Worst version of Civ EVER?

Civ Rev. I have it on my DS, and just can't get into it.
Civ I was great even in 2001 when I played it. I never played Civ II, but chances are I'd like it (or would have). I didn't realise their was so much Civ III hate out there...

AriochIV said:

There's no way Civ V is worse than Civ Rev. People are letting their anger cloud their judgement.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'll give Civ5 that much. Voted for CivRev, since it was a first sign of trouble with the franchise - a big middle finger to long time fans with "we're going for the money" motto. There's nothing wrong with increasing sales, unless it is done at the cost of game design (vide Bethe$da products - you can't call them games, can you?).

I guess I'll say Civ5. I never played 1 or Rev. The other games were solid even despite any bugs. Civ5 seems even more unpolished than all of the previous games, and with the exception of the combat system, I don't like the core gameplay.

Voted for Civ5. I've played civ rev on the tablet while traveling and it's awesome for that, Civ5 on the otherhand is useless.

Better gfx is the only thing it holds over previous games of teh serie and we all know how that's important for the longviety of a civ game..

Shortly of why it sucks.
You murder everything, have 1000+ sci, 500+ gold in modern era, 100+ turn golden ages, etc. Difficulty levels are a joke.

I voted for Civ Rev, although CiV comes in close second.

I don't get why people don't like Civ 3 - personally I liked it, maybe because it was the one that got me into the series. It also introduced a TON of features that have become standard for the series

Hands down Civ4. Vanilla wasn't playable, after it was playable the bugs made it pointless

Voted Civ IV. Although I played a lot to Civ IV, especially multiplayer (was fun although imperfect), I never achieved a victory above Emperor in single player, whereas i finished all other games in Deity. AIs simply had too much bonuses.

I hesitated with CivRev, because in that game AIs are too much agressive to the point you end up in war with every single of them, every game. The game thus become unplayable. (for me)

But i feel it's an error to have put Rev in the poll, i would have like to know the preference of people for PC versions of Civ.

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.

Guardian_PL said:

Voted for CivRev, since it was a first sign of trouble with the franchise - a big middle finger to long time fans with "we're going for the money" motto.

Click to expand...

Hmm. Not sure if I agree with you here. Going for the money, yes - winning new recruits, yes. Not really giving the finger to the fans, as they were pretty clear about the market. It was Civ's little brother for the bean-bag demographic. And that's why it's crap.

Sid did say it was the game he'd always wanted to make, though... what is that: bringing strategy to the masses? It's like performing Hamlet with Sims characters

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.

I didnt vote CivRev but instead voted Civ5 because Civ5 IS CivRev for the PC, which makes it twice as suck.

Osetjka said:

What amazes me is that despite of what people said about cIV being very divisive and disappointing during release (which I could find little to no evidence of in the forum archives) the game at the moment holds the lowest vote count for being the worst in the series w/o expansions.

Click to expand...

The fact is, most people saying that Civ4's launch was comparable to Civ5 are, simply put, blind fanboys. They are the same that caricature the issues with Civ5 as being about "people who just complain because it's not Civ4" and the like. Don't put much stock in what they say.

Civ4 had a lot of troubles bug-wise, and there was definitely lots of complaints about the bugs, crashes and the like, but it was nevertheless celebrated for its gameplay right at the start. Most everyone said "it's buggy, but the game is great".
And I was part of the people who had a hard time getting into it, so it's not like I didn't see it from the most unfavourable point of view. Still, it was plainly obvious that the mechanics were very fine-tuned and the concepts sound.

jagdtigerciv said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 suddendly 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.

It was very unpolished - especially gameplay/design-wise - at release. Many people compared it unfavourably to Civ2, and it was rather divisive of the community.
But unlike Civ5, it had a lot of saving graces that made it a worthy addition to the serie : it was very immersive (the whole interface was very neatly designed to drawn you into the game) and 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.

I voted Civ 5 as I didn’t even expect Civ Rev to be a good game.

KahunaGod said:

I didnt vote CivRev but instead voted Civ5 because Civ5 IS CivRev for the PC, which makes it twice as suck.

Click to expand...

Have you played CivRev?

Bluetooth said:

I voted Civ 5 as I didn’t even expect Civ Rev to be a good game.

Click to expand...

So you are more likely to consider something good if you expected it to be bad?

This could explain some things, because I expected civ5 to be pretty bad.

jagdtigerciv said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

PieceOfMind said:

Have you played CivRev?

Click to expand...

I agree with him, Civrev is in all aspects a superior product, had it been for the PC it wouldn't have been. Same reason Civ5 is in all aspects a inferior product, as has been stated, it's basicaly Civrev for PC, cept that just don't fly on PC. Call it dumbed down, call it streamlined, simplified or whatever you want it's just a hollowed out game.

Civrev was better then ciV for me as hard as that is to believe, SP in civrev sucked but at least it was an okay MP game. Especially considereding previous version of civ had been too lengthy for me to enjoy most MP setups so there was a novelty factor for me playing any civ on multiplayer. Whereas ciV is a terrible SP game and the MP is close to broken. Also as lame as SP was in civrev I had a little bit of fun seeing how fast I could win or novel ways of breaking the broken mechanics, there was a short period of campy fun to winning at 1000bc. ciV doesn't have that going for it due to the much lengthier games.

Egnarts said:

I agree with him, Civrev is in all aspects a superior product, had it been for the PC it wouldn't have been. Same reason Civ5 is in all aspects a inferior product, as has been stated, it's basicaly Civrev for PC, cept that just don't fly on PC. Call it dumbed down, call it streamlined, simplified or whatever you want it's just a hollowed out game.

Click to expand...

So you enjoy playing civrev more than you do civ5?

Is that what you are saying?

"Civrev is in all aspects a superior product"

Or have you not played civrev?

Voted for Civ5. I've played civ rev on the tablet while traveling and it's awesome for that, Civ5 on the otherhand is useless.

Better gfx is the only thing it holds over previous games of teh serie and we all know how that's important for the longviety of a civ game..

Click to expand...

I agree with this. CivRev is meant to be a simple game. Easy, portable and simple. It served those purposes well. But Civ5 is a full-fledged PC game that has no snap, crackle or pop and brings virtually nothing new to the table except for the city-state system.

Civ5 definitely got the axe from me in this poll.