So my current ranking of the Civ series is: 4 > 5 > 2 > 3

[Triplanetary]

I can't rank Civ1 because I never played it. And I'm not counting spin-offs because that complicates things too much. But for the main Civ series, that is my opinion on their order of quality. 4, 5, 2, 3.

And honestly, the only reason I put 4 above 5 is because it's a lot more polished, which is to be expected from a game that's been out for five years and has two expansions and numerous patches. I really think a lot of the central ideas behind Civ5 are a huge improvement over 4. But 5's flaws, all of which have been repeated ad nauseam on this forum so I won't rehash them here, hold it back from being truly better. Yet. Two years from now, Civ5 may well be my favorite Civ game. Please, Firaxis, show Civ5 the post-release love you showed Civ4.

 

[Zwief]

Civ III will always be my favorite. grew up with that game . I'll always play it, I'lve been playing it more since I've been waiting for fixes for V

 

[Ellimistd]

Zwief, I'm entirely the same. Been playing Civ 3 for probably half my life, amazing game. I far prefer 3 over 4, although I've only ever played vanilla 4. 5 is pretty impressive so far though, at least as good as Civ 3 was before mods/expansions. It'll take a while for it to catch up to the mods and stuff 3 has, though, we probably won't see a MEM rival for a while.

Of course, I really do need to give Civ 2 a good try sometime. It's not on steam though, and i'm lazy.

(also, although I'm almost always just lurking here, I had to login to say that. Civ3 needs support!)
(Edit: wow, didn't realize I had never actually posted before, I thought I must have at some point. Anyway, had to be done.)

 

[Zwief]

Does it still have a forum on this site? cause honestly I'd love to see if it still has a community. its old but still a great game.

 

[nargulok]

You know what the perfect game would be? Civ 4 now with Civ 5 key features (graphic, city states, hexes and 1UPT).

Heh had to say it, but I dig where Civ 5 is going it just needs a lot of work still.

 

[Watiggi]

Mine would be:

5 (so far) > 2 > 4 > 3. I got into 3 very late (just as they were advertising Civ 4). I did like Civ 4 but I felt that they moved away from the complexity that the game had to offer. I'd rather the complexity personally. It seems (so far) that Civ 5 has moved back in the direction of Civ 2 / Civ 3, which I like.

 

[Triplanetary]

I'm honestly surprised by the love for Civ3. I mean, there's nothing wrong with it, but I find Civ4 so much better than 3 that I'm surprised there are a lot of big-time 3 fans.

It's interesting to me how much people's favorite Civ games can vary. I mean, take a series like Heroes of Might and Magic, and pretty much everyone agrees that everything after HoMM3 is rubbish (okay, some people like HoMM5, but even they don't think it's better than 3).

But every Civ game has been amazing, so I guess it makes sense this way. It's one thing I love about the Civ series. New games don't wipe the old ones off the map.

You know what the perfect game would be? Civ 4 now with Civ 5 key features (graphic, city states, hexes and 1UPT).

Heh had to say it, but I dig where Civ 5 is going it just needs a lot of work still.

This is pretty much exactly my opinion.

 

[Buccaneer]

I'd go with that. 4 > 5 > 2 > 3 except that I wouldn't even put 3 in with the others.

5 has the potential to be much better than 4. The reason 2, as brilliant as it was, gets knocked down was the extreme ease of winning on Deity.

 

[Zelig]

I'd go with that. 4 > 5 > 2 > 3 except that I wouldn't even put 3 in with the others.

5 has the potential to be much better than 4. The reason 2, as brilliant as it was, gets knocked down was the extreme ease of winning on Deity.

Yeah, but you could add in difficulty levels above diety by editing the text files.

 

[Zwief]

I'm honestly surprised by the love for Civ3. I mean, there's nothing wrong with it, but I find Civ4 so much better than 3 that I'm surprised there are a lot of big-time 3 fans.

Great game, very challenging too.

 

[boredatwork]

In order of my own enjoyment I would go 4BTS>3Conquests>2>4Vanilla>5Vanilla.

My favorite part of the civ series has always been expansion and making production choices. Both are dependant upon large civs.

