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

[Monkeyfinger]

4 > 5 > 2 > 1 > 3 sounds about right to me, but unlike a lot of people I don't see much potential for 5 to surpass 4. Firaxis's improvements to their games tend to come in the form of technical polish, bug fixes, and a bunch of minor balance tweaks that really add up.

Despite having many good ideas Civ5's balance problems are Big Things (civ abilities in general being underpowered, buildings and units in general taking too long to make, too many crappy filler techs) and Firaxis strikes me as too conservative with balancing to overhaul things like that.

 

[Czacki]

1 > 4 > 2 > 3 > 5

1 is the best. Not because it started the civ series, but because of the mysterious atmosphere. I freaking loved it as a kid. The crude map that sometimes was a real scare when I was moving my units on the map and WHOA there's a city here

And... top 5 cities. And the hunt for those to whom the 1st city belonged, if it wasn't me of course. Ahh, the long hours spent trying to push the triremes through narrow ocean paths just to see if there's a powerful civ on the mysterious island over there.

Beautiful game and beautiful memories.



4 is the modern 1 for me. I agree that it sometimes gets a bit tedious later on, but it's great fun otherwise. It has a complex enough system to be interesting, great graphics (I like them more than 5th Civ graphics), and is simply addicting.

2 wasn' bad, but it wasn't good. The map wasn't as "mysterious" and I had less fun exploring. Idk why, maybe it was the dark colors of civ1, maybe because I was just a kid back then. 2 had tons of units and techs and it was fun to some extent, but for a next gen civ after civ1, I missed the resources and I hated the fact that I can pretty much plant a city anywhere and it doesn't matter much because there was no terrain/resource variety.

Civ 3, I felt that it was somehow annoying. I haven't played it much, but I hated the random resource pop and weird culture mechanisms.

Civ 5 sucks. I hate most of the things about it right now. The diplomacy is worst since Civ 2, the interface is sluggish, the improvements and cities don't feel epic, the bonuses are puny and the game is totally war-oriented. I like war path, but I like to be given a choice, too.

 

[exorbit]

mine is 5>3>1>4 ... haven't played 2 but i hated 4 !

 

[Lord Tirian]

...but unlike a lot of people I don't see much potential for 5 to surpass 4. Firaxis's improvements to their games tend to come in the form of technical polish, bug fixes, and a bunch of minor balance tweaks that really add up.

Four or five years ago, I would've agreed with you. Then Beyond the Sword hit. It shuffled around some leader traits for balance, added quite a bit of units. And added espionage in full force. And changed the space ship victory entirely. It certainly changed a lot and shifted the balance and feel quite a bit.

If they are willing to make a shake-up as great as in BtS, then I see a lot of potential... if they're going back to the PtW/Conquests/Warlords model... not so much.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Asprilla]

I find this really hard. Each game shoud of course be judged considering that time. I've played 'em all, starting out with civilization on my amiga. one major flaw in civ 1 was that when you attacked a stack, you killed all units in that stack if you won one fight. great game though.

Civ 3 introduced the borders, which I think is huge. In civ 2 you could stack up outside all enemy cities and basically whipe 'em out in one turn. borders changed all that and gave us a deeper sense of nationality.

I rate civ 4 based on bts.

4>3>1>2

if it wasn't for civ 3 introducing borders I would probably put it last. but borders is a huge concept for me.

civ 5 I cannot judge yet. but from just a few hours of playing I am not too optimistic. I haven't got a full grip on it yet though. civ 4 i feel like i hold in my hand with total control, civ 5 is still a bit unfamiliar.

 

[jjkrause84]

I'm in the " 4 > 5> 2 > 3 FOR NOW" camp.

5 will almost certainly be better than 4 one day (assuming they don't screw it up.....)

 

[Dark_MadMax]

2 > 4 >5 >1. Didnt play 3 . 2 simply because that was the only civ game I played extensively . 4 BTS was quite nice, mods are great. I didnt like how religion was mega OP for culture/diplomacy and corps were imho unneeded but overall it was objectively best CIV yet

5 lacks many good features and imho way too simplified. UI sucks and it also crashes a lot. Its quite possible though that a few patches , expansion and few good mods will bring it up to par

 

[Naxle]

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.

Strongly third-ed. i think civ5 will be a very good game in a few months, but at the moment it needs some work.

 

[LetMyPeopleGo]

Since they don't exist anymore, there is no harm to mention the best civ games ever:

Civilization: Call to Power & Call To Power II, although without the fame and glory of Sid Meier's franchise, a much netter game.

 

[Arlborn]

Too early to say, but Civ4 BTS was a masterpiece, specially adding Better AI + BUG!

 

[HannibalBarca]

4>2>3>5. Never played 1.

 

[MoonFlare]

Alpha centauri>4>2>5>3

 

[Watiggi]

Alpha centauri>4>2>5>3

lol we're keeping SMAC out of this for good reason

 

[MadRat]

For me it is 4 > 2 > 5 > 1> 3 > Civ Colonization

If they really FIX the AI I can see it jumping up to #2 or even #1 though.

Rat

 

[Nutteria]

5>4>=3>=2>=1

I played all the civs for countless hours(except V but yeah allready with 30+ hours on the game and I got the demo on the 22th and the game on the 24th )

Few things.The ciV game needs tweaking.I think we all can agree with that.And a bit more polish like better river details PLS more balanced civ treats and few unit/wander/GP bonuses.Srsly GS is overpowered end of story.But I do think that after one or two patches all will fall on place.

cIV is the game that had the most dramatic changes at the time(par civ 5 ofc) and esp with the few GREAT MODS! and BtS it was beyond polished and balanced.THere were favorites when playing the Immortal or Diety but there allways are.

CIV III is around the level of civ 4 for me.It was the game that gave the series the competition and clans and battles and all that multiplayer Jazz.It had its flaws however like culture being a total mess.

Civ II and Civ I are very look alike games yet very different.The concept was the same but civ 2 had way way better balance and polish.Not to mention the first real scenario editor that created the Mod comunity as it is today.

CHeers.

 

[anti_strunt]

Adjusted for inflation I'd say 2, without a doubt.

 

[PawelS]

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

Obviously.

This.

 

[smallstepforman]

4(BTS) > 2 > 3 > 1 > 5

4=> The level of detail and polish is amazing. The AI is challenging. Invasions are epic. Not so with 5.
2=> Wonder movies, throne room, animated advisors, new civs (secession) after capital falls, etc. Great fun.
3=> Many firsts - borders, city flipping (I liked that), armies, strategic resources.
1=> Animated heralds, victory parade, it was the game which inspired all others.
5=> I'm hating it. Battles are not epic, production is sloooow, where are the animations/movies/fun. 1UPT is flawed, since there are too many exploits/problems which fundamentally can never be fixed.