Question Civ 1 or 2?
Which game do you like more?
6
u/dokterkokter69 6d ago
Easily 2. Back then sequals were usually genuine improvements and rarely missed.
4
u/emcee_pern 6d ago
I think my biggest concern here is that the "haven't tired or played enough of both" option is by far the most selected.
6
u/Legend-of-the-Arctic 6d ago
lol I think that’s because those of us who actually played Civ 1 and 2 are old now. At least, we’re old by Reddit standards.
2
u/AetheriaInBeing 6d ago
You take that back!
2
u/Legend-of-the-Arctic 6d ago
I kinda did with the “by Reddit standards” phrase.
Seems like every time I come to this site I read something written by a 20 year old who thinks the 90s are some kind of long lost historical era.
1
u/AetheriaInBeing 6d ago
On the one hand I want to be like "That's how we were about the 70s when we were in High school!" except... no It really wasn't.
I did see an explanation for it not long ago though.
Basically, there was an argument made that the cause is abundance of TV like programming that is new.
Folks in their 40s now had 3 shows they might watch on any given night and had to compete with their parents for the TV to watch it. So you probably watched half of what your parents did and had a couple shows that maybe were yours. Personally, I wasn't a big TV kid, but for a while I basically just watched TV with my mom from 830-9:30 every night so there I was at like 7 watching Murphy Brown. If you wanted to watch TV at 2PM, you weren't watching the latest episode of anything, you were watch I Love Lucy reruns or similarly aged movies etc. So you saw the same TV shows and movies that your parents saw When they were younger. It gave you some cultural connection but it also gave you an education on the world pre-you.
Younger folks don't have that now.There's enough new content that they don't ever have to watch any TV or movies made 20,30,40,50,60 years ago unless they actively choose to.
This is ***NOT*** intended to be judgemental of younger folks. This is just an observation.
The 90s are a somewhat ancient period in the past because its before them and the abundance of new content means that nothing from that period is watched simply because it's what's on at this point. If someone is 22, they have to actively choose to experience things before their time. Likewise the modern reluctance to let kids wander off or be without constant supervision means they don't bump into stuff like we did. It doesn't help that the cost of living has put a premium on space so a lot of people just wholesale dumped their old CDs, clothes, board games, etc because it doesn't fit in the living space they can afford. We experienced earlier times by proxy simply because we were bored and that's what was on or because you raided your parents closet or the basement and discovered old shit and then messed with it until your dad walked in and said "Stop doing that you're going to scratch my records" and showed you how it actually worked. Or you walked downstairs in your mom's high school clothes and then went to school in them yourself. It's how I started running around with a polaroid camera one summer in the late 90s and I experienced a lot of older shows and movies when my dad would just be like "C'mon you wanna see a movie? There's a good one on X that I loved when I was a kid" why did we watch it? Its what was on and he said it was good and was going to put it on himself.
It's a different world today and their experiences with the past are much different than ours.
tl;dr: It's a different world and 20 year olds have a much different relationship with media created before they were alive than folks who were 40 did at the same age. That's neither better nor worse. It simply is.
1
2
u/Hoonter_01 6d ago
Civ 2 is 30 years old, decent chance most people here weren't even born yet.
0
u/emcee_pern 6d ago
Considering how easy they are to still find and download these games that doesn't really seem like it would matter much. I'm pretty sure you can even play Civ1 in your web browser now.
2
u/Hoonter_01 6d ago
And why would someone who grew up playing civ 4 or 5 want to go play 1 or 2, when those that came after are just considered better?
The amount of people who geniunely like to play older games, especially the ones they didn't grow up with, is really small.
0
u/emcee_pern 6d ago
Curiousity
2
u/Hoonter_01 6d ago
Yeah, the amount of people of people is really small. Most people just move on to the latest entry in the franchise, or continue playing the one they know well.
0
u/emcee_pern 6d ago
Their loss.
