Graphics over Gameplay...or?

[Scouse Gits]

Gameplay is all ...

SG[1]

[Scouse Gits]

Originally posted by ADG
Yes, dissapointed in Civ2... it was missing lots of nice stuff from Civ1

Pray tell - I recall nothing superior in Civ1 - unless you own the Warrior that sunk the Battleship!

SG[1]

[General Ludd]

Actually, I always thought that the original had a better map generator. But that's it.

[DrSpike]

Civ2 was really Civ1.5........there was nothing in Civ1 that was good that wasn't in Civ2........except maybe the screen at the end where you saw the rise and fall of your empire.

[Jamski]

That's why Civ2 is the "best" of the Civ series. It takes the classic formula from Civ1 and tidys up the rough corners.

BTW, I'm going with WBC2 over WC3. Simply more to do, more races etc. But I also think both games have "good" graphics.

-Jam

[FrustratedPoet]

wtf is WBC?

[Jamski]

Warlords Battlecry (2) - Fantasy RTS with "RPG elements". You can probably still pick it up for €10 or something.

-Jam

[FrustratedPoet]

OK, thanks.

I had heard the name before, but just didn't recognise the TLA.

[Guynemer]

Gameplay or graphics... hmmmm...

SMAC or Civ3...

Gee, what a tough choice.

[Traianvs]

In Civ 2, units graphics made it hard to tell which unit is which. Isometric view made it just plain hard to see what squares are adjacent to what other squares, etc.

Actually, I found civ2 to have the best overview...

Long time ago I bought civ: call to power, it had better graphics, supposedly, but I never got further than the classical age because I hated the layout and graphics of the game... chaotic, especially when several units are standing next to eachother and simply crappy map graphics...

civ2 is superior over ever other civgame (civ3 looks just the same as civ: call to power imo)

I want decent graphics to enjoy a game, though it is not the most important factor: monkey island (still searching for #2 for free, and perhaps #3 as well!) is still a great game to play, despite the choppy graphics

[Solver]

I hoped that Civ 2 would take the classic that Civ 1 is, remove messy stuff, add something cool. Instead, I still had absolutely ridicilous air units, those DAMN CARAVANS!!!, the ability to buy half the enemy army with Spies, and the same unit building cities and doing terraforming. Most Civ 1 problems weren't fixed. Just the Warrior vs. Battleship, which was *sort of* fixed. While the crap that Civ 2 added... Leonardo's Workshop and Fundy govt were enough to make the game crap!

[Adagio]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Civ2 was really Civ1.5........there was nothing in Civ1 that was good that wasn't in Civ2........except maybe the screen at the end where you saw the rise and fall of your empire.

That's among the things I missed in Civ2...

But I wouldn't even call it Civ1.5, it's more like 1.2:

Updated graphics, and a few more units/techs/improvements/wonders...

Hmm...sounds like an addon to me

Oh, wait a minutes, in an addon they don't remove good stuff

[DrSpike]

Like SG asked you what did they remove? Nothing to my knowledge.

[Adagio]

Well... you mentioned yourself, what they have removed (and I remember that more things where removed, but I can't remember exactly what it was)...

...now I know: One more thing they removed was the palace (replaced with some boring inside view of the palace)

Yes, I know, it's only fluff (is that the word?), but it's still fun


I can't see how Civ2 can be a special game, since they almost didn't include anything new (to gameplay)

[pg]

i just installed civ1(civnet) and civ2 recently. i still prefer civ1 just because i think it has less baggage and the games are usually much quicker. civ2 is much easier than i remember it being after i've played civ3 and prefected ics. in civ2 i almost play it like simcity now, defense seems so strong. the random maps in civ2 are horrid also. after eu2 all civ games just feels bad. maybe if civ4 fixs all the micromanagement problems along with making it possible to play with 50+ civs at once along with better diplomacy i'll be interested.