A little test...

[Justicex]

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.

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.

That was similar to my story! I still remember the "decoder disk" you had to use when you started up the game. What I wouldn't do to complete my collection and own Civ 1......

I have liked every game in the series so far, Even Revolution and Colonization. Every game brought something new and interesting to the table. I haven't had the chance to play 3 very much, but seems good to me

I have to disagree with your opinion of 5 though. I think it's a great game out of the box. It has it's issues sure, but it's all there. I also think it's just a matter of perception that you don't think the updates will improve your opinion of the game. The updates will come, and just like the update and expansions did for your opinion of 4, so will the updates and expansions of 5.

 

[donchy]

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.

"Most of the flamers seem to be fans of Civ4. But what about Civ3?"

CIV III was one of the most fantastic installments in the series. I loved its balance of food, sheild and corruption that made it challenging but not impossible. Also it contained a lot more strategic resources which i think are absolutly critical to the level of fun in the game. I also like the part that let you build your own palace, and how the cities you conquered still had citizens that retained thier ethnicity, adding a challenge to happiness

CIV V has kind of thrown many of the critical elements that made CIVs II,III and IV a succsess in favor of a more 'stream lined' game. I believe that this takes away from the fun factor, making the game boring and simple. CIV V lack the level of management and stratagy elements that made the previous games complex and interesting.

Don't get me wrong, I love CIV V and the CIV series, but V needs to be part of the family and not the outcast that it seems to have become.

 

[scratchthepitch]

I was indifferent to Civ1, liked both 2 and 3 and was disgusted with 4. Maybe 5 will wash away the bad taste left with 4, if they outgrow their steam and dlc fetishes and improve the game with some decent expansions. That's probably a long shot.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The problem with Civ3's resource system was no resource-less defensive unit between spearmen and riflemen. If the AI was slightly ahead of you in techs and you had neither saltpeter nor iron, you'd have problems. Spears or carefully timed longbowmen counter-attacks against musketmen and maybe riflemen and cavalry would be useless. Was never a problem for the competent player, but I saw plenty of examples of AI on an island who would have spears defending their cities way after it was helpful.

 

[Lord Parkin]

I have to admit though, as much as the Civ3 resource system was sometimes restrictive, it was still kind of neat to have such fierce competition for resources. I remember in particular how crucial it was to have both Iron and Coal for railroads (not a common occurence for a small-medium empire), and you literally had to go poaching those resources if you didn't have them or else it'd severely handicap your civ for the rest of the game.

 

[tom2050]

In my view:
1. Civ 2
2. Civ 3
3. Civ 4
4. Civ 5

I couldn't stand 3 when I first played on it, but it became my fav. I actually like the randomness of battles; because it gets old really quick when you know for sure who will win or lose a battle. Civ 4 was good, but even with all the time I have spent with it, it didn't hold my interest for very long.

Right now I don't care much for 5; because I didn't buy it to beta test for Firaxis.

 

[Zelig]

1. SMAC
1. Civ 4
3. Civ 2
4. Civ 1
5. Civ 5
6. Civ 3

I don't really know how to answer if I "like civ 5." It's a game that at present is deeply flawed, if most of my problems with it were fixed, it would easily move up to 3rd place on my rankings.

 

[afa2000]

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" ?

This ! Except I already know how bad is Civ V, unfortunately. Although I didn't play SMAC II, seems to have a great gameplay.

I'm hopeful that Zappara and Afforess may save Civ V from being so bad.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Liked them all. Some were better than others, of course.

 

[Jediron]

1. Civ ii
2. Civ iii
3. Civ i
4. Civ iv
999: Civ v

The problem with Civ3's resource system was no resource-less defensive unit between spearmen and riflemen. If the AI was slightly ahead of you in techs and you had neither saltpeter nor iron, you'd have problems. Spears or carefully timed longbowmen counter-attacks against musketmen and maybe riflemen and cavalry would be useless. Was never a problem for the competent player, but I saw plenty of examples of AI on an island who would have spears defending their cities way after it was helpful.

Well, i liked it more because it's very common any civ has shortage of something, once in a while. That's part of the strategy ;-)
And i never had trouble beating the AI in CIV III, even when he was "slight ahead:" in tech. Like making sure to keep him peacefully, diplomacy wise. Pillage his resources; things were equal again and other nasty things...lol
Afcourse, you have to know the "tricks" to do so.

