Old timer's, what are your thoughts so far?

[Westwall]

I assume by extension Civ 2 was also garbage?

Well I started with Civ 2 and I'd say it was great but since it was my first experience with Civ, the following titles will be measured against that bar. I found Civ 3 to be basically the same game, but with an even bigger problem of other Civs taking forever to complete their turns so that it could be like 5 minutes before I even got to mine.

That was my experience with Civ 3. You're free to disagree but I found it to be complete rubbish that didn't push the series forward in any meaningful way.

You seem to have some repressed rage. There's no need to get personal, your statement earlier has nothing to do with perceived quality or your opinions, which I don't really care for. It was just factually wrong

I haven't commented on your state of mind or "repressed rage" or "petulance." That's all you.

I think I'm right and I think Civ 3 was a bad game. Sorry if that offends you.

 

[rastak]

Not to mention global unit maintenance, small wonders, culture, cultural borders, the trade table we're use to, leader portraits -- it's like it has the genesis of all the mechanics and features we expect in modern Civ.



You seem to have some repressed rage. There's no need to get personal, your statement earlier was just factually wrong.

That's right, culture/national borders were introduced in Alpha Centuri and then Civ 3 was the first Civ to include it. Most consider borders a pretty core feature these days.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Well I started with Civ 2 and I'd say it was great but since it was my first experience with Civ, the following titles will be measured against that bar. I found Civ 3 to be basically the same game, but with an even bigger problem of other Civs taking forever to complete their turns so that it could be like 5 minutes before I even got to mine.

That was my experience with Civ 3. You're free to disagree but I found it to be complete rubbish that didn't push the series forward in any meaningful way.

Now I didn't really like III that much either; but I would say that it added several interesting concepts, which weren't that well fleshed out yet and were better realized in later games. Now a lot of THOSE were ideas that I'm sure were born out of AC.

 

[Westwall]

That's right, culture/national borders were introduced in Alpha Centuri and then Civ 3 was the first Civ to include it. Most consider borders a pretty core feature these days.

Now I didn't really like III that much either; but I would say that it added several interesting concepts, which weren't that well fleshed out yet and were better realized in later games. Now a lot of THOSE were ideas that I'm sure were born out of AC.

Exactly. It all started with Alpha Centauri so Civ 3 was basically a more simplified version of that game while being overall a poor imitation of Civ 2.

And if you guys liked it, that's fine. You're free to do so and I'm glad you did. But coming off of SMAC and Civ 2, I found Civ 3 to be quite boring and if anything a step back.

I found Civ 4 to be much more enjoyable and with more innovative features.

 

[dexters]

Just to be clear, I may have jumped the gun. Civilization 3 has 2 expansions, Civ3 Play The World and Civ3 Conquests.

Just in case. There is no Test of Time game. That was the Civ2 reskin.

 

[rastak]

Exactly. It all started with Alpha Centauri so Civ 3 was basically a more simplified version of that game while being overall a poor imitation of Civ 2.

Make up your mind please. Is it a Civ 2 clone with better graphics or a simplified Alpha Centuri game? You're all over the board.

 

[Westwall]

Make up your mind please. Is it a Civ 2 clone with better graphics or a simplified Alpha Centuri game? You're all over the board.

It's kind of both. It is possible though that the elements it incorporated from SMAC were less apparent to me precisely because I was coming off of SMAC.

In that sense, it's more fair for me to say it was more of a watered down SMAC. That's probably what bothered me more. Going from Civ 2 to SMAC to Civ 3 is what really made me feel let down, probably more so than if I just went from Civ 2 to 3.

Either way, I thank you for remaining civil throughout this discussion.

 

[m15a]

I think I'm right and I think Civ 3 was a bad game.

Your original statement was that Civ 3 was "a graphical update of Civ 2". That statement has been refuted. You've actually refuted it yourself.

It sounds like you think Civ 3 being a bad game or your memory of Civ 3 will support your statement that it was a graphical update of Civ 2, but it doesn't.

 

[Westwall]

Yes, I agree. I literally just said that in my last post now that I realize I may have been comparing it more to SMAC. You're a few posts late.

And either way I still didn't enjoy Civ 3 and I think it was a bad game. You're free to disagree but that's my opinion and I'm standing by it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I loved Civ 3 and SMAC! Civ 3 was great fun to play even if it had problems. Graphically it was a huge improvement over Civ 2.

When it came out, there was no Civ 4 to compare it to. It was all we had and it was fabulous. I spent way too many hours playing it. SoD were a challenge, but fun.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The large amounts of rote micromanagement and in Civ III long turn times killed it for me, even before I knew Civ IV existed/would exist.

It didn't help Civ III's cause for me that it got outcompeted by strong TBS titles back then, as I mentioned earlier. I forgot that the wait time was one of the major factors.

Can Ed break a long trend of poor UI/controls in the Civ franchise?

 

[Thormodr]

I thought Civ III was decent but not as good as Civ II and it certainly was not as good as cIV. Still sank many hours into Civ III, though.

