Beyond earth the worst civ game ever - nothing happens

[bladex]

This is a matter of opinion, not of fact. Why should we value your opinion over our own?

because i'm right. the ai is as dumb as a bag of rocks they hardly build an army to challenge you, they don't use trade routes properly, they annoy the hell out of you with worthless favors...shall i continue?

Moderator Action: Please try to be respectful of the opinions of others. This is simply dismissive and trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Kutuzov]

because i'm right. the ai is as dumb as a bag of rocks they hardly build an army to challenge you, they don't use trade routes properly, they annoy the hell out of you with worthless favors...shall i continue?

Well, since you have clearly demonstrated that you do not understand the difference between a fact and an opinion, let me help you with a simple example to illustrate the difference.

I say that the capital city of Colombia is Bogota and you say that I'm wrong and that it's Santiago. Since we are talking about facts, I can absolutely say that I am right and that you are wrong.

Now, we are talking about coffee. I say I don't like coffee and you say you do. Both of us are right. Nobody is wrong. It's a waste of time trying to tell me that I am wrong not to like coffee. You can only agree with or disagree with an opinion.

Moderator Action: Beware of feeding trolls. Please make your arguments without getting personal.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Fabio1701]

The OP kind of clouded the issue with his title because his real question was 'was Civ BE the easiest Civ ever?' I'd definitely agree with it being the easiest Civ game but not with it being the worst Civ game. I'm undecided on that because I really HATED Civ IV's corporations.

Funnily enough, I loved Civ 3. I have so many happy memories of playing that game and it had a cracking soundtrack, only bettered by Civ V's and BE's. If I were to chose, my 'worst' Civ game would probably be Civ IV after the expansions but I still loved playing it

civ 3 indeed had an awesome soundtrack and I find it still very good with lots of happy memories, I think it is the least potential for me to pick up again of all the others. perhasp because the expansions didnt add much or perhaps because it polished civ2 A LOT but didn't have a whole lot of innovation. civ4 was like WOW this is totally differnt even though its all buggy for the first two months. the video direct of civ3 was also top ranking, but that wont make me reinstall (given youtube).

 

[killmeplease]

why so much hate for civ3? it was definitely better than civ2 as i can say from my impression
strategic resources, planar tech tree etc nice things were added
afair, the only thing i really hated were ugly leaderheads

 

[Kutuzov]

Wasn't it Civ 3 when we first saw cultural borders that could 'flip'?

Plus, I could expend a worker to create an outpost outside of my cultural borders to get a strategic resource.

Great times.

 

[Fabio1701]

why so much hate for civ3? it was definitely better than civ2 as i can say from my impression
strategic resources, planar tech tree etc nice things were added
afair, the only thing i really hated were ugly leaderheads

Wasn't it Civ 3 when we first saw cultural borders that could 'flip'?

Plus, I could expend a worker to create an outpost outside of my cultural borders to get a strategic resource.

Great times.

All right! Fine! you people with your "opinions" and "facts" have convinced me that I cannot trust my memory of civ3's features nor any other memory of civ as it has all mashed into one big pile of wasted childhood goo, so I will just have to play through every iteration of civ again to come to the bottom of this.

See you in six months, or maybe not as I will no longer have a job or home and live on the streets.

 

[krasny]

When Civ2 came out I never went back to Civ1.

When Civ3 came out I never went back to Civ2.

When Civ4 came out I never went back to Civ3.

When Civ5 came out I was initially crazy for it, but soon saw the poor AI and autistic diplomatic system and went back to Civ4.

Not even tempted to buy BE. I would rather play Planetfall or SMAC.

I'm only posting this because Realism Invictus, a Civ4 mod, just kicked my arse and I needed a break to decompress.

It's rather sad that they're advertising their worst product on TV.

 

[Kutuzov]

All right! Fine! you people with your "opinions" and "facts" have convinced me that I cannot trust my memory of civ3's features nor any other memory of civ as it has all mashed into one big pile of wasted childhood goo, so I will just have to play through every iteration of civ again to come to the bottom of this.

See you in six months, or maybe not as I will no longer have a job or home and live on the streets.

Heh heh. My work here is accomplished.

The Civ 3 bundle is available on Steam at a discount just now. I'm tempted to pick it up for my notebook.

 

[poom3619]

End up it is a matter of opinion of "good old day" (or bad old day, I don't sure) which like compare apple to orange, or GMO apple to GMO orange. We could go on about this until the end of time

 

[Lord Tirian]

why so much hate for civ3? it was definitely better than civ2 as i can say from my impression
strategic resources, planar tech tree etc nice things were added
afair, the only thing i really hated were ugly leaderheads

To me, because it never quite had anything that made it feel "unique". CivII has a certain timeless simplicity to it - but CivIII's additions didn't change the actual core game play, it just added extra hoops to jump through, to me.

It was in Civ4 where CivIII's innovations came into their own, where they started to be fun and actually engaging.

 

[bouncymischa]

To me, because it never quite had anything that made it feel "unique". CivII has a certain timeless simplicity to it - but CivIII's additions didn't change the actual core game play, it just added extra hoops to jump through, to me.

It was in Civ4 where CivIII's innovations came into their own, where they started to be fun and actually engaging.

