 |
| |
|
|
Raion
|
|
I think the point is still missed about this game.
Civ III was made this way, because of the way people played Civ II for the most part, always talking about them conqueoring the other Civ's.
For the rest of us that played it differently, Civ III is not that much different, but still different enough to be genuine update to a Classic game.
Civ II was still different when it came out, Sid, I am guessing had to teach the computer to make roads and railroads, and other things were added to the game, and a lot of work was done.
I still think Civ III is better out of the box to begin with, and yes one may need a faster computer. But this is nothing new. I verily remember Civ I but still I have that and I think some people are still talking about Civ when it was out in MS-Dos.
Civ III is very different, but then it is different because of the way that people in the Past have played the game.
It is tougher, because of that, and because it seems to involve more animated figures that are needed for todays games.
I think the game is funnier now, although it wants to bite at you.
But as someone said, 'If I wanted an easy game after beating Civ II on Deity, then I play Civ II'.
So, it does not bother me to play on Cheiftain level if needed with Civ III, since with Civ II, I play a long time on Warlord before going up the ladder to different levels.
I still would not play Civ II on Deity, and I probably will not play Civ III on Deity.
I plan the play the game on a level that I enjoy and leave the competiveness to other people.
If multiplayer, who would be the people you would play with?
Ones that traded with you or interacted with you the way you want, or more like the computer plays in Civ III.
If you were winning, would they not try and stop you?
Have a Cigar, you'll go far!
Shine on you Crazy Diamond!
(Pink Floyd song)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
EyesOfNight
|
|
"i'll never forget one day playing CivII MGE on the zone, i forgot who it was, but they told me "only one can win", and broke an alliance and stormed all my cities in 1 turn."
There's a very distinct possibility that that was me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
EyesOfNight
|
|
Editing the riot factor isn't cheating. It was built into the game to be changed by the user. Kind of like all the custom options in civ3. However in civ3 they're used to fix the game whereas in civ2 they're there to customize the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:18
|
|
how is this proof of anything? if you're referring to the scripting language-it was designed and written by Ilya Kreymer. and how can you legitimately cite this as proof that Brian is the civ genius until the game is actually released?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BustaMike
|
 |
You think you're better than me? You've been handling my ass pennies!!!
Nov 1999
time: 21:18
|
|
My 2 cents.
Civ 1 was pretty cool back in the day (when I was like 12).
Civ 2 was fun, scenarios made it better.
SMAC makes them both look like pong. You get tons of different strats to pursue, an engaging story line, a planet that fights back, a myriad of wonderful quotes, leaders with actual personalities, movies that own civ movies, built in multi, and a great built in editor.
Civ 3 then comes and has no movies, no speech, no good editor, and an AI + rules that make you play the same every time to be able to play well. That said it's still a good game.
NOTICE - all civ games are decent but the one that kicks ass is the one that says ALPHA CENTAURI - a Brian Reynolds design.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-04-2002 13:11
.
|