civ2. It shouldn't be much harder than normal gifs... and I'm getting a dejá vu.

 

[Pariah]

One may have played Civilization II for nearly 5 years, and one continues to play it for the sense of familiarity, the sense almost of friendship it possesses after so long.

One plays Civ2 because it's a game well known, where you're not floundering around learning from your mistakes - which would never end if you took up every new strategy game which came out.

One may also enjoy "Call to Power" and "Call to Power II," but venerable old Civ2 can still surprise and entertain - and it is still open to innovation and new ideas.

One plays Civ2 because one enjoys tinkering with it, designing new units, terrain and scenarios, and because one likes to download and admire the ongoing creativity of other fans.

One plays Civ2 because, after 6 years (is it?) on the market - an unimaginable eternity in the breakneck pace of IT development - Civ2 remains a fascinating, intricate, absorbing and addictive game: a testimony to the genius of its creators, and to all those who have expanded upon their work.

Have I said enough?

 

[covok48]

I like Civ and CivII's simplicity. I could jump right into civII from playing civI. CivIII is unessesarily complicated in it's effort to be more like real life. Sadly that's the way the civ series is progressing.

 

[Pariah]

Who knows? When Star Trek-type holodeck technology becomes a reality - as well as a virtual reality, ha ha - some people may still prefer the simple on-screen game format, especially if they wish to take in a whole world at a glance.

 

[funxus]

Originally posted by Pariah
Who knows? When Star Trek-type holodeck technology becomes a reality - as well as a virtual reality, ha ha - some people may still prefer the simple on-screen game format, especially if they wish to take in a whole world at a glance.

Maybe it could lead to physically active gaming if you had a room to play in and everything is VR.

I just saw a note in the paper today that they are going to build a VR studio for companies, to try their products, in my town. It'd be fun to play games in a 2 million dollar environment, but I guess it'll take a decade or two before it's cheap enough to buy for average Joe.

 

[Pariah]

Who knows? The one thing I know about computers - hardware and software - is that no-one CAN know how they'll develop beyond a few years ahead. I mean, whoever foresaw the internet?

But I'm fairly sure that the Civ series will always have a place among recreational activities, just like chess or poker.

 

[yoshi]

I don't think the fact that people still play Civ2 is just a case of nostalgia or comfort in already knowing the ropes. Being something of a MODer (not a very productive one mind you), I would say that the fact that Civ3 lacks a scripting language (events) means that Civ3 scenario-design will always be second rate. And personally, it takes all of 5 seconds to load a game of Civ2 whereas an equivalent sized game in Civ3 may take you 5 minutes. Not to mention that Civ3's turn rate is atrocious.

I only really play Civ3 for the vanilla game. The fact is that this is where Civ3 leaves Civ2 in the dust --putting aside performance problems. What irritates me is that Civ2 could easily have included most of the "new" features in Civ3. Civ2 is a solid piece of software, no doubt about it. The problem is that it lacks in terms of features --if it weren't for scenarios, I wouldn't even touch the game.

I don't understand players who say they prefer Civ2 to Civ3 just because of gameplay --Civ3 is Civ2 only with more features (i.e. same gameplay but enhanced). One of the few things lacking in Civ3 was the reveal map feature (I can only imagine that the reason why they left this out is the same reason why...why...well, I can't think of a Civ2 equivalent but it’s something stupid), and they have included it into the new Conquests expansion.

To sum up: the thing that I think keeps Civ2 alive is its ‘MODability.’ Granted, Civ3’s sluggish performance can easily drive you to drink, but IMO it’s the scenarios that do the trick. Just try playing ‘Red Front’ on Civ3 (minus Events of course). Virtual reality game rooms will have become accessible the average Joe and you’ll still be watching the hundred or so Panzers move towards Minsk!

 

[MikeLynch]

To sum up: the thing that I think keeps Civ2 alive is its ‘MODability.’

Is Civ3 considerably more difficult to mod?

I think you're probably right. If scenarios were impossible, how many of us would be here?

 

[funxus]

Originally posted by MikeLynch
I think you're probably right. If scenarios were impossible, how many of us would be here?

Me.

I don't think I've played more than 1 or 2 scenarios ever, but then I don't play much longer.

