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
I only played Rev once on friend's console -- and hated it....

Still, I have to flip a coin between V and Rev... Of the ones I've bought and played extensively, I'd go V with III a distant 2nd.

V and III were both wargames at heart and that's just not my bag with Civilization. I think V is worse than III in that regard... III, at least, introduced the concept of separate worker units and expanded, rather than curtailed, the tile improvement/resource variety.

V, I think, is just too much of a wargame and WANTS DEARLY to be a wargame... If they actually made it a good wargame, I think I'd still hate it "as Civilization" because I don't think that's what the series is for.... but I'd be willing to judge it against wargames I do like such as the old SSI games or Hearts of Iron -- and it's got a long way to go before it catches up to them.
 
Many people probably haven't played Civ Revolutions and also there's the fact it was console oriented so people might not have that high expectations for it.

I think that is the nail on the head. Certainly I didn't entertain the idea of voting for a game I never even play tested on the basis that I didn't think I would like the console conversion as a Civ game.

I could imagine that if each and every person voting in this thread had in fact played every listed version of the franchise in this poll, then the resulting numbers would be fairly different.

Civ III on the other hand got my vote because by the equivalent amount of play-time that has passed for me with Civ V, I had given up entirely with Civ III and never felt happy playing it again. I'm still more than happy to give Civ V more of my time even though I am also eagerly waiting on patches to fix the problems that are reducing the amount of fun I can get out of it.
 
Civ V, it destroys the whole feel for an empire building game, by overlaying this tactical perfect general combat over the top. the world is not 1000 yards accross guys!

starting right there they lost the feel for building up your civ from its small roots, no longer are you alexander marching an army from Macedon to India, but your crossing central park to argue with the folks on the next block. destroyed the feeling of scale.

you should build armies in stacks in the early and middle part of the game, not spread your army accross the fricken map of the world so your archers can shoot 100 miles away without support of the pikemen next to them. a rebuilt combat system was very possible, but the regurgiation of a weak tactical wargame was the last thing they should have done.

and Civ Rev, on the consoles it does exactly what it was intended to do, provided a clean game, that can be played in an afternoon and give you a civ experience. With the limitations of the console and controller( especially the controller) its fun. on the DS its cute, and something that can pass the time while your away from your computer.

Civ IV was buggy but once patched even vanilla was playable, civ III needed serious fixing but by the end was playable. Civ V just has some horrendous design choices that broke the civ experience. an experience i can even get on my console with civ rev.

im still in awe that they stupidly tossed out the histiograph from the end game. many of us play civ games for the fun of empire building and domination.
 
I didn't play Civ Rev since I'm not it's target audience. Wish I had known that about Civ V, because I bought it, I played it, and now I think it's the worst.
 
Of course, it's capitalist regimes like 2k that ruin perfectly good game franchises like Civilization by streamlining them and choosing middle-school brats as a target audience.

Only a middle school brat would make this kind of generalization.
Moderator Action: Flaming is not allowed in this forum.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I picked vanilla Civ 4. Least favorite for me, but I never played Rev.
 
i LOVE civ5... the worst was civ 4.

I play all civ game since the 1st. I was bored with static and previsible gameplay like sandbox.

CIV5 is a real game that nobody knows who will the winner. The other civ, more you grow, more you expand, more you kill, more you win.... boring... always the same routine... not in civ5

SPying and religion was a joke...useless for gameplay.

Civ5 is more like german spielgame, more interesting for player who looks for a game to be play, not to be build...
Civ5 now is excellent in multiplayer if you setup a voice support, great commerce, great diplomacy stress..like a real boardgame as ever...i love it. I play Civ5 in LAN with friend.... Damn good it is !!!!! i like to hear in the rroom : " Who want some iron ? i need luxuries... hey people ! come on" excellent....

No interest to play other civ than the 5th edition, or play alone on your sim-civ.
 
Civ V, it destroys the whole feel for an empire building game, by overlaying this tactical perfect general combat over the top. the world is not 1000 yards accross guys!

starting right there they lost the feel for building up your civ from its small roots, no longer are you alexander marching an army from Macedon to India, but your crossing central park to argue with the folks on the next block. destroyed the feeling of scale.

you should build armies in stacks in the early and middle part of the game, not spread your army accross the fricken map of the world so your archers can shoot 100 miles away without support of the pikemen next to them. a rebuilt combat system was very possible, but the regurgiation of a weak tactical wargame was the last thing they should have done.

None of that makes any sense. How can you decry scale in a civ game when you have units the size of skyscrapers and it takes 500 years to cross a peninsula, or 3000 years to go from one side of a continent to the other. Talk about nit picking. Every civ game has abused scale in this way, its nothing new to Civ V.
 
Ha! Civ V is getting it's arse kicked. But of course it is.
Really, is anyone even playing that piece of junk anymore?
 
Why, CivIII, of course.

And I excluded CivRev from my voting, because I see it as spin-off that only shares a title and the broad theme.

Cheers, LT.
 
I voted for Civ III, I never liked that game. Civ IV with BTS is the best, even if Civ I-II have great nostalgic values to me.

But I think Civ V might be a killer when it gets an expansion and more stuff in it, digital or physical. The game seems a bit empty now, but the policy system is the greatest addon ever to the Civ enterprise.
 
