CIV1 to CIV3

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by EnigmaticGod
Who said sid was better than Brian? Who made Age of empires? And anyone who says civ1 is better than civ2 needs to go hide their head in the ground. What's worse is that the firaxians actually agree. The end of the civ series is at hand.

Civ1 had many cool little things that made the game good. The newspaper and the replay to name two. No such things were back in Civ2. Civ2 only had better graphics, the gameplay is mush better in Civ1. I can say that I liked Civ2, but I loved Civ1. I can't come up with all the arguments I've had for this right now, but can you try to tell me why Civ2 is better then Civ1, and why I always, after I played one game Civ2 played two games Civ1, after the early Civ2?
Civ2 also had a very unrealistic feature, that you always knew when a wonder was being built, and when it was one turn from finished. It would have been okay for the levels up to prince, but then it shouldn't have been there.

[Th0mas]

Originally posted by EnigmaticGod
Who said sid was better than Brian? Who made Age of empires? ...... The end of the civ series is at hand.

Eye's

Personnally I prefer Sid's 'Turn based' Strategy games to Brian's. this of course is subjective.

..and from an enjoyment, fullfilling, 'one-more-turn' perspective I think Civ 1 was better than Civ 2. Having said that I stopped playing Civ1 once Civ 2 came out. I also have stopped playing Civ 2 now that Civ 3 has come out - in fact I haven't really enjoyed a game of Civ2 for years (although I still carried on playing it).

Civ 3 has brought back that civ1 feeling and that, for me can only be a good thing.

So the civ series may be at an end for you... but don't worry there are lots of good RTS games out there for you.

[Father Beast]

I have also noticed the similarity to Civ1. when Shaka contacts me for some reason, he looks just like he did in Civ1, except he blinks. those heralds were the only bit of fluff from Civ2 I turned off.

then when I build a wonder, I just get a message, like in Civ1. No more Civ2 wonder movies. no more high council, either. they are just the mute heads I had in Civ1.

So from the game screen, Civ3 feels a lot like Civ1. But the gameplay is all it's own. the gameplay was virtually unchanged from Civ1 to Civ2.

[Be Quicker]

I would just like to note that CivI was much much much much easier than CivII. You did not to switch governments at all, you did not need to build many city improvements you did not need to build any world wonders etc. and emperor was actually easy (at least for me).

In that sense I think CivIII is more like CivII ... or not?

[Th0mas]

Originally posted by Father Beast
I have also noticed the similarity to Civ1. when Shaka contacts me for some reason, he looks just like he did in Civ1, except he blinks. those heralds were the only bit of fluff from Civ2 I turned off.

then when I build a wonder, I just get a message, like in Civ1. No more Civ2 wonder movies. no more high council, either. they are just the mute heads I had in Civ1.

So from the game screen, Civ3 feels a lot like Civ1. But the gameplay is all it's own. the gameplay was virtually unchanged from Civ1 to Civ2.

I agree and disagree

In certain respects the gameplay has not changed in CIV 1 2 or 3.
Some of the common features being:
Tiled Map;
civilisation size =no. of cities;
population growth vs production;
happyness-tech-money triangle;
Stratigic combat (Trade) modelled by tactically moving representative units;

Both civ 2 and civ3 have added game play features but the majority of cases these are just different implementations on the basic civ model (excluding trade and culture).

From my personal perspective I think the biggest impact has been the change in combat between civ2 and civ3. In Civ1 you were never sure whether unit x would be able to defend against unit y. The combat decisions you made were 'risky' and an unlucky result at the wrong time could cripple you war effort.

Civ 2 removed this aspect, and in hindsight I missed it. Civ 3 has brought this back to a certain extent and maybe this is why it feels more like Civ 1 to me?

[dissent]

Civ2's strengths were multiplayer (when Gold came out) and the Editor. Once I became tired of Civ2, I just played scenario after scenario, and it took awhile to get tired of those. Fantastic Worlds and Test of Time was some great stuff!

But if you compare the single player game, out of the box, Civ1 was far superior. Of course Civ1 was written for DOS and Windows 3.1, so naturally the graphics, etc. aren't nearly as impressive as its successor.

I was able to beat Civ2 my first time playing (on Warlord) by conquest. That's saying a lot, and has only been the case with CTP and SMAC. The AI was predictable as can be even on Diety, and the game balance was poor.

Gameplay: Civ 3 > Civ 1 > Civ2

Graphics: Civ 3 > Civ 2 > Civ1

IMHO