 

[yoshi]

Is Civ3 considerably more difficult to mod?

No. Civ3 is easier to MOD but you can't MOD the units unless you have the necessary graphics program (the Civ3 Editor does not include this) which is something most civers do not possess as far as I know. In fact I would go as far as saying that Civ3's Editor is among the best parts of the game --VERY user freindly (an 8 year-old can figure it out).
Aside from not being able to MOD units easily, the other problem is that there is no scripting language (no 'Events' section). Without this, Civ3 scenarios CANNOT achieve the level of depth that Civ2 scenarios do.
I should note that almost all recent strategy RTS games include player-MODable scripting systems (I don't say TBS games because how many turn-based games are there of CIV's scope).

BTW, scripting means: program is set to do X if you do Y.
Example: If you capture a city a unit automatically appears somewhere.

The other thing is of course that scenarios usually incorperate a lot of units on the map at one time. Civ3 is very sluggish so waiting for masses of AI units to move is quite a long wait.
Even the most complex Civ2 scenario turns will go by in a flash on a moderate system.

 

[Great Mattezuma]

I don't have Civ 3 yet!!

 

[roaringbooboo]

doesn't anyone else find the cute, sunday morning cartoon styling of civ 3 a touch repulsive? you're taking on empires, and yet your enemies look like teletubies in disguise.

both civ 2 and civ 1 had an authentic charm a sort of generosity which gave enough to the imagination to create plausible alternative worlds, civilisation 3's attempts to make worlds more "real" betrays a cultural stereotyping which is just a pick and mix of idiosyncracies. in one way the mechanics of the game, in fact of games in general, force this mechanical cultural point system but on the other hand i never had this problem with civ 2 and civ 1.

why just make stereotypes? each civilisation's culture should surely be born out of the history you create whilst playing the game, a landscape of psycho-geography, culture is not accrued in a materialistic sense of "cultural buldings" each unit of which grants a superiority over others, why can't a culture of barracks be created for aggresive civilisations which war often? or a culture of bankers who gain bureaucratic benefits given the unholy levels of taxation?

again the problem of stereotyping in games is ubiquitous, the increasing recognition of games as part of our culture only speaks of our current cultural poverty and not the raising of the gaming bar which stood more of a chance when reality was abstracted to the level of civ 1. although civ 3 is fine, it hasn't improved over civ 2, it makes some token moves to acknowledge the fact that time has passed and new features or graphics must be provided (from a financial point of view to encourage sales if nothing else) but, to be frank, they're ****. to put it another way, the mechanics of the civ series were expanded horizontally rather than vertically.

you could argue that i'm reading too much into the older civ games, that the designers never intended these sorts of attachments and civ 3 is the true image of their intentions, but that is precisely the beauty of the civilisation series, that you really did create a culture and an empire, however sparse, in a loose collection of colours and numbers, labourers and aqueducts, set amongst notional mountain heights and shore lengths. that is the cultural reality that should be investigated and not different "culture" graphics.

civ 2 rocks

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by roaringbooboo
why just make stereotypes? each civilisation's culture should surely be born out of the history you create whilst playing the game, a landscape of psycho-geography, culture is not accrued in a materialistic sense of "cultural buldings" each unit of which grants a superiority over others, why can't a culture of barracks be created for aggresive civilisations which war often? or a culture of bankers who gain bureaucratic benefits given the unholy levels of taxation?

civ 2 rocks

Are you perhaps suggesting that, in future developments of the game, cultural scoring should be open-ended and based on however the player develops his civilization? I'm sure countless players have their own unique building pattens and preferences, their own habits and levels of garrisonning within and around cities, their own characteristic numbers of spies, caravans, scientists, taxmen etc. I suppose that building original cultures of your own is integral to playing Civ2 or Civ3, although they are not comprehensively classified.

 

[MikeLynch]

why just make stereotypes? each civilisation's culture should surely be born out of the history you create whilst playing the game, a landscape of psycho-geography

You bring up a sticky problem, and to get loosely back on-topic, I think it's one of Civ2's great advantages.

On the one hand, you want to keep things as "generic" as possible so that players all over the world can enjoy Civ in any way they want -- using their imagination to bring whatever feel to the game they prefer (sweeping fantasy, stark historical re-creation, etc.).

