«

[laiocfar]

Originally posted by Anubis+Mar 6 2006, 05:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Anubis @ Mar 6 2006, 05:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-laiocfar@Mar 5 2006, 08:45 PM
Sid and co lost the path in civ3 but i will check it anyway

Just an opionion, or you have something to feed that argument with? [/b][/quote]
The game has lost the magic. I think that it has something about the graphics and the game speed. Civ II is simple and i think that it need some add-ons to be perfect. The mistakes of Civ II are tolerated cuz its a simple game without many asspirations. Civ III is too complex, it cann´t be edit by users like the other and each single mistake doesnt looks like a lacking of something that need to be added on, a mistake is a mistake and when more in the bases of the game worst. Some of the new things in civ III rocks but they also make many mistakes like the mines vs irrigation issue or the the fact that the AI its still too stupid. Personally i prefer Civ II to Civ III, but i like both. The point its that from Civ I to Civ II, there was a small change for better. And from Civ II to Civ III there were many changes but i not sure that all of they were right plus the fact that 500 MB more of the civ III dont are translate to 500 imporvements.