A Civ2 player coming back

[achilleas999]

well i ve been playing civ2 gold edition like *cough* dont remember *cough* years ago like an addict

now i installed warlords, civ4 vanilla wouldn't work on my PC, warlords works for some strange reason.

Well my first negative impressions (i also have positive impressions but what's the point of posting them?)


1. CIV2 had way better interface
2. Firaxis just keeps using this stupid font in this game and also in CivCity Rome, so ****ty font
3. Where the heck are the advisors? i can only see some stupid tables and lines and graphs?????? Those advisor videos were half the fun of Civ2. I'm so f*cking annoyed when features are REMOVED from series. The game is so boring without advisors.
4. Is it just me or the Wonder videos in civ4 are worse than those in civ2???
5.Also does the "throne room" still be in civ series? the one that your people gave you gifts to improve the throne room? do u remember?

i ll keep playing and find out more negatives

[Snotty]

I miss the throne room/ castle

[Prussia]

Hey, you want to make a bet...


...involving a civ 4 packaging box?

[Sabre2th]

Re: A Civ2 player coming back

Originally posted by achilleas999
...

While your points are valid, there are reasons for the changes. If you judge the game from a purely gameplay standpoint, I think you'll be surprised

[achilleas999]

what could be the reason for removing the advisors?
they could just have both types of advisors, the "fun" ones for "play for fun" guys like me and the expert ones for those hardcore guys.

[DrSpike]

:troll:

[Adagio]

Re: A Civ2 player coming back

Originally posted by achilleas999
1. CIV2 had way better interface

IMHO the interface in Civ IV is better... of what I remember, it's been like 100+ years since I last played Civ II

Originally posted by achilleas999
3. Where the heck are the advisors? i can only see some stupid tables and lines and graphs?????? Those advisor videos were half the fun of Civ2. I'm so f*cking annoyed when features are REMOVED from series. The game is so boring without advisors.

I agree, they need to come back. I found my Civ II cd just to play those advisor videos

Originally posted by achilleas999
4. Is it just me or the Wonder videos in civ4 are worse than those in civ2???

I never really liked them in Civ II, but I do agree that compared to the wonder movies in SMAC they are boring

Originally posted by achilleas999
5.Also does the "throne room" still be in civ series? the one that your people gave you gifts to improve the throne room? do u remember?

I didn't like the throne room in Civ II and Civ III, so I'm happy they tossed it

[achilleas999]

"One of the advisors is an Elvis impersonator who had me cracking up with laughter ..."

"I'ma Civilization fan and have played all the Civ's, Civ II is still my favourite especially the video advisors, the Elvis advisor was my personal favourite ."

"Even the multimedia enhancements - a brilliant soundtrack, well-produced video clips for Wonders, audiovisual advisors - help to ease the new and veteran player alike into the atmosphere."

just from a 2 minutes search using google...

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by achilleas999
what could be the reason for removing the advisors?
they could just have both types of advisors, the "fun" ones for "play for fun" guys like me and the expert ones for those hardcore guys.

It all comes down to costs vs. benefits. It takes a lot of effort to put together advisors and wonder movies like what were in Civ2. They sacrificed a couple of elements that many people thought were pointless and put the extra energy into gameplay and balance. While I do miss those elements, I would gladly trade them again for the gameplay in Civ4.

I also much prefer the interface in Civ4

Edit: The music in Civ4 is top notch as well, though I've copied a lot of the old Civ2 music as well

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by Sabre2th

It all comes down to costs vs. benefits. It takes a lot of effort to put together advisors and wonder movies like what were in Civ2. They sacrificed a couple of elements that many people thought were pointless and put the extra energy into gameplay and balance. While I do miss those elements, I would gladly trade them again for the gameplay in Civ4.

I also much prefer the interface in Civ4

Edit: The music in Civ4 is top notch as well, though I've copied a lot of the old Civ2 music as well

I'm not yet convinced that the gameplay in Civ 4 is an improvement compared with Civ 2. There are certainly a lot of extra elements - religion, resources, alternative wins, improved AI, promotions, great people and probably others that I've missed. There are other aspect which I'm less impressed by. Different starting techs, unique units, traits, etc. I'm begining to wonder if these are OTT - adding complications, but without improving gameplay. And there are a lot of "improvements" that add little or nothing to game play - for example the graphics for the map, units, buildings, etc. For me, Civ 4 is less addictive than Civ 2.

Of course the advisors and throne rooms added nothing to the game play of Civ 2, but the Foreign Minister storming off in a period of anarchy was kinda fun.

RJM

[achilleas999]

how much would 20-25 videos recorded by digital camera cost? one less civilization would make enough time for the videos plus the extra coding. wtf how many diff civs are there?

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers


I'm not yet convinced that the gameplay in Civ 4 is an improvement compared with Civ 2. There are certainly a lot of extra elements - religion, resources, alternative wins, improved AI, promotions, great people and probably others that I've missed. There are other aspect which I'm less impressed by. Different starting techs, unique units, traits, etc. I'm begining to wonder if these are OTT - adding complications, but without improving gameplay. And there are a lot of "improvements" that add little or nothing to game play - for example the graphics for the map, units, buildings, etc. For me, Civ 4 is less addictive than Civ 2.

RJM

Well I'll leave the title of greatest to history, but for me, despite the fact I am a raging Civ2 fan, Civ4 is definitely the better SP experience.

[Sabre2th]

Well I'm convinced that the majority of people that still prefer Civ2 over Civ4:[list=1][*]Haven't given Civ4 a fair chance[*]Only play Civ because they remember playing when they were young and simply don't enjoy the genre anymore[*]Want to completely dominate the AI with the same boring settler diarrhea/howitzer rush strategies every single time[/list=1]

RJ: The complexity is part of the point. Now there is more than one viable option in most situations. In previous Civs, there was almost always a clear cut best choice.

Bottom line is: If you think Civ2 is so much better than Civ4, then go play Civ2 and stop trying to convince us

[DrSpike]

Now now, there is nothing wrong with rational debate.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers
There are other aspect which I'm less impressed by. Different starting techs, unique units, traits, etc. I'm begining to wonder if these are OTT - adding complications, but without improving gameplay.

This sure improves the game, as it makes the Civs unique
If you're playing a game, starting next door to the greeks or aztecs it would require a very different strategy than when you start next to the americans