Civ 2 SUCKS also!

XPav · December 6, 2001, 03:51

That's right!

Civ 2 sucks.

Look! Lots of people say it does.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Ci...ots.utexas.edu

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...n%40tom.bnc.nl

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Ci...stle.nando.net

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...ltra.sonic.net

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...%3D30%26sa%3DN

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Ci...nnrp1.deja.com

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Ci...%40cornell.edu

Whats my point?

People wear rose colored glasses when it comes to old games.
People have lofty expectations for sequels and when they're not met, some of them flip over into crazy-psycho mode.

If you don't like the game, well, hey, I'm not going to argue with you. But saying stuff like "CIV 2 WAS THE BEST GAME OF ALL TIME EVER AND EVERYONE LIKED IT!" is just revisionism applied to computer games.

August Borms · December 6, 2001, 03:57

I still think Civ 2 is the best game ever, and I don't consider it an "old" game, because I play it nearly everyday.
And this won't change until a scenario editor is released because I hate the regular game (both in Civ 2 and 3).

XPav · December 6, 2001, 04:02

That makes perfect sense to me.

I'm just trying to keep everything in perspective. :-)

Going to a website where for the last 4 years people have been playing the patched and polished version of Civ2 and giving them a brand new and different game (with some bugs) is obviously going to create some controversy.

Kaak · December 6, 2001, 04:29

Here is your perspective:

-a lot of those posts are in '96, Guy was complaining about an 11 meg civlopedia for civ2 (obviously a moron) and the fact that it took 8 whole megs of ram to run.

what does FIRAXIS do? well for one, save files are 2 megs now, not to mention any of the other files that compile this 700 meg beast.

-another guy complained about MP not being released and "prophisized" that they would charge for it.

that one was right on the money. so what is there response in civ3? hmmm...

and in another post, the guy said he sucked, no the game.

not bad, 6 or 7 people complaining about the game out of how many that were playing it? with civ3, almost everyone is complaining.

Dis · December 6, 2001, 05:21

now this is a creative cool thread. I love it.

"almost everyone is complaining"

I'd like to see some numbers to back that up. Because I don't see it. It just happens the complainers talk (or post) the loudest. Those who like the game are quiet playing it

rid102 · December 6, 2001, 05:40

How many of those links say "Civ2 combat is broken" or "Civ2 corruption is crazy"?

OK now how many links can you find from people here saying those things about Civ3?

Quite a few many more.

Quote:

It just happens the complainers talk (or post) the loudest.

It couldn't possibly be because some people think that there are major things actually broken with Civ3 though, could it?

Mannamagnus · December 6, 2001, 06:01

Quote:

Originally posted by XPav
That's right!

Civ 2 sucks.

Look! Lots of people say it does.

Let me follow your reasoning:
Millions of people thought Hitler was a great guy; so he was!

or

Tens of millions of people thought the earth was flat; so it is!

Quote:

People wear rose colored glasses when it comes to old games.

Yeah, chess sucks big time you can't even use a railgun or rocket launcher.

Please, stop wasting everybody's time.

Dis · December 6, 2001, 06:20

some of you are so dense. You do know a world exists outside of Apolyton don't you? This place does not represent the entire civ community. There are real people out there when you step outside.

Skanky Burns · December 6, 2001, 06:40

Quote:

Originally posted by rid102
It couldn't possibly be because some people think that there are major things actually broken with Civ3 though, could it?

It couldn't possibly be because some people are playing Civ 3 with a Civ 2 mindset - which just doesn't work

If you are having trouble with corruption or combat, just read Vel's thread. It can help those having a problem adapting to Civ 3

Robert Plomp · December 6, 2001, 07:45

In a few years we'll link yin and eyes in the same way,
and laugh are @sses off about the silly remarks they made.

yin: if you're reading (and you are since you're a complete maniac reading everything about a game you returned)
you're a part of the civ history: but don't get proud. You'll be remembered forever as the clown of civ3.

And changing names won't help you,
look at eyes, he changed his name multiple times to get rid of his cheating imago........... oh boy oh boy........ we still know.

Robert Plomp · December 6, 2001, 07:48

haha, Kaak,

you're funny man !

In fact all you so called 'vets' are just like religious dogmatic fools.
You don't like changes and would like everything to stay the same.

I'm happy civ3 doesn't has multiplayer (never though that before)
but now I can first learn the game, otherwise I would've been playing mp games already all night without really understanding the game.

And of course it's cool to say silly things like: "In those days only these 7 people complained, right now everybody is complaining"

duh.

now go and play some more civ2 !
the game rocks, and those 7 people are morons, of course we can't compare them with you, since you're fantastic ! How could we forget !

