How does Civ 5 compare to Civ 3 ?

[Sinterklaas]

I've seen lots of "Civ 5 is not as good as Civ 4" posts, but what if you've never played Civ 4 and only have Civ 1,2 and 3 to compare it with?

I've heard there are some issues with Civ 5 and that lots of stuff from Civ 4 has been left out of the game, but for me that wouldn't be too much of a problem since I don't know Civ 4 anyway... So how does Civ 5 compare to Civ 3? Is it still "bad" from that viewpoint or is it a big improvement and should I really get it?

At the moment I'm a bit in doubt about whether I should buy the game because I'm hearing very mixed opinions about it. Some people think it sucks and others love it to death. So any info about the differences between Civ 3 and 5 are welcome.

 

[poncratias]

compare super mario 1 with Call of Duty 6.

 

[dannythefool]

If you haven't played Civ IV, then your risk to be disappointed is a lot lower. Civ IV with its two expansions is a very refined game, and most players think it's the best of the series so far (apart from some older players who have nostalgic feelings for Civ II).

But why don't you just download the demo and try it?

 

[Gurd]

At the moment I'm a bit in doubt about whether I should buy the game because I'm hearing very mixed opinions about it. Some people think it sucks and others love it to death. So any info about the differences between Civ 3 and 5 are welcome.

From playing just the demo (and keeping up with a lot of the coverage, gameplay demonstrations, etc.) I'd say it's a good leap forwards from Civ3. Even if the game still has some issues, the mechanics seem to be a lot better.

In the end though, it'll boil down to your personal preference. I second Dannythefool's suggestion to download the demo and give it a whirl.

 

[Ralgar]

Do you really play Civ 3 that often anymore? Civ 5 will be fun and a new challenge. But for $10 you also could get Civ4 with the expansions and tons of cool mods.

 

[UrkSpleen]

Civ III was good when it was polished with conquests and mods imho, and of course, when Civ IV vanilla came out there was an adverse feeling toward the new kid on the block. Still, Civ IV really does shine with BTS and Warlords, and Civ 5 is simply a different game. Better than Civ III? Well, I would say the interface is much better, but I do miss the scenarios in Civ III

 

[Sinterklaas]

Thanks!

Yes I should play the demo but I'm not sure how well it can be compared to the full experience. I usually dislike demo's, even when the game itself is great.

 

[apotheoser]

I've seen lots of "Civ 5 is not as good as Civ 4" posts, but what if you've never played Civ 4 and only have Civ 1,2 and 3 to compare it with?

I've heard there are some issues with Civ 5 and that lots of stuff from Civ 4 has been left out of the game, but for me that wouldn't be too much of a problem since I don't know Civ 4 anyway... So how does Civ 5 compare to Civ 3? Is it still "bad" from that viewpoint or is it a big improvement and should I really get it?

At the moment I'm a bit in doubt about whether I should buy the game because I'm hearing very mixed opinions about it. Some people think it sucks and others love it to death. So any info about the differences between Civ 3 and 5 are welcome.

I feel like Civ 5 and Civ 3 are similar. Civ 3 introduced a lot of new concepts that ended up being refined and kept for Civ 4 - unique units, cultural borders, national/small wonders of the world, for example.

If I had only played Civ 3 I think I would feel OK about Civ 5 - pretty good upgrades, interesting changes.

Mainly if I had never had the Civics in Civ 4 I would not be so bad about losing them, hehe.

 

[Gre_Magus]

Let's put it this way - I bought Civ 3 complete after not playing Civ for a while (3 or 4 years). I enjoyed it immensely and immediately, and continued playing even after Civ 4 came out, which I didn't buy right away. I eventually downloaded the Civ 4 demo and had trouble getting in to it, but then when Warlords came out and Civ 4 vanilla went down to $20 or whatever it was, I got that. I got into it and stopped playing Civ 3. Then BTS came out and I got it a few weeks after release. I liked it a lot also, but I thought active espionage and corporations were tacked on - although I liked passive espionage.
I've been following Civ 5 since it was announced and pre-ordered it. I haven't played Civ 4 for a year or so, although I got Colonization about 9 months ago and liked that, although I only played 30 hours or so.
My first first impression of Civ 5 is better than my first impression of Civ 4 was, but not quite as overwhelmingly good as my first impression of Civ 3. I like the social policies better than civics, although I miss pop-rushing, I love the hexes, I feel like the research is too fast and the buildings are too slow, I love buying hexes and not being limited to the BFC, I like the combat, although ranged units seem a bit over-powered. I like parts of the interface and not parts of others.

 

[Sinterklaas]

Thanks! I find it hard to get a good idea about the quality of Civ 5 since I read so many completely different views on it. I wonder whether the negative opinions are created by the game being seriously bad or just by the fact that many people are spoiled with Civ 4 and its expansions/mods and are comparing it to this vanilla version that might only need some patches to get a lot better.

Tomorrow the game will be released in my country too but I think I'll wait a week longer until the new edition of the Flemish game magazine PCgameplay comes out, they are the best and most objective magazine here when it comes to reviewing games so usually one can blindly follow their judgement. It'll take some selfdiscipline though, because this little voice in my head keeps saying: "Buy the game, buy the game, buy the game!" ;-)

 

[wilebill]

Actually? Just me? Civ III Complete is a better game at the moment. But get yourself Civ IV Complete with Beyond the Sword and you will really like that.

Civ III is a mature game with expansions and patches. Civ V is just out the door and not only has "teething problems" but can be a monster that will sit there and chew on your leg. After two days of trying to get it to run right, or at least stop freezing, I finally gave up. I deleted Civ V from my drive. Now, in a few months with some patch levels I will try again, sure. But right now for me and for many others it is a nightmare. Oh, and yes my computer does exceed the Minimum Recommended Specs.

Play Civ III or get Civ IV (recommended) and check the Civ V forums ever now and then. It will all get fixed eventually.

 

[mrhell]

3 and 5 are forgettable and garbage, in that order. 2 and 4 are both masterpieces. I never played 1 so I can't offer an opinion on it. I guess we've got a definite pattern going with civ though - skip the odd numbered ones. Though 3 was at least enjoyable.

 

[TLF]

If you haven't played Civ4 then, as I recently did, get Civ4 for about $10. That's the complete version that includes BTS. It is a very good game.

I don't expect Civ5 to come anywhere near it's full potential for 1-2 years.
Playing it now is asking to be frustrated with problems that will be needing patches.

In 1-2 years you will be ready for a new game and 5 will have been expanded, patched, modded and probably cost half as much.

 

[mattavich]

civ 5 is awesome, no need to play the others