For example, city catching was funnier, according to me, in Civ2 : 1. You could take a city with only one attack, provided it was not defended. That made more a feel of simplicity and in consequence, a more direct, epured aggressive feeling. 2. The Civ5 war system is way too much gamey, especially when it comes to take cities. I really do not care the problems of the game designers, that always want to balance things and such... I simply don't care. Game mechanics should be transparent. If they are not, then they failed. I really don't know what went through developers' mind with Civ5, Civ2 had the rule "if one only unit of the stack is killed defending, then the whole stack dies", making the warfare close of 1 UPT, but the cities hadn't a life bar for even. The life bar of cities in 5 just prevents a smooth and enjoying play IMO, killing simplicity, rapidity and fun. 3. You had this little sound of crowd panic (or was it a military march one ?) when taking a city. That added to the savagery of the act. In Civ5, I think it would be a must that there is such a sound taking cities, + animations of citizens fleeing away. This is not a rant thread. I'm just curious to see other's sights, and to know if mine is just too much personnal or not. ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ As always, I'm looking for what did my pleasure with Civ2, and why I had a lot less pleasure, not to say none, with the sequels. For the developers to take my remarks into account, particularly if others agree with me. If I should class the different sequels by order of appreciation, it would be like this : Civ2 >>>>> Civ3 >>>>> Civ4 > Civ5 (with patches). First notice, the more time advanced, the less I appreciated the Civilization sequels. First hypothesis : it's a subjective phenomenon. And I will not say it's not possible. For instance, it wouldn't mean there's nothing we can do against it. For example, it could be that the feeling of the series is just fading away with the sequels. Or I played a really really lot to Civ2, and I can say it's the case indeed, and got tired of it. A new sequel could not revive my prime interest : the whole feeling of Civ became too familiar and lost its taste. Or the games, second hypothesis, lost relevance through time. In the first case, it's just me. In the second, it's the developers fault. In both cases, there is a solution. The one to the first case would be to suicide myself. I'm joking. I will NEVER suicide myself, hah hah ! No, it is just to make the sequel enough different from the original game in order to trigger new feelings. And, to transcend the game. I see you coming. Can developers really transcend the game each time successfully ? The answer to the problem is rather simple : if the game can't be transcended, then do not create sequels. The core of the second possible problem is the lack of understanding of what do the game so addictive and fun from the developers. And the solution could be brought by such a forum, providing the concerned threads aren't just a collection of personnal mixed sights that never overlap. I personnally think that Civ can be transcended, even if it nearly never has been. I mean, Civ2 was just a graphic update of Civ1. Civ3 had some new things, but far too anecdotic, and put others away. Same with 4, and 5. Here, we can see that the Civ series has never been shaped with the objective to keep a fanbase. It rather always have been designed with the objective to attract the new and more comtemporary players, with updated technology, at the exception of those who started to play Civ series with an already old game which could look like outdated graphically, and went to the next iteration for more pleasure. (like me from Civ1 to Civ2). But the transfert can't be longer than from one episode to the next. That could explain why I feel less and less attracted by the series personnally. I, although, appreciated a range of improvements made from Civ2 to Civ3 for example. Like the abolition of the ZOC, which felt way too much artificial in some cases (why can't i move my unit here in that precise case ? And why not there and there too ? Stupid !). But, I have to say, this kind of problems one can encounter while playing his favourite game, is not critical at all. Sure, one can be pissed off momentarily, but it never is really prohibitive, finally. Is the creation of a new sequel justified by those kind of small contrariety some could call flaws or exploits ? I could have been answering affirmatively at this question, but the fact is that it really is not ; particularly when the game in question relies on a fragile and humanly unreachable balance of things. What brings me to what I wish I see this topic become : trying to underline what makes Civ2, or any Civ of your liking, depending on which generation you're a part of, an addictive and so amazing game. To go there, I will start to enumerate my "objectives" (or at least the different steps of the enjoyment of the game) when playing Civ2 : 1) Understand not the mechanics, but the whole concept of this new strange game. Here what I can notice if that the concept of the game has never changed. Population growth has always been based on food quantity for example, and the game always have been turn by turn. Maybe that to transcend the game, some of those things would have been better changed. 2) Try to reach the end, if there is one. That sentence sums up well what is Civilization : an experimental game. The thing is that this experimental bit has never been transcended : not only it remained the same, but it also has been eriged into an untouchable, frozen monument. It could have been good that this experimental bit to have been reborn in the sequels, for example by pushing the countries simulation a bit farer with revolutions for example, and all the incidence it would have been on the gameplay. (see my various ideas on the question) 3) Enjoying the "rewrite History" thing, as my collection of cities really looked like a real country, surrounded by other countries. Playing the game as an immortal state chief ("Naokaukodem"), with different situations in different games. The part of roleplaying and gameplaying in this difference remains to be determined though. (should play Civ2 again ?) This happened totally spontaneously and unexpetedly. The fact is, if I remember correctly, that i played as my own country (in real life = France) and when i saw my cities sourrounded by others of countries that was the neighbours of mine in the real life (England, Spain, Italy, Germany...), I just simply made the link with the actual History. As the shape and relative position of those countries where changed in the game, it just felt like I was rewriting some kind of History in a kind of Fantasy world. Is that roleplaying ? Is the ability to choose one's own country in the game relevant ? Since Civ3, the civilizations have been personnalized with traits. The wanted effect was to differenciate more the civilizations, and to be able indeed to roleplay each one more intensively. But, what is better for roleplaying than incarnating our own country in reality ? Plus, traits reduced drastically the number of incarnatable civilizations , as each has been the object of a particular work. (not to mention leader heads !) 4) Complete the game once in each difficulty mode, and I would consider the game completed and go elsewhere. Whereas it was pretty insane and boring in Civ3 in Deity, it was impossible for me in Civ4 in Deity, and with the new nerfed things in the last patches of Civ5, I barely never play above King. But I can find my way out anyway, I just play lower difficulty levels, I even played a couple of Civ5 settler games that was amusing but of course, became with time too boring due to the lack of reaction of the AI. My principal beef with 5 is that happiness hinders too much our expansion, whereas in the other areas of the game, the AI can't match up (especially militarily), so that the difficulty levels are biased because the game remains too restrictive in some areas like happiness, but too lax in others, making the game finally boring. I believe that the Civilization games have been, subjectively or objectively, which remains pretty the same after all, worst and worst. What do you think the developers made poorly ? What should they have done ? Are Civ3 ressources really essential (after all we enjoyed 1 and 2 without them...) ? Isn't Civ4 city maintenance system too opaque, making the game too complicated ? Please, don't come with too opposite arguments (for example with arguments like "I played X hours of CivX, that must be that it is great", which is not true), that's not a blood bath, nor a rant thread, that is a constructive critic, or trying to be. Let's try to decide what is good and what is not good for our beloved franchise !