«

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by Eagle of Fire@Nov 22 2004, 10:24 PM

It's the other way around, it's what CIV II had that Civilization did not have. Nothing was worth the time needed to complete CIV II while you could easily beat a game of Civilization in one afternoon.

CIV III is better, more complicated, and make it worth the time to take several days (if not weeks, at the huge world - I love to play that settings with all civilizations at once) to complete a game.

I personally consider CIV II as an experiment which leaded to the third part. But it's nowhere good enough to beat the first and nowhere as great as the third in any aspect.

Maybe not - but Civ II is still the best Civ in my opinion!

[Rogue]

I would not say (I misunderstood the first post) that civ 2 is not better then civ1.

They did a lot with civ2 (same as they did later with civ3). Units, cities and all new look, and nothing beats the wonder movies in the second part (You got filling you really accomplished something).

Gold version (available on this site) had also multiplayer, and if you check civfanatics site, you'll see why civ 2 was much better then civ 1. Custom scenarios and all different mods, custom units, etc.…

I would say that every new civ game was better then prior game, and I hope that atari will not screw this up, like it did on couple of other games.

[Unknown Hero]

And I thought that Civilization II was better than Civilization... icon_dubious.gif
What did Civilization 1 have that Civilization II didn't have then?

Haven't you played all three games? Or you don't have your own opinion.

My greatest dissapointment was Medal Of Honor: Allied behindault in singleplayer!!!!

Here are few weaknesses of this game (I played on the highest difficulty):
- you can't kill a dog with single shot of shot-gun
- enemy soldiers show up from nowhere
- when a sniperist is shoting at you, he will hit you if you turn your back to him, but if you don't and still strafeing, there is a big chance he will miss you (on later levels snipers hit almost every time)
- if you come closer to enemy soldier (from the back of course), and keep moving around him, he can't hit you!

Instead of playing MOH:AA, play Call of Duty: United Offensive! Awesome game!!!! k:

Also I was disapointed with Warcraft III (you are killing a single pebehindant ten minutes).

I like Army men! I saw my friend playing, but I never played it!

@Havell
You can't judge a game that you haven't playe yet! Don't forget it! I disliked Tony Hawk's pro skater, but when I once tried to play it I liked it! k:

[Havell]

I've all almost all of the Army Men games, the first one you play is fun for five minutes (At least it is if you didn't pay for it) and after that and all of the other games are shockingly poor.

[JJXB]

umm... i'd say enter the matrix was very bug-ridden (gfx especially) and that was with the patch (pc version). and if you want milking a cash cow, i'd say the sims franchise is the king of cash-cows. c&c generals is ok, just not as good as tiberian sun (i have yet to get hold of red alert 2) halo was a dissapointment on pc (gearbox did a crap conversion, which i was surprised with considering the quality of HL: opposing force) but the worst game i have played is fallout tactics (a bit too much deviation from the fallout universe - especially as you could have deathclaws and mutants in your squad)

[Unknown Hero]

Originally posted by JJXB@Nov 23 2004, 12:57 AM
umm... i'd say enter the matrix was very bug-ridden (gfx especially) and that was with the patch (pc version). and if you want milking a cash cow, i'd say the sims franchise is the king of cash-cows. c&c generals is ok, just not as good as tiberian sun (i have yet to get hold of red alert 2) halo was a dissapointment on pc (gearbox did a crap conversion, which i was surprised with considering the quality of HL: opposing force) but the worst game i have played is fallout tactics (a bit too much deviation from the fallout universe - especially as you could have deathclaws and mutants in your squad)

First about Halo: I think the game isn't that bad! My friend finished it, and he says it's good! I also liked stunning graphics!

Secon Fallout tactics: Everyone is saying that this game is crap, so I didn't (and I wont) play it! About having mutants and deathclaws in your squad, you can have them even in fallout 2!

[JJXB]

what i mean about the mutant and deathclaw remarks is that the brotherhood of steel only accepted humans before tactics as far as i know. thats what i mean about the deviation from the fallout universe. i own halo on pc and its a good game no doubt, just gearbox didn't do that well in converting it (its not very well optimized on pc coding-wise)

[Unknown Hero]

Originally posted by JJXB@Nov 23 2004, 01:09 AM
what i mean about the mutant and deathclaw remarks is that the brotherhood of steel only accepted humans before tactics as far as i know. thats what i mean about the deviation from the fallout universe. i own halo on pc and its a good game no doubt, just gearbox didn't do that well in converting it (its not very well optimized on pc coding-wise)

Yeah, Brotherhood of Steel only accepted humans (and robots), but I meant that you can have in YOUR party deathclaws and mutants.

I think we are little bit !

[Rorture]

Civ3 isn't all that bad. It hs some great new features, such s the expanding territories that join together, making your empire seem as if it really is a state, not just a loose collection of cities.
But it did disappoint me on some levels, such as the world map. I enjoyed this feature in both civs because I used to get a kick out of conquering the 'real' world and imposing my own fundamentalist regime upon it. But in civ3, you get the world map, but there are no set locations for the tribes top start in. (I played the romans, and I began the game in alaska - wtf???!!!!)
But the worst game I have ever played would have to be icewind dale. I could believe that piece of tripe!! I was expecting a BG style game (since I ws a huge fan of that game), with an engrossing storyline, the ability to explore and find heaps of interesting encounters and an awesome combat system. All I got ws the latter, over and bloody over again. The game was linear as hell, and the storyline did not make any interesting jumps while I played it (I think the latest, before I ripped it out of the cd drive and threw it in the direction of one of my friends, whom hated it) was that an ancient evil is stirring again and threatens to take over the world. They could have just as easily said, 'Okay, yourt name is now frodo, take the ring to mount dhoom and cst it in the fire, or else, bitch', it would have made no god-dmn difference.
BG opened up a whole new world of possiblities for DandD games, offering an engine that could be used for countless campaigns in all the different worlds. Icewind Dale swalloed that possibility and farted it down the drain. (Lucky Planescape tournament and BG2 are still keeping the dream alive, when are they going to make a Dragonlance version of those games?)
I'd best stop now though, I copuld write a bible-sized book on how much this gae pissed me off (mainly because it cost a good twenty dollars that I could have spent on beer!)

[Morrin]

Hitman: Contracts was a quite disappointment. It lacked the great story that the first two had. It even lacked demos after some missions that was quite unacceptable.