Is Civ3 better than Civ1. If so, why?

[sboog]

I keep going back to Civ1. I can't explain it. It just draws me back.

I like Civ3, but it doesn't pull me into it like Civ1.

Do you all think Civ3 is better than Civ1. If so, why? (Forget Civ2)

I would like to know if I should keep plugging with Civ3 or go back to the wonderful world of Civ1. What is the biggest difference?

sboog

[Jon Shafer]

Civ 2 ownz.

[ChaotikVisions]

Play what game you like, not ask what other people like. If you didn't like Civ3 then don't play it, same with any other game. And vice versa for games you like.

[PGM]

Civ3 is so much better that it would be easier to somewhat reverse the question: "Is Civ1 better than Civ3 in any way?".

[FrostyBoy]

That's a hard and good question Sboog. Civ1 seems to have a 'spiritual' advantage over the other civs; and I think that's because Civ1 was the first one, like the first book or movie of a trilogy, it set the grounds and that's what makes it important.

If they changed Civ 1's graphics, and nothing else, I could go back to it quite easily. But not for long, simply because I have played it to death, I think I have played Civ1 more than any other game, because I've played it since 1991 to 1997, Civ2 from 1997 to 2001. It's a huge difference, and when I look at that, I really see how great Civ1 was, and as good as Civ2 is, I still don't think I could have played it for as long as Civ1, because Civ2 doesn't have as much surprise factor as Civ1, and that's because Civ2 was an expectation, wheras Civ1 was the beginning of something new.

So, conclusion, Civ1 spirtually rules. :P

Civ2 and Civ3 is just more water in the river, but Civ1 makes it flow. HA! beat that, now that was deep, deep as the river itself. wow I just keep going!... like the river.

[Guest]

As is:

Civ 2 > Civ 3 > Civ1

Shouldn't be that way, but it is!

I have a feeling that if the so called 'expansion pack' was left in the original release and the game was not being sold to us piece meal, and that it would be available as a 'free' download, that then, and ONLY then, would this be true:

Civ 3 > Civ 2 > Civ 1

Oh, how I had longed for this to be so with my purchase of the oh so mightily heralded "Limited Edition" of Civ 3, but, alas, Firaxis had their minds deeper in my wallet than I could have imagined!

[korn469]

graphically civ3 is better
combat wise civ3 is better
victory wise civ3 is better
option wise civ3 is better
civ1 isn't as good as civ3
civ2 has better scenarios but discounting that civ3 as a whole is better than civ2

only smac gives civ3 a run for it's money in my opinion

[player1]

I hate in Civ1, when enemies can forify their units inside your city radius.
Or you CAN'T initate diplomacy by yourself. (exept with diplomats)
AI was relatively weak.
Tank loses to Spearmen just too ofen (much more ofen then in Civ3).
No HPs!

On the other hand:
DESTOPTISM was a very nice government.
Newspapers were nice addition.
Random even were cool.

City view was EXCELLENT for that time, and nicely animated in some occasions (city capture, unrest, building built)


P.S.
I mostly miss some good flavor parts of Civ3.
And nothing else.

[Boris Godunov]

Overall, CIV3 is the best.

I think it recaptured some of the essence of Civ1 that Civ2 lost. While Civ3 needs more work and has its flaws, I think it is undeniably a superior game to Civ1, if just for the sheer breadth of more choices and customizability. Still, Civ1 will always have a special place in my heart *sniff*

I kinda see the Civs as the Indiana Jones Trilogy.

Civ 1 is like Raiders. Classic, a little rough around the edges, and somewhat "darkhued"
Civ 2 is Temple of Doom. Some things are better and it's not *bad,* but it misses the flavor of the first and seems not-so-fresh.
Civ 3 is the Last Crusade. Slick, Fun, and recaptures more of the class of the original while also being kinda campy.

[Mikhail]

Honestly though, could you REALLY go back to Civ 1, after Civ 3's barely been out 6 months?

Even Civ 2 wasn't REALLY that great for a couple years, after you could find hundreds of scenarios for any war that most people haven't even heard of.

I'd have to say Civ 3 is better. Though, the features that everyone hates (culture, resource trading) I LIKE.

The whole trade caravan thing was an annoying chore as well. I didn't realize who content I was with "automatic trade with roads", until I went back and played a game of Civ 2 recently, and wondered half way through the game why my empire wasn't trading anything

[Coracle]

Re: Is Civ3 better than Civ1. If so, why?

Originally posted by sboog
I keep going back to Civ1. I can't explain it. It just draws me back.

I like Civ3, but it doesn't pull me into it like Civ1.

Do you all think Civ3 is better than Civ1. If so, why? (Forget Civ2)

I would like to know if I should keep plugging with Civ3 or go back to the wonderful world of Civ1. What is the biggest difference?

sboog

Civ 3 is better than Civ 1.

Civ 2 is better - and more fun - than Civ 3.

End of story.

[Tuberski]

This is like asking which is better, roast beef or chicken?

[Boris Godunov]

Hey, some of us are vegetarians here!

Mikhail is right about the trading bit, though. Much better, and you feel like your Empire is actually DOING something with other civs besides bonking them over the heads.

I also think the borders/culture thing is terrific (but they need to fix the AI border incursions more!)

[Captain]

Originally posted by player1
I hate in Civ1, when enemies can forify their units inside your city radius.
Or you CAN'T initate diplomacy by yourself. (exept with diplomats)
AI was relatively weak.
Tank loses to Spearmen just too ofen (much more ofen then in Civ3).
No HPs!

On the other hand:
DESTOPTISM was a very nice government.
Newspapers were nice addition.
Random even were cool.

City view was EXCELLENT for that time, and nicely animated in some occasions (city capture, unrest, building built)

Agreed!
Overall Civ3 is better.
The cultural border thing and strategic resources, plus the improved sea, small wonders, generally better diplomacy and "less stupid" AI, makes Civ 3 better than Civ 2.
Some implementation problems, but idea-wise, it has much greater potential. I could do without the leaders though.

[Urban Ranger]

<em>Civ 3</em> &gt; <em>Civ 1</em> &gt; <em>Civ 2</em>

<em>Civ 3</em> is what <em>Civ 1</em> should had been. While <em>Civ 1</em> is the original I never liked the way I was dealing with a loose collection of city-states. At least <em>Civ 3</em> took some steps towards gelling the cities together. <em>Civ 2</em> was a minor improvement over <em>Civ 1</em>, there's not enough in there to hold my attention.