A Few Questions

[Harlequin]

quote: Originally posted by Depp on 11-19-2000 08:15 AM You don´t want Ctp 2 because it´s not exactle like Civ 2 ? And you thought Ctp1 was a waste of money, what was Civ2:ToT. The ultimate ripoff. Change the graphics to something uglier and create 2 scenarios where all the stuff just basically is given new names but does the same things. CTP 2 has the feeling of "one mor turn" which nogame have had in a long time.

Read my above reply. As for ToT, it was more a update then new version. for the low cost of it i felt it was worth it. It added some nice things and kept true to what sid did in civ2. Which CtP1 failed at.

"no game" umm last i recall civ1 and civ2 were the untimate 'on more turn' games. CtP is a poor imatitation of the orginal. Also HOMM3 is a excellent turned based game.

Harle

[Depp]

Imitation ? You still talk like ctp should be like civ 2. It´s a new game, same concept but different angles. HOMM 3 is just the same as HOMM 2. Played HOMM 2 alot, tried HOMM 3 three times, i was bored with it since I had played to much of the first. That can happen if you don´t change games but rerelease the same things over and over.
CTP 2 is the perfect sequal to CTP 1, corrects all faults and adds alot of new features. ToT added nothing.
If you want civ 2 play civ 2, and keep away from the rest, it´s that simple.
Civ 3 will probably be very unlike civ 3, so you won´t be able to play that either...

[Monkey]

quote: Originally posted by Harlequin on 11-19-2000 01:22 PM I am sure sid is going to change and add many things and I look foward to them. But i am also sure the core formula which sid layed the groundwork for isnt going to be changed much if at all. Thats the diffrence between civ1/2 and CtP1.

Unfortunately true innovation can only come with a change in the core formula. Do you really think a concept like stacking(which CTP innovated) can work well in the present civ combat model? Or how about trade? Global management of cities without the fifty popup messages every turn. OR how about the new diplomacy in CTP2? Care for MAD??

If you really think about it, has CTP really changed the core concept of civ?? Civ is about building an empire to stand the test of time(lame pun I know ) What has changed is the implementation of it. I would agree that CTP1 couldn't stand up to civ2, but here we have a new game that stands on its own two feet, is an entirely new game and from the posts people have been making on this forum, it's a good game.

It was just really sad to see people saying things like "Are the SAME wonders in CTP2 like there were in civ2?? No?? Then I'll pass on it" You have to realize that the change from civ2 to civ3 will be bigger(much bigger) than the change from civ1 to civ2. Noone is going to want a simple updated civ2 with new graphics or just a rehashing of all the same unit types.

Anyway enough arguments, I'm glad you will at least give CTP2 a go. It was really your first comment that touched me in the wrong way. Make sure you post comments when you get it!!

[Harlequin]

quote: Originally posted by Depp on 11-19-2000 01:41 PM Imitation ? You still talk like ctp should be like civ 2. It´s a new game, same concept but different angles. HOMM 3 is just the same as HOMM 2. Played HOMM 2 alot, tried HOMM 3 three times, i was bored with it since I had played to much of the first. That can happen if you don´t change games but rerelease the same things over and over. CTP 2 is the perfect sequal to CTP 1, corrects all faults and adds alot of new features. ToT added nothing. If you want civ 2 play civ 2, and keep away from the rest, it´s that simple. Civ 3 will probably be very unlike civ 3, so you won´t be able to play that either...

Yes imatation. w/o civ1/2 you wouldnt have ctp. its that simple. it takes alot from civ1/2 thus i call it a imatation. ctp1 imo was 'Civ lite' from my experience *shrug* to each there own.

ToT added to civ2. If it added 'nothing' to you then you didnt look very hard. again, what may be a nice feature to me, you may not care about. again, to each there own.

Harle

[Harlequin]

quote: Originally posted by Monkey on 11-19-2000 08:14 PM Unfortunately true innovation can only come with a change in the core formula. Do you really think a concept like stacking(which CTP innovated) can work well in the present civ combat model? Or how about trade? Global management of cities without the fifty popup messages every turn. OR how about the new diplomacy in CTP2? Care for MAD?? If you really think about it, has CTP really changed the core concept of civ?? Civ is about building an empire to stand the test of time(lame pun I know ) What has changed is the implementation of it. I would agree that CTP1 couldn't stand up to civ2, but here we have a new game that stands on its own two feet, is an entirely new game and from the posts people have been making on this forum, it's a good game. It was just really sad to see people saying things like "Are the SAME wonders in CTP2 like there were in civ2?? No?? Then I'll pass on it" You have to realize that the change from civ2 to civ3 will be bigger(much bigger) than the change from civ1 to civ2. Noone is going to want a simple updated civ2 with new graphics or just a rehashing of all the same unit types. Anyway enough arguments, I'm glad you will at least give CTP2 a go. It was really your first comment that touched me in the wrong way. Make sure you post comments when you get it!!

