Civ 2.42 is better than Civ4

[Solver]

Oh, found another gem. A user who's played Warcraft and Age of Empires to death hates Civ4 because he completed less than 2 games in 12 hours and because there's no action and things don't keep moving.

A valid opinion maybe, but it should be clear to that person that he just doesn't like turn-based games, and never would like one, apparently.

[Qwertqwert]

Originally posted by Solver
Oh, found another gem. A user who's played Warcraft and Age of Empires to death hates Civ4 because he completed less than 2 games in 12 hours and because there's no action and things don't keep moving.

A valid opinion maybe, but it should be clear to that person that he just doesn't like turn-based games, and never would like one, apparently.

Hell I've seen people review games based on what they've heard about it (not just once, multiple times).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Ah, the "it doesn't run on my computer, so it sucks".

whoosh

[Solver]

Originally posted by Qwertqwert


Hell I've seen people review games based on what they've heard about it (not just once, multiple times).

Yeah, any big game that hasn't been released yet will have a few user reviews on Amazon/Gamespot or such.

[TCO]

SHould I try 3? Or go right to 4? Or buy another copy of 2.42 (I sold mine it was too adicitve).

[Cyclotron]

The one way I think 2 is still better is in the availability and comparative ease of making scenarios; I've always loved scenario playing and it is inevitable that the more complex the game gets (especially in terms of graphics) the harder it is to craft scenarios, and as a result fewer and fewer are made. In terms of the basic, 4000 BC onwards "normal" game, I certainly prefer Civ4, but I still break out my Civ2 quite often, where I can play a scenario from almost any conceivable time in history as well as a plethora of fantasy, sci-fi, and other imaginitive settings.

And GP, get 4; it's in every way better than 3.

[Kepler63]

Originally posted by TCO
SHould I try 3? Or go right to 4? Or buy another copy of 2.42 (I sold mine it was too adicitve).

IMHO 3 and 4 are different games with different strengths. It is not simply a case of 4 > 3.

I have been playing 4 non-stop since getting it, but that's novelty. I will eventually split my time between 4 and 3. 2 is, IMHO, now relegated, just as 1 (a great game itself) finally was by 3.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Henrik
Civ IV is better than civ 2, but civ 2 was infinately better than civ 3

I played more civ2 than civ3. But is it a better game? I just hated paying for units with shields in civ2 (and also paying for it in sad faces when the units were outside the city radius). the lack of borders makes the game almost unplayable today.

[Dis]

3 pretty much sucks now. But I still kind of miss the conquest scenarios. I wish they would have remade a few of them for civ4 warlords. oh well.

[Tattila the Hun]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


whoosh

Was said in jest.

[Solver]

Civ4 is Civ3 done right. Civ3 is only worth it now if you like using exploits - at lower levels, there was the possibility of using several different strategies, at the higher levels, you just had to use the same one over and over. And the AI was very gullible diplomatically - you could easily be friends with AIs you needed to be friends with, you could easily get almost every civ to attack someone you want and, worst of all, if you had a tech lead, you could run 100% research with a great income, funding your economy entirely through the AIs.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Kepler63


IMHO 3 and 4 are different games with different strengths. It is not simply a case of 4 > 3.

Then you'd be wrong. There is not a single facet of the game where 3 outperforms 4.

Civ3's 'strength' was that it was more recent than Civ2 and had a larger playerbase, and arguably was a better SP experience in some ways since the game didn't have as many gameplay elements that the human could leverage so much more effectively than the AI.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Solver
Civ4 is Civ3 done right.

Only to the extent we would all have loved Civ3 to be Civ4, which I don't think is what you mean. The vast majority of the guts of the game is completely different - one can hardly argue 4 builds on 3, it builds on 2 if anything.

[Dis]

civ3 did have culture, military paid for by taxes (instead of shields), and other things that are in civ4.

[DrSpike]

Resources too.