83 replies to this topic

[DeathDude]

Heh the Civ 2 advisors they bring back memories, if need a laugh always pop in my cd to least see what they are suggesting.  

[Tom Henrik]

Juni Ori, on Oct 5 2006, 09:32 AM, said:

Tom, you are the first person I've been in any sort of connection who says Col was better than any of the Civs. That's why I'm so surprised. What was in your opinion boring in Civs and what was fun in Col?

Colonization is all about fun. From you start the game to you end it. Each Indian tribe is fun to interact with. The graphic is fun and practical. The fact that you needed to travel to Europe for supplies, is a really fun idea, that helps create the feel of the game. The fact that you can piss off the King, by not paying his absurd taxes, is also fun. Your advisors are seriously fun, and the impact they have on the game is awesome. And depending on your play-style, you can either have fun with the Indians and trade with them, or you can have fun slaughtering every last one of them. The hidden secrets, like the fountain of youth, are also extremely fun. And you never really get the upper hand in the game. There is a really good balance between your forces and your opposition, which is really fun.

Basically Colonization is fun.


Civilization (all of them) is all about yawning and waiting. You build a city, then you sit around and wait, until you either find an enemy, or he finds you. You also have to wait ages for the technologies to develop, and definately the wonders. Years fly by, and if you are lucky, you've made contact with 2 other countries during that time. So you wait until you have developed gunpowder, and then go and take over their cities. Then you hang around for several more years, yawning and waiting, before you make contact with the last enemies - at which time you have developed atomic missiles. So you annihilate them, and voila - game won. There really isn't anything fun with the Civ games, in my opinion, apart from decorating the Throne Room. That is fun. What I find the most boring in the Civilization games is that there is no balance between you and the enemies. They are either fighting you with sticks and stones, or they blast you back to the stoneage. So the game is either over in minutes, or you will play for weeks until you are supreme and can blast through anything in your path.

In conclusion, Civilization is boring waiting, followed by more boring waiting, and then some more. There are no Indians, (although there are tribes, but you either get a city (in a really craptacular location), or a settler, or you get attacked. You can not interact with them.), and there are no hidden secrets, and there is nothing to create a fun atmosphere and feeling in the game.

So basically, in my book, the Civilization games suck

Juni Ori, on Oct 5 2006, 11:38 AM, said:

As you must be able to see, it was directed to Tom, but thanks anyways. I was pretty close to ask you too, but then I noticed that you actually didn't say much bad about Civs.

Beef's name is Tom

[BeefontheBone]

Was just about to point that out, actually

If you ever get a chance to try Civ 4 I'd take it - much of what you said there has been adresssed. In fact, they keep having to make the slowest speed even slower to please people who liked that pace in the older titles. It's also a lot easier to win without heavy warmongering than it used to be, although that still plays a big part in most games - some of the funnest games I've tried have been pacifist or honourable variants.

[PrejudiceSucks]

Sinke, on Oct 3 2006, 01:09 AM, said:

What does OFP stand for?  

Operation Flashpoint.

And it's worth every penny, as long as you get the Game of the Year edition with OFP : Resistance in.

[Potatoe]

@Tom_Henrik: That pretty much covered it. I never really bothered to learn Col(very fun, I think it was Col2) and some earlier civ games, very confusing. I like Civ4, but it's not action-packed, it's nice when you just want to relax and take it easy

[Nace]

@@@ TO EVERYBODY:

Sorry for the delay of the TOP 20 that I promised to make, I`m having some technicall problems with my computer ( it`s in a coma). I promise to make it up to you after I fix my machine.

If anyone has an idea how to help me, or just to give a suggestion, please visit my topic here: A Computer In A Coma

Thanks

[Nace]

@@@Sorry for the double post.

My computer is alive again, and I just wanted you to know that I have finished creating the finalists. They are right over here !

[Juni Ori]

And here I was, certain that I had replied to both Toms... Well, one's mind and memory are mysteries...

TH, the pros of Col: I agree. The cons of Civ: WTF? True, sometimes you get into absurd situation where your tanks are roaming over musketeers - or even phalanxes in easier levels, iirc. So? What's the difference to the real colonization era? Even today most high-tech countries could walk over some worst equipped countries, if they had the will and global community (do not read: UN) would accept it. And I suggest you take a little harder difficulty, if you just walk over your enemies. Unless you get somewhat ideal starting location, that is. I've played tens of Civ 3 games to the end, which of only in few I've conquered the world. Yes, I may have won quite a many games, but rarely by conquering. Warmongering can be fun too. Especially when you underestimate your enemy. And honestly, if you find Civs boring, you can't win in most difficult levels.

The other Tom: I've tried Civ 4. Luckily my friend bought and borrowed it. Otherwise I would've bought it.