Heretic_Cata
We're gonna live forever
It wasn't easy on the eyes when i first installed it. Still isn't now.
Which Civ is superior?
- Thread starter kochman
- Start date
aelf
Ashen One
Well, obviously, my answer is... Civ4.
I've played every incarnation since Civ1, and I think Civ2 wins over Civ3 by a small margin because of the latter's emphasis on micromanagement over strategy. If you forget to count everything, things get hairy pretty quickly above Emperor difficulty. I remember the pain of being almost an age behind and having to spend more than 20 turns researching anything. Ugh. That and the strategic resources roulette, making dumb luck a big factor in winning or losing. Also, the diplomacy in the game is either too easily exploitable or impossible.
Civ1 is at the bottom spot only because the game is much too simple compared to its successors, which to be fair is a matter of course. I haven't played Civ5, so I can't say, though I'm not in a hurry to get it.
I've played every incarnation since Civ1, and I think Civ2 wins over Civ3 by a small margin because of the latter's emphasis on micromanagement over strategy. If you forget to count everything, things get hairy pretty quickly above Emperor difficulty. I remember the pain of being almost an age behind and having to spend more than 20 turns researching anything. Ugh. That and the strategic resources roulette, making dumb luck a big factor in winning or losing. Also, the diplomacy in the game is either too easily exploitable or impossible.
Civ1 is at the bottom spot only because the game is much too simple compared to its successors, which to be fair is a matter of course. I haven't played Civ5, so I can't say, though I'm not in a hurry to get it.
Civ2 did have its own peculiarities, although it is by far the civ game i have played the most.
One example of those was that you could destroy an entire enemy stack if its strongest defender got killed.
While this created the need for a more thought-out placement and strategy, at the same time it was utterly unrealistic.
And i still dislike the gfx of Civ4, although i have never played any of its celebrated mods. Im sure the original civ3 gfx were appalling as well of course.
One example of those was that you could destroy an entire enemy stack if its strongest defender got killed.
While this created the need for a more thought-out placement and strategy, at the same time it was utterly unrealistic.
And i still dislike the gfx of Civ4, although i have never played any of its celebrated mods. Im sure the original civ3 gfx were appalling as well of course.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
I'm not convinced V is out of beta yet, so maybe voting for it is odd 
. I pick IV. It's hard to vote for anything with laughably shoddy controls, but IV is the least offensive with that in the series by far.
. I pick IV. It's hard to vote for anything with laughably shoddy controls, but IV is the least offensive with that in the series by far.
What on earth is the point in appealing to normal/stupid people?
It always results in a decrease in quality, especially in something like a strategy game, or at least a game attempting to be one.
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
when did that happen?
Also check out this review of Mazes & Monsters.
Akka said:
No need to be so harsh Akka, that comment is very disrespectful to garbage in general.
No it doesn't dude. Phalanx vs. Battleship. Hitpoints/firepower was an incredible improvement to the series.
I chose Civ 2 in the poll not because i feel it's superior necessarily, but because it is the Civ that i had the most fun with, it was the first time i had played a civilization game and it was a wonderful experience, i played that game a heck of a lot, the others were good (except for 5, i'm not a fan) but i never fully recaptured the magic of 2.
GhostWriter16
Deity
The original. Free-market principles were in effect back then. No wait, they weren't, but still moreso than now.
onedreamer
Dragon
I voted Civ4, played for more years than others, and still playing.
But I didn't buy Civ5 due to the fact that it doesn't ship as a Civ game, but as a Steam game, and I don't have anything to share with Steam.
But I didn't buy Civ5 due to the fact that it doesn't ship as a Civ game, but as a Steam game, and I don't have anything to share with Steam.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Those free market principles such as the government deciding every thing that ever gets built?
Civ IV was the part of the series that I decided to try to become decent at, so I suppose that says something about its value for me.
I also played II a lot, but that was a decade ago when I didn't have much of a clue of what I was doing in the game
III only got a bit of my attention after IV was released, but the very mechanical style of micromanagement turned me off (MM'ing to minimize overflow got tedious with many cities). Still, it definitely had some fun aspects that IV unfortunately didn't include.
I have neither played I nor V enough to give much of a verdict on them.
I also played II a lot, but that was a decade ago when I didn't have much of a clue of what I was doing in the game
III only got a bit of my attention after IV was released, but the very mechanical style of micromanagement turned me off (MM'ing to minimize overflow got tedious with many cities). Still, it definitely had some fun aspects that IV unfortunately didn't include.
I have neither played I nor V enough to give much of a verdict on them.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Those free market principles such as the government deciding every thing that ever gets built?
No that's now with that commienazi Obama in office.
Heretic_Cata
We're gonna live forever
Thank you. I really hope it gets an expansion. It's a fun game if not taken too seriously - i hope it'll get improved.
What on earth is the point in appealing to normal/stupid people?
Quality doesn't necessarily sell in a mature/saturated market. Targeting the lowest common denominator with mass-market products aside, there are more snobs than geeks... slickness and a tacked-on lifestyle message is going to give a better impression of quality than quality. Features that may make customers feel inadequate are to be avoided at all cost - this includes unnecessary maths and clever gameplay that goes over people's heads.
Most markets are saturated these days (some have been for decades), consequently few Xes are made for X lovers.
*
As for Civ4 having been easy on the eyes: Not then, not now, not ever. Looked horrible even for its time (resource-hogging and still ugly 3d that's not actually used to good effect, but having every hill and mountain tile look the same instead of forming sensible formations? Civ1 did that better). Mechanics were also ugly, neither logical nor intuitive. That the whole thing nevertheless worked so well despite such sloppiness in parts never ceased to amaze me.
Similar threads
