CIV3 TO SE4

[sachmo]

Civ III was the best money I ever spent. Because of it, and a couple of other turkey's, I have stopped buying new games from the big publishers until they have been out for at least 6 months. I would have to say that it has already saved me hundreds of dollars, and it also turned me on to some really great independant games...like SEIV!

[Fyron]

Same here. Sid Meiers has really lost his touch. I hope he can find that magic that created Civ and Civ 2 again.

[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.

[Fyron]

Umm... for one thing, the fundamental gameplay of the 2 games is entirely different.

[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!

[Eclipsetech]

I don't think that there is really a problem with civ3 per se. Civ 3 is a really good game but Civ 1 was better. Why? Because of the feeling you got the first time you played it. Same feeling as with x-com, master of orion 1 and even the first time I played seIV. It's just kind of the whole discovery process when you don't know what will happen. In civ I took the French capital and thought it was so cool when their empire split and half stayed french and half became Mongol. Civ 2 and 3 are good but there is just no sense of discovery. Better graphics, smoother play, better combat algorithms but that is not what made the first one great for alot of us. This is the reason that no sequel ever lives up to the original imho. Civ 2 gave you the ability to edit the game files like seIV and thats what kept it from being more "been there done that" for me. Thats just my 2 cents anyway.

[Fyron]

Civ 2 was a good improvement of Civ 1. It made all of the good features of Civ 1 better. But, Civ 3 has stripped away most of the good features of Civ 2.