20th November 2004, 10:11 AM
A Black Falcon Wrote:Civ II does not have "a guy who looks like something from starwars" on it. That was probably Civilization: Call to Power or Call to Power II, games made by ActiVision that have nothing to do with Sid Meier or Firaxis or Microprose and are not nearly as good as the real games that were made by the real designers of Civ (the story of that is not worth telling in full, but Microprose struggled after Sid left and Activision got the Civ liscense and perhaps the company. They made those two mediocre games. Eventually they reconciled with Sid to get Civ III off the ground.). Civilization II came out in 1996 and has a much more stylish box than that stupid thing.
http://www.mobygames.com/game/covers/gam...gameId,15/
I might have to admit that the first game has a better box, though. Simple, yet well designed... showing aspects of the game... great wording used... it's an example of a very good box. Civ II also has a great box (I love the Da Vinci influence!), but I think this one is better.
http://www.mobygames.com/game/covers/gam...ameId,585/
Civ III's box, at least, does a decent job of comparing with the first two games. It's third, but in keeping with the series' style and a nice box.
http://www.mobygames.com/images/covers/l...049-00.jpg
Sid directly made Civilization. Brian Reynolds was the primary designer of II (still at Microprose) and then Alpha Centauri (at Firaxis). And then he left Firaxis and Jeff Briggs (the "third guy" at Firaxis) became the main designer of Civilization III. Sid did have a role in the last three games of this type from them, but he only was the main designer of the first one.
Of his games, I have Civilization II, Civilization II: Conflicts in Civilization, Civ II: Fantastic Worlds, Gettysburg!, and Civilization III. I've also played Alpha Centauri, the Alpha Centauri expansion, and Civilization I. (Oh, and weren't you saying you loved Pirates! years back? That's a Sid Meier game! I haven't played it though...) Civilization II isn't just my favorite Sid game, it's one of my favorite games of all time. I know my PC list keeps shifting, but really, thinking about it it's hard to justify putting Civ II below third... perhaps fourth (if I say that Torment is third after SC and WCIII), but it's close. I just think that Civ II is such a brilliant game... there are a lot of games I can say are good, but there are very few for which I can truly say that I cannot think of any relevant flaws that count as things that matter in any way for the game. Civ II is one of those games. None of the "flaws" I could think of matter at all, really. It's about as close to perfection as games can get. Which means that Civ III was, in my opinion, an impossible task as they had to match two of the best games ever (a lot of people think Civ I was better. Perhaps it's my relative lack of experience, but I've always liked Civ II better... though the first one is still stellar...), and even the best of designers have trouble when tasked with such a challenge.
What is wrong with Civ III? Well, first, I don't have the expansions. I should get Conquests, as it would definitely help the game (adding some civs I like a lot, etc), but the core is the same... I know that a part of it is simply that I am very used to how Civ II works and I have not taken the time to fully adjust to Civ III. See, I actually *like* how Civ II runs in Windows (that is in a window with the windows menu bars, etc; this isn't in Civ II: Test of Time, but let us never speak of that game again). I like the look. I like the interface. I know the hotkeys. And the game system. And they changed so much. Artillery can't kill units, irrigation has to start next to rivers, having to have resources to get future units that you can't see until you get the relevant tech (a clever idea but annoying if you're lacking a vital one), the new interface (the little buttons and stuff), the lack of a Cheat menu, the lack of the awesome (imo anyway) Wonder movies, the lack of the funny High Council... how they mess with some units (like putting Chariots as the basic riding unit and Horsemen as a level above them), etc...
Yes, it does new things. The Culture element is cool. How city boundaries expand with their size and culture is a great new aspect, as is being able to capture cities with culture. Some of the modifications to the unit stats and the tech tree are good. But really, most of the 'improvements' add nothing. Going to fullscreen adds nothing to Civ II. As I've said actually in some ways it hurts it because it makes navigating the menus and seeing all of the relevant data a little bit harder or slower in some cases. Likewise, the new graphics look great but add no actual gameplay features. I actually find myself wanting to play Civ II the few times I actually played Civ III for more than a little while... call me whatever you wish but that game's charm and style is still the best, imo. Oh yeah, on that same note, adding all new unit graphics with more detail, more sound, and animations (instead of just sliding) also makes it flashier but adds nothing to the game.
Now, the response is: of course they had to improve the graphics and go fullscreen, it is expected! Probably true. And then the response is: Of course they had to add things to the game, no one would want Civ III to just be Civ II with a new coat of paint! Look how Test of Time was savaged! And this is also true. But forgive me if, based on what I have seen at least, I just like the original game more. :)
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/civi...index.html
Screenshots. Future games can add more features, but they can't really make themselves better games than this.
The Monuments have movies , But I dont know if it is what you wanted?
I agree artilery is crap in CIVIII ,But I was abled to enjoy the game without it, Though aircraft bombers were fun and effective.
My complaint is that some of the start locations are unfair and the resource system isnt always on your side.
But on that note CiVIII did improve the AI ,Thats atleast what they say they did.
As for the Irrigation I think its more realistic in CIVIII ,But later on in the industrial age you can research a way to allow you to irrigate without having to do that. I guess you have been spoiled by the old way, But there is a way to compensate for that , You go next to the river or source of water and irrigate everywhere spread it around and eventually you can make a irrigating network that can connect with your cities.
What helps Conquests is the special campaigns, You got the nepoleonic war in europe you can pick between various nations, England,France,Prussia,Portugal,spain,Austria,Russia,Holand, Naples(italy),ottoman Empire. This special campaign has unique exclusive units that can only be played in it.
Then the cruisades and middle aged europe.
Meso american campaigns, The most interesting since you can do human sacrifice and have a buttload of unique units and even researches.
WWII Pasific front, Play as either the Japanese ,USA,Australia (commonwealth) . The game starts after the attack on Pearl harbor.
Conquests has changed some of the CIV3 controls and added new ones , If you have trouble with CiVIII it has a in game encyclopedia, Its almost invalueble.It has a hotkey glossary.
What I liked is I could change some game features, I was abled to rename the greeks "Trojans" and Alexander to Alexandros.
As for cheats , I am glad it doesnt have it otherwise Id start using it and never really master the game.
The few civilization they havent included , Isreal , Assyria,Pheonicians,A few more european countries like the Polish and Slovs, The Hun in asia.
I am surprised Assyria isnt in it, They were a powerful nation that had conquered egypt , Ninevah was it capital and it was well known for its love of hunting.