A little test...

[mythmonster2]

All right, CiV has its fair share of flamers and a decent amount of supporters. However, I wonder. Most of the flamers seem to be fans of Civ4. But what about Civ3? Basically, point of this thread is to see how fans of the different installments like or dislike CiV.

Poll is up. Check all that apply, don't check for ones that you didn't play or like.

 

[drachasor]

I hated Civ 3. Combat was too random for one, to say nothing of the ridiculousness of corruption (even after patching).

I liked Civ IV a ton (though I didn't care for the religion rushing it had).

I also like Civ V, but I think it should have stayed in development for 6 more months.

 

[r_rolo1]

Where is the "disliked civ III in general, liked civ Iv and still trying to make a decision on civ V, but so far being in the dislike side ... but what i really wanted was a good SMAC II" ?

 

[fantsu]

Civ was an awesome game. I didn't own it personally, but played it quite much with my friends.

Civ2 was my first own Civ game. I still consider it to be the best of its time. When it came out, it was much better than 3, 4 or 5 when they came out. It is still one of the few games where every unit did actually work.

Civ3 I bought this one later, not when it was new. I liked it, but it never gave me thrills like Civ or Civ2. I consider Civ2 to be superior to this game on every front.

Civ4 First I didn't care about this game that much, I still played Civ2 actually. Later I learned to like it quite much, and this was BEFORE BtS came out. When BtS was finally released, I loved this game. It is the best Civ game ever released. I still play Civ2 every now and then, it is still fun. BUT, Civ4 is so much more. Complexity, balance, fun, tactics, strategy, choices, everything. I don't like to compare 2 and 4, but if I would have to choose, I would choose 4.

Civ5 It is an mediocre game. It doesn't have soul like 2 and 4. It seems more like an console game, but slower. I just wait when it starts to support Wiimote, maybe next patch? I can grow into it, like I did in Civ4... but that doesn't seem very likely.

 

[Jediron]

Though i hated CIV III "randomness" too, at first. However, sometimes it was just lovely to see your pikes "bravely" stood their ground, and hold their ground, against ALL ODDS. You may hate it, fact is that in real warfare, such occasion happened now and then. Call it a unexpected, unpleasent (or pleaseant) surprise. I think CIV 5 is leaning exactly the opposite; even worse, because your "advisor" is very precise in his predictions. Unexpected losses in CIV 5 ? Next to non-existance.
That's just plain boring, isn't it ?

While CIV 4 is maybe best, i never liked the graphics, the map. Dunno. Three was prettier to my "eyes" and gamewise, it's not much less then CIV II; my all time favorite.
I loved the Advisors, really; i gave them nicknames
Hilarious, nothing good for but ow, so funny. Ow yes, the wonder movies from the original. Shame that the intermezzo's are gone too, i always feld proud to watch them and meanwhile, take a breath. The only thing i alway disliked about CIV, is that when you play on harder difficulty; wonders were hard if not impossible to get. So if you like wonders, like me; you are forced to play on lower, easier levels. Which, are not so exiting anymore; since you used to play it harder.

 

[drachasor]

Though i hated CIV III "randomness" too, at first. However, sometimes it was just lovely to see your pikes "bravely" stood their ground, and hold their ground, against ALL ODDS. You may hate it, fact is that in real warfare, such occasion happened now and then. Call it a unexpected, unpleasent surprise. I think CIV 5 is leaning exactly the opposite; even worse, because your "
advisor" is very precise in his predictions. Unexpected losses in CIV 5 ? Next to non-exitance.
That's just plain boring, isn't it ?

First that has, at best, almost never happened in real life. Secondly, it happened A LOT in Civ 3 -- low numbers of hit points increase randomness.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I love Civ 3 hate 4 and love 5

 

[ond_magiker]

Loved Civ2.

Didn't really play Civ3 enough to get a good opinion.

Loved Civ4, which was the first computer strategy game that made me want to beat it at higher difficulties.

Liked Civ5 for a few hours, but got quickly bored with it.

 

[cf_nz]

Liked all versions of Civ I've played since 1994, including Civ V.

 

[Peregrine]

Purchased CivI early 90s. Enjoyed it for quite awhile. Empire building is fun. Administering an empire, in a rudimentary sense, was fun too.

Purchased CivII in 98. REALLY enjoyed it, eventually creating more than a dozen well-known scenarios, that would probably be called "mods" using modern terminology. Age of War, Imperialism 1870, Age of the Crusades, and Age of Charlemagne are several that I was eventually happy with. CivII had some problems, however. Glaring ones. My own scenarios attempted to address these upon occasion, and I've since seen some of my solutions in CIV.

