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

[klokwerk]

yeah, 1=5=3

so 5+1=5+5=5+3, obviously

 

[zonk]

IV
SMAC
II
III
V
I

Ratings with all the benefits of hindsight... I was groundbreaking, but it's hard to see how every edition - including V - doesn't lap it. I mean - in I - the AI didn't even really "build" wonders... it just randomly spawned them!

If we want to award nostalgia points or change the question to "most beloved" -- I could rank I higher, and probably even slot II into the 2nd spot (even giving IV a real run for its money).

These were the iterations I played a lot -- others (Rev, original Col, new Col, the CTP offshoots) -
If you asked me to include CTP - I'd probably place it just above V. Never played CTP2. Only played Rev once - it would go at the bottom. The original Colonization would also be near the bottom, the new Colonization somewhere in the bottom 3.

 

[klokwerk]

Civ 3 > Civ 0 > Civ -1 > Civ 5

I told you.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Anyone that seriously thinks III is better than V (even at this stage) is just romanticizing the past, in my opinion. Or maybe just saying it for effect (posteuring?).

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Civ 3 > Civ 0 > Civ -1 > Civ 5

I told you.

Please dont' spam, if you have free time, play Civ V, if you like it.

 

[klokwerk]

@Jlo : Why don't YOU go play Civ 4 instead, everybody will be happy then. Plus, it's the Civ 5 forum here.

 

[klokwerk]

Anyone that seriously thinks III is better than V (even at this stage) is just romanticizing the past, in my opinion. Or maybe just saying it for effect (posteuring?).

You're right but please don't tell them.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

@Jlo : and play Civ 4, everybody will be happy then.

I'm playing it right now, alt-tab is simplier with Civ IV

 

[DaveGold]

4,1,2,3,5.

 

[fantsu]

PS1 > PS2 > PS3
/sarcasm

How is this?
I have every one of those consoles and I think 3 is definetly the worst. It has only two or three good games on it.

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

One thing is sure, Civ2 is better than any other Civ by mile.

There are just some people who have born already when it was released and still play it. I know that sometimes it makes you mad when you send dozen of caravans with furs into neighboring city to find out it demands something else, but that shouldn't make the game suck.

 

[DavidPBacon]

Anyone that seriously thinks III is better than V (even at this stage) is just romanticizing the past, in my opinion. Or maybe just saying it for effect (posteuring?).

I've just played Civ III a couple of days ago. I can say I'm not romanticizing. I'm stating an opinion based on recent exp. In the last weeks I've played CTP II, Civ IV, Civ II and Civ V. When stating my opinion I'm taking into account the feeling I had when playing the game at the period. MY exp with Civ V is of complete disapointment. I didn't had that feeling back then, therefore, Civ III>>>>Civ V.

 

[DavidPBacon]

How is this?
I have every one of those consoles and I think 3 is definetly the worst. It has only two or three good games on it.



One thing is sure, Civ2 is better than any other Civ by mile.

There are just some people who have born already when it was released and still play it. I know that sometimes it makes you mad when you send dozen of caravans with furs into neighboring city to find out it demands something else, but that shouldn't make the game suck.

Let's not start a console discussion here. BTW PS3 rocks.

 

[tifereth]

II, I, IV, V, III

CivIII is last probably because after CivII I had very high expectations...

 

[klokwerk]

tifereth, please let me remind you that putting Civ 5 in last place is a prerequisite to look "cool" on this forum.

You risk losing all your friends here.

Moderator Action: attack arguments, not the other posters

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I've just played Civ III a couple of days ago. I can say I'm not romanticizing. I'm stating an opinion based on recent exp. In the last weeks I've played CTP II, Civ IV, Civ II and Civ V. When stating my opinion I'm taking into account the feeling I had when playing the game at the period. MY exp with Civ V is of complete disapointment. I didn't had that feeling back then, therefore, Civ III>>>>Civ V.

Were you just as critical and picky of III when you were playing it as you are the new one? Did you make a mental note of every flaw, exploit, bug, AI shortcoming, hole in gameplay, etc? Was it a giant leap forward from the previous title (SMAC)?

 

[CHEESE!]

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.

I've never met anyone who ranked III above II.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I've never met anyone who ranked III above II.

Revisionist history.

 

[nocho]

In terms of entertainment value: 4, 3, 1, 5. Never played 2.

The problem I have with 5 is not that it's that bad (besides the obvious gaping holes that hopefully get fixed, AI, diplo, etc), but that somehow I find it incredibly boring. That didn't happen to me with 3 and 4 when those just came out and still badly needed major fixing.

 

[zonk]

Anyone that seriously thinks III is better than V (even at this stage) is just romanticizing the past, in my opinion. Or maybe just saying it for effect (posteuring?).

I don't think so -

III was definitely designed more towards warfare than II - at least, that seemed to be the vision - but unlike V, it didn't sacrifice a lot of non-warfare aspects to make its vision happen... in fact, despite its ICS nerfs ---

III added these "builder" aspects over II:

- culture was a creation of III
- workers, rather than double-duty settlers
- "national wonders"
- Citizen specialists


V, on the other hand didn't even respect the builder aspects that IV left it with... It outright removed many, and nerfed others --

- Resources were made more generic/given less variety, as were yields
- the entire system of government was reduced to a pink tech tree
- wholesale non-tactical war aspects were excised entirely (religion, espionage)


I don't think it's at all unreasonable for someone who always thought warfare was just one among many aspects of Civ -- or even "first among equals" -- to say that III beats V.

III at least respected that Civilization was not a wargame, as I and II did before it, and IV certainly emphasized (in fact, I don't IV even considered military action "first among equals" anymore).

V, I think, is the first iteration that makes a definite decision to say "this is a wargame with more non-wargame aspects than your typical wargame".

If someone plays V/Civilization from that viewpoint -- I think it's entirely legitimate to say III beats V.

 

[DavidPBacon]

Were you just as critical and picky of III when you were playing it as you are the new one? Did you make a mental note of every flaw, exploit, bug, AI shortcoming, hole in gameplay, etc? Was it a giant leap forward from the previous title (SMAC)?

I haven't play SMAC. Yes I know, shoot me.
But yes, it was a significant leap forward. And I'm talking about Civ II here as predecessor(at least for me), since CTP I and II weren't really part of the franchise. Graphics were awesome, resources and culture too. The Units really figthing. Later I realized it wasn't that great.
With time, I've come to see it's flaws and then Civ IV happened.
When I've played the game again, three days ago(Civ III -PTW, since I can't found Conquests cd), I was instantly hooked, so even with it's flaws, IMO it's a better game then V.