The Other Worlds Shrine

Your place for discussion about RPGs, gaming, music, movies, anime, computers, sports, and any other stuff we care to talk about... 

  • Sid Meiers Civilization 2 vs. Civilization 3

  • Because playing them is not enough, we have to bitch about them daily, too. We had a Gameplay forum, but it got replaced by GameFAQs.
Because playing them is not enough, we have to bitch about them daily, too. We had a Gameplay forum, but it got replaced by GameFAQs.
 #28448  by Gone to Shakers
 Wed Jun 05, 2002 6:33 pm
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>After having 7 or 8 months with Civ 3, I'm going to admit, I still find myself going back to the much less stressful system that is Civilization 2. Civilization 3 does add in a lot of area's, and I like some features such as the Palace thing (that was also in the first civ game).

The whole culture thing, I don't like it: it's good in some ways that you can get rid of foreign cities that happen to be in the middle of your empire. I find that there are too many holes in the system. it is very annoying when you have half of your army in one city then POOF it's all gone in a flash. There should be a screen that pops up and allows you to barter with the citizens so they'll remain in your Empire or at least some sort of warning the turn before your city defects to another civilization.

The whole focus on trade, I hate it, I don't like it at all, it's a chore, I like in civilization II how you usually pick one friend if you aren't the most powerful civ. but if you are the strongest civilization in the game, you don't really need to co-operate with anyone. In Civ 3 it is absolutly mandatory that you co-operate with everyone on all dificulty levels. The War weariness thing annoys me, it is too powerful.

One last major problem, the fact that corruption literally destroys larger civilizations, all your production comes from just the center of your civ, everywhere else is nearly useless, unless you alter the rules. I much prefer a system where corruption is spread evenly throughout, and not just in far off cities, for example, Alaska and Hawaii are very far from the US Capital, does that mean that no income or production occurs in these two states, far from the truth, Alaska is an extremely productive state.


Overall, while civilization 2 lacks many of the graphical splendors, and usually takes a lot more time to play because of the interface, it's overall a game that I believe most people will find more fun. Some of the advantages like graphics, 16 civs, and others featured in Civ 3 are just all novelty, and they wear off after a while, games are actually more fun in civ 3 when you play with fewer civs.</div>

 #28449  by Drew S.
 Wed Jun 05, 2002 6:49 pm
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>i will bet a large sum of money that civ iii was rushed...for whatever reason. I think civ ii is the better game.</div>

 #28450  by Gone to Shakers
 Wed Jun 05, 2002 7:43 pm
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Well, add in the thousands of Scenario's and Mods that Civ 2 has, and you have a MUCH MUCH more diverse game than Civ 3, but I hear that the new expansion is going to fix a lot of thing, I'm not interested in multiplayer though, it sucked hard in the Call to Power series,</div>
 #28451  by Gone to Shakers
 Wed Jun 05, 2002 8:00 pm
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>The Civ specific abilities and units, but I still think they didn't take this aspect of the game far enough. Each Civilization should have multiple specific units, and some Civs should share similar types of units, for example, all European Civilizations used Knights, all Mediteranian Civilizations used Chariots. I'm also a bit disapointed in how Armies work, there's not really much point in using them for anything except Siege. About rushing Civ 3 though, you are certainly correct, the City Wall and siege system that they were talking heavily about wasn't implemented, and it was one of the most interesting aspects of the game. I'm going out and buying Civilization II Gold Edition if the Civ 3 expansion doesn't fix things.</div>
 #28453  by Don
 Thu Jun 06, 2002 12:09 am
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>I think my stance on that is pretty clear. :)</div>

 #28456  by Gone to Shakers
 Thu Jun 06, 2002 10:44 am
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>That's it! I'm going to buy Civilization Gold right now!</div>

 #28457  by Gone to Shakers
 Thu Jun 06, 2002 2:39 pm
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>err, make that Test of Time, I don't really care too much about multiplayer =)</div>