Did NOT purchase CivIII. Read about it. Looked at it very closely. Decided against.

Purchased CIV. Last year, oddly enough. Rapidly added BTS. Superb game. Resolved many of the problems of CivII for the better, added on many things I'd always wanted to see; religion, greater yields from resources, impassable terrain, specialized resources like oil, high-cost units, buildings, and wonders, and army-level units/stacking (all of which were done in my CivII scenarios, btw).

Did NOT purchase CiV. Read about it. Looked at it very closely. Decided against.

I'm a consumer, among other things. If I make the claim to be an intelligent consumer, then I'd better live up to it by examining my potential purchases very closely before committing the cash. III and V didn't make the cut. My message to Firaxis; you'll have to do better before earning my money--it's gotta be good, guys. Waiting for Civ6

I voted liked I, II, and IV, did not like V.

 

[Venger]

There is no Civ I didn't like. I loved them all. I like Civ5 the least, because it's the rawest of them. Time will tell if I like it the most later.

Believe it or not, Civ3 might be my favorite, as it was the last Civ game that was easily modifiable. I added units, nations, resources, all with great ease. It is still what I miss most.

 

[Red Wegener]

I would rank them in this order:

1. Civ 2
2. Civ 4
3. Civ 3
4. Civ 1
5. Civ 5

 

[SuperJay]

I played Civ1 almost 20 years ago, and every Civ release since. Each release varied in initial quality, but the common thread with all four of them was engagement, immersion... the J1MT Syndrome. Up until Civ5, I'd always experienced it in every iteration. Now, for the first time in the franchise's history, I'm actually bored by a Civilization game.

I'd rather hate it or be unable to win a game than be bored.

 

[Dinhcara]

This poll is horribly lacking in choices...

I played civ 4 for a little while and did not enjoy the game as much as I thought I would.. I have played civ 5 a few times and have been enjoying the game despite the things that are lacking. I am sure that civ 5 will be an excellent game in the near future.

 

[Lord Parkin]

I don't much like the absolute extreme options in the poll (only "like" and "dislike").

I liked Civ3, still love Civ4, and am lukewarm towards Civ5 at the moment. However, I picked "like" for civ5 because I have high hopes that patches and expansions will improve the game beyond its current state.

 

[Xen]

I love Civ 3 hate 4 and love 5

Same- i only liked civIV at all after the last X-pack, and even then it didnt hold my interest for long; it was soon usurped by Europa Universalis.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I've played Civ since Civ2. I've liked them all.

 

[Jediron]

Originally Posted by Jediron
Though i hated CIV III "randomness" too, at first. However, sometimes it was just lovely to see your pikes "bravely" stood their ground, and hold their ground, against ALL ODDS. You may hate it, fact is that in real warfare, such occasion happened now and then. Call it a unexpected, unpleasent surprise. I think CIV 5 is leaning exactly the opposite; even worse, because your "
advisor" is very precise in his predictions. Unexpected losses in CIV 5 ? Next to non-exitance.
That's just plain boring, isn't it ?

First that has, at best, almost never happened in real life. Secondly, it happened A LOT in Civ 3 -- low numbers of hit points increase randomness.

Are you sure?
I think of Alexender the great (a famous battle where his enemy was atleast 8 to 1),
Julieus Ceasar vs The Gauls (where he was outnumbered, AND surrounded while he was besieging Venqutorix) Napoleon Bonaparte; who often fought a un-even battle and Won. And that is only a few examples of the greatest', think all of the failed sieges of catles and the like, it think it happened more often then you and i can think of.

And second; i can understand people like a "sure thing". Because we hate to loose, right ? Well, it is blabant easy and predictable now; you know exactly what's gonna happen; You call that fun ?

 

[Pratputajao]

I liked all the Civ games about equel....I mean its Civilization folks! By the time a new version came out I found that I absolutely loved the Civ before it. I have never disliked a Civ game. Now I didnt care for Civ-IV when I first played it (Would hardly run on my system, cartoonish graphics for leaders,) but by the time Civ V came out I loved it as much as any Civ game. It does have the best Mods of the series though (so far )

Cmon guys, this is Civ, one of the best (if not THE best) computer game series of all time. Every Civ game is excellent. Thank you Sid for blessing the world with this series!

 

[afa2000]

I love to see how every poll result shows the same: no matter what is the correlation you're looking for, the rejection towards Civ V is very high because it sucks.

BTW, I've been playing Civ since 2. Didn't like 3 too much, but that was ok. My favourite were 2 and 4.