Civ 2 SUCKS also!

[MrWhereItsAt]

Yes Xpav. What WAS wrong with DOS?

[Father Beast]

Re: There is a difference

Originally posted by GePap
I agree with XPav about the whole issue on requirements for civ2 (heck, I had only 8 megs in the old comp. so I never did see those animated heralds),

you weren't missing anything.

Originally posted by GePap
The point is that civ2 was revolutionary compared to civ1 in a way that civ3 compared to civ2 is NOT.

astonishing. to declare that Civ2 was revlutionary? it had a new graphics engine, and some new units, and the editor. barely qualifies as an add on pack.

Originally posted by GePap
Yes, radical change was made, but what agravates me the most is that the team at fixaris seems to have ignored what they, and we, have learnt in the last 5 years. Between civ and civ2 there was not much change in the civ community (if there was any), but in the last five years it has exploded and grown and includes now various titles. I expected civ3 to be a new game, but to be new while incorporating the ideas that we, the civ community, had said we liked about all the new additions to that community (the ability to edit was the main one) during those five years. They didn't. Look at how many of the changes people want to civ3 are ideas from Civ2, or SMAC, or CtP series, which many saw as improvements. Civ2 was evolutionary and revolutionary at the same time from the start (even with all the bugs) and was simply made better and better with time. Civ3 has managued to be neither from the start, and the question in my mind, is whether the line of TBS can last long enough for Civ3 to reach the level of finess that Civ2 reached.

ahh, I see what you're saying now. you mean that since there weren't so many civ games, the expectation of where they could innovate wasn't as high, and so they were able to make such a pathetic sequel (meaning Civ2)
and have people think it was great.
Well, I beg to differ. there was also Master Of Orion and Master of Magic on the sidelines, showing us what could be done with an empire game. and in counterpart to Alpha Centauri there was Colonization, which was made by the same team as made Civilization.

but did we see ANY of the innovations in ANY of these games make it into Civ2? no, no, no, NO!!! and why not? even moo2 borrowed heavily from Master Of Magic and sold extremely well.

so, obviously, by the standards that many of these complainers are judging Civ3 by, Civ2 sucks.

But I don't think Civ2 sucks. I think it's a fine improvement on Civilization, one that makes the old game look broken.

And the same goes for Civ3, in my opinion. it's a fine improvement on Civ2, and now makes that game look broken.

'nuff said

[Th0mas]

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
ThOmas,
Didn't get it; still don't get it, but am willing to take your word for it. \

That was a surprise
maybe you should change your name to Magnanimous

[Mannamagnus]

Do you mean Magna-ignoramous?

[Q Classic]

voice of reason

people will always have different opinions. big whoop.

what do you expect anyone here to do about it, six years after civ2 was released?

if people are still playing it, well, then, those people still playing it still like it.

if people aren't playing it, well, then, those people obviously have found that other games are better.

what's the point here?

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by Dissident
Those who like the game are quiet playing it

Excellent point!!!!! It makes sense that probably a vast majority of people like it and are thus, playing it, not posting on this site! Hence, you get a skewed view of things because the people who don't like it have lots of time to post and post and post and post......about how much they don't like it!!!

It's all beginning to make sense now.....