Nothing Good about 2001

I told Troy Goodfellow that 2001 would be a problematic year for me in the decade retrospective that he is running. Still in high school and not working a job, I had a small gaming budget and could only buy one or two new games per year. Being an impressionable idiot, I decided to give that honor to Black & White.

I’m sure there were good strategy games that came out that year, but I missed all of them in favor of spending weeks with a game that didn’t work. Now, at the close of the decade, I can finally tell my tale.

  1. For good or ill, I was hoping someone would do an entry on Civ3. It’s now sort of an odd middle child between Civ 2 and 4, and I think it’s interesting to see which of its ideas went on to greater things or were cast aside (such as corruption, of course). It also had the best graphic mods of the series by far – some really beautiful 2D tilesets.

    • I have to admit that I’m as guilty as anyone of treating Civilization III like the proverbial step-child. In my defense, Civ 2 and Alpha Centauri consumed my strategy gaming in the last half of the 90s and I was burnt-out on the basic concept when Civ 3 came around. I took a pass and, obviously, made a considerably worse decision about what to play. Plus, a lot of my fellow Civ fans were kind of negative about the game and that turned me off further.

      On the other hand, I know a few who have pretty firmly rejected Civ 4 because it broke with too much of the design in 3. So I’m left with this gap in my knowledge about one of my favorite franchises. I should probably get around to sealing it.

  2. Yeah, I’m pretty curious about that mentality too. I do consider Civ3′s single-player (fully patched with the PtW expansion) as being an improvement over Civ2, but I have a hard time seeing it being superior to Civ4 in any significant way. But there are those who disagree, and I guess I’m glad that’s true (hey, I did co-design Civ3, after all). Just a little bemused about it…

  1. No trackbacks yet.