First-time Civ player with questions

[JackRudd]

Once you've discovered Currency, you may set cities to build Wealth.
Once you've discovered Alphabet, you may set cities to build Research.
Once you've discovered Music, you may set cities to build Culture.

Hence my post above.

[Robert]

Civ2 is a classic, but there's no reason to start playing it if you've never played it before.
Those who say that Civ2 is still enjoyable are those who played civ2 when it was fresh and new.

You're spoiled with civ4 and will never be able to enjoy civ2 anymore. I've played civ1, civ2 and civ3 for thousands of hours. I loved all of them, but when a new version is released, the old version is pretty much obsolute.

Surely with civ4, which is a very good game in itself. And it will shine as long, or maybe even longer then civ2, because it has a better customization environment, the multiplayer is much better and it's much more a challenge. I beated the civ2 deity quite quickly.
I'm still busy beating Emperor in civ4.

Not to mention that I have only beated Monarch in the space race.

To sum it up: civ4 is more then civ2. There's really no reason to play civ2, unless you're a civ2 fanatic and you've played the game for 1000s of hours and you're just in a group of people with whom you multiplay it etc.

[JackRudd]

There are a few exceptions to the new-version-makes-old-version-obsolete rule (I tried Railroad Tycoon 3 a few times, then went back to Railroad Tycoon 2), but I think I'd agree with it when it comes to Civ.

[Solver]

Yep, CyberShy sums it up quite well. Civ2 is a great game, and a classic. I actually like it less than most people here, because I disliked the isometric map there, and always thought it didn't add much to Civ1, but it's a classic.

Civ4's my favorite - doesn't mean I'll never play the older Civ games, but I certainly won't play much. I actually played a game of Civ1 a few months ago, but indeed, that's all because us old-time civvers have fond memories. If you're new to Civ, than any of the older civs will just seem like a step back to it, so there's no reason for you to play those, unless you're maybe curious to see what they looked like.

For me, Civ4 has finally passed the longevity test... and now I can say it's my favorite civ game. I already loved it out of the box and before the box, but it has now passed the test of time, earning its title of the best Civ game to date.

[fed1943]

For me that's truth with civ4 versus civ3 and civ2; but not with civ3 versus civ2.
As I said before civ3 is still a good game, but the weakest of the serie.
Best regards,

[Aro]

cIV>CivIII>Civ II>Civ

Simple like that.

[Ijuin]

Originally posted by JackRudd
There are a few exceptions to the new-version-makes-old-version-obsolete rule (I tried Railroad Tycoon 3 a few times, then went back to Railroad Tycoon 2), but I think I'd agree with it when it comes to Civ.

A major annoyance with RRT3 was that cargo could not be forced to flow "uphill". For example, let us say that the scenario requires you to deliver a certain quantity of Lumber from New York to Boston, but the price of Lumber is HIGHER in New York than in Boston. Under the existing model, you then could not move Lumber from New York to Boston because the game had declared it unprofitable to do so, yet you were still required to deliver the Lumber, and there was no easy way to manipulate the cargo prices to make it profitable. I think that you really should have been able to send cargo wherever you wanted, and if you are foolish enough to send it along an unprofitable route, then it's your own fault and you can absorb the lost money.

[Vinnnch]

Originally posted by Aro
cIV>CivIII>Civ II>Civ

Simple like that.

I disagree on this, for me !
Just remebering the shock that Civ1 was in its time, I can't imagine that anything comparable will happen to me again. And I hope so, because it juste wasted my whole life for a long while ! I've done crazy things for this game, like, for example, lending my car to a frined for an afternoon, so that he could let me play the game on his computer during this time. I was totally captive of this game !!!!!
And this with a game that "held" on two floppy disks !!!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Aro
cIV>CivIII>Civ II>Civ

Simple like that.

Pttttppptttt

* Pulls rank on Aro

Civ > Civ 4 > Civ 2 > Civ 3

[Robert]

People compare how games influenced them emotionally. Of course it may be that civ1 or civ2 had a bigger emotional impact on you, because it was your first civ game.

That doesn't mean that these games were actually better.

civ4 > civ3 > civ2 > civ1

Of course I can't spend as much time on civ4 as I did on civ2 or civ1. I was a schoolboy in those days. Now I have responsibilities etc. Besides that, I'm a grown up guy, my wife and the me becoming a father have much more impact on me then playing a silly game.
That doesn't mean that civ4 < civ1.

It does mean though that CyberShy28 > CyberShy13 8)

But CyberShy13+civ4 > CyberShy13+civ1
and
CyberShy28+civ4 > CyberShy28+civ1

[Addled Platypus]

5. just dont select anything to build


I have been knwon to play an earlier version, and it was still enjoyable

...then I am bent

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Arguing that Civ4 is better than Civ1 is like arguing that the White Stripes are better than the Beatles (if you'll pardon the strained analogy).

Yes, Civ4 is glossier, has many more features and gameplay options, is less exploitable, and seems to be very playable. But without Civ1, there wouldn't be a Civ4.

Really, any computer game that was made more than 3 or 4 years ago is going to suffer in comparison with modern games - systems didn't have the resources to give older games the depth they have today, and you could only devote so much space to making the AI somewhat intelligent

A better question, in the abstract, would be - is Civ4 as far above its contemporaries as Civ1 (and Civ2, for that matter) was?

Of course, given that it's not 1994 anymore... Civ1 will seem pretty shallow compared to Civ4. And while Civ2 has a lot of nuances that are (even now) still not fully discovered and understood, you may not want to put in the effort. I'm fairly sure that I'll always play Civ2, just because it hasn't gotten dull, even after 10 years.

I liked Civ2 better than 1 or CtP... I never tried Civ3 due to it getting the thumbs down from a number of people whose opinions I respect.

Civ4 arrives Friday

[Robert]

The question here is: shall I play civ2 or civ4?
Then the answer is: Play civ4 for it's a better game then civ2.

[MikeH]

From my point of view Civ IV is comfortably the best of them all.

Civ I was a stunning game when it came out, and Civ II polished that idea well enough that it is still very playable today. But Civ IV is a great progression, adds some really nice idea, fixes some longstanding problems and is just as addictive as Civ I was when it first came out but with a modern polish.

I haven't spent this much time on any game since I was at university and had plenty of free time to play.