Own And Played Every Civ From 3 To 6

[GeneralZIft]

5 was an unmitigated disaster that was only rescued by the community through modders dragging it up to the half decent level.

I found the graphics sterile and boring. The squeaky wheel from 5 fans got some grease in 7 with some compromise on the graphics and a return of some mechanics like happiness and social policies.

Idk what game you lot are playing it must be different to what game I'm playing

 

[Thormodr]

Idk what game you lot are playing it must be different to what game I'm playing

You were playing a game that had the lead designer quit in disgrace for a reason.

5 is the only game that I did not put thousands of hours into. I've been playing literally the same month Civ I came out.

Anyway, in order not to derail the thread any longer, I will leave it at that. Hoping for much better things for 7. I'm sure you are, too.

 

[Solver]

You were playing a game that had the lead designer quit in disgrace for a reason.

I'm compelled to point out this is blatantly false.

Yes, I think Civ5 is easily the low point of the series. I played the release version much less than any other Civ game, it left me disappointed in many ways. And while I know many veterans felt similarly about it, Civ5 was nothing other than a major hit critically and commercially, which firmly established Civ as a core franchise for 2K. I may not have liked the game but that in no way gives credence to the false rumors (and sometimes outright ridiculous accusations) I've seen aimed at the lead designer whom I saw give Civ5 years of his best effort, and who then left Firaxis with the reputation of a respected, ambitious and capable designer.

 

[Thormodr]

I'm compelled to point out this is blatantly false.

Yes, I think Civ5 is easily the low point of the series. I played the release version much less than any other Civ game, it left me disappointed in many ways. And while I know many veterans felt similarly about it, Civ5 was nothing other than a major hit critically and commercially, which firmly established Civ as a core franchise for 2K. I may not have liked the game but that in no way gives credence to the false rumors (and sometimes outright ridiculous accusations) I've seen aimed at the lead designer whom I saw give Civ5 years of his best effort, and who then left Firaxis with the reputation of a respected, ambitious and capable designer.

Alright, perhaps I was a bit strong worded there. The lead designer had a "mutual parting of the ways" and left with the game in not the best of shape.

Most Civ games do not have the best of launches but 5 was particularly bad. It improved as all Civ games do. The community and a collection of modders stepping in saved this from a much more ignominious fate with the Vox Populi mod.

I bear no ill will towards the lead designer. I actually generously supported his project, At the Gates, at a top tier level. I do believe in second chances. I was less than impressed with that one as the game concept and mechanics kept changing over the years and was severely delayed. Anyway, I hope he is doing well in whatever endeavour he is pursuing now.

That's all I am going to say.

 

[Solver]

The lead designer had a "mutual parting of the ways" and left with the game in not the best of shape.

Regardless of the shape of the game (and I do agree Civ5 was especially bad on launch), this is the norm for the series, a designer typically moves on, to another project or company, after the launch.

Civ1 never had expansions but of the game's two designers, one left Microprose not long after release, and the other stopped working on Civ.

Civ2 had a couple of expansions (or content collections) but the original lead of Civ2 had nothing to do with those, working on another project.

Civ3 had a complicated history with multiple designers, but the top-billed designer of the game wasn't doing any design work on the expansions or other post-release content.

Civ4 was an extremely lucky project (a rare instance where everything went right during development) but follows the pattern - the game's two expansions were not designed by the Civ4 lead, who remained at Firaxis for a bit and then left

Civ5 again followed the pattern, with its lead designer quitting Firaxis and then a different team working on the expansions

Civ6 is the first to partially deviate, as most post-launch content was designed by others, but the lead designer also designed one expansion.

Civ7, for the first time in the entire series, has a lead designer who had already designed an earlier chapter.

 

[Krajzen]

Honestly, as much as civ5 leaders were stunning back in the day, today they are really boring to look at in comparision with civ6 leaders, and I say this despite not being a very big fan of Pixar character designs overall.

Just very static and far less expressive (hi Hiawatha :l ), with much less colourful color palette.

 

[GeneralZIft]

Honestly, as much as civ5 leaders were stunning back in the day, today they are really boring to look at in comparision with civ6 leaders, and I say this despite not being a very big fan of Pixar character designs overall.

Just very static and far less expressive (hi Hiawatha :l ), with much less colourful color palette.

I do actually like this kind of reserved look for them, even if it's more boring.

I would like it more if they kept the expressive moments to special events. So in normal talk, they're quite serious and reserved and when they declare war, then you can take out the trumpets and the expressions. I think that would be cool.

You were playing a game that had the lead designer quit in disgrace for a reason.

5 is the only game that I did not put thousands of hours into. I've been playing literally the same month Civ I came out.

Anyway, in order not to derail the thread any longer, I will leave it at that. Hoping for much better things for 7. I'm sure you are, too.

I have to say I joined Civ5 at the end of its development cycle, so I did not experience this apparent unmitigated disaster. When I tried it, it was finished and pretty good, even without mods.
I wasn't aware of any tall meta although I happened to play the game more tall than wide. I found it interesting. It got me into the series

 

[8BitArchitect]

Of course I am going to have Civ 7 on release day [...]

