Is CivRev your first Civ game?

[Thunderfall]

I wonder what percent of the players here started with Civilization Revolution...

For me, I started with Civ2.

Please vote in the poll.

 

[Bratmon]

You started with civ 2???

 

[Thunderfall]

You started with civ 2???

Yup, I know this could be surprising to some people.

I got my first computer in 1997 and Civ2 was one of the first two games I bought (the other being Heroes of Might and Magic II).

 

[Moss]

Civ III for me...and the only Civ I have ever played.

 

[GenMarshall]

Started with the DOS version of Civ1.

 

[iambenben]

same, civ 2 was my first game

 

[Hertsh]

I started out with Civ3 and then moved on to Civ4. When I heard about CivRev I was really psyked and have continued to be so. I don´t even play Civ4 anymore, only CivRev. Purely because I have less time now than what I had as a student. Civ4 is of course still a great game but I enjoy CivRev too much to find it worthwhile spending the time with Civ4 nowadays.

I did actually also play Civ 1 and Civ 2 with a friend at his place when I was young but I didn´t really spend a lot of time with it back then.

AND I did play the Alpha Centauri game when that was released. However, it wasn´t a Sid Meier game if I recall correctly so it might not count.

Cheers.

 

[Padma]

I started with Civ2 back around '98, after I retired from the military. (I had *looked at* Civ1 years before, but while it looked fun, at the time my income as an enlisted man precluded buying much *fun* software.) Bought Civ3 when it came out, found these forums, and the rest, as they say, is history.

@Hertsh: Alpha Centauri is maybe better known by its abbreviation: SMAC, which stands for Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.

 

[Hertsh]

@Hertsh: Alpha Centauri is maybe better known by its abbreviation: SMAC, which stands for Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.

haha

So I was obviously wrong. I don´t remember the game too much as it is some years ago I played it. All I remember is that I enjoyed it alot.

Perhaps off topic, but is this not consider a Civilization game just as Colonization? If so, why? Because it is not simulating history?

 

[Padma]

[off topic]
SMAC is a Sid Meier game, and many consider it to be sort-of "Civ2.5", since it uses the Civ2 engine, and sort-of continues the Civ2 "story line". But, yeah, it is not "historical", so it is not considered "mainline Civ".

Colonization is also not considered mainline Civ. But "Civ4-Colonization" is really pretty much a professional Mod of Civ4, even though it was marketed and sold as a stand-alone game. It wasn't really "Colonization II"
[/off topic]

 

[bonafide11]

I played Civ II a lot as a teenager, never played Civ III, was completely obsessed with Civ IV for a couple years, then played Civ Rev a lot when it came out, but only touch it now and then now.

Civ IV was my favorite, but I always felt that Civ IV took way too long to win and so it got boring at the end. Unfortunately, Civ Rev is almost the complete opposite, where it's almost all about the early rush. The game goes so quick you don't get the epic feel as much. I'd really like something in between the two. More game oriented than Civ IV so it focuses on winning, but more complex and historically based than Civ Rev. That's my dream game (hopefully Civ V or Civ Rev II, if they're ever made, will deliver that dream?).

 

[Tarkhan]

Civ2 here.

I think they went for more of a rush style with civ rev on purpose, thinking that it might be a better fit for the console audience.

Having lived with all of the spinoff failures (Call to Power, CivCity Rome) I was actually pleasantly surprised by Civ Rev, however. I never in a million years thought that a civ game on a console could be good.

 

[bonafide11]

Civ2 here.

I think they went for more of a rush style with civ rev on purpose, thinking that it might be a better fit for the console audience.

Having lived with all of the spinoff failures (Call to Power, CivCity Rome) I was actually pleasantly surprised by Civ Rev, however. I never in a million years thought that a civ game on a console could be good.

Yeah, I liked Civ Rev a lot, but since I was so addicted to Civ IV, I had high expectations for Civ Rev, so I was a little bit disappointed. It's a great game, but there's definitely room for improvement.

 

[ColdWizard]

Started by playing civ1 (amiga). I have CivRev on DS for portable civ, but I've only sampled it thus far.

 

[Quinzy]

Started with Civ 2 way back when I was... 6, a little while after it's release. I moved on to ToT, trying Civ 1 during that time, and Civ 3 vanilla when it was released, and continued ToT for multiplayer and the Scifi/Fantasy modes until PtW came out, and CTP was played to some extent, although the sequel even less so. And then the glory that is Conquests was born. I was purchased SMAC around this time too, and played that to no end, as I missed the Scifi modes of ToT. I bought Civ 4, and didn't like it. I played the expanded versions on my uncles computer, and still didn't like it. And so I'm still a C3C man myself, that is, until Steph makes his game, or until another Civ game reaches my expectations

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I started with Civ III, went backwards to Civ I, then (very quickly) to Civ II, then Civ III, then Civ IV, and now back to Civ III.

 

[Thunderfall]

Wow, 30 votes and no one has voted CivRev so far.

 

[Shackel]

I started with the demo of CivRev, then moved on to CivIV.

Worth it.

 

[Thunderfall]

I started with the demo of CivRev, then moved on to CivIV.

Worth it.

Good to hear that, Shackel! CivRev makes a great intro to the Civ series IMO.

 

[Snerk]

Really? I'm the only who started on civ4? I figured i'd be in a minority but not but this much.