Civ 2.42 is better than Civ4

[TCO]

discuss

[Dale]

What's there to discuss? You're wrong. Unless of course you have some proof?

[dannubis]

well, he is running a 486 so what do you expect ?

[Tattila the Hun]

Ah, the "it doesn't run on my computer, so it sucks". Reminds me of an Amazon.com review I read, about a digital camera. A guy could not find the camera from his local dealer to buy, so he gave it bad rating. I wonder how the thought process went... "I don't have this camera, so I'll write a review of it. I couldn't buy this camera, so I'll write a bad review."

[MikeH]

Civ II was great for many years but it had it's flaws and it is extremely dated now. Civ IV is an excellent modern game that improves on Civ II in many areas, allows the whole SDK so people can mod pretty much everything that should further ensure longevity. Nothing else since Half Life has really taken so much of my time.

[DaveV]

Everything comes down to personal opinion, but you'll find a lot of Civ2 posters that have switched to Civ4. Civ2 was a great game, and I spent many enjoyable hours playing, but it did have some annoying bugs and design flaws, and the strategy was pretty linear. Civ4 has more variety in available strategies, and fixes some of the biggest holes in Civ2. Thanks to Blake's work on the AI, Civ4 just keeps getting better, while Civ2 is not going to.

[Solver]

GP is, at least, an accomplished and experienced troll .

[rah]

I always have a soft spot for II from an MP perspective, and we still play it a few times a month due to hardware limitations.
BUT, we're playing more IV mp, and it's a better experience. More variety.

[Henrik]

Civ IV is better than civ 2, but civ 2 was infinately better than civ 3

[zeace]

During the Civ 3 era I routinely played Civ 2, SMAX, MoM, MoO I & II and Colonization. Each of them had strengths and weaknesses, and when I got sick of the weakness of one, I'd rotate to the next.

I haven't played any of them since Civ 4. The few weaknesses of it are an order of magnitude less than all those other games. I still miss some aspects of the rest, but I can't bring myself to put up with the badness of them.

[DrSpike]

Civ2 has to go down as one of the greatest gaming achievements ever. But Civ4 is a decade on, and it shows to be honest.

I will never play Civ2, Civ3 or SMAC (or other Civ wannabes like CTP) again I think.

[Kepler63]

Originally posted by zeace
During the Civ 3 era I routinely played Civ 2, SMAX, MoM, MoO I & II and Colonization.

I'll still play Colonization -- I have an emotional attachment to it, even though the old music files won't work on my new Civ 4-worthy PC. I trot out the Middle Ages scenario of Civ 3 once a month, too. There is no thrill like founding the Holy Roman Empire.

[Solver]

I will never play Civ2, Civ3 or SMAC (or other Civ wannabes like CTP) again I think.

Yeah... I don't think I've played any of those since I first played Civ4. I may play CtP2 again to see how much it changes thanks to the guys working on it. I may play SMAC again simply it's because such a kick-ass game and still very unique. Don't think I'll play another game of Civ2 or Civ3, though - I stopped playing Civ3 even before Conquests came out anyway.

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Ah, the "it doesn't run on my computer, so it sucks". Reminds me of an Amazon.com review I read, about a digital camera. A guy could not find the camera from his local dealer to buy, so he gave it bad rating. I wonder how the thought process went... "I don't have this camera, so I'll write a review of it. I couldn't buy this camera, so I'll write a bad review."

In a similar vein, I love how the user reviews at sites such as ebgames.com are all 5 stars for a game before the game is even released. People write things such as "I think that this game will be Awesome...", or "the screenies look great, etc.". Then when the game is released and the one star reviews start coming out, the game still usually has an average rating of 5 stars.

Why should a user review be counted for users who have not played the game yet??? It makes the whole wiki review thing laughable.

[Solver]

Public reviews are laughable. Out of 10 reviews, you get 1 good/thoughtful review, 2-3 kneejerk reviews (OMG great game - 10! or OMG the game sucks - 1!) and 6-7 regular reviews, generally with high marks but nothing particularly insightful.

And in these reviews, you rarely see marks such as 6 or 7. Games generally either get a great rating from those who like them, or a rating of 1 from those who don't. Respectfully, I write way better reviews .

For Civ4 on Gamespot, there's a user review saying the graphics are the game's strongest part but combat is bland because you just keep sending units one by one to attack neighbours, so the game is boring. Another greatly deep reviewer puts Civ4 at 5.5 because the armies are only 3 soldiers and travelling time between "bases" is unrealistic.

That's what annoys me, when people write reviews for games which they either do not understand at all or which are not their genre. This is not to say, by any means, that people should write only positive reviews. But people should only write reviews if they sort of understand the game and have interest in that genre. I'd never try to write a review for a racing game or for an arcade game just because I don't like those genres and couldn't judge the games for what they are...