Which Civ is superior?

Which Civ do you prefer?


  • Total voters
    301
I dunno about y'all, but I like Civ 5. It may not be perfect, but some aspects of it have completely sold me.

Civ 4 is probably my overall favorite even though I'm currently playing Civ 5 instead. Civ 4 BTS with the Rise of Mankind expansion was one of the best gaming experiences ever.

Civ 3 was a steaming pile o' doo doo. Never did like it much at all.

Civ 2 was good, I'd say. It's been about 10 years since I last played it, but I remember spending many hours conquering the world as a young lad.
 
Civ4 4TheWin.
 
Best Quote I have seen is this -

"If civ4 is too complex for you, there is a mod called civilization 5 that makes it streamlined" - Nicol.Bolas
 
4>1>2>3>5 for me.

Civ4 is mechanically inelegant in places, but variety and depth are excellent. 1 and 2 are fine games and have mostly aged well. 3 feels a little too much like accounting for me (counting beans, looking for exploits) but is admittedly good at what it's trying to be, 5 is defined by awful design decisions and the kludgy workarounds they make necessary.
 
Civilization II is the best Civilization, and one of, if not the greatest game ever made.

Awesome.

I remember staying up wayyy past my bedtime, munching down "dolphin and friends" brand goldfish knockoff crackers, and playing Civ II until morning, where I would catch a quick nap before school, skip breakfast, and proceed to do very poorly in classes I should not have done so poorly in.

:goodjob:

Civ IV will be popular because it does have some nifty gameplay features and better graphics, but.... I have been engrossed in both games, as much as my time and interest can allow, and at the time, I was more interested in Civ II than I was interested in Civ IV later on.

Civ II was awesome. Civ IV fixed a lot of the mess that was Civ III, but I can't help but think Civ II was the real reason for the success of the series. I can't thank Civ III for that, because I've played it and I thought it was awful. From what I've seen, I ain't getting Civ V.

I remember when they first started posting demo shots of Civ V and I thought.... one unit per tile? That tears apart everything I know about Civ warfare. Hex tiles? Not a fan, though I get why some people are. It's not aesthetically pleasing to me personally. And I've just heard horrendous things about gameplay and user interface, and lack of support/fixes where necessary.

Civ II was great, never had any problems with it. Never had a problem navigating through the interface. There were some easy shortcuts. I loved everything about it.

Civ II is one of my favorite games of all time.
If were counting no expansion packs Civ2 > All

But final products Civ2:ToT (Extended Game) = Civ4:BTS with RFC

I think I have to go with Civ2 for the fact that I've spent more then half of my life playing it.

Everyone with similar sentiments: you have officially become friends of Pizzaguy.
 
I only played Civ2 and Civ3 on a couple of occasions each, so it's between Civ4 and Civ5 for me. I like both. Both have their positives, but I think Civ4 wins out. It has the unfair advantage of two expansions and many, many mods, but it's an advantage all the same.
 
Paradox>Alpha Centauri>Civ III>CivII>Civ Revolutions>Civ I>CivIV

Couldn't get ito Civ IV
 
Wow, that's so utterly lame!

I agree, it was a very big dissapointment. I wanted to see how my empire rose, and how my enemies expanded when I won. I also wanted to see graphs. Why did they take out the graphs and maps, I'll never know, but it was terribly disapointing when I won, clicked continue and expected to see some demos or something and instead be led to the main menu. :(

Also, no top 5 cities.
 
This is correct.



Steam is very low on the list of problems with civ5.



4 has the historical replay!

5 has absolutely nothing when you win. No joke. It's just game over.

I'm stating the correlation, not the causation.
 
I never played 1 but based on the number of hours I did play it is 2 for me.

I do like 5 but don't have the time to give to gaming like I used to.
 
Awesome.

I remember staying up wayyy past my bedtime, munching down "dolphin and friends" brand goldfish knockoff crackers, and playing Civ II until morning, where I would catch a quick nap before school, skip breakfast, and proceed to do very poorly in classes I should not have done so poorly in.

:goodjob:

Civ IV will be popular because it does have some nifty gameplay features and better graphics, but.... I have been engrossed in both games, as much as my time and interest can allow, and at the time, I was more interested in Civ II than I was interested in Civ IV later on.

Civ II was awesome. Civ IV fixed a lot of the mess that was Civ III, but I can't help but think Civ II was the real reason for the success of the series. I can't thank Civ III for that, because I've played it and I thought it was awful. From what I've seen, I ain't getting Civ V.

I remember when they first started posting demo shots of Civ V and I thought.... one unit per tile? That tears apart everything I know about Civ warfare. Hex tiles? Not a fan, though I get why some people are. It's not aesthetically pleasing to me personally. And I've just heard horrendous things about gameplay and user interface, and lack of support/fixes where necessary.

Civ II was great, never had any problems with it. Never had a problem navigating through the interface. There were some easy shortcuts. I loved everything about it.

Civ II is one of my favorite games of all time.


Everyone with similar sentiments: you have officially become friends of Pizzaguy.

To me, the thing that really keeps me from choosing Civ II over Civ III was the computers horrible habit of cheating. If the computer really decided it didn't want you to have a city, a million tanks attacking it would never dislodge that lone Pikeman. And even if there were no units in it at the end of the turn, and you had the city completely surrounded, there would appear at least one unit in that city on the next turn. You can't rush-build things in less than one turn! It was maddening.

Still, it's not as if III didn't have major flaws. Corruption and pollution were off the insane charts, and turn times seriously suffered from the AI having to recalculate and reverify every. single. possible. trade route. every single turn. So to me the perfect game would be a Civ II that doesn't cheat and has Civ IV's "corruption" aka increased upkeep costs, and Civ IV's health/squalor system instead of pollution tiles. Oh, and Civ III's editing system. Easily the best and most user-friendly in the series.
 
Back
Top Bottom