Rank each Civ edition from best to worst, in your opinion

[VladTepes]

For me it's IV, III, I, II, V

It was a little difficult for me to choose which was the worst, either V or II, but I chose V as the worst because it was a step backwards IMHO. Charging road maintenance for the first time killed it for me.

 

[DemonMaster]

Ironically, for me the two best civ games of all times belong to another company (or perhaps companies).

Edit: If counting only this series, the best civ games of all times (for its time) is probably CivII followed by CivIV, CiV, CivIII.
I don't rank CivI because it was such a new concept so it (for me) automatically ranks the best in the series (although it wasn't the first game of its type).

I put CivIII last mainly because only remember rubber and when it came out it was so full of bugs that it was (almost) unplayable. For example I remember my first game, I was attacked by the russians, and he destroyed my entire country (units, cities, roads, etc.) because none of my fighters intercepted his bombers, because a bug in the game made that impossible (a patch came out a week later as a christmas gift). All the other civ versions I remember, although CivIV, although good, didn't become really good until BtS came out.

At least I tried to put a serious view on this, opposed to OP who (I think) only started this thread so he could say how bad he thinks CiV is. I think CiV is a good game with a lot of potential. Buggy, sure, but not worsed than other games I have seen and not worse than other Civ versions. Bad that a game comes with bugs, yes but thats the world we live in. You can get the feeling that it is more complaining now than (in general), that is because the net has become more social than it was before and people tends to only write when they are upset, not when they are happy about something.

 

[papakill]

I loved all civ editions. No preferences.

 

[Bad Brett]

1: Civ IV
2: Civ II
3: Civ I
4: Civ III
5: Civ V

 

[fantsu]

1. Civ ii
2. Civ iv
3. Civ i
4. Civ iii
5. Civ v

 

[joyous_gard]

IV, V, III.

I didn't play III that much but it got me hooked.

 

[Ambo]

I, II, III

IV made such great changes to the formula that it and V can't even be compared with the older versions.

IV, V


If pressed, I'd say IV, I, V, II, III

I was the one that started it all, lost so many hours to it... II did a great job of building upon I. III was a disappointment for me but still good. IV was the peak of Civ as far as I'm concerned. Even when it was first released, it was superb. Where II and III had generally just added more into the game, IV made the biggest changes to the series. Great changes imo. V is a step backward in many ways. I can see what they've tried to do with it, I just don't think it was the way to go.

 

[Morningcalm]

IV, II, III, V, I.

I was the classic, but the goddamn awful graphics....yes I'm picky.

 

[PawelS]

5>4>3>2>1

Unlike some other game series, Civ improves with every installment IMO.

 

[cf_nz]

I'm torn between 1=2=3=4=5 since I've enjoyed them all and don't have a specific favourite or 5>4>3>2>1 because I don't think I've ever gone back to play an older version.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

4,1,2,3,5

 

[dubrown]

I really can't say which I prefer. Atleast with III and IV the vanilla version had flaws, serious at times and expansions made it a whole different game in some aspect. Thus, if I'm to rank CiV it'd be to vanilla version of previous civ installements. Now to be fair, I haven't played CivIII in a long time and with CivIV I never really looked back at vanilla after BtS was released.

With CivII I do have many found memories, though right now I think it's the High Council that sticks, it was a very good game at it's time, though I wonder what I'd think of it if I picked it up today. Likewise with CivI, it was very good at it's time but do time do it justice today? I'd guess my demands on graphics for instance would be quite different than it was back in those days.

So how to rate CiV. I've loved every Civ version so far and I do so with CiV as well, sure it has it's flaws but compared to vanilla of the previous civ versions it's just as good.

 

[snoochems]

Iv smac v ii iii i

edit: why did it make my uppercase lowercase?

 

[klokwerk]

V > IV > III > II > I

As it should, obviously.

 

[DavidPBacon]

II>IV>CTPI>CTPII>I>III>>>>>>V

As it shouldn't be, but reality is tough.

 

[klokwerk]

It's in your head, memories are improved by your brain, so past always look rosier.

Don't be naive and play Civ 2 again. It sucks now.

 

[LunaticSlave]

Civ IV , II , I , III , V.

 

[klokwerk]

Yeah and Civ 6 is worse too. I won't talk about Civ 12 to stay polite.

Civ I > II > III > IV > V > VI > Civ 999

Apple 2e > Quad core PC

PS1 > PS2 > PS3

steam powered train > electric train

washing my clothes myself > washing machine

/sarcasm

Don't be afraid about progresses and changes, progress is good for you.

 

[arioch99]

Civ IV
Civ V
Civ II
Civ III
Civ I

 

[Kylome]

4 > 2 > 5 = 3 = 1

Also I took this question to mean time and place.

When Civ 2 came out and I played it relentlessly it was better than 5, 3, or 1 when they came out.

I don't think this is a question that asks to compare all Civ games and their graphics/years of improvement with each other but rather which was the best for its time.