|
Author
|
|
Topic: Why is Civ2 the best Civilization game??? |  |
|
jadlakha
Settler
Apr 2001
|
 |
posted May 08, 2001 16:34
   | 
 |
 |  |
Well recently I began pondering this question. For you see, it seemed that I got the most fun out of playing Civilization 2 and SMAC compared to CTP and CTP2. Well I finally have realized why CTP and CTP2 are not fun compared to Civ2 and SMAC (and no, its NOT the many bugs, crashes, and other gameplay problems) but rather it all comes down to one thing, FUN. You see I love micromanaging everything and cant trust the computer to do everything. However CTP and CTP2 made doing the stuff commonly done in Civ2 and SMAC like a chore. Basically what I am trying to say is that CTP and CTP2 make playing seem like hard work. I think this is do to the complexity of the game(and the complexity is compounded by the many problems that plague the games). CTP and CTP2 tried to add and do TOO much to the series. This is why all the ideas were executed poorly. If CTP and CTP2 hadnt tried to be so unique and attempted to revolutionize, maybe they would have been much better. Another reason playing CTP and CTP2 seems like hardwork is that they had complicated interfaces, with CTP2 having the worst interface of the too. Navigating the interface also seems like a choir. In Civ2 and SMAC everything, including the interface was kept pretty simple. Civ2 and SMAC seems to have been made with a certain finesse to it. Even though Civ2 isnt really all that complex, all the ideas were extremely well executed and were made extremely enjoyable and fun to use. Contrary to that, SMAC is alot more complex, but all the ideas were still executed quite excellently. One great example of contrast between the to series is the diplomacy. Civ2 and SMAC didnt have as many diplomatic options as CTP2 but Civ2's and ESPECIALLY SMAC's diplomacy had tons of personality, as you did know why a yes or no answer was given, and both civs responded to each other. In CTP2, a simple yes or no answer is given, and when engaging diplomatic discussions you get no real response. So despite CTP2's tremendous amount of diplomatic options, Civ2 easily crushes CTP2 still. And in everything I wrote above I desregarded the AI and bugs. Civ2 being the simpler game, didnt need as complex as an AI and would have less bugs. And most bugs (if not all) in Civ2 and SMAC were corrected. SMAC basically is the king of the hill in the personality area.And essentially diplomacy was made even less important in CTP2 by the atrocious decision making of the AI. To sum things up, the personality, simplicity, and fun factor of Civ2 and even more so SMAC make them way better game then CTP and CTP2(so do the better AI, fewer bugs, and fewer crashes). Well at least Civ2 and SMAC corrected most of there bugs.------------------
|
hexagonian
Prince
the graphic artist formerly known as...
Jun 99
|
|
posted May 08, 2001 16:53
|
|
| |
Some points I would agree on, especially regarding the 'personality' issues of the game. And the passive AI in the default CTP games was not good, as compared to SMAC. But I rarely have played a default CTP1-2 game, preferring the mods that are out there - which have really boosted the playability of CTP1 and 2.Things like PW take the 'chore' out of moving around a host of settlers/terraformers that ended up cluttering the map. I found that CTP1 and 2 had much better graphics, which also reduces the 'chore' aspect of trying to distinguish different units. The SMAC units weren't clearly distinguishable from one another. In terms of the interface, I prefer the CTP series - especially in comparing with the SMAC interface. Don't get me wrong, I like SMAC, but I find it easier to get around in CTP. CTP1 was especially nice because you could do the bulk of your work in the tab system, which did not block out the main map. The pathing in CTP1-2 was also nice because I could find out at a glance how far I was to a spot I wanted to get to. Those numbers on the pathing are very nice. It does boil down to what a player starts with. CTP1 was my first turn-based game, so I got used to the interface in it. |
Immortal Wombat
Prince
among Emperors
Dec 2000
|
|
posted May 09, 2001 14:32
 |
|
| |
quote:
The pathing in CTP1-2 was also nice because I could find out at a glance how far I was to a spot I wanted to get to. Those numbers on the pathing are very nice.
|
Incidentally, there is an option in profile.txt (I think) that lets you use the CTP pathing system, where you click the unit, click the destination, rather than dragging the pathing line. Set "CTP2 mode" to No. Be aware, this crashed on me, but I was trying out some of my dodgy SLIC at the time as well, so I don't know what caused the crash.I like CTP interface better than CTP2, but compared to Civ2, CTP2 is so boring. I can't play for hours anymore. |
Mokael
Settler
Apr 2001
|
 |
posted May 09, 2001 16:11
|
|
| |
it's weird. I like CTP2 graphics. I like some of ideas and features (pathing, stacking, bombarding, PW, etc.) Yet -- it's so boring. CIV2 definately has better AI. And CIV2's interface (by that I mean general control and city screens) are much better as well. And while playing CTP2, you get the same civs for opponents all the time.well, the bottom line is -- CTP2 is just boring.
| |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