This is the only part 2k (and probably Firaxis) care about. If you think the game won't be to your taste on release, I'd encourage you not to buy it. Otherwise, you're sending the wrong signal to 2k/Firaxis about the future of the series.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

Going back to a more generalized discussion of graphics vs. gameplay mechanics, and their respective importance to producing a great game, I think much of that depends on the user. I STILL to this day fire up Civ II (and its excellent sequel Alpha Centauri) regularly to play, despite the fact that, in 2024, the graphical quality of the game is quite poor. The animations of battle are rudimentary, the way units zip along railroads to their final destination is quite off-putting, diplomacy is quite static looking, etc. The only saving grace to Civ II has to do with the still wonderful advisors ("BUILD CITY WALLS!!!!!" "Would that we could wall up your gaping mouth, platehead!"), and the, for the time, excellent wonder vids.* Yet, I enjoy the play of Civ II tremendously, because the gameplay was so good. And I have put more hours into SMAC/SMAX than any other single game/expansion, which is impressive given the amount of SP and MP play I put into EU II and EU IV. But, I have at least one son (of my four) who dislikes both of those games, largely because he cannot get past the poor graphics. He's all about the newest, best graphics; absent them, he sees no real point in playing a game, even if he loved it years ago.

The trouble, of course, with the eye candy is that it's expensive to produce. So how much eye candy is in a game should be a function of the relevance to the game. If you are playing a first-person shooter set in the real world, players will want the best quality representation of that world. It makes sense in that circumstance to try and get things like leaves and grass and lighting and movement as right as possible. But I would very much not want Civ VII (or any other iteration) to give up excellent game mechanics for expenditure on realistic diplomacy interaction; just make the leaders realistic enough that it's not totally cartoony, and I'm fine. But every person will have a different viewpoint as to how much graphical quality is "necessary" to a game.

For what it is worth, regarding their graphics, I loved Civ II at the time, thought Alpha Centauri was excellently done, hated Civ III (so much so I played very little of it!), was perfectly fine with Civ IV (even bought a new computer to play it!), was fine with Civ V as well, thought Civ:BE was a bit "out there" (they simply tried too hard, I think, to make it look alien), and preferred much of the look of Civ VI. What I've seen of Civ VII appears to be good; but I'll await further developments to decide if I truly like the graphics or not.
_______________
* A quick note: the advisors were not "cut scenes", because they were part of the game play, a result of requesting specific advice from them. The wonder vids WERE cut scenes, because they interrupted gameplay upon the conclusion of building a wonder, no different than a cut scene from killing a level boss. Not that that really matters, since as I've noted, the animations for combat were certainly cartoonish, at best.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I really do miss some of the elements of Civilization II.

I'd absolutely play one of these games that, in lieu of high-resolution graphics and animations, stuck to historical photographs, artifacts, etc. Like instead of an animated Hammurabi it's whatever stone carving we have of him for his avatar when he talks to you. Actual videos of the real place when you build a wonder. I loved the sort of choppy little sounds that would play during combat sequences, like it was a recording of a battle. SMAC, as well, sort of nailed that sci-fi "the future might be wild" with its hodgepodge of influences and creative choices.

Of course the map and UI would have to be clean and usable, it's very hard to go back to SMAC or Civ2 just because of the resolution, interface, quality of life stuff.

 

[number51]

This is the only part 2k (and probably Firaxis) care about. If you think the game won't be to your taste on release, I'd encourage you not to buy it. Otherwise, you're sending the wrong signal to 2k/Firaxis about the future of the series.

I have enjoyed the Civilization series of games since before some posters here were born. I will continue to enjoy the game series and let the developers know about any issues I have with my words.

Not playing deprives the Company of my $100 (they do not care about my money) and deprives me of the game. If the game completely sucked and was unplayable, then yes, I would not buy it. If it needs some tweaks on release like every game ever published, cool.

 

[Thormodr]

I really do miss some of the elements of Civilization II.

I'd absolutely play one of these games that, in lieu of high-resolution graphics and animations, stuck to historical photographs, artifacts, etc. Like instead of an animated Hammurabi it's whatever stone carving we have of him for his avatar when he talks to you. Actual videos of the real place when you build a wonder. I loved the sort of choppy little sounds that would play during combat sequences, like it was a recording of a battle. SMAC, as well, sort of nailed that sci-fi "the future might be wild" with its hodgepodge of influences and creative choices.

Of course the map and UI would have to be clean and usable, it's very hard to go back to SMAC or Civ2 just because of the resolution, interface, quality of life stuff.

Fantastic Worlds for Civ II was so much fun. It'd be great to see a modern version of it.

 

[planetfall]

Are you suggesting that good graphics and good gameplay are for some reason mutually exclusive? Do you just want everything to look like Civ 3 forever?

Civ3 graphics sucked, civ 4 was best so far. It's not that it's necessarily a choice between the two, except for funding. I would rather have great gameplay and so so graphics than super graphics and horrible gameplay. With civ6, the worst graphic issue is the leader head. How many times have you started a game and hated looking at the same old image. For example, Germany sucks big time in civ6.