Kaak · December 6, 2001, 07:59

Cyber, i don't, in this particular post, recall making any comment at all on civ3. By my above post, I was merely trying to point out that he wasn't comparing apples to apples...

Ancientfool · December 6, 2001, 08:08

Jihad!!! Jihad I say..

er, after I finish my fishsticks.

Crom · December 6, 2001, 08:12

I'm sorry but it's difficult for me to accept the statement that Civ2 'sucks', as you put it.

Even now Civ 2 is still a great game (I was playing it regularly until Civ3 came out).

There cannot be many other games that have had the impact that Civ2 had when it was released and that are still played to such an extent half a decade later.

I can still remember playing Civ2 until the next morning, just because I needed 'one more turn'. No other game has managed to make me do that. Ever.

Th0mas · December 6, 2001, 08:22

Mannamagnus, I believe XPAV's post went right over your head...

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it invalid.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
Let me follow your reasoning:
Millions of people thought Hitler was a great guy; so he was!
or
Tens of millions of people thought the earth was flat; so it is!
Yeah, chess sucks big time you can't even use a railgun or rocket launcher.
Please, stop wasting everybody's time.

You take his comments out of context, completely missing the point of his post.

His openning statement was Ironic, followed by examples. I am assuming that he doesn't think CIV 2 is crap, but he is attempting to prove a point by being inflametory, which I think he does rather well.

When taken in contex with the rest of the post it is quite obvious what he is expressing:

1. CIV 2 was not problem free
2. Some people conviently forget that CIV 2 was not problem free
3. Yes CIV 3 has bugs, it is brand new..Civ 2 had the same problems when it was first released.
4. and NOT that old games are rubbish
5. and NOT that CIV 2 was rubbish

...and Kaak you conveniently forget that when CIV 2 was first released (1995 - I think) there was not a very big online civ community. So no ramping up of unrealist expections prior to Civ2 release and therefore a more constructive approach to the problems with the first release of CIV2.

So XPav - I think you hit the nail on the head - good thread

BeBro · December 6, 2001, 10:25

Well, to sum up: Everythings sucks...or not?

Frito · December 6, 2001, 11:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Th0mas
...and Kaak you conveniently forget that when CIV 2 was first released (1995 - I think) there was not a very big online civ community. So no ramping up of unrealist expections prior to Civ2 release

Just because there wasn't a big online community doesn't mean people didn't have unrealistic expectations, after all civ1 was a great game just like civ2 was.

Th0mas · December 6, 2001, 11:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Frito

Just because there wasn't a big online community doesn't mean people didn't have unrealistic expectations, after all civ1 was a great game just like civ2 was.

I agree... but they were excited individuals.

Bring along the Internet, suddenly those exicited individuals can now 'bounce off' each other and this then escalates...for excitement is extremely contageous.

Most angry individuals by themselves wouldn't be angry enough to kill a stranger. Get a group of angry individuals together and before you know it they've got the rope, they've got a horse and they've found a convient tree...

rid102 · December 6, 2001, 12:31

Quote:

It couldn't possibly be because some people are playing Civ 3 with a Civ 2 mindset - which just doesn't work

Hey thanks for your concern; I did have that problem to begin with then got over it. The problem was apparently (according to some other guy on here) that I am just not "man enough" to play Civ3. So I had a sex-change and found that most of my initial concerns hadn't gone away.

I'm sure you were one of select few who played your very first Civ3 game without any thought for Civ2 tactics at all...

Quote:

If you are having trouble with corruption or combat, just read Vel's thread. It can help those having a problem adapting to Civ 3

I'm not having any trouble directly with playing the game anymore as I did read all the tips available. I still don't like it and I still think it's fundamentally broke in some areas, but hey some people will never get the point, I understand.

Disk Killer · December 6, 2001, 12:36

What surprises me are the people that didn't get the sarcastic/ironic nature of the original post.

kmj · December 6, 2001, 12:53

Disk Killer - Doesn't surprise me a bit.

Please, stop wasting everybody's time.

Lol; 99% of the threads on this forum are a waste of time.

zapperio · December 6, 2001, 12:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Frito

Just because there wasn't a big online community doesn't mean people didn't have unrealistic expectations, after all civ1 was a great game just like civ2 was.

Yes indeed, but we are talking about historical perspective here. Great game, yes, played by...5000 people? Very rough guesstimate which gives a lower figure when we consider how many of those had internet access, 10-20%?. Civ 3... 500.000 people playing? With all the pirated copies, probably even higher and at least 80% of those have internet access.

