How many of you have Civ2, Civ3, Civ4 (and Warlords) but keep coming back to Civ 1?

stwils

Emperor
Joined
Apr 5, 2001
Messages
1,151
Location
Georgia, USA
I was wondering. How many of you with computers that can handle all of the Civ games, keep coming back to Civ 1?

Why?

I do. I love the simplicity, the straight forwardness of Civ 1.

And I love the books that you can read for Civ 1 (Mainly "Civilization, or Rome on 640 K a Day" by Wilson and Emrick.)

And it beats all of them with that feeling of "just one more turn."

Graphics are not knock out. But so what...

stwils
 
I've played pretty much all CIVs and I still think CIV I is the greatest. I admit that I can get (more) caught up in a newer CIV with better graphics and more advanced gameplay, but then you only see more things you want added and things you didn't want at all (and are in the game).

CIV2 is by far the worst CIV ever. The graphics are heavily inferior and I didn't "feel good" with the GUI. It also didn't add a lot of good things to CIV I.
I only started playing CIV3 when conquests came out, because before that it was such a "bland" game. I really LOVED CIV3 though, but only again with Rhye's mod.
CIV4 is better than CIV3 in gameplay, but -don't be shocked- I don't like the graphics. The leaders are cartoon figures, which gave me this icky Disney feeling. :( I'm also waiting for the new expansion and then probably I will play it more again.
 
I used to play civ 1 and 2 years ago. I saw civ 4 and thought id give it a go. What a let down. I hate the cartoon leaders, where did the full video advisors go?

I would prefer civ to be more realistic. Leaders just keep repeating the same things over and over, deals and negotiations are really limited. The only thing that i like is the idea behind civ.

I think with the right team of programmers civ could be a lot better. Realistic leaders and advisor, may be the option to make the leader look like yourself. Massive increase in what can be negotiated. Video clips of wonders and modern events like twin towers. Maybe a kind of bbc news channel thing as an advisor?

I think civilization 2 was and is still the best.
 
Up the 'diplomacy' of civ1 and you have yourself a deal, sir.
 
I never liked Civ 3 (for many reasons) but used to play FreeCiv and CivEvo. Civ I is the best because of its straight 2D-view and colorful graphics, which create special atmosphere lost in sequels. Also I like the relative simplicity of Civ I micromanagement part in comparison to Civ 3 and Civ 4 ones, which make that games boring and killing to play.
 
I often times return to eather the DOS or the SNES version.
 
Civ DOS does not work on my new XP computer.

But I have Civ Win and Civ Net, and both work beautifully.

stwils
 
СIV1 runs perfectly under DOSBox. CivWin/CivNET graphic design is much worse, imho.
 
СIV1 runs perfectly under DOSBox. CivWin/CivNET graphic design is much worse, imho.

About the "perfectly" part: does anyone else have the issue where console text degrades into "mode 40" and essentially crashes when starting civ for the fifth time?
 
Sid Meier once said, "The game is played in your head and not the screen." He was referring to the fact that, although eye candy is very nice, it doesn't make a game. What make a game is the gameplay.
However, Siaphi94, if you are one of these new breed of gamers who favours pwetty graphics over solid gameplay.. then perhaps Civilization isn't your cup of tea ;)
 
I barely notice the graphics when I play, which I suppose is a testament to aesthetics taking second chair to mechanics. That Civilization mirrors a board game is apparent with its appearance; most don't criticize Monopoly's drawings, at least not in my presence.
 
I usally play civ 1 when I'm waiting for something to finish downloading, because it doesn't have a cd. Other than that, not that often. I usally play civ 3 or 2, and sometimes 4 as a novelty. Civ 4 really doesn't seem like civ to me, though its a very noce game.
 
I actually created a ROM for the SNES version of Civ1, for personal use, I love it, had the original on PC, but lost it years ago.
 
(to op) ME!!!!!!!

I just bought CIV chronicles the other day and was severly shocked that I liked CIV I just as much as CIV IV/(Warlords). Its amazing that a 16 year old game with VERY simple graphics is still so entertaining.
 
I find Civ 1 much more realistic and professional than the others. Take the diplomacy text for example: in civ 1 you have "We affirm this treaty of eternal freindship between the A and B civiliazions". That sounds realistic.

In the other civilizations, the text sounds so childish ("Your head looks good on a pole", why do they have that text there?).

Also, civ1 is the only one where the events happen in a correct order when someone declares war on you. In civ 3 or 4, the order goes like this:
- "You have lost the supply of <resource A>
- Civilization A declares war on you.

I really like the order in civ 1, you expect nothing, then suddenly a enemy atatcks you, and then "Sneak attack by the <civilization A> forces => <your civilization> cancells peace treaty with the <civilization A>. That's how it should be.
 
I play (and own) them all but Civ 1 is just a bit behind Civ 2 for me.

I play it on my Amiga as well, but mostly I play scenarios in Civ2.

IMHO, with Civ2 they hve fully integrated everything I whished in Civ1. :)
 
I love civ 1! My civ iv doesn't work (my computer is old:mad: :mad: ), my civ iii is boring, and my civ ii is too hard. Back to the basics :D :) :lol:
 
i'd say civ1 > civ3 = Alpha Centauri.

i love civ1 for its simplicity, civ3 for its complexity, AC for its brilliant atmosphere and balance. i play all of them, though all of them have dozens of annoying things (civ1 goto-bug FE, civ3 funny diplomacy, AC even funnier diplomacy).

civ2 was way under the CIV level. i never played civ4 and dont really like the graphics and atmosphere. it is mix of civ3 and AC partially, which is somehow doesn't fit my taste.
 
Top Bottom