Worst version of Civ EVER?

Worst Civ Ever?

  • Civ I (Vanilla)

    Votes: 28 3.6%
  • Civ II (Vanilla)

    Votes: 23 2.9%
  • Civ III (Vanilla)

    Votes: 119 15.2%
  • Civ IV (Vanilla)

    Votes: 42 5.4%
  • Civ Rev

    Votes: 222 28.4%
  • Civ V (Vanilla)

    Votes: 348 44.5%

  • Total voters
    782
Considering that Civilization arrived in 1991, I think people would be hard-pressed getting what was a DOS-only game (in it's first iteration) working on Windows 7 (or even XP).
do you really think everyone would love and play civ5 if it was a clone of civ1?
 
do you really think everyone would love and play civ5 if it was a clone of civ1?

Given relative quality of Civ I, I suppose - yes.
OTOH, if Civ I had relative quality of Civ V, I dont think there would be Civ series at all.
Civ I is simply the legend, the very spring of fun. It created the foundations of whatever Civ V is now.
 
do you really think everyone would love and play civ5 if it was a clone of civ1?

The game in some ways today is still a clone of the original Civilization.

I never said that Civilization V needs to be a clone of Civilization to be liked. As I wrote earlier, I think a lot of people didn't vote for Civilization as it was the first. The beginning. You haven't stated either way but if you played Civilization when it first came out in 1991, I don't think there would be any way you could name it as the worst version. The original game of a new genre (or franchise) is always special.

Edit: I agree with Eskel's comment 100%.
 
I was going to vote for Civ V, but seen Civ Rev there, I had no choice but to vote for that. Civ V is quite better, and with the mods, it will be a good game, though it won't be what most of us expected.
 
I understand what you mean.
As for me, I do not see any sence in valuing things in the relative way. I think its obvious that civ5 is more funnier and interesting game than civ1. civ1 even have no multiplayer, and no modability, graphics are crap, what we are talking here about? :lol: do you think gameplay or AI were better in civ1? or diplomacy?
nobody will play it nowdays, and it is no way better than civ5, only relatively maybe (by market share percent? i am also not sure about this).
 
I understand what you mean.
As for me, I do not see any sence in valuing things in the relative way. I think its obvious that civ5 is more funnier and interesting game than civ1. civ1 even have no multiplayer, and no modability, graphics are crap, what we are talking here about? :lol: do you think gameplay or AI were better in civ1? or diplomacy?
nobody will play it nowdays, and it is no way better than civ5, only relatively maybe (by market share percent? i am also not sure about this).

No, but for sentimental value, Civ 1 wins. The AI in Civ 1 was better than the AI currently in Civ V. And yes, there is no way we can compare as Civ V is a completely different beast.

But for what Civ I was, it was original. It worked out of the box. Civ V works out of the box in as far as bugs are concerned -for me at least. But the game feels empty to me. It doesn't have a soul. Civilization had a soul. It was the defining moment in 4x gameplay. It will forever be Sid Meier's defining moment, imo - and I loved a lot of Microprose games.

In some cases, later games are better than the original in many ways - for example(s): Half Life 2 vs Half Life; Diablo II vs Diablo; Freespace 2 vs Descent: Freespace etc etc etc. Even with just those games, there will be folks that wil disagree. But in terms of sentimental value, I'd rate those "originals" better than their sequels. In Diablo and HL's case, they revolutionised the genre they were in (imo). Same with Civilization. There is no way I could rank these types of games last when asked which is the worst version in their respective franchises.
 
No, but for sentimental value, Civ 1 wins. The AI in Civ 1 was better than the AI currently in Civ V.
not sure about this.
anyway, in Civ1 AI was cheating. :rolleyes:

the fact that at times of civ1 other games were even worse than civ1 (so people were amazed by what a great game it was) does not make it better game than civ5 IMHO.
 
the fact that at times of civ1 other games were even worse than civ1 (so people were amazed by what a great game it was) does not make it better game than civ5 IMHO.