There are going to be a great deal of whiners here like on every other game forum.

Zap

Mannamagnus · December 6, 2001, 14:04

ThOmas,
Didn't get it; still don't get it, but am willing to take your word for it.

\

Cybershy,
Please leave Yin out of this, he's getting way too much attention already.

Anything wishable

Mannamagnus

Robert Plomp · December 6, 2001, 14:18

Quote:

Cybershy,
Please leave Yin out of this, he's getting way too much attention already.

you're right, Im sorry.
i't's just too hard for me to ignore someone that's posting 100 messages about the same subject per week and in fact is digital jumping up and down in front of your nose screaming BS.

but I'll try.

Dis · December 6, 2001, 14:32

I guess I don't get the point, I can't figure out how the game is broke. I must not be smart enough. What is apparant to me is Firaxis did not design this game for the people on this board. They designed a game that can sell a million copies at least. Some of you can't seem to figure that out.

If it's broke, don't play it. I am utterly confused why you are all here.

Dravin · December 6, 2001, 14:58

Quote:

I'm sure you were one of select few who played your very first Civ3 game without any thought for Civ2 tactics at all...

Ya know, not everyone who plays Civ III has played Civ II, just thought I'd give you a heads up.

Just as not everyone who plays Civ III visits and comments on this forum. It's folly to think so, how many registered users are there for this forum when you weed out any possible alternative IDs? How many units have been sold already? There is probably a large discrepancy in numbers, thinking that a majority of this board reflects the majority of people who have played the game just doesn't fly.

The originator of the thread has a great point also; people tend to forget the initial flaws and stumbles that their favorite games experienced in their infancy. In fact I recommend that those that have Civ II reinstall it without the patch and play the game, and then compare it to Civ III.

XPav · December 6, 2001, 15:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Dravin

The originator of the thread has a great point also; people tend to forget the initial flaws and stumbles that their favorite games experienced in their infancy. In fact I recommend that those that have Civ II reinstall it without the patch and play the game, and then compare it to Civ III.

To be fair, you're going to have to take a 486 with 8 or 16 megs of RAM, install Windows 95 on it, and then go install Civ2.

It amazing to think that when Civ2 came out, people were *****ing that it required Windows 95! I mean, what was wrong with DOS?

Frito · December 6, 2001, 15:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Dravin
Ya know, not everyone who plays Civ III has played Civ II, just thought I'd give you a heads up.

If you like Civ3 and have not played Civ2 then I'd highly recomend putting out the $15 or so that it costs to get it.

Dravin · December 6, 2001, 15:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Frito

If you like Civ3 and have not played Civ2 then I'd highly recomend putting out the $15 or so that it costs to get it.

Possibly, but I really don't have the funds to do so. Only $15 dollars is still $15 more then I have.

Besides, I'm not really inclined to go backwards in a series. Thanks for the suggestion though.

GePap · December 6, 2001, 15:59

I think there is are differences between the coming out of civ2 and civ3. I accept the bug issues, and i have yet to complain about them, and I am also not as worked up about the editor, since I very much remember having to wait for it in civ2, when I bought FW's. Yet, the editor ia a good place to start. Civ1 did not have an editor, neither did MOO or MOO2 or colonization, other microprose games. The editor in civ2 was something relatively new for both the sid games and microprose. Well, between Civ2 and civ3 there was SMAC, and its variations. There was much change between civ2 and civ3, and accelerated change. I agree with XPav about the whole issue on requirements for civ2 (heck, I had only 8 megs in the old comp. so I never did see those animated heralds), but Civ3 needs win98, which is 3 years old by now, so its not the same as civ2 and win95. The point is that civ2 was revolutionary compared to civ1 in a way that civ3 compared to civ2 is NOT. Yes, radical change was made, but what agravates me the most is that the team at fixaris seems to have ignored what they, and we, have learnt in the last 5 years. Between civ and civ2 there was not much change in the civ community (if there was any), but in the last five years it has exploded and grown and includes now various titles. I expected civ3 to be a new game, but to be new while incorporating the ideas that we, the civ community, had said we liked about all the new additions to that community (the ability to edit was the main one) during those five years. They didn't. Look at how many of the changes people want to civ3 are ideas from Civ2, or SMAC, or CtP series, which many saw as improvements. Civ2 was evolutionary and revolutionary at the same time from the start (even with all the bugs) and was simply made better and better with time. Civ3 has managued to be neither from the start, and the question in my mind, is whether the line of TBS can last long enough for Civ3 to reach the level of finess that Civ2 reached.