the WORST Empire building game youve ever played(Turn based or RTS) - Page 7

Apocalypse · January 6, 2004, 18:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Joseph
I love that game. Had a lot of fun playing.

That's just your imagination.

da_hal · January 6, 2004, 20:37

Quote:

Originally posted by The Rusty Gamer
Civ net 2? Never heard of it! How different was it to civnet 1?

the original civnet, as far as i can tell, was an alpha release. it had the windows interface of civ2, programmable settlers, and a whole bunch of upgrades that only existed in the documentation. the game wasn't stable enough to last more than 20 turns.

from what i remember, it would access the cd constantly, even when nothing was happening. i would often eject the cd just for kicks,and the game was often more stable played that way.

from what i recall, it came out about 2 years after civ1, and about 3 months before civ2. i believe it was a lameass attempt to make some money off the civ2 engine before it was even playable.

The Rusty Gamer · January 6, 2004, 21:49

Well I've had no trouble playing CivNet. Mind you there was a major patch or two...

Father Beast · January 7, 2004, 10:14

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
I hope you enjoy Moo3, a few people claim to like Outpost, not sure I believe them though. It won CGW coaster of the year way back then and still gets mentioned as a worst of.

I'm not sure the coaster award is indicative of truly bad gaming, just a big disappointment. The Civ3 PTW expansion almost won a while back, and came in behind Heroes IV, which I know a lot of people have had some fun with. It just didn't live up to what was expected.

Hey, people out there still play Daikatana, after all.

And I am having some fun with Outpost, but I may get to the point Jon Miller did

Urban Ranger · January 7, 2004, 10:45

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
I actualy finished two games with it, but could not face another one.

I didn't even manage to finish a game before I got enough of it.

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
It is not the worst, but was a disappointment. It did have a cool combat, but you really only watched it.

It's the worst one I played. I managed to avoid MoO 3.

Adagio · January 7, 2004, 11:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I didn't even manage to finish a game before I got enough of it.

This reminds me of SMAC... I think my max number of turns before I decided to uninstall the game was 40-50

DrSpike · January 7, 2004, 11:32

What are you smoking ADG? SMAC is a classic.

Adagio · January 7, 2004, 13:10

I don't like the too far into the future thingy in SMAC...

GhengisFarb™ · January 7, 2004, 16:45

WarCraft, StarCraft, or MoO 3.

The first two were just unbelievably boring. The last wasn't a game as much as a jumble of unusable code.

lord of the mark · January 7, 2004, 16:58

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
What are you smoking ADG? SMAC is a classic.

i played SMAC through twice, on librarian and thinker, and started on the transcend and never finished. Whereas when i played civ2 it was like "damn, its 3AM, i just played for 5 hours, my wife will kill me!" with SMAC it was more like, "ok, its 11PM, ive played on hour, thats cool, im done now" Id say its the setting, except that Im really getting into BG1, which is a fantasy setting further from my interests than SMAC's setting, which is actually rather interesting to me. Maybe I only like TBS in a historic setting? Maybe Im just burned out on Civ2 like games, and SMAC was too similar? Maybe it was the philosophy? I mean I like philosophy (and am the author of a column on Civ2's Hegelian tech tree) but maybe the phil here was either too overt, or too complex (so like where is BR coming from, is he a Nietschean, or not?) or maybe its just that its content i didnt like (too nietschean, religious side too much a charictature) Or maybe it was the gameplay - just too many features, too much complexity, no elegance, all the new stuff layered on top of the old civ2 micromanagement, that just made it a chore to play. I got the sense that if you played it long enough to REALLY get the hang of everything, it would be the great game some people said, but the hook wasnt strong enough to get me to that point.

So i too put SMAC away, though it took a while. Call me a Sunday gamer if you will.

DrSpike · January 7, 2004, 17:33

I will do no such thing.

lord of the mark · January 7, 2004, 17:45

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
I will do no such thing.

you are most gracious, sir.

child of Thor · January 7, 2004, 18:09

I'm in two minds about if i should mention Colonisation(might have had a z in it for the american spelling?), i only played the amiga version - so didnt get any patches etc, but it just did some very weird things it seemed - and kinda forced you to play a certain way.

