SHould civ 5 have been named civ rev 2.0?

[cman2010]

After playing civ 5 for some time now I think they should have named it civ rev 2.0. Civ 5 in many ways is more of a sequal to civ rev than it is to civ 5 I think they should have named it civ rev 2.0 and make a proper sequal to civ 4 this gives eveyone what they want the people that like streamlined games get civ rev 2.0 and people that like deeper games will get a true civ 5. Please keep the discusion civil.

 

[PawelS]

No.

 

[cman2010]

No.

I appreciate your vote but please dont post anything unless you have something to add to the conversation. thanks

 

[spider1]

I don't care.

And I also don't care if others don't like the game, I do.

 

[cman2010]

I don't care.

And I also don't care if others don't like the game, I do.

thanks for contributing.

 

[aatami]

Oh. This again.

Moderator Action: Please contribute to the discussion or just ignore the thread entirely, thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[cman2010]

Oh. This again.

Please try to keep this civil and if you dont have anything to add dont post. Thanks

 

[james_dean]

Since you are the creator of this thread why not explain in full detail why Civ 5 should be named Civ rev 2.0?

 

[Moss]

Moderator Action: Since Civ V has been called Civ Rev 2.0 in rather derogatory terms in the past, I don't really see much civil discussion happening in this thread (as seen already). Thread closed.