None of that makes any sense. How can you decry scale in a civ game when you have units the size of skyscrapers and it takes 500 years to cross a peninsula, or 3000 years to go from one side of a continent to the other. Talk about nit picking. Every civ game has abused scale in this way, its nothing new to Civ V.

A great argument for Civ6 having FPS combat. I mean, all Civ games have been stupid, why not make it worse?
 
I don't get why people hate Civ3. To me it was Civ2 with more features and functioning AI. All you needed to do it just lower the corruption and it became even better.

There's one of the major issues, right there. You needed to spam cities relentlessly in Civ 3 to stay competitive, but because of corruption, most of those cities were nonfunctioning crap. Building buildings in Civ 3 punished you far more than in Civ 5.

I'm not even going to touch Civ5 with all the bugs, 1upt, and no slider. It's even less of a Civ game then Rev.

See, and I wish I hadn't touched three with its lackluster diplomacy, broken unit upgrade paths, and design features that should have been considered bugs.

Wow, I never realized there was so much dislike for CivIII. I've seen it more and more lately, seemingly out of the blue. Somethings tells me it's a lot of those people who started with Civ4, and then tried CivIII.

No, it's also a lot of people who played a great game in Alpha Centauri and then saw Civ III take absolutely no design elements from that game. Weaker unit design, weaker tile improvement options, weaker air combat, crippled diplomacy, lackluster government options, etc.

Civ 3 had a LOT of holes in its design.
Corruption was insane and made getting cities rather pointless.
Diplomacy was completely broken (either you exploited it, playing the broker, and it was overpowered ; either you didn't exploit it and it was simply totally useless, the AI always wanting several times more than what they accepted to give).
Many concepts were badly implemented (the quoted "you have a stack of units in a city, it suddenly revolt and your stack vanish").
The ending was a joke (the same as Civ5 : just a pop-up saying "you win !", save for the Space Race that had a little movie).
No wonder movies.

This. There are very few complaints you can level at Civ 5 that Civ 3 did not surpass upon release.

But unlike Civ5, it had a lot of saving graces that made it a worthy addition to the series : it was very immersive (the whole interface was very neatly designed to drawn you into the game)

I found the interface rather boring, up to and including the font choice.

More than anything, it made the franchise go forward, adding new concepts that were so integral to the game that it made going backward very difficult - the whole culture and borders thing, units maintenance based on gold drawn from the whole budget rather than the weird "shield from home city" and the like.

Unfortunately, unit maintenance was also less burdensome based on number of cities, and so culture became rather hollow in Vanilla -- plop down the cities, don't bother expanding their borders because corruption will eat up most of what the tiles are producing anyway, then produce military units in one of your few cities with hammers after corruption and go beat on your nearest neighbor because they won't actually be friendly with you no matter what you're doing. You might even win if the essentially random combat resolution tosses a coin your way.

No, Civ3 had a bit of a troubled design process. The lead designer left Firaxis in the middle of the process, others had to take over, interesting concepts were introduced but weren't really thought out thoroughly, and Soren Johnson (as he admits himself) made several beginner's mistakes (he was a hugely talented, but not yet very experienced designer at this time). Prior to Civ5, I'd say that Civ3 was the least "well-rounded" game of the franchise. That didn't make is less enjoyable for me; for me, the new concepts it introduced shone through although the implementation was somewhat questionable. And while there were concepts that I simply regarded as unfixable design errors (corruption), they didn't keep me from enjoying the game. But I can understand why Civ3 ranks low for many players. Another factor is probably that Civ3 has a successor that obviously "fixed" many of its shortcomings, which may have made the existence of these shortcomings in Civ3 more salient.

The shortcomings were very salient to those that had played Alpha Centauri. Civ 4's concepts were a huge sigh of relief.

V and III were both wargames at heart and that's just not my bag with Civilization. I think V is worse than III in that regard... III, at least, introduced the concept of separate worker units and expanded, rather than curtailed, the tile improvement/resource variety.

Actually, I believe the worker improvement in Civ 3 was "mine green, farm brown, roads everywhere."

One could very well say that five has introduced the concept of city-states, and expanded the role of happiness. Whether you like the mechanics or not, we may have to wait just as long to see a working version of them as we did with Civ 3.

V, I think, is just too much of a wargame and WANTS DEARLY to be a wargame... If they actually made it a good wargame, I think I'd still hate it "as Civilization" because I don't think that's what the series is for.... but I'd be willing to judge it against wargames I do like such as the old SSI games or Hearts of Iron -- and it's got a long way to go before it catches up to them.

That was exactly my impression of 3. It's a wargame and nothing but -- diplomacy sucks, corruption makes buildings suck, and the combat system even makes combat suck.

I'm not sure if there's any complaint against Civ 5 that cannot be leveled against Civ 3 with far more accuracy.
 
Civ5 is worse than Civ1? Are you joking guys?

Either a lot of people haven't played Civ I or it simply hasn't been chosen for nostalgia reasons. Personally, for what it was and still is, I think Civ I is perfectly fine.

Considering how the franchise has expanded and grown, I expected a lot more out of Firaxis with Civilization V than what we received.
 
If Civ1 is so perfectly good, why nobody play it?

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).
 
Top Bottom