Sid Meier games

[rowech]

They should have a label that says something to the effect that time will seem to go faster when you play, may cause addicting behavior, or you might play your life away. I'm constantly amazed how awesome his games are. I picked up Pirates for the PSP and I know it's not one of his stellar titles but I played for four hours nonstop.

[Edward64]

I played the original Pirates, Railroad Tycoon, and Civ and thought they were absolutely wonderful. I am sure there were other SM games I played but have forgotten.

I do wonder how much of his fingerprint is on the current/updated version but there is no doubt he is one of the all time greats in PC gaming.

[RendeR]

Can't agree enough on this one. I've lost entire weeks to those same three games.

Sid is a game creating god.

[Raiders Army]

Sid Meier's games are good in the fact that they're a "one more turn" type of game. I wouldn't say that they're addictive, but that instead when you play, they suck you into playing for hours on end because you want to do "one more turn".

I can go for months without playing Civ, but when I do I play for hours. After that, I can go months again.

[Buccaneer]

The thing about Sid's games, which I have been playing since 1990, is that he has some of the best games of all time but also some real clunkers or disappointments.

For example, here's what I think are some of the greatest games of all time:
CivIV (greatest game of all time)
CivII (2nd " ")
Pirates!/Pirates! Gold (3rd " ")
Railroad Tycoon 1 (4th " ")



But here are some of the games that I found unplayable (or un-replayable):
Gettysburg/Antietam (awful games, should've been right up my alley)
Sid Meier's Pirates (lots of fun to play exactly once)
SimGolf (somewhat fun to had played once for a few hours)
Sid Meier's Railroad (heard it was unplayable)
CivIII (but I don't think he had much to do with that)

Other games:
Colonization (I know it was a popular game but I still feel that Conquest of the New World blew that out of the water)
CivI (didn't play)

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The thing about Sid's games, which I have been playing since 1990, is that he has some of the best games of all time but also some real clunkers or disappointments.

For example, here's what I think are some of the greatest games of all time:
CivIV (greatest game of all time)
CivII (2nd " ")
Pirates!/Pirates! Gold (3rd " ")
Railroad Tycoon 1 (4th " ")



But here are some of the games that I found unplayable (or un-replayable):
Gettysburg/Antietam (awful games, should've been right up my alley)
Sid Meier's Pirates (lots of fun to play exactly once)
SimGolf (somewhat fun to had played once for a few hours)
Sid Meier's Railroad (heard it was unplayable)
CivIII (but I don't think he had much to do with that)

Other game:
Colonization (I know it was a popular game but I still feel that Conquest of the New World blew that out of the water)

Colonization was one of the games that turned me onto the "simulation" genre in anything that wasn't sports related. It is a tough call which was more important to my gaming life.. Simcity or Colonization, but without those two games, I would have had alot more free time in my early 1990s. I also played Dune2 heavily back then, but that was more of a precursor to RTS games, which I don't play as much of these days.

[rowech]

I've avoided Civ IV because I know it will suck up so much of my time. My mother-in-law bought it but gave up on it and has offered to give it to me. I know once it's in my house, it's good-bye life.

[Buccaneer]

SimCity what got me started into PC gaming in 1988 or 1989, and then RRT in 1990. For some reason, I missed Pirates! and Civ1. I discovered Pirates!Gold in 1994 and CivII in 1998 (and haven't stopped playing Civ since then). Don't remember why it went like that. By the way, all of these games mentioned, except for CivII, were on the Mac.

[Calis]

Lets not forget Covert Action which might actually be my favorite Sid Meier creation.

Man that game was great fun. Hasn't been anything like it since either.

[Edward64]

List of Sids games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier#Games

I forgot to credit F-19 Stealth Fighter! and Silent Service.

[Big Fo]

Buccaneer, as a big Civilization fan you ought to play through the first one sometime. It was a great game in it's own right but you'll get to see just how much better Civ II was.

[Cork]

Civ 3 is excellent. What do you feel is wrong with it?

-Cork

[Glengoyne]

Sim Golf anyone?

Other than that Railroad Tycoon and Covert Action both cost me quite a few hours.

