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
Again, anybody who played Alpha Centauri would say the same thing about Civ 3 -- culture, unit maintenance, and resources were artificial constructs that were tacked on and perfectly removable -- not to mention corruption. The only real candidate was culture, and it's doubtful if it was really an improvement in Civ 3, given how much better Civ 4 was at handling it.
Fully agreed.

In fact Firaxis made with culture in civ III something very similar that it did with happiness in civ V ( I mean, make it ( partly ) a global variable ... in civ III you could win by culture by agregating the total culture of the empire ) ...
People, this is about VANILLA versions. I played Civ V and thought it was decent, then I played Vanilla Civ IV and I wanted to gouge my eyes out because of it's crappy AI and other lame stuff like that. Then I played BTS and I liked it because it was a MASSIVE improvement over Civ IV Vanilla. Also fully patched Civ IV Vanilla was way better than basic Civ IV, likewise with BTS.
I agree with your point, but the fact is that it is not assured that Civ V will ever have anything beyond vanilla. Ok, that has been the standart operation system until now, but we also have a mandatory internet connection to play the game ( steam ... atleast you need to log once in your lifetime :D ) and a public focus on making DLC. It would not be exactly a completely wierd thing to see Firaxis dropping completely the X-pak notion and spit only DLC and the ocasional patch.

And OFC , even if you have any x-pak, you can't even say if they will make the game better at all or how much better ( or worse ) it will be. So, that is not exactly a argument :D
 
Again, anybody who played Alpha Centauri would say the same thing about Civ 3 -- culture, unit maintenance, and resources were artificial constructs that were tacked on and perfectly removable
Culture, natural ressources and military budget are "artificial tacked-on concepts" ?
Hu, do I need to even try to pretend to take such absurd affirmation seriously ? :dubious:
 
In Vanilla Civ 3, the lack of Rubber, Coal, or Aluminum was pretty much an "I lose button." In Vanilla Civ 3, culture was shoddy -- it came into its own in Civ 4. In Vanilla Civ 3, Military was supported by mindless worthless corrupted city spam.

I'll go into more detail later if you like.
 
I voted Civ I, on a rather literal definition of "worst". Every Civ has had its flaws, but they've all improved on the original more than they've taken away, and that would logically make Civ I the worst of the series.
 
By counting the number of hours I have enjoyed each civ-release, civ-5 is by far the worst. Its so much worse than the rest it doesn't even compare.

After 9 hours i shelved it.
 
In Vanilla Civ 3, the lack of Rubber, Coal, or Aluminum was pretty much an "I lose button." In Vanilla Civ 3, culture was shoddy -- it came into its own in Civ 4. In Vanilla Civ 3, Military was supported by mindless worthless corrupted city spam.
=> My point was precisely that the gameplay fine-tuning was off, and as such the new concepts weren't very balanced.
BUT, these concepts were real advances in the franchise that were sound in their core principle and made it very hard to get back on previous iterations.
 
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.

Indeed. I have my issues with SOD but this is a great point.
 
Civ V hands down.

Maybe Civ I did not have so many features and fancy graphics, but Civ V had so much godliness to take advantage of from its predecessors, which it failed to do.

Instead of making new fun stuff, they tried to fix things that wasn't broken in the first place. Dumbed down the game and made it up ridden with artificial rules. Nothing really works in the game except it looks nice, Dohh.
 
=> My point was precisely that the gameplay fine-tuning was off, and as such the new concepts weren't very balanced.

And how does that differ from artificially tacked on? Please, I'm all ears.
 
not one person voted it the worst game they ever played out of 94 voting so far. Only 2% on that poll said they dropped Civ V in favor of Civ IV.

The 2k forums probably have a higher ratio of new players to fans of the franchise. But the poll isn't very well designed anyway (imho). People can only say that they prefer Civ4 if they also commit to a very strong emotional response ("I hate Civ5!"). Also, the poll is about a totally different question, voters can only choose a single option, and due to this setup, you cannot tell how many people who chose one of the other options also consider it worse than the other Civ games.

It's a decent poll for determining which kind of problems people have with Civ5 (installation issues, crash problems, gameplay found boring, etc.), but you really can't use it the way you do above.
 
And how does that differ from artificially tacked on? Please, I'm all ears.
I'm pretty sure that if you read the part of the quote you purposedly left out, the answer is right inside.
 