Since your using alot of ctp terms and have no idea what your talking about i cant comment. I played the game for 1 or 2 days and gave it away, as thats what i thought of it.

Seems my idea of what the 'core' formula is and what your thoughts are are very diffrent. What you listed was just options or features or certain ways of doing things. I said im not againt sid changing things. I look foward to the master back at the helm. im sure i will greatly like what he will do.

I wouldnt call it a 'entirely' new game. it takes alot from civ1/2.

The wonders in CtP1 made little sense to me. They took out all the cool wonders and works of man and replaced them with things that most people never heard of. Granted it was more a annoyance then anything, but it still left a bad taste in my mouth. 'i cant build pyramids but i can build some obsecure foot note in history, WOOHOO!'. It was quite underwhelming to say the least.

Plus the lack of city control, and the graphics bothered me. Over all it was 'Civ lite' and a waste of money, bottom line.

I wouldnt hold your breath about me getting CtP2. CtP1 left such a bad taste in my mouth im prob going to wait till it hits the bargin bin. (which ctp1 did pretty fast so i dont expect a long wait). And even then im not sure. ill wait for the reviews to come out before i make a final call.

Harle

[Depp]

You could build the pyramids. And CTP probably had more historically correct wonders, since it took from most cultures not just the western ones.

[Chaos]

ok I am a little lost then.

How did the graphics of CTP bother you, They were so much better than anything I ever saw in any civ game before.

Other than that you are welcome to your opinion.

in my expirience....


Civ 1 was the best game ever made. I saw it once at a friends house way back in the early 90's and spent the next 6 years trying to by a computer just so I can play it again. in fact there are days where I will still dust it off and play it again.

Civ 2 dissapointed me. I played it a handful of times. and the ship looked better. but in the end it seemed that they added too much, tried to hard. and in the end spoiled the game. it was hard to move around with the 3 d map I often found myself moving in the wrong direction. I was also sick of having to monitor and follow around 30 different settlers just so I can could keep my cities growing and improving, and their auto settler AI was a joke. given the choice between the two I would rather play civ one than civ two.

Once I heard about SMAC I wet my self with anticipation. Finally the game I dreamed about most of my adult life. but when I finally got it, I only played it a handful of times. I hated the prototyping concept. especially that by the time I had a unit prototyped, it was obsolete, and I hated the whole story driven concept. the fact that I couldn't stop the ecological disaster no matter what I did. and I thought the end game was weak. and why in god's name did they not have sea tunnels????????? I was baffled.

CTP (I am doing these in the order I bought them)

I sat in front of the computer downloading CTP from a warez site the day after it came out (I couldn't wait) I later bought the game outright a few weeks later.(it was that good) the graphics were stunning, I loved the Public works system, the techs were interesting, sea colonies were a great touch, I loved every aspect of it. and I didn't stop playing the game for more than 2 or 3 weeks until last wednesday. and now I am playing CTP 2 and loving it. I think in the end that is the greatest test of a game. and no other civ game has lived up to that test.

and as for TOT? I played it once. didn't even make it thru a full game. I couldn't deal with the primitive graphics and lousy controls that I hated so much in civ 2. in fact I tried playing as the alien race and couldn't even tell which unit was what without clicking on it, and I had no idea what all the different tiles were. it looked very cluttered.


But that is my opinion, and just like you I am sure that nothing can be said to change it. I love CTP, and I am falling in love with CTP 2.

and I am eagerly awaiting Civ 3.

just don't call us stupid because we like a game that you don't.

[Jen Dragon]

harlequin, are you the same person I talked to in the SFC forum, Taldren, about BGII.

[Monkey]

quote: Originally posted by Harlequin on 11-20-2000 03:24 AM Since your using alot of ctp terms and have no idea what your talking about i cant comment. I played the game for 1 or 2 days and gave it away, as thats what i thought of it.

You don't even know about unit stacking and you're still qualified to give your opinions on CTP?

quote: Seems my idea of what the 'core' formula is and what your thoughts are are very diffrent. What you listed was just options or features or certain ways of doing things. I said im not againt sid changing things. I look foward to the master back at the helm. im sure i will greatly like what he will do.

So any changes done by sid is alright by you, but any changes done by Activision is not good?

quote: The wonders in CtP1 made little sense to me. They took out all the cool wonders and works of man and replaced them with things that most people never heard of.

This is purely based on the individual. Personally I've never heard of the Hoover dam until civ2.

quote: I wouldnt hold your breath about me getting CtP2. CtP1 left such a bad taste in my mouth im prob going to wait till it hits the bargin bin. (which ctp1 did pretty fast so i dont expect a long wait). And even then im not sure. ill wait for the reviews to come out before i make a final call. Harle

Well, first you said you would get a copy now you do a 180. Sounds like you already made the decision before asking about people's impression of CTP2. Well, I guess we won't be seeing you here in these forums until CTP2 hits the bargain bins then. Bye!