Although in absolute terms you are right, the fact stays that Civ1 was one of the main founding fathers of a whole genre and the founding for a whole series.
Furthermore, you have to take into consideration that technical restrictions limited the game and that today any new game in that genre can look back at 20 years of history and experience.
Since 10 years there is even the internet, giving the option to get feedback in a way which was not event thought of in 1991.

I would assume that many people did have this (more or less explicitly) in mind when giving their vote.
 
Civ1's graphics may be dated... but calling them crap is slightly unfair imo. They have plenty of charm with many cute little touches (city views, celebrations/protests, palace additions, even the tech discovery screens) that some people have missed from later entries.

As for other features... the Civ games generally don't work too well for multiplayer anyway, moddability is nice but games should stand on their own, and as far as I can tell the AI did a better job of coping with the game than the Civ5 one does.

Civ1 has a few quirks that we'd have a hard time accepting in new games (e.g.: no overflow, favouring a slightly tedious form of micromanagement) but I honestly think the fundamental design was good. That's not something I'd say about Civ3 and I'm not yet sure about 5.
 
I still think civ1 is a unique entrant in the series with its own charm. In many ways I feel the gui was actually at its best and easiest to use in civ1. It was also far more challenging at the time as I had never played a civ game before. Frankly I would say it remains the most streamlined of the series. If they updated civ 1 AI significantly I think it would be a popular indie game to this day. I still remembered the speed of civ1 to be fun and simplicity. Emprorer+1 civ1 is harder than civ5 deity too by a huge margin.
 
sorry Vandyr it makes perfect sense. yes it takes along time to march accross a continent in the early and middle eras of a civ game, but at least you were marching an army.

there is such hatred for SOD, but SOD was alexander or Ceasar or Ramses the great marching accross the world. they didnt spread out so that Ceasar had his legions spread cohort by cohort from the alps to the pyrennes as he marched into Gaul, he had a SOD or 2 marching around, stomping upon the opponents SOD at ALesia.

Alexander didnt have his army spread from the black sea to the med, he marched along in a SOD, and met the opponents SOD and beat it 3 times.

thats the feel i want. not spreading the various units accross the whole of asia minor in between cities and along rivers looking like it was 1944.
 
well I thought that Civ Rev would be really winning this one, but civ V is... well I am suprised, and in a way, given the target audience Civ V is probably worse than Civ Rev, as Rev was for DS while V for proper PC and adult gamers...

ah well... whatever, the fact that I voted Rev, does not mean I like V though :)
 
Although in absolute terms you are right, the fact stays that Civ1 was one of the main founding fathers of a whole genre and the founding for a whole series.
Furthermore, you have to take into consideration that technical restrictions limited the game and that today any new game in that genre can look back at 20 years of history and experience.
Since 10 years there is even the internet, giving the option to get feedback in a way which was not event thought of in 1991.

I would assume that many people did have this (more or less explicitly) in mind when giving their vote.


Indeed, because Civ V map is at STRATEGIC level, not tactical. One hex/square on Civ means several tens of thousands square kilometers. In that room you can even put several divisions. It's not a tactical fight, so it has no sense to restrict it to 1 unit. Heck, even Hearts of Iron III, which has much smaller provinces allows SOD, although not all of them can fight. Maybe they should have done that.
 
<snip> Civ V is probably worse than Civ Rev, as Rev was for DS while V for proper PC and adult gamers...

ah well... whatever, the fact that I voted Rev, does not mean I like V though :)

Small Gripe: CivRev also was available for both the PS3 and '360. Those two consoles are closer to the PC's demographic than what the DS would have to the PC. :)

In other words - CivRev sucks and Civ V should never have had ANY similarities to CivRev with exception of the first word in the title. Civ V = more "streamlined" version of CivRev.

Firaxis has obviously lost sight of what made Civilization popular on the PC. Hell, I just blame Shafer, really. :sad:
 
I have played every civ (exept Rev) and i must say that civ II is the worst of the series.
 
Top Bottom