[billethius]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The thing about Sid's games, which I have been playing since 1990, is that he has some of the best games of all time but also some real clunkers or disappointments.

For example, here's what I think are some of the greatest games of all time:
CivIV (greatest game of all time)
CivII (2nd " ")
Pirates!/Pirates! Gold (3rd " ")
Railroad Tycoon 1 (4th " ")

I think you're missing Alpha Centauri from that list.

[Buccaneer]

No.

[aran]

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Best game ever.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Cork

Civ 3 is excellent. What do you feel is wrong with it?

-Cork

CIV III has massive issues with resrouce placement and game balance issues after the first major epoch of the game is passed. Also there is a severe flaw in that as soon as you share a technology with any single opponent nation it is immediately given to every opponent nation.

I love the game and still play that one (my copy of CIV IV always gave me issues) but 99% of my games never reach the 3rd time period due to game play issues that simply make it impossible to succeed.

[ISiddiqui]

Oh God, I hated Civ3. I think I may have played 3 games of it before I put it down for good.

CivIV, CivII, and SMAC are 3 of my favorite games of all time.

[ISiddiqui]

Gettysburg/Antietam (awful games, should've been right up my alley)

You are nuts .

Both are wonderful wargames. Absolutely inventive and original way to model battles.

[flounder]

Originally Posted by aran

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Best game ever.

+1

[Sgran]

It's funny to hear that some serious gamers have never tried the first Civ. There are some games that were simply watershed moments. Let's see how my list would look:
1. Pong -- let me get this straight: We can play a game through the TV?
2. Space invaders -- For carbon dating purposes: I first played a stand-up arcade game at the roller rink. Tell me you can't hear the sound effects right now.
3. Dragon's Lair -- The only arcade game I've ever "won". I would play it right now for 5 hours straight.
4. Civilization -- On top of everything, you got a history lesson during the game.

I suppose some kind of shooter belongs next, but those always gave me a headache. Or maybe GTA.

[Cork]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Oh God, I hated Civ3. I think I may have played 3 games of it before I put it down for good.

CivIV, CivII, and SMAC are 3 of my favorite games of all time.

I feel the same way about Civ 4. It is just utter crap and I feel badly for purchasing it. SMAC would have been a good game if the graphics had not been done by a 3rd grader. I played that game for all of 5 minutes before deleting it in disgust. That game set a new standard for crappy graphics.

-Cork

[Buccaneer]

Cork, you're talking crazy, man.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I think Cork is in the wrong thread. I can't bash him for not liking a particular game, but it's obvious that the entire Sid Meier library ain't for him.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, if you like Sid Meier games, CivIV is a wonderful achievement. It really is a true sequal of CivII's brilliance.

[Klinglerware]

I'm actually playing Civ 1 a lot these days, it runs well on my handheld device. I take it out and play if I have some time to kill. With the advent of DosBox ports to low-powered devices like mobile phones and PDAs, something like the original civ or sim city is the perfect type of game to put on there (requires little processing power, easy to learn, yet still engrossing).

On another note, Sid Meier is one of the few game developers out there where even many casual gamers know him by name. Another one that comes to mind is Lord British of Ultima series fame back in the day. Not sure what to make of it, but it seems interesting how some developers do manage to break from anonymity to achieve some level of familiarity by the general public.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Cork

I feel the same way about Civ 4. It is just utter crap and I feel badly for purchasing it. SMAC would have been a good game if the graphics had not been done by a 3rd grader. I played that game for all of 5 minutes before deleting it in disgust. That game set a new standard for crappy graphics.

-Cork

This is crazy...

[billethius]

Originally Posted by Cork

I feel the same way about Civ 4. It is just utter crap and I feel badly for purchasing it. SMAC would have been a good game if the graphics had not been done by a 3rd grader. I played that game for all of 5 minutes before deleting it in disgust. That game set a new standard for crappy graphics.

-Cork

SMAC's graphics aren't pretty now - and it's made even worse because you either have to stretch the resolution to match your monitor or force your monitor into a non-native resolution to play it. But back in 1997 (1998?) when it came out, the graphics were very good for a turn-based strategy game.

[chesapeake]

Pirates! was the game that made me into a gamer, and Civ I remains the greatest game I've ever played when considered at the moment when I played it.