Hence the reaon I HATED Civ 4 Vanilla - the option to play big maps was removed and only added back in with BTS.

Likewise as Civ 5 is even more anti expansion and large civs it's not a mystery why I'm not enjoying it - as late as the industrial age there are VAST tracks of unsettled land on the map and I'm lucky if I get asked for production input once every 5 turns prior to the industrial era instead of 3-4 times per turn. Civ5 is not the game for big empire builders which is a shame as the combat system is finally such that the main handicap to large maps - the unit spam - has been rectified.

Hopefully there will be a mod/patch/expansion which will give people who like big empires the OPTION to build big empires based on the map size they select instead of globally penalizing them and forcing them to build small.

If they do that I'd move 5, despite all it's other flaws from worst to first.

 

[jagdtigerciv]

Civ 3 was fantastic. I grew up playing it. The more i'm on civfanatics, the more I realize (especially with all this anti Civ5 jargon) how many people started with Civ4, and seem to take it as the 'original'.

In many ways, Civ3 > Civ4 in my opinion. I loved Civ4 though, don't get me wrong.

 

[Countmonte8242]

2 >= 1 > 4 > 3. Can't rank 5 for a few months at least, til after some big patches.

2 and 1 never had the problem of fun in the modern era like 4 did, or 4 would be tops. 4 too often just becomes too tedious in the latter stages of the game to be that much fun.

Maybe I rank 1 high but... nah. Its the king, it was amazing at the time. I got more enjoyment out of that game with no mods, scenarios, expansion packs.

 

[NCC81701]

2 >= 1 > 4 > 3. Can't rank 5 for a few months at least, til after some big patches.

I am with you on this one,though I've never played 1. Civ 2 was definitely the best in the series. Civ games that came after it build upon its success, but none of them, not even Civ 4 ever quite had the magic that Civ 2 had.

Civ 2 Wonder movies were the best. To this day I can still remember The Great Library, J.S. Bach Catheral, Leo's Workshop, Magellan's Voyage, wonder movies and their great music off the top of my heads. The Civ Advisors were funny and entertaining ("You are the E to the mc^2 sire!") . The Advisors and Wonder movies gave good breaks in the game for you to sit back, pause, relax a bit, before you go back punishing your enemy for building a city right in the middle of your empire. The throne room was neat too.

I'm surprised that there are that many people that liked Civ 3, the 5 hp combat system completely ruined the game for me. Yeah spearman killing tanks happened in Civ 2, but not nearly as much as in Civ 3. A caravel sinking my nuclear submarine?!?!? WTH.

Right now I would say Civ 5 has a lot of potential, but the game desperately needs a patch and some UI and info improvements.

 

[klokwerk]

My ranking : 5 > 4 > 3 > 2 > 1

Obviously.

 

[ezzlar]

I still think Civ 2 had the best fighting system with health bars, hp and fire power! When you got the first fire arm unit it really made a difference!

 

[zurichuk]

Given time, I think I will go 5 > 3 > 4 > 2 > 1

I played Civ 3 to death, and still play it from time to time, enjoyed Civ 4 at first, but even with the expansion packs couldn't get into it in the same way, something wasn't quite there for some reason. I have the feeling back with Civ 5 and believe, given time, proper support and some well thought out expansions, it will take my place at the top.

 

[Nials]

Civ IV was my favorite, without doubt, simply because it was the only Civ game that I got into. I grew up with Civ II, but never really got into it. I also played III after IV was released, but nowhere near to the same extent as IV.

Far too early to say anything definitive about V.

 

[Lord Tirian]

4 > 5 > 2 > 1 > 3 for me.

But it's not the fairest comparison, considering the fact that Civ4 has two big expansions and loads of mods to support it, so 4 & 5 might swap places in a couple of years. I also feel that Civ5 is more a successor to CivII than Civ4...

Cheers, LT.

 

[Akka]

4 > 3 > 2 > 1 for me.
Didn't play enough of Civ5 for now to judge, but considering it's the very first time in the serie that I was bored after an hour of play, and that I felt no compulsion to try it again since yesterday, I'm not sure it will do great in the long term.