[Puke]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Why do people think CIV3 is so lousy when comparing it to the original? The differences between them are so miniscule that I could hardly see liking one and not liking the other.

because civ 1 was original and inovative. there have been countless games inbetween then and now that either bear the civ title, or were direct copies of the gameplay. civ3 added nothing to the genre, and did not break any new ground of its own. same old thing. more of the same.

i probably played civ for 2 or 3 years after its release, although i played it on and off, not straight. it was fun, but it was always the same. now civ 3 is more of the same.

i have been playing se4 for about 2 years now, and between PBW scenarios, P&N, Devnull+monsters, and Porportions, the game keeps changing. its not even a new game like se5, but its different. i can almost bet on the fact that in another 3 months there will be something ELSE different.

change. variety. thats what makes a good series. I loved DUNE, and WARCRAFT. I got halfway through Warcraft2, and quit because it was more of the same. i haven't bought a RTS game since, because even the 3D ones are MORE OF THE SAME! nothing in the RTS genre has changed since DUNE!