I always find myself in an odd place, because I have fond memories of spending long hours playing hotseat games with my brother in Civ 3, making sprawling empires, racing people for resources, and eventually conquering the world. But I never could really get into Civ IV -- my brother did, and tried to get me into playing hotseat games with him, but it just didn't have the same appeal. I finally did play it a bit after BtS came out, and found the sci fi scenario fun, but the level of micromanagement it demanded was just aggravating. In Civ 3 I could make massive sprawling empires and land grabs, but trying to settle even just a few cities in Civ IV just seemed to make everything come apart. It's particularly ironic since once I got into Civ V I found making a large empire much easier, as I just had to manage my happiness. While my Civ IV games rarely got larger than four cities, I could easily make an empire that covers a dozen cities in Civ V.

So my own perspectives seem a bit skewed in relation to the more commonly expressed ones here.

 

[Bandobras Took]

why so much hate for civ3? it was definitely better than civ2

I played Alpha Centauri. I don't compare Civ 3 to Civ 2.

 

[Thormodr]

To me, because it never quite had anything that made it feel "unique". CivII has a certain timeless simplicity to it - but CivIII's additions didn't change the actual core game play, it just added extra hoops to jump through, to me.

It was in Civ4 where CivIII's innovations came into their own, where they started to be fun and actually engaging.

That's a good take on it.

 

[Quintillus]

These threads are always rather entertaining. How I'd vote depends on how we define the canon. Civ World would have to be a leading candidate, but may be outside canon. Of the ones definitely in the canon, I'd have to go for vanilla Civ5. I still haven't bought the expansions, despite a fair amount of badgering from IRL friends, just because Civ5 gave me no desire to come back to it when I have Civ3 and Civ4 readily available. I've skipped BE so far due to a combination of the Civ5 heritage and lukewarm reviews, even from official review sites.

I'd like to see Civ6 go back to making growth fun, rather than punishing the player for growth as Civ4 did somewhat (exponential maintenance) and Civ5 did too much (particularly with happiness in vanilla). And of course a better AI than Civ5 would be essential - I'd love it if Firaxis started caring as much about the AI as art and cinematics, though it's unlikely to happen.

Technically, the worst Civ ever is the one that spawned ICS - that would be Civ2.

Technically, you can't say something subjective is technically the best/worst.

 

[Roxlimn]

I was counting on the near-universal hatred of ICS being the operative assumption. Of course, if you like ICS, I must recommend Civ2 (and SMAC). ICS paradise.

I'd like to see Civ6 go back to making growth fun, rather than punishing the player for growth as Civ4 did somewhat (exponential maintenance) and Civ5 did too much (particularly with happiness in vanilla). And of course a better AI than Civ5 would be essential - I'd love it if Firaxis started caring as much about the AI as art and cinematics, though it's unlikely to happen.

You sure you have the version number right on that? Civ5 Vanilla's Happiness system allowed for more rapid and more profitable unlimited expansion than Civ4's.

 

[Callonia]

CivBE also suffers from another problem of being too short. It always end when things begin to develop. Turn 100-200 so I have taken steps to remedy that problem by setting domination as only victory condition then increased the size of world from Firaxis massive(small world) to Modded massive (huge world).

 

[Roxlimn]

I think it's more of the VCs not being well-designed at all. I've always viewed the Civ VCs as something of an afterthought. The scenario VCs are generally better thought out with a nice pace to them. The sandbox mode appears to mainly be about mucking around the tech tree and eventually winning once you get around to doing it.

 

[EricTheGreat12]

No votes for Civ World yet as the worst civ game ever? Not even turn based.

What about Civ the Board game

 

[kingsbury]

Civ 5 was pretty crazy at release. BNW is almost an entirely different game except graphically from Civ 5 at release.

 

[jeffreyac]

This may be too late in the thread, as there are some pretty strong emotions, but here are my thoughts...


I like Civ games - there are (and at this point, appear likely to always be) my all time favorite computer games. I can't give a stronger statement than that to let you know where I was coming from.

As far as this particular iteration - well, my all-time favorite is a well modded Civ IV (Legends of Revolution, though ironically with the revolution features turned off (I just like the graphics and new units)). I tried Civ V and was disappointed - while I understand and respect those who welcomed the changes, I really never got into the core of the game, and some things in particular (1upt, global happiness, and how crowded the world feels from the start with minor civs and neighbors everywhere) really turned me off.

With that said, I'm a civ fan - so I wanted to give CivBE a shot. And I did. On the plus side, I find the global health mechanic somehow more acceptable to me than global happiness - I guess I can rationalize a larger empire being less healthy, where I had a hard time imagining why capturing a city on the far side of the world would make citizens in my capital unhappy. (Yes, I know the same argument applies to global health - I can't explain why this makes more sense to me, it just does for some reason, and therefore bothers me less).

However, I personally felt that most of the rest was a poor reskin of Civ V - we have new terrain and resources, but less units overall to play with (or so it seems - granted, I guess the units in my previous civ games were variations on a theme, but it just felt better to me for some reason than the current version, where it seems like there's just not much diversity. Sure, bigger stronger cruisers, for example - but still just different cruisers...) So, lacking anything really new, and keeping most of Civ V that I didn't like - it's hard for me really to get excited about this one...

I'm not saying it's awful - I know there are many fans of both Civ V and BE, and I'm glad and wish you many hours of happy gaming. Me, though - I've already gone back to Civ IV...