I've loved many of his games and their respective sequels, but I have to admit that I am disappointed that, other than SimGolf, which was never anything more than a lark, he hasn't tried anything new since Gettysburg! came out in 1998.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Cork

I feel the same way about Civ 4. It is just utter crap and I feel badly for purchasing it. SMAC would have been a good game if the graphics had not been done by a 3rd grader. I played that game for all of 5 minutes before deleting it in disgust. That game set a new standard for crappy graphics.

-Cork

BTW......I love your acting abilities in that 'Life Goes On' TV series.

[Cork]

Originally Posted by billethius

SMAC's graphics aren't pretty now - and it's made even worse because you either have to stretch the resolution to match your monitor or force your monitor into a non-native resolution to play it. But back in 1997 (1998?) when it came out, the graphics were very good for a turn-based strategy game.

They were not good back when the game was released. Brian Reynolds and co. took a lot of heat for the poor graphics considering how nice Civ 2 looked. Some parts of SMAC looked ok, but the terrain and unit graphics were just plain crap. unfortunately for me, I just could not immerse myself while looking at horrible graphics. SMAC will forever remain the game I really wanted to get into but couldn't because of the horrible graphics.

-Cork

[Cork]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I think Cork is in the wrong thread. I can't bash him for not liking a particular game, but it's obvious that the entire Sid Meier library ain't for him.

I am definately in the right thread, but I simply do not worship blindly at the alter of Sid. I have all of the Civ series games as well as SMAC and Colonization.

I simply find Civ 4 to be vastly inferior to Civ 3 for many reasons. That being said, there are some aspects of Civ 4 that are very nice (unit promotions, more terrain items to build, more barbarian type units) that would be great additions to Civ 3.

However, the move to 3d graphics, the horrible combat system, the stupid rock-paper-scissors combat approach, poor implementation of Religion and diplomacy, and the general dumbing down of the game lead me to the conclusion that it isn't the best game in the series.

Many agree with me, and many don't and in the end it really only matters what the individual thinks of the game(s). I will not bash someone for not liking Civ 3 or for liking SMAC. They like what they like and dislike what they dislike.

-Cork

[ISiddiqui]

I simply find Civ 4 to be vastly inferior to Civ 3 for many reasons.

Wow.

That may be the first time I've ever seen such a sentence... and I spend most of my time online on a Civilization website forum (Apolyton).

[Cork]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Wow.

That may be the first time I've ever seen such a sentence... and I spend most of my time online on a Civilization website forum (Apolyton).

Umm, you need to head over to Civ Fanatics. Here is a link that better explains my reasoning where Civ 4 is concerned.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=264199

-Cork

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You are nuts .

Both are wonderful wargames. Absolutely inventive and original way to model battles.

My reply was going to be "Heathen!". Gettysburg in particular was a fantastic game. If it weren't for Windows XP (and the game having issues with it), I'd probably still be playing it. I know they released a patch, but I haven't been able to find my discs in a long time. My brother used to whine about artillery in that game, but he always finds something to whine about when playing games on my computer or against me.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Cork

Umm, you need to head over to Civ Fanatics. Here is a link that better explains my reasoning where Civ 4 is concerned.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=264199

-Cork

Quite frankly... they be nuts.

I'm not entirely certain how you can ding diplomacy in CivIV. I mean, I found the CivIII model far, far easier to exploit. And really, the graphics? CivIV blows the pants out of CivIII. So, it takes up more system resources? Um... what, you want to keep it at the same level as Civ1 or 2 when you have far more computing power to take advantage of?

[Cork]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Quite frankly... they be nuts.

I'm not entirely certain how you can ding diplomacy in CivIV. I mean, I found the CivIII model far, far easier to exploit. And really, the graphics? CivIV blows the pants out of CivIII. So, it takes up more system resources? Um... what, you want to keep it at the same level as Civ1 or 2 when you have far more computing power to take advantage of?

Fair enough. We will have to agree to disagree.

-Cork

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Cork

I am definately in the right thread, but I simply do not worship blindly at the alter of Sid. I have all of the Civ series games as well as SMAC and Colonization.