I couldn't stand 3 when I first played on it, but it became my fav. I actually like the randomness of battles; because it gets old really quick when you know for sure who will win or lose a battle.

In Civ V for example: you buy a horseman (or spear) whatever, when you go one on one with the enemy's archer; you ALWAYS win. Now that is boring, real boring, don't you agree ? Another thing: i not ONCE lost any unit to the barbarians. Even the scouts survive most of the time, (or the barb doesn't even attack them) , they only pillage your land a bit and capture a worker; that's about the worst they can do (on land). Is that boring enough?
So as much as i hated the randomness in CIV III, i loved it also. Loved it when i was on the lucky end of the stick...
It atleast added some excitement to it. Don't tell me you were pissed off, losing your four, five knights to that silly pikemen ; Bang; there you have; thrill, excitement.

Now you fight and think, ow yes, afcource. Oke.oke, Didn't expected anything else. I win, win, win, win.
Yeah, real improvement people....

 

[Flyingdwarfzz]

I have liked every single CIV game so far, except 1, which i hadnt played.

But i think this is the best Civ yet, and will be amazing once they upgrade the AI a bit, and add a bit of a better diplomacy system.

But i find these are small chinks in the awesomeness that is Civ V.

 

[Thormodr]

I'd say:

1. Civ I - Truly a classic and so many fantastic memories.
2. cIV - Soren Johnson pretty well nailed it. Very immersive, deep and fun.
3. Civ II - Wonderful game that made the original even better (major props for the Peat resource which they still need to bring back!)
4. Civ III - Just didn't enjoy it very much. A lot of good new ideas but the game play just wasn't as fun as the others.
5. ciV - Dull, uninspiring game play. Frankly, it just isn't fun to play. Bottom of the barrel.

I suppose I also enjoyed SMAC. I'd tie it for second place with cIV.
The original Colonization would rank as better than Civ III.
The cIV Colonization would still rank higher than ciV.

 

[vincentz]

What happened with Test of Time and Call to Power???

TOT was IMHO one of the best civs (most hours spend), and I modded it heavily, adding deep sea to subs and skies to bombers from the Midgaard Campaign, plus I made "Unique Units" and a bunch of other stuff.
It was also VERY multiplayer stable.

 

[lschnarch]

I liked all Civ games at their times, although all of them did have some flaws.
Due to mods, I may have played Civ4 the most, and in my eyes Civ2 was the one which received the most love from it's creators. The High Council is a milestone, never ever met again.

Civ0.V ... well... It is even not Civilization at all. It is just a combination of the worst parts of Civ and PG, mixed in bad way and sailing under a false flag. Even Civ:Col deserves the brand "Civilization" more than 0.V

 

[Frozen In Ice]

I used to like Civ 3, but when Civ 4 came out, I realized that Civ3 is such a terrible game in comparison. Now that Civ 5 is out, I think it's safe to say that Civ5 makes Civ3 seem terrible as well. Corruption was what killed it for me.

So IMO: Civ4>Civ5>>>>Civ3

 

[dannythefool]

Heh, the poll results basically show that the newer the game is, the more people have played it...

 

[mythmonster2]

Well, something must have changed. Last time I looked at the poll, the dislikers of CiV outnumbered the likers in every category. Not it's the opposite.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Both show that these polls are statistically unhelpful. Detractors of the game are less likely to be here now (with a few exceptions, most have said all they can say). The number of people who like the game is going to grow over time.

I like the game and I've pointed out other polls were also flawed. It doesn't change the fact that internet fora have a huge selection bias.

 

[zonk]

For me - III was the weak sister amongst I (grading on a curve), II, III, and IV until V came along.

I still would ultimately say that I liked III - if it was binary like/dislike choice - but I would agree... They used a sledgehammer to address sprawl complaints (the originally ridiculous corruption problem) and III also, IIRC, removed a number of wonders.

FWIW, I think I, II, and IV were probably all designed for builders. III and V both seemed to be targeted more for warmongers.

Even grading on the curve -- i.e., I gets a lot of points for being truly revolutionary -- I'd rank them:

IV
II
I
III
V

I might flip-flop I and III if I thought about it -- it's been so long, I'm probably forgetting some significant annoyances of I (someone reminded me the other day -- in I, the AI didn't "build" wonders, it would just randomly 'get' them... yeah - that was awful).

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, it wasn't until Civ2 that they actually started building them. Of course, that added the annoying wonder cascade that was especially bad in Civ3.