 

[Freesmog]

This is aimed at guys who have been playing Civ since waaaay back in the day. I find veteran commentary always really spot on. Are you excited again or has the civ5 format killed it for you?

btw, I've been playing since civ 2. I was on this forum or the apolyton.net one way back in the day. I couldn't remember my account to save my life. I figured I'd jump on board again.

Cheers.

I never played Civ1, and briefly Civ2, but enjoyed Civ3, and mostly played/enjoyed Civ4. I was excited and jumped into Civ5 at release, and found the game unplayable after a couple games. I had believed all the hype from online reviewers. Not even the expansions would ever make me go back to that pile of garbage (Just kidding ). Not entirely, but the mod selection seems lacking compared to the highly developed mods still existing in Civ4 (such as Fall from Heaven and Realism Invictus). Reminds me of Windows operating systems. I always wait for the next one to upgrade, so I skip the one inbetween (like Vista and 10). So I am hoping Civ6 is really awesome! But I won't make the same mistake and believe online reviewers, and usually with games if there are enough people complaining about it on this site, it will be a questionable buy. No matter what, however, I do end up buying games I never play much. It is the nature of gaming.

 

[Lord Tirian]

I thought Civ III was decent but not as good as Civ II and it certainly was not as good as cIV. Still sank many hours into Civ III, though.

Yeah, to me, Civ3 was fun but never quite clicked, never quite got the one-more-turn with it I got with Civ2 or Civ4.

I got that with Civ5, too, though - for me, at least - BNW remedied it. I wonder if Civ3 and Civ5 both suffered from being very experimental with new mechanics and required their refinement - either in Civ4 or G+K/BNW.

Hope Civ6 will do for the Civ5 (and perhaps even CivBE) ideas what Civ4 did for Civ3.

 

[ThunderLizard2]

Played Civ I though V. Liked Civ IV the best: still like playing Earth 18 on a high difficulty level.

Civ V was a big let down. The AI was never fixed. I hope they will spend the effort to build a strong AI but I doubt that will happen. The multi-player never worked well in Civ V either - always resyncing. And those d**m quitters!

To quote Sid: "If you've got a feature that makes the AI look stupid, take it out. It's more important not to have stupid AI than to have good AI"

Civ V had a lot of features that made the AI look stupid like 1 UPT and naval combat that the AI could never handle. Even mods were unable to fix this.

I will not be preordering for sure - did that for Civ V and felt suckered.

 

[rastak]

Played Civ I though V. Liked Civ IV the best: still like playing Earth 18 on a high difficulty level.

Civ V was a big let down. The AI was never fixed. I hope they will spend the effort to build a strong AI but I doubt that will happen. The multi-player never worked well in Civ V either - always resyncing. And those d**m quitters!

To quote Sid: "If you've got a feature that makes the AI look stupid, take it out. It's more important not to have stupid AI than to have good AI"

Civ V had a lot of features that made the AI look stupid like 1 UPT and naval combat that the AI could never handle. Even mods were unable to fix this.

I will not be preordering for sure - did that for Civ V and felt suckered.

I gotta admit, we're all so different. I pre-ordered Civ V, had a GREAT time and in checking last night, 3000 hours in CiV V. I thought it was closer to 2k.

At any rate, playing all the Civs this summer so should be fun to revisit Civ 4. I didn't like it much but Civ games are all fun to me.

 

[dexters]

I gotta admit, we're all so different. I pre-ordered Civ V, had a GREAT time and in checking last night, 3000 hours in CiV V. I thought it was closer to 2k.

At any rate, playing all the Civs this summer so should be fun to revisit Civ 4. I didn't like it much but Civ games are all fun to me.

I only have 1592 on my Civ 5.

I don't know how many hours on Civ4 andv3, but probably similar. I don't full time Civ. I come and go.

 

[Tatran]

3000 hours in CiV V. I thought it was closer to 2k.

And how much time were you doing nothing/waiting?
I estimate 20% of 3000 hours. Don't you think that's a scary number?

 

[rastak]

And how much time were you doing nothing/waiting?
I estimate 20% of 3000 hours. Don't you think that's a scary number?

20% seems reasonable. It was left on all night more than once as I forgot to shut it down. Scary? Not really. If I'm not playing music (listening to and/or playing either my guitar or bass ) it's usually gaming. TV isn't my thing. Several years ago, more around Civ 3 and 4 I still played a ton but workouts and outdoor stuff encroached.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I've played all of them since Civ1 and I think Civ4 with Beyond the Sword was still the best. I will admit though that after my initial disappointment with Civ5 I haven't spent enough time with the latest Civ5 expansions to get a good judgement on them. Overall Civ5 was the first game in the series I enjoyed less than the previous iteration.

If Civ6 does away with 1upt I'll be happy and I might buy near release. Otherwise I will be in no rush. I am still adamant there are ways to deal with the stack-of-doom issue without taking a sledgehammer to the mechanics by forcing 1upt. The inconvenience it caused was impossible to ignore.