This has to be the worst experience I have had in the complete series. The games is so buggy. I have one recent game where the saved game opens up fine; play on turn and then it locks up. After you played XXXX turns and then can't recover it most frustrating.
I would not recommend this game in the current state to anyone.:mad:
 
I'm pretty sure that if you read the part of the quote you purposedly left out, the answer is right inside.

All right, here's the part I left out.

BUT, these concepts were real advances in the franchise that were sound in their core principle and made it very hard to get back on previous iterations.

Since this is essentially saying "I like Civ 3 and don't like Civ 5 for no real reason whatsoever," I ignored it. But it we must take it seriously:

Absolutely nothing in Civ 3 made it in any way hard to go back to playing Alpha Centauri, so Civ 3 still has no advantage over Civ 5. And I personally don't want to go back to Civ 4's "Slavery is King," "18 Axemen off of one source of copper," Stack of Doom, or give up the ability to tile buy.

So what are we left with?
 
Since this is essentially saying "I like Civ 3 and don't like Civ 5 for no real reason whatsoever," I ignored it.
=>Culture, natural ressources and military budget are "artificial tacked-on concepts" ?
Hu, do I need to even try to pretend to take such absurd affirmation seriously ? :dubious:


And this quote was already adressed to you. Do you intend to start reading, or will I have to requote previous answers endlessly ?
 
I've played all 6 at some point. In terms of gameplay, which is the only thing I voted on, CivRev is the worst.

Rev < 3 < 5 < 1 < 4 < 2

Of course, I'm giving Civs 1, 2, and 3 a sympathetic weight because they, compared to modern Civs, suffered from design limits, Civ1 especially. I remember playing Civ on the SNES, so boo to anyone saying CivRev is the only console Civ.
 
Do you intend to start reading, or will I have to requote previous answers endlessly ?

I'm waiting for you to say something substantive. I just showed that Civ 3 had no concepts which made it hard to get back on Alpha Centauri using the exact same evidence and support that you used for saying Civ 5 had none such. Therefore, by your definition, they are artificially tacked on concepts that do not advance the game.

I listed several things that make it hard for me to go back to Civ 4 after playing Civ 5. Therefore, these are driving the game forward. Again, by your definition.

If you feel that your definition does not apply in this way, then you should take the trouble to clarify it.
 
Culture, natural ressources and military budget are "artificial tacked-on concepts" ?
Hu, do I need to even try to pretend to take such absurd affirmation seriously ? :dubious:


Seems that yes, in fact, I'll have to repeat the same answers endlessly. If you consider such things "tacked-on", then I can only question your grasp of history. You're welcome to think that the unability to concentrate military forces on one point is somehow a core principle of history on the same level - though that will probably get chuckles from everybody who has a grasp on scale and basic history knowledge - but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

Civ3 concepts were fundamental, realistic and logical.
Civ5 concepts just come out of the blue and are purely "gamey", without any real relevance to history.

If you're unable to grasp the difference and just imagine you've somehow "proven" a point because you took a sentence and replaced words in it (hint : it doesn't work that way), I guess I can only shrug, laugh, and let you have your fun.
 
Civ3 concepts were fundamental, realistic and logical.

Ah, so now we come to the crux:

Being able to field an infinite amount of oil-based units from one source was fundamental, realistic, and logical.

Taking over another city by building a temple in your own was fundamental, realistic, and logical.

I'll give you military cutting into a budget, so long as we overlook the fact that gold and research came from the exact same source, which was building roads everywhere. Somehow, reaching a Communist government was a function of roads in your empire. I'm sure that's fundamental, realistic, and logical, somehow.

Civ5 concepts just come out of the blue and are purely "gamey", without any real relevance to history.

As opposed to a bunch of burial tombs providing food for all cities on the same continent? I'm still waiting for an argument against Civ 5 that cannot be applied just as well to Civ 3.

If you're unable to grasp the difference and just imagine you've somehow "proven" a point because you took a sentence and replaced words in it (hint : it doesn't work that way), I guess I can only shrug, laugh, and let you have your fun.

No, I haven't proven anything. Just pointing out that neither have you. Since you've now provided a solid definition, I can provide counterexamples.
 
Top Bottom