 |
|
Maquiladora
|
|
What if i played half a game of civ3 and trashed it because moving workers around took time away from the real playing and made it "unfun"? Id say i wasnt lacking goodwill either then.
I didnt actually, i played civ3 for a few games but it was slow and i felt most of my time was being spent on boring tasks, rather than strategy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Solver
Let me guess... you were disappointed because many things weren't like in Civ2/3?
To better enjoy CtP, you need to either have never played Civ2/3, or read the thread I linked to above. Then, with understanding of the differences, install the source-code project patch (it seems to fix all known causes for crashes, and the known major bugs), SAP2... and enjoy! It really can't be unfun, it just might take a few hours to get into... |
Solver, please, get out of my way when I troll CtP, will ya?  
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
|
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:36
|
|
The bulk of Civ3ers played Civ2. They're just openminded for some changes and willing to trade some fun for more challenge (speaking of SP, of course), while others are not. Neither of these sides is right or wrong, and everybody should play what him pleases.
Solver, you can't convince me to play CtP, because I do so on occasions anyway. And I don't need to read any comparison threads, because I read them all and often participated. My part is to troll against CtP, Maq's part is it to countertroll, hex's part is it to spout insightful, but fruitless commentaries. If you want to participate, seek your own unique role please, otherwise stay out! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
If youve been playing civ2 for 10 years before, i think most people would forget. Although if you cant remember to look in the top right corner of the screen then you probably shouldnt be playing any games.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aramis
|
|
Not where I was tomorrow, nor will be yesterday.
Dec 2002
time: 23:36
|
|
I started civing with civIII. I got civII later. I played it once.
Once.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MalevolentLight
|
|
High Above
Jul 1999
time: 00:36
|
|
How can you compare a game that has no multiplayer support to a game that has it? No contest here. I don't think civ3 and it's expansions were considered some of the worst ever for no reason. All you have to do is go check out the civ3 multiplayer forum to see that civ3 crashed and burned.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MalevolentLight
How can you compare a game that has no multiplayer support to a game that has it? No contest here. I don't think civ3 and it's expansions were considered some of the worst ever for no reason. All you have to do is go check out the civ3 multiplayer forum to see that civ3 crashed and burned. |
Civ2 and Civ3 are primarily single player games. Civ2 was not a great game because of multiplayer; MP just made its shelf-life longer for those die-hard fans out there (who misrepresent the actual Civ3 player base on fan sites such as these). Civ3 was a success despite the horrible "MP" expansion we know as Play the World.
So although multiplayer support is certainly one criteria by which to compare the games, it's unreasonable to compare them by it alone since both games are, as I just said above, primarily SP.
Last edited by Dominae on 27-06-2004 at 09:49
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-06-2004 19:59
I even play it on occasions, more often than Civ2. I just love to tease its fans a bit. But alas, at the moment there's no 4X game I consider worth playing, perhaps with the exception of Play the World.
|