But on the other hand, you only have Earth's history to draw from, and it becomes pretty difficult to stay culturally "neutral" as a designer. We start to see what it would be like to work at MicroProse.

This is why I never liked the Crusaders unit, for example -- which, IMG, has been changed to "Colonials." That's where Civ2 shines: a lot of the game's feel comes from the unit designs, and thanks to the thriving community of unit-makers, there's something for everyone out there.

Beyond that, the only way I find to be consistently effective in projecting a unique "culture" to each Civ game I play is with terrain modification style -- where I'll mine, how hogwild I'll go with railroads, how many forts I build, etc.

 

[yoshi]

What I don't understand is why do people criticize Civ3 for the very things that are in Civ2. Civ3 is VERY similar to Civ2.
People seem to complain about the new stuff like the culture feature. Considering how easy it is to change the rules, you can easily remove the culture feature or change it to your desired preference. Unless you're one of these players who likes CIV the way it is in Civ2 just because it's Civ2 or because Sid was involved or some other nostalgic nonsense, it makes no sense to criticize Civ3 about stuff that is in Civ2.

Here's a feature you should be pissed about: Caravans are implied by Harbors in Civ3 --meaning you can't intercept ships unless you block a choke point (i.e. no more pirating). God knows how much fun it would have been if Civ2 had included Civ3's 'Privateer' function (unit that can attack while at peace) and be able to patrol the Oceans taking out unsuspecting transports carrying Trade goods.

From the MODder's point of view: what about the fact that you can't add new tile improvements--something that has always plagued Civ2 scenario designers?

Or what about the fact that air units go on 'air missions' where the unit just appears over the target square? This means no more Zepplines slowly floating about the map, no more immobile air units, ect.

But the above are just features. What really merits criticism is the unessarily high system requirements. The amount of time wasted waiting instead of playing. The game's glitchiness. Features that are unecessarily hard-coded. The fact that designers actually removed perfectly good Civ2 features without any reason for doing so except 'budget' issues (this excuse is used for almost everything players criticize and it gets old after a while).

The other thing I criticize is the fact that obvious things that were flawed in Civ2 were not changed like the fact that you still have to be worrying about the AI continuously sending its units into your territory for colonizing purposes (peace means crossing the other civ's borders without permission equals instant war --something CIV designers have never understood). There are a whole host of things in Civ3 that only a minority of players want that should not be there (the time and effort could have been spent making the game better instead of satisfying players that new squat about their own history --and yes, that's what CIV is about, history).

And of course, the fact that events were not included into Civ3 means that there is little point in designing historical scenarios --although this has been Atari's focus in Conquests amazingly enough. Reason: budget problems (as usual --it's incredible that they even got the thing published).

Something that personally pissed me off is the fact that all units in Civ3 have the same maintenance cost. It seems logical that a billion dollar Stealth Bomber or Carrier would cost a wee bit more than a few Warriors to maintain (i.e. Warrior = 1 gold per turn; Carrier = 1 gold per turn).
Civ3 designers would say that the reason is that Civ3's AI couldn't handle variable maintenance costs since it presently just builds units until it can build no more (minus the building of improvements)...cough...WHAT THE F%@# kind of excuse is that?! As far as I know Civ2 does the same thing, but if you're going to release a game that is meant to be better in every way than its predecessor it's assumed that the AI --the core of all video games-- will have significantely more in the way of intelligence! Civ3: not a chance (if anything, it seems eeven more ******** than Civ2's AI at times). Either player standards are too low and developers have taken full advantage of it or MIT should stop cutting funding to the department of Computer Sciences because these graduates have been found wanting. (No offense to graduates of MIT who have tried to go in new directions but been stamped on by the industry, academia and even their colleagues.)

But I digress (...heh...cough...): Civ2 is a jewel in the workld of games software...Civ3 is the result of increasingly talentless industry attempting to feed like a parasite off the good things of the past...and that's why I still play Civ2.

 

[MikeLynch]

the AI --the core of all video games

And there's the reasoning. The designers probably thought about Civ3 in terms of multiplayer, as game designers increasingly do -- to the detriment of those games' single-player modes. It's a trend that I hope is going to come to a quick end. (Maybe Civ4 will reflect an end to that trend!)