[Harlequin]

quote: Originally posted by Depp on 11-20-2000 05:39 AM You could build the pyramids. And CTP probably had more historically correct wonders, since it took from most cultures not just the western ones.

Your kidding right? hehe...

Harle

[Harlequin]

quote: Originally posted by Chaos on 11-20-2000 10:42 AM ok I am a little lost then. How did the graphics of CTP bother you, They were so much better than anything I ever saw in any civ game before. Other than that you are welcome to your opinion. in my expirience.... Civ 1 was the best game ever made. I saw it once at a friends house way back in the early 90's and spent the next 6 years trying to by a computer just so I can play it again. in fact there are days where I will still dust it off and play it again. Civ 2 dissapointed me. I played it a handful of times. and the ship looked better. but in the end it seemed that they added too much, tried to hard. and in the end spoiled the game. it was hard to move around with the 3 d map I often found myself moving in the wrong direction. I was also sick of having to monitor and follow around 30 different settlers just so I can could keep my cities growing and improving, and their auto settler AI was a joke. given the choice between the two I would rather play civ one than civ two. Once I heard about SMAC I wet my self with anticipation. Finally the game I dreamed about most of my adult life. but when I finally got it, I only played it a handful of times. I hated the prototyping concept. especially that by the time I had a unit prototyped, it was obsolete, and I hated the whole story driven concept. the fact that I couldn't stop the ecological disaster no matter what I did. and I thought the end game was weak. and why in god's name did they not have sea tunnels????????? I was baffled. CTP (I am doing these in the order I bought them) I sat in front of the computer downloading CTP from a warez site the day after it came out (I couldn't wait) I later bought the game outright a few weeks later.(it was that good) the graphics were stunning, I loved the Public works system, the techs were interesting, sea colonies were a great touch, I loved every aspect of it. and I didn't stop playing the game for more than 2 or 3 weeks until last wednesday. and now I am playing CTP 2 and loving it. I think in the end that is the greatest test of a game. and no other civ game has lived up to that test. and as for TOT? I played it once. didn't even make it thru a full game. I couldn't deal with the primitive graphics and lousy controls that I hated so much in civ 2. in fact I tried playing as the alien race and couldn't even tell which unit was what without clicking on it, and I had no idea what all the different tiles were. it looked very cluttered. But that is my opinion, and just like you I am sure that nothing can be said to change it. I love CTP, and I am falling in love with CTP 2. and I am eagerly awaiting Civ 3. just don't call us stupid because we like a game that you don't.

You are entitled to your opinion. One i dont share by any means. Tho i dont beleive i called anyone 'stupid'. Where you get that is beyond me and i take offense putting words in my mouth.

Harle

[Harlequin]

quote: Originally posted by Jen Dragon on 11-20-2000 11:05 AM harlequin, are you the same person I talked to in the SFC forum, Taldren, about BGII.

Yes.

[Harlequin]

I trust sid's judgment. Hes the master. he made this game and i trust what he will do. These ppl did not. They in essense 'stole' his idea, tho his lack of presense is felt quite a bit, imo.

If you never heard of hoover dam you need to brush up on your history. I would agree it is a modern wonder.

I am able to give a opinion as i bought it and played it. Just becasue i dont like it dosent mean im not entitled to my opinion.

Harle

[Zardos]

quote: Originally posted by Harlequin on 11-20-2000 02:22 PM I trust sid's judgment. Hes the master. he made this game and i trust what he will do. These ppl did not. They in essense 'stole' his idea, tho his lack of presense is felt quite a bit, imo. If you never heard of hoover dam you need to brush up on your history. I would agree it is a modern wonder. I am able to give a opinion as i bought it and played it. Just becasue i dont like it dosent mean im not entitled to my opinion. Harle

I agree, Sid is the master. But soon the apprentice becomes the master. . .Ok I'll stop, but there are too many Kung Foo references to pass up.

Civ II was definately a better game than CTP -- because it was polished. CTP should have been a beta version of CTP2. But even though Sid is the master, he can't think of everything, and his ideas are improved upon to some extent with the CTP games. Setting up Armies (versus one on one combat all the time). Units belonging to the empire was an improvement in my opinion -- it gave the impression that you are running an empire, not a collection of cities. Production works, not settlers (again the empire thing). Etc.

But there is no doubt that Sid came up with the original, but who's to frown on some enhancements. Its all a matter of perspective.


[This message has been edited by Zardos (edited November 20, 2000).]

[Dark Renown]

quote: I feel they got away from the formula that made civ great. Why dont they just stop messing with the civ name and call it something orginal. this is a insult to sid and civ 1/2 imo Harle

er...Ctp2 is just called call to power 2. No civ there.
ctp1 was called civ:ctp but ctp2 is just ctp2