Civ2 is worthless- viva civ3!!!

Dis · December 5, 2001, 23:21

yes I have deleted civ2. the game is annoying as hell. That's why I can't figure out why peopel think civ3 is so bad. It got rid of all those annoying things in civ2. There is no way I could go back- despite the fact it was more customizable (new word I made up). The game was irritating.

They just need to beef up the editor, or I need to get my old brain to figure out how to use it (haven't figured it out yet). A few minor naval movement fixes along with the patch should do the trick for me.

wapamingo · December 5, 2001, 23:44

Civ2 was in no way irritating. I was fully addicted to that game, especially the multiplayer. The only thing I found bad in civ2 was the AI.

I agree that Civ3 is much better, and I do not think I would be able to go back to Civ2.

Matte979 · December 5, 2001, 23:45

The King is Dead long live the King.

/Mathias

d_dudy · December 5, 2001, 23:47

civ2 would have been better if they made it more like 1

and no, i don't mean the graphics, i mean the animated (somewhat) leaders you actually see when negotiating (sound familiar?) and cool things like that

Terser · December 5, 2001, 23:51

For all the problems I have with the game I think it is rather foolish of people to say that CivII is better. Yes, CivII was a more groundbreaking game. Yes, CivII had a better combat system-- sorry, I just had to say it! Yes, CivII had wonder movies (and CivIII is worse off for not having these, even if they did occupy huge amounts of disk space and were skipped after a few viewings).

Look at it this way: I loved Ultima IV. It too was a groundbreaking game for its time, and thousands of people spent thousands of hours immersed in that corner of Brittania's history. But given the limitations of technology at the time the game would be boring as hell today when compared to contemporary titles. Even some modern freeware RPG coded by a loser living in Mom and Dad's basement would probably prove more entertaining. As original as they were for their time, the early Ultimas simply can't stack up to titles like the "Baldur's Gate" and "Elderscroll" games.

Same with the Civ games. CivI and II are hands down some of the greatest games of all time, and we should pay homage to them. But as beset by problems as it is, CivIII is a better game. When and if CivIV comes it will be even better still...

Dis · December 5, 2001, 23:58

exactly.

don't get me wrong I loved civ2. And I'm sure I won't play as many hours of civ3 as civ2 (unless editor gets some major improvements). but civ2 had some annoying features. Like if you accidently leave a town in anarchy 2 turns your democracy is gone!! This is a game loser on higher levels. Granted this was offest by the popup screen that came up (missing in civ3 for some reason). Combat in civ2 wasn't better (except for airplanes and such- why can't we kill ships

). But it had some things I like better- aircraft namely.

Sarxis · December 6, 2001, 00:17

I haven't played a game of CivIII in weeks- not since I had to replace my HDD.

I have been holding out for the patch to fix this game up.. and now, it looks like it will be the Greatest CIV game EVER.

At least that's my take on it. :^P

Dis · December 6, 2001, 00:20

I might have to replace my hard drive. I just downloaded 400 songs. I'm running out of room. well goodbye fallout2. I need the space for civ3 save games. I may get rid of fallout tactics as well.

Dr. Nick · December 6, 2001, 00:28

Burn the heretic!

dainbramaged13 · December 6, 2001, 00:31

Quote:

Originally posted by El Awrence
Burn the heretic!

YOure calling him the heretic!?!?

youre the ****ing heretic! get the **** out of here!