I don't worship blindly at his altar, either, but my point was that you were complaining about the graphics. The graphics were so bad to you that you couldn't even bring yourself to play the game. Does it not seem at least a little peculiar that you were put off a Sid Meier game by the graphics?

[gstelmack]

Civ I was a HUGE timewaster back in my old Amiga days. Civ III drove me insane fairly quickly. I've played the heck out of Civ IV and still occasionally pick it up.

[Cork]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I don't worship blindly at his altar, either, but my point was that you were complaining about the graphics. The graphics were so bad to you that you couldn't even bring yourself to play the game. Does it not seem at least a little peculiar that you were put off a Sid Meier game by the graphics?

Ok, ok, ok, I played it for longer that 5 minutes. :o It might have been a few games. I was exagerating a bit too much in my original post. In the end though, I simply could not get past the unit and terrain graphics which is a big departure for me since I do not usually make a big fuss about graphics in games. Perhaps the game simply did not look good on my PC. I do not know as apparently I stand alone here.

In my defense, I did not say that the game itself was bad, only that I couldn't get past the games graphics.

-Cork

[Big Fo]

The fact that it would increase the likelihood of SMAC 2 being made almost makes me want the EA/Take-Two merger to happen.

[st.cronin]

I have actually never played any of the Civ games, but I was addicted to Alpha Centauri as well as one of the iterations of SimCity.

[Buccaneer]

The reason I didn't SMAC on the list is simply my personal bias. After getting into Civ2, I sat down and read SMAC's manual cover to cover and found very little in the game that appealed to me (I am anti-scifi). I viewed as nothing more than a complex Civ2 scenario, of which I played many.

On the other note, I have heard of those still playing Civ3 but heard it was because they don't have the graphics/PC power to run Civ4 effectively. But to say Civ3 is superior to Civ4??? Sounds like one of those CFC kid cliques. Civ2 was superior to Civ3 and from what I've read, so was Civ1.

[Edward64]

FWIW, I now enjoy CIV 4 but did not initially.

1. I would like the ability for plain old 2D graphics.
2. I had to struggle and learn not to build-build-build first chance I got (which is how everyone won in Civ 1 and 2).
3. I hated CIV 3 when it first came out. I felt there was horrible AI cheating going on.

[Cork]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

On the other note, I have heard of those still playing Civ3 but heard it was because they don't have the graphics/PC power to run Civ4 effectively. But to say Civ3 is superior to Civ4??? Sounds like one of those CFC kid cliques. Civ2 was superior to Civ3 and from what I've read, so was Civ1.

All one needs to do is look at the Civ 3 modding community to know that the game is very popular today. Hey, if Civ 4 floats your boat, I say go for it, but for the many who dislike the game, we can still feel good about playing Civ 3.

-Cork

[Peregrine]

I like most Sid Meier games, they are usually top notch. I'd have to say SMAC is my favorite of the Civ games though, even while playing Civ 4, which is very good, I'm constantly seeing features that I wish they had imported from SMAC. It's not just great because of the excellent sci-fi theme but because of many excellent features that have not really been used in other games.

[spleen1015]

I am baffled that someone thinks Civ 2 had better graphics than SMAC.

Craziness.

hxxp://www.retroremakes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/civ2.jpg

hxxp://www.lokigames.com/products/smac/_img/shots/smac2.jpg

[PurdueBrad]

I've never played Pirates! but I see that it is available on the X-Box Live, has this game held up well? If so, I'll give it a shot.

[Cork]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I am baffled that someone thinks Civ 2 had better graphics than SMAC.

Craziness.

hxxp://www.retroremakes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/civ2.jpg

hxxp://www.lokigames.com/products/smac/_img/shots/smac2.jpg

You know, you are correct. The SMAC graphics are indeed better than those in Civ 2. Your Civ 2 pic did the game little justice, but those on my old PC in the basement did indeed fail to stack up against the SMAC graphics when I ran them both earlier. I still don't like the unit graphics in SMAC, but I will retract my earlier comparrison. I am not afraid to admit when I am mistaken, though don't tell my wife please.

-Cork

[Raiders Army]

Work it Cork. Don't let 'em get you down.

On a side note though, I disagree with you completely.