Maybe after the freedom of Civ and Civlike games , its much more historic script felt a little claustrophobic?( I hated having to sell christinity and booze+guns to the American Indians for example).

Maybe its because it looked like Civ, but wasn't as free in the way it played?

The music was great though

Not the worst i guess, but on some levels it was for me?

DrSpike · January 7, 2004, 18:26

Colonisation was a little rough around the edges but nonetheless a pretty decent game IMO.

The Rusty Gamer · January 7, 2004, 19:17

The thing about SMAC is, when I first started playing it I was disappointed. It was same old, same old. I left it for a while and then went back to it and then "something happened" It just suddenly took off for me.

GhengisFarb™ · January 7, 2004, 20:20

Colonization was fun, I would like to see a cross between Pirates!Port Royale and Colonization so that there's a little more area to play towards.

Paul Hanson · January 7, 2004, 20:24

Dark Reign was a pretty poor game.

The Rusty Gamer · January 7, 2004, 22:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul Hanson
Dark Reign was a pretty poor game.

Yeah, but all that hype made me want to buy it. It was in the days when suddenly games publishers went RTS crazy with the release of C&C and had alot of extra options, was technicially superior but just didn't have much of a fun factor.

vmxa1 · January 7, 2004, 22:54

Less than stellar, but it was among the first to use elvation.

Straybow · January 8, 2004, 08:39

R4TS (demo) would be my vote. Usually a poor game is either boring or frustrating. I couldn't imagine how anything so boring could also be so frustrating.

lord of the mark · January 8, 2004, 10:41

Quote:

Originally posted by The Rusty Gamer
The thing about SMAC is, when I first started playing it I was disappointed. It was same old, same old. I left it for a while and then went back to it and then "something happened" It just suddenly took off for me.

oh im not tossing the disk away - I havent even uninstalled the game - And since I DID play through two games, and i bought the CD as shovelware, Id say I did get my moneysworth - especially since i wanted to see what everyone was talking about - I can conceive of trying it again - i didnt mean to imply it was the WORST empire builder (just that the mention happened to come up on this thread) there are LOTS of good gameplay ideas in it, the setting and story are innovative and very interesting, BR was courageous to include all the philosophy - just "the something" hasnt happened for me yet. And i have some difficulty seeing at as the best game of all time. In particular I think SMAC illustrates very well the problems of depth and complexity - while it does seem to be a deep game, it added a huge amount of complexity to buy that depth.

DrSpike · January 8, 2004, 10:43

If you don't want complexity you know what game you should play.

Just kidding.

Father Beast · January 9, 2004, 10:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Straybow
R4TS (demo) would be my vote. Usually a poor game is either boring or frustrating. I couldn't imagine how anything so boring could also be so frustrating.

R4TS??????

War4ever · January 9, 2004, 17:21

i really disliked Star Trek BOTF i just found the interface and the whole rts/tbs mix of the game to be idiotic.

sim city 2000 was pretty lame as well....

Spaced Cowboy · January 9, 2004, 17:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Father Beast

R4TS??????

Come on Mr. Beast, you should know this one!

Reach for the Stars

lord of the mark · January 9, 2004, 17:59

Quote:

Originally posted by War4ever
i really disliked Star Trek BOTF i just found the interface and the whole rts/tbs mix of the game to be idiotic.

sim city 2000 was pretty lame as well....

simcity2000

my first PC game.

DrSpike · January 9, 2004, 18:09

Wow War long time no see.

Joseph · January 9, 2004, 21:05

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark

simcity2000

my first PC game.

SC 2 was a great game and I still have it.

vmxa1 · January 9, 2004, 21:17

RFTS the new one was lame.

Father Beast · January 10, 2004, 10:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy

Come on Mr. Beast, you should know this one!

Reach for the Stars

Actually, I do. I just got thrown by the number. if he said RFTS like vxma did, I would have gotten it.

I bought it cheap last year and had some fun with it. It got fair to mediocre reviews, and probably deserves it, but I certainly got my money's worth, since I paid about $8 for it.