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

[Yolrin]

Hello there.
I'm very happy to see that loyal civ1 fans still exist. I also tried all the other civs. Played civ2 for years, it was great but not as good as 1, civ3 is pretty but just flawed, civ4... ugh...

The original civ seems to be a better, more well rounded game. The combination of abstractness, original atmosphere, and ease of play, creates that mysterious and legendary "just one more turn" feeling. And the rules may be simple, but they are coherent, while civ4 feels like random stuff thrown in, following that "the more the better" approach... All that flashy cartoony graphics, and rpg-like unit promotions just dont work for me...

So after some years without civ (mainly playing roguelikes and paradox games), I have returned. Replayed every civ, played civ4 (and really tried to like it), and finally chose civ1 again. So here i am

 

[Comrade Aart]

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.

True. I do like CIV IV, but the "informal" things really bug me. Also that with ratings you see the leaders name and not the nations name.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

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

Seconded. One of the greatest virtues of Civ 1 & 2 is how quickly one can fire up and play a game. Compared to Civ1, a turn in Civ4 seems as long as the time it represents.

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

All things considered, Civ's simple pictures are rather eye-pleasing, more so than those of other games that came before and after (especially to nostalgics like me). I've even made cartoons with the ol' unit icons!

 

[krille]

Got 'em all. Yet, I keep coming back to C1. Since C4 I have played CivDOS countless of times but haven't even glanced C3 not to mention C2.

I really like how overflow works in C4, that's the main reason I'm not playing C3 anymore (and annoying C4 features such as Great People can be turned off by very easy XML modding).

CivDOS on the other hand has the best atmosphere hands down. Epic!

 

[Bratmon]

I have 3 and 4, but I like to come back here. I have less details to focus on at any one time, so I can look at the big picture. It also doesn't take as long to play. I just get that "One more turn" feel better here.

 

[LackBox]

I have 3 and 5, but I like to come back here.

You have Civ 5? Man, you're probably a betatester or even Sid's friend! Can you tell us is the release soon?

^ Not actual any more. ^

 

[sfnhltb]

True. I do like CIV IV, but the "informal" things really bug me. Also that with ratings you see the leaders name and not the nations name.

It has to be this way in Civ 4 because you can end up having multiple of the same country in a game (especially if you have something like 40Civs running), so the leader is the only thing guaranteed to be unique.

 

[rugerdon]

Civ 1 is a classic that has withstood the test of time (with me anyway). I always come back to this one. It's kinda like going back to play chrono trigger or mike tyson's punch out.

 

[Andy6474b]

I purchased II and III when they came out, but neither held my attention for long. Civ I is the game I always keep coming back to. I always hated the isometric view in the newer games and the idea of units taking damage.

I have two big problems with Civ I that make me tire of it from time to time until its gravity eventually pulls me back for more.

One is minor - this being the way other civs with whom you have a peace treaty can dump units off a boat onto your territory.

The other is more of a show stopper. This is the infamous population bug that causes map corruption and crashes as your population gets very large. As I like to play to build up huge pops this one hits me a lot.

There was once a third problem. Dack fixed that one.

 

[Whelkman]

This is the infamous population bug that causes map corruption and crashes as your population gets very large. As I like to play to build up huge pops this one hits me a lot.

Ever get something like this?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5571142

 

[Andy6474b]

Ever get something like this?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5571142

Sort of. I don't recall having the terrain improvements shift, but the colourful crash looks familiar. The map corruption I got was usually in the far north of the map, sometimes clicking on a city in that zone would cause the colourful crash.

Ok, just had a look at a saved map I have with a big population just before the deadline turn. In this one the bug kicks in after the end of the game and I ask to continue. After getting back to the game the screen is filled with many colours which settle down eventually. The top several rows in the world map now show some parts of what look like units and clicking in the 'forbidden zone' sends the game bezerk for several minutes with colourful static until it eventually stabilises.











Anyhow, as mentioned, this is my main gripe with Civ1. Id really like to be able to carry on ad infinitum and see just how much pop I can cram onto the Earth map. It's an interesting distraction what with things like trying to balance out the city placement and square utilisation to pump selected cities up to higher numbers (as these deliver much higher reported millions of population) while not wasting space.

 

[dduh]

To return to the Forum's topic a bit. I just might have the answer for you.

So, it wasn't until the beginning of this year that I bought the Civilization III Complete package and played my first Civ3 game. It was the same with me - I didn't have those great feelings as with my good-old Civ1. Miles away, to be more precise. I remembered then reading once something about Sid not having a significant role in design of Civ2 and Civ3 (see the two citations below). This fact kind of answered my empty feelings after this Civ3 play. Namely, you can't really expect the same result by having different designers in this craft (game design). Moreover, only seeing the result of an idea (Civ1) doesn't yet mean knowing the idea as a whole. Really feeling it. Great ideas therefore can't really be sold or told. (Thank God it's like that, BTW.)

