Column #219; By Rasbelin

[DanQ]

The two-hundred-and-nineteenth edition of "The Column" is now online. Written by Rasbelin, it is entitled `A Versatile Game`. He recalls the comforting familiarity of Civilization II. The article was originally written and submitted in late September, 2002.

Comments on this piece are welcome in this thread and/or via email in communicating directly to the author.

-------------
Dan; Apolyton CS

[badams52]

Good article Rasbelin and certainly truthful...but

While the vesatility of civ II is noticeable when comparing it to the non versatility of civ and civ III, the versatility of a civ title to me takes a backseat to playability. Versatility might enhance one's enjoyments through versatile mods where even slight changes make up new challenges giving versatility a but when the game engine of civ II, something that doesn't have versatility, is lacking when compared to civ III, it comes up short making versatility useful just for the sake of versatility. While the versatility makes civ II special, I feel it still falls short on the playability scale in comparation to civ III, which for this gamer, is more important.

You're right about civ II not taking up as much system resources when playing, and the ability to do other things while civing, but we pay for that in having an AI that lacks challenge. BTW, I can still search email, read forums, etc. while playing civ III and do so often though it's less convenient.

I might be in the minority, but I'd rather have civ III than civ II. Better AI, better trade, luxuries, resources that pop up later, and borders to me are bigger gains than the losses we get from versatility.

Now if only we could have our cake and eat it too.

[ColdWizard]

Good read and interesting, though I think I saw a few ackward sentences in my cursory reading (in that middle paragraph).

Originally posted by badams52
I might be in the minority, but I'd rather have civ III than civ II. Better AI, better trade, luxuries, resources that pop up later, and borders to me are bigger gains than the losses we get from versatility.

i'd much rather have scenarios and MP

[badams52]

Originally posted by ColdWizard

i'd much rather have scenarios and MP

Like I said, I'm probably in the minority here but...

I tried some of the scenarios that came with the scenario's disk, but for me a civ II scenario was more about war simulation rather than history simulation and I felt the two didn't mix well.

If I want to rewrite history, I'll play civ. If I want to relive WWII, I'll play Panzer Leader! If I want to replay the civil war... etc.

[ColdWizard]

why relive WWII when you can rewrite it? but to each his own

[DrSpike]

Not that I disagree with what is written.......but the reason civ is so versatile (even unmodded) is barely discussed.........unless Rasbey has that for a future column.

[The Rusty Gamer]

There were some bad game design in both Civ and Civ II that were never put under the microscope as the internet was not the giant that it is today.

One of the most infuriating things about CIV II is trying to send out a boat with a settler and/or explorer to another land and this made the city unhappy and going into unrest! Similarly, moving one unit from one city to another caused unhappiness while it was enroute. This was terrible frustrating game design and should've been addressed before it was released to the shops! In the case of the former, units with a zero attack should not make anyone unhappy, and in the case of the latter, some sort of border (even if it was internal and not official) should've allowed no hassle about moving units around.

[Chris 62]

Is ol Ras the only guy submitting articles?

[badams52]

Chris, don't you mean the only guy who submitted articles? Both were submitted back in sept 2002

[Rasbelin]

Actually I haven't submitted anything since last October. I've heard that Laz would have written something, but no other clues. I'm already thinking that I might write something when I feel inspired again. I'm really not writing these as my work.

[Smash]

Any reasonable person that has played both games can only come to 1 conclusion:Civ3 is not Civ at all.

Better AI?..you must be joking right?
Neither AI is good but the Civ3 AI is given many more advantages AND many more restrictions on the human player and it still stinks.I have never seen these "brilliant manuevers" by any Civ AIs..The only half decent attacks I have seen in any version is largely by luck or by a scenario design.Not actually planning,strategy and tactics.

Better diplomacy?..ya, until you actually start playing.They introduced a whole new level of tedium into a game that did not need any more.

I notice a poster complaining about boat unhappiness in Representative governments in 2.Others have whined about this also.I think its perfectly thought out.It makes Magnetism an important tech for representative governments instead of a Civ3 dead end.There are +s and -s to each government form.

Which leads perfectly to my main thought on Civ3:
In 2,everything is done for a reason.It flows together in complex simplicity.In 3,it seems like a throw it together,last minute change type game.The tech tree is a joke.Wonders mean nothing.Exploration is gone.Espionage is effectively gone.Trade?..wtf is that?.Its like "Civ for Dummies"..no offense intended.Sometimes I think the same people planned Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I have tryed real hard to like this game(3).I have gone back to it from time to time.I've tryed patches,mods and what not.I just can't learn to like brussel sprouts

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Rasbelin
I've heard that Laz would have written something, but no other clues.

Laz has not written something, and Laz has no intention of writing something. Laz is still pissed off about the last column he submitted.

I take charge of my own work these days.

[Chris 62]

Laz is talking of himself in the third person.

Chris is amused by that.

[TheStinger]

Stinger thought only boxers talk in the 3rd person

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Well **** them then.