4 ms·

> Civ1 likely was the same, but was a much worse game. I disagree. It is incredible game that did a lot of things right from the first try. It also had extreme

> Civ1 likely was the same, but was a much worse game. I disagree. It is incredible game that did a lot of things right from the first try. It also had extremely nice VGA graphics: i still remember softly animated blue rivers and waves rolling onto green shores with hills and mountains. And it was the only 'fresh' game, that could surprise you. Like you play on chieftain, have three cities on a nice island, and you are proud to have discovered sail before 1492, preparing for a voyage of discovery. Next, an ironclad arrives leading frigate with musketeers that destroy your pathetic civilization. All other games after the first were inevitably formulaic for me. Of course, players who have started on 5th might feel different.

dragontamer 5y ago
Civ1 was groundbreaking for the time it was released. But Civ2 just improved on so many aspects across the board, that I'm not sure if there's any point in ever going back to Civ1. Civ3 I skipped mostly, but Civ4, Civ5, and Civ6 are extremely different games from Civ2. Instead of iterating upon the formula, they've changed the game significantly. The basics of city construction (food and shields) remain the same, but even Civ6 has revamped the trade system entirely. (Tax rate, science vs gold, luxuries vs amenities). --------- Only Civ1 and Civ2 play similarly. Civ2 revamped combat: your units have HP now and heal, rather than the weird full-random chance of win/loss in Civ1. But Civ2 contains the "fight to the death on every combat", the similarities in governments (despotism, monarchy, communism, republic, democracy), similar multiplicative bonuses (market, bank, stock exchange), etc. etc. Civ2 really feels like they just wanted to make a "better Civ1".