To continue. The text on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier) then says that yet only Civ4 was designed by this Soren Johnson (Civ3) under the direction of Sid Meier and Meier's studio Firaxis Games. This, however, gives some promise for Civ4 in being more like its origin. Yet, there is one more fact, which puts this statement under the question mark as well. Civ1, if you've ever wondered into the game's development history (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1523/the_history_of_civilization.php), was designed by Sid along his good friend Bruce Shelley's tests and comments on everyday game's drafts, back in MicroProse Company (see the citation below). It was the duo, really, working on the idea! BTW after MicroProse era Sid went to Firaxis while Shelley continued his work in Ensemble Studios - the well known Age of Empires series. Hm, if the two could just have stayed together...

However, my epilog question is - can we really expect the same nature of the Great Civ1 in Civ2, Civ3 or even in Civ4 while not having the creators of the game together any more?

All the best,
David


Citations of Wikipedia on Sid Meier's works:
-------------------------------------------------
- CIV2: "Civilization II was designed by Brian Reynolds, Douglas Caspian-Kaufman and Jeff Briggs. Although it is a sequel to Sid Meier's Civilization, neither Sid Meier nor Bruce Shelley was involved in its development."
- CIV3: "Unlike the original game, Civ III was not designed by Sid Meier, but by Jeff Briggs, a game designer, and Soren Johnson, a game programmer."

Citation of Gamasutra on the history of Civ1:
--------------------------------------------------
" ...After extensive testing by Shelley, the two men would discuss the shortcomings of the current prototype. "Out of that conversation, [Meier] would revise the prototype in the afternoon and leave a new version for me to test in the morning," recalls Shelley. "I usually beat him in to work and would have play-test feedback ready for discussion." The duo would continue this cycle repeatedly, revising and refining the game until it was as near-perfect... "

And near-perfect it is.

 

[Whelkman]

Andy6474b, I'm unfamiliar with that brand of corruption. What version is this, out of curiosity?

 

[Tristan_C]

Because of the different traits, the graphics, and the overall complexity, Civ4 feels like a roleplaying game to me. Nothing against that. But Civ1 is high strategy. Equal civs, simple rules, and flat board. Civ1 is Go, or chess, whereas Civ4 is definitely a video game. Seems almost strange to me, comparing one to the other, because they offer their own sort of fun. There's no point in releasing the same game four times. I'm glad that the title grows larger each round.

 

[dduh]

Civ1 is Go, or chess, whereas Civ4 is definitely a video game.

Exactly.

And one post in that other thread gives the idea why the sequels lost this strategic (chess-like) part. Quoting: "The Civ1 tech chart is more complicated than the Civ2, Civ3, and Civ4 tech trees combined."

I think that's the answer. The more branches in the game's tech chart, the more possible developments/outcomes of the game, the more fun. As for video game, it's beautiful to an eye, but no food for your brains.

 

[Tristan_C]

Exactly.

And one post in that other thread gives the idea why the sequels lost this strategic (chess-like) part. Quoting: "The Civ1 tech chart is more complicated than the Civ2, Civ3, and Civ4 tech trees combined."

I think that's the answer. The more branches in the game's tech chart, the more possible developments/outcomes of the game, the more fun. As for video game, it's beautiful to an eye, but no food for your brains.

Thanks, but it's not really a bad thing in my mind. I do like video games (don't much like admitting it, though). The fact is, civ1 is far simpler, all around, including all the tech chart business, and that the sequels get increasingly complex. I think that our minds treat the situation a bit differently than the game engines, though, so that we usually perceive a deeper game in civ1.

 

[Whelkman]

I agree on Civ being more like an electronic board game; I've always considered it a big, complicated game of chess. The key for me is that the gameplay is open enough and the variables manageable enough that I can keep the entire game in my head (plus maybe a few notes and an architectural diagram). Anything bigger and the game would turn into "black magic" or, at least, the micromanaging I like to do wouldn't be practical since I would be unable to determine whether my methods were effective.

 

[dbz]

I recently purchased CivII and I have tried several times to 'get into it' but like one of the posters above, I do not like the graphic interface. Perhaps because I'm older and started computer games in the early 90's for a few years, then didn't play any computer games again until I recently (2009) found my Civ games, I find that I just love the simple graphics of Civ1.
It's great to see that there are still many Civ1 fans!

 

[mopyper]

I tried several times to get into CivII, but just couldn't. I played CivIII for a couple of months, but I got so frustrated with the level of corruption in cities away from the capital that I gave it up. I play CivI exclusively now.

 

[hellas]

I agree with a lot of the points mentioned, especially about Civ1 being more like chess and the later games being "video games".

Some things I've always especially liked in Civ1 that are missing from the later games are
-all the civs are the same: no unique units, buildings, etc
-civil wars
-stealing a tech when you conquer a city
-true zones of control: you can't waltz past enemy units