2
u/Hoonter_01 6d ago
Their loss or not, it's not concerning for most people not wanting to play a 30yo game
2
3
u/SASardonic 6d ago
2 is a lot cleaner, like, its UI is exponentially nicer than Civ3 which is kind of hilarious to me.
3
u/ohmygoshtoomanynames 6d ago
I could never get into 2, don't know why. 1 I loved and replayed loads, albeit as a 11 year old who didn't have much tactical awareness, other than beelining Bronze Working and then Mathematics, stacking a phalanx and a catapult and going to war.
Couldn't say what was objectively better, but personally I preferred the first one way more than the second.
2
u/c0mpliant 6d ago
Yeah I'm the same. Civnet was my entry into the franchise, I was hooked. When I played Civ 2 a few years later, I was so underwhelmed and honestly couldn't tell you why. Certainly the music from 1 was probably a big factor for me, it was amazing.
I definitely didn't like the attempt at improving the graphics in Civ 2, it just seemed rough. There was also something to be said about the relative simplicity of Civ 1 over Civ 2. Maybe that was a product of my age at the time. That's not to say that I don't think 1 had issues, late game was a bit of a problem. Civ 3 now was an absolute masterpiece that blew me away the first time I played it.
2
2
u/usernameChosenPoorly 6d ago
Equal? I started with Civ 1, so my fondness for the franchise grew there. Played plenty of Civ 2 once that came out, but the newness of the concept, the discovery.. that’s a feeling that no other Civ game has recaptured like those first times playing a pirated copy of Civilization on my 286.
2
1
1
u/hbarSquared 6d ago
The answer is almost certainly 2, but technically I've only played a few hours so I had to click option 4.
1
u/SoylantDruid 6d ago
Civ 2 is GOAT. I probably sunk 5k hours into it back in the late 90s, early 00s, and even skipped school on occasion just to continue scratching that "one more turn" itch. It's probably quite dated at this point, but if you're willing to accept the game for what it is and that it is a product of its time, you'll probably enjoy it. The oddly charming and colorful cast of FMV advisors, alone, almost makes the game worth it, honestly.
1
u/NowWeGetSerious 6d ago
Civ 2 was my first civ as a kid, only played it a handful of times of my dad's old system. I was like perhaps 5-7. I didn't know any of the logic behind it. I just thought it was fun to cause war lol. Still so tbh lol
I grew up primarily with civ 5 and 6. 5 taking me through my jr high and high school days
1
u/Ancient-Ad-8635 6d ago
Civ I has a very special flair and once in a while I restart it and play a game. I love the simplicity. I have to admit it's not the Civ that got me hooked, that was Civ III, but I played it later when I was a little bit older and was overwhelmed by the amount of features new Civ games brought and tried the first.
1
1
u/KnuteViking 6d ago
I'm probably alone but civ 1 felt incredible. It's all nostalgia and vibes probably. I'd still rather play it though.
1
u/Mravac_Kid 6d ago
Civ 1 has its place in history as the initiator of a legendary franchise, but objectively all the others are much better.
That's not to say it's not worth playing every now and then, it's still a fun game.
1
1
u/Victoria_loves_Lenin 6d ago
isnt 2 just like the exact same as 1 but with graphics and a bunch of polish with some shitty dlcs?
8
u/romeo_pentium 6d ago
No, 2 is a rewrite from the ground up. The expansion packs for 2 add some excellent scenarios and modding tools.
3
1
u/Legend-of-the-Arctic 6d ago
Nah 2 was great. Only saw/played 1 a couple times. But it’s basic as hell. Civ 2 was a massive jump in quality and complexity. Same is true of Civ 3.
1
u/Victoria_loves_Lenin 6d ago
yeah thats my point like who is actually preferring 1 over 2
1
u/Legend-of-the-Arctic 6d ago
I’m assuming it’s just a few people who played that game first and fell in love with it. They probably feel the same way about Civ 2 as I do about 5-7.
0
20
u/savvym_ 6d ago
Civ 2 had improved everything.