What is it about TOT that ruins Civ2 addictiveness

March 14, 2000, 18:53

I don't know what it is, I have yet to finish an entire game with Test of Time. It's the same game pretty much. And they have a couple improvements I like. One is a turn indicator of when the city will go up in population. I don't think it's the throne room or advisors. I usually don't have my cd in for the advisors anyway. I really feel like I wasted my money on that one. But yet, I still play civ2 (fantastic worlds version) quite a bit.

War4ever · March 14, 2000, 22:03

tot is dark, the graphics while improved so to speek need adjusting too..... and i just like the MGE or FW versions..... must be the color as i have the same problem with smac and it is really a good game as well

Comrade Dan · March 15, 2000, 01:13

I seem to play a more sucessful game with the advisors on, and what do I get for the labours of typing and clicking? No throne room. There is no city view, the little train icon when travelling on ralroads is gay, the aliens in the extended game builds earth wonders.

Empress · March 15, 2000, 01:30

I would appreciate any input into this subject because I have been debating whether to buy TOT or not. So far I have heard mixed reviews..

March 15, 2000, 02:10

I guess a lot of that would depend on if you like the fantasy and/or the sci-fi settings. I really don't care for those that much anyways. I thought I would. But for fantasy, I'd rather play a RPG. I really hope they don't include that stuff for civ3. Or at least make it like TOT where you can still play the basic, historical civ2. Which is what I prefer. Just give me my tanks and planes, and I'm happy

.

Cam · March 15, 2000, 02:19

Gee - I wish it fixed my addictiveness!!!!

I suspect it's the drab colours in the terrain and the murky look of most of the units. It must act as a subliminal depressant(?) The Cradle of Civilization includes a patch by Kestral that addresses just this point with terrains, although with respect, I've not downloaded it myself yet - civ.cx/graphics/cedars.html

Empress, see apolyton.net/forums/Forum29/HTML/000673.html which briefly deals with your question, and also includes links to similar threads.

[This message has been edited by Cam (edited March 15, 2000).]

Emperor10 · March 15, 2000, 02:41

Black Bart- I know the feeling, I guess for me the real dissapointment was paying 40 bucks for what can be summed up as an expansion pack.

Emperess- It really does depend on your tastes. If you like fantasy, sci-fi, and longer games...then it'll be good. If you are into scenarios and classic "perks"(like the heralds and throne room)...then you won't like it.

Comrade Dan- ::looks around conspiratorily and whispers:: the train comment might catch a few eyes...like the moderators

[This message has been edited by Emperor10 (edited March 15, 2000).]

Deathwalker · March 16, 2000, 08:32

I played TOT for four hours over two years ago at ECTS 98 and it was crap it was dull boring the game files were a mess it seemed that things were missing the then scenarios did not work at all. It was like taking two steps back and when it came out two years later I bought it. I played it for a total of two days and have not touched it since, it is crap an insult to Civ 2, the multiplayer edition of Civ 2 was better and I still play it. It just seemed that they ruined it TOT was something microprose did to compete with CTP and SMAC when they should of either worked on Civ 3, but not come up with TOT.

Gothmog · March 16, 2000, 10:02

Black Bart,
Two things in particular make me not want to play TOT.

It's too much work to tell who is who with those new strength bars

You have to put the CD in the tray

War4ever · March 16, 2000, 17:57

yes the dreary colors, the fact that its hard to tell what kind of units you have or what the enemy has..... i am not into fantasy really.... although the extended part is cool..... wish civ 2 had it...

Cam · March 16, 2000, 19:44

Well, I'm a bit surprised by the ferocity of some of the comments about Test of Time. I think if you're aware of what you're getting, then you reduce the risk of being disappointed.

I agree that the colours are dreary (you can fix this though if you're inclined), the price (on release) was/is too expensive for "an expansion pack" (which is more the case than not), some units are poorly placed on the screen (you always seem to click on what should be the tile below in order to activate a unit), and some look too similar to tell apart at first glance (many of the ships look similar, and in the city screen it can be a bit difficult to tell apart sleeping horseback units - i.e. when they're reduced in size and grey).

I've read of the difficulty with multiplayer games in that the games can get quite slow.

When ToT first came out, there seemed to be no end of complaining about how there were no Wonder movies, city pictorials, animated emissaries, and City Council - although most people begrudgingly admitted that they rarely used most of these aspects anyway.

On the plus side, I think the animated graphics as a whole lend to the feel of the game tremendously, the multiple-map feature works well by-and-large (credit to the programmers to get the AI tribes to actually use this feature in play), the avi files are quite good, and the two scenarios are great.

I believe that the scenario authoring capabilities are the real strength behind this game (although I'm disproportionately interested in this aspect), and people who don't use this part of the package might miss one of its big plusses.

...anyway, 'Caveat Emptor' is the lesson here... understand what ToT is, assess what you want, assess the price, make a choice.

War4ever · March 16, 2000, 21:07

many people said the same thing about CTP.... i think when something is new , people have a hard time letting go of their past favorites.........

TOT when it came out was a nightmare for mp and even sp for the extended game.... the price was waaaaaaaay to much and i found the units blah and confusing....

I agree with the above statement that scenario authoring capabilities and fantasy are its best traits.... alas for me i was duped as these things really dont' interest me ..... i was duped on ctp as well and really was annoyed that i had to buy MGE just for MP

alas thats the gaming market..... money money money

March 16, 2000, 21:10

No you don't get it, CTP just plain sucks, ToT is not nearly as bad.

------------------
Webmaster---Come to the Civworld Forums

"If you cannot beat them, don't join them, instead corrupt them, make them join you, then throw them off a cliff."
"Those who achieve greatness have backstab to achieve it."

Cam · March 16, 2000, 22:40

War4ever,

I tend to agree with Master Bob in that Call to Power and Test of Time aren't really comparable. Animated graphics in a Civ2 environment, but that's pretty well it. ToT is Civ2 'updated', but CtP is a different game but modelled on the Civ2 genre. I'm not a fan of CtP either, but I won't go there again...

I think otherwise we're in agreement - I've not played ToT in multiplayer, so I can't comment other than I believe it's slow and a bit buggy still. I also agree with your sentiment on MPG Edn, which I think was really cheeky - it should have been a free patch to add to Fantastic Worlds (but that's another topic). And, to repeat, I personally think ToT's best offering is the scenario enhancements.

fay_mc · March 19, 2000, 10:14

I think the key reason why I play Civ2 more than ToT has to be game speed. I have more than the system requirements for ToT yet it has the same problem that Civ2 used to have when I played it on my old 486 - after you've encountered a couple of civs the game starts to really slow down.
I don't dislike ToT, but I guess I'm just impatient.