CivULATION or SiDAPPOINTMENT?

[Zoid]

I´d give it a 2. Some very nice ideas (culture, the new support system, etc.) but poorly executed. But it´s getting there, maybe after a few more patches it could get a passing grade...

[dunk]

I gave 3 stars. I love playing Civ and can do so for hours at a time. However, there's always room for improvement.

"I gave it 2 stars because by itself, it still is pretty decent. It just isn't up to par with my expectations. It is basically Civ 2 source code with new graphics, new culture, and different unit properties with a rewritten AI." - Sava

That is just about funny. Of course it's just an upgrade of Civ II. It wouldn't be called Civilization if it were radically different. Duh!

[Zoid]

I´m amazed that like almost 70% gave this game a passing grade...

[ACooper]

Cuz' we are right!

[ixnay]

I gave it 4 stars...despite the flaws in it, it is a game that manages to keep me coming back to it and playing more, which is rare for games these days.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by ixnay37
I gave it 4 stars...despite the flaws in it, it is a game that manages to keep me coming back to it and playing more, which is rare for games these days.

Different strokes I guess, It´s exactly what Civ3 didn´t do for me (unlike all it´s predecessors).

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
I´d give it a 2. Some very nice ideas (culture, the new support system, etc.) but poorly executed. But it´s getting there, maybe after a few more patches it could get a passing grade...

Surely I had too much great expectation from a Civ new game: I hoped in some great new game concept, a state of the art general appeal... a design team devoted to revolutionize the old original concept.

Of course I was a dreamer: Firaxis and Sid can't afford to do brave experiment, so they develop a honest, enough solid (after a long round of patches) if not properly balanced IMHO, conservative sequel .

I play somewhat the game, but I never feel in love with it as I did with Railroad Tycoon, Civ 1 and 2, and partially with SMAC. Of course could be my fault, but I'm a player and customer as everyone here, so you can't sue me, I suppose

[Cyclotron]

I gave it 3.5.

It's not close to perfect, but as a long time player of Civ1 and 2 I think it is a worthy successor and generally made improvements to the past Civ2 system. Good replay value, more features, and IMO the fact that they didn't listen to the fans at every point along the road doesn't mean the game is inferior.

[dawidge]

3.5

If I were to judge the game on what I was expecting from it (SMAC set on Earth with improvements) I'd give it two stars.

Judging it as an evolution from CIV2, I have to give it more credit than that. Some of the concepts still need refining (as of 1.17) and there are still a few gameplay issues which don't surface without seeing what happens when people like us get together and discover things like how to abuse tech and resource trading (I hope this is better balanced in 1.21). As far as the bug-fixes go, remember that CIV2 wasn't even stable until it got to the higher patchlevels (what did it end up with, 42?).

[Tuberski]

I gave it a 3.

I haven't considered Sid Meier a game god like a lot of people do. That all left me with SMAC. I wasn't expecting, nor was I hoping for something SMAC-like. I got a game that resembled Civ 2, just as Civ 2 resembled Civ 1.

Cry all you want about how they didn't change enough of it compared to Civ 2. Do you REALLY think there is much difference between Civ1 and Civ 2?

No more of a difference than between Civ 2 and Civ 3.

They are ALL Civ 1 with 2 and 3 having some changes, but the basis for the game hasn't changed.

[Coracle]

I would NOT consider myself to have ben ripped off if I was charged $14.95 in the Discount Bin - instead of an outrageous fifty dollars.

I don't give higher than a '2' for beta products. And I am generous.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
I´m amazed that like almost 70% gave this game a passing grade...

Is it possible that almost all the many people who were great critics of the game, such as Libertarian, are now busy doing other things having given up on it?? Damn straight. Only the gullible are left.

[notyoueither]

Yes. It's a good thing that there are no critics of any intellectual merit remaining.

[Mr. President]

Another one of these threads?

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith


Surely I had too much great expectation from a Civ new game: I hoped in some great new game concept, a state of the art general appeal... a design team devoted to revolutionize the old original concept.

Of course I was a dreamer: Firaxis and Sid can't afford to do brave experiment, so they develop a honest, enough solid (after a long round of patches) if not properly balanced IMHO, conservative sequel .

I play somewhat the game, but I never feel in love with it as I did with Railroad Tycoon, Civ 1 and 2, and partially with SMAC. Of course could be my fault, but I'm a player and customer as everyone here, so you can't sue me, I suppose

Right on, dude! I wouldn´t mind so much if the game was actually better than it´s predecessors. Which it´s not! I whined about this quite a bit since january and I still can´t figure out why they didn´t take the concept from SMAC and made a sequel to that instead. If they incorporated some of the concepts from Civ3 with SMAC it would be the greatest game ever made!

Instead they give us this half-assed clone of Civ2...