Which Civ is superior?
- Thread starter kochman
- Start date
Bud2998
Bud the Ironfist
Civilization II is my favorite by far - I spent far more time playing that, studying the mechanics of it, and devising strategies. After that, I'd rank Civilization III and Civilization IV equally. Both were good, but they could never compete with the feel of Civ II. I've never played either I or V, so I can't comment on either of them.
The hate for the new version of Civ is pretty typical. Having seen the reaction when both III and IV came out, disappointment was common. V seems to be the same way. It may be a little too early to rank V.
The hate for the new version of Civ is pretty typical. Having seen the reaction when both III and IV came out, disappointment was common. V seems to be the same way. It may be a little too early to rank V.
The disappointment in IV were because of bugs that prevented the game from running for people with crappy computers. The disappointment in III (and V) are due to design flaws.
Akka
Moody old mage.
No it's not typical.
First, the AMOUNT is completely different. There was always some people complaining, but here, the forums went on fire in a whole other scale.
Second, the complaints usually were about some problems that were fixables (and, with IV at least, fixed). Civ5 problems are not about some problems, they are about the very basis of the design. You can't "fix" Civ5 save by rebuilding it entirely from scratch.
Third, you said it yourself : it's disappointment in the previous cases. It's scorn and despise in Civ5 one.
Lastly, after a while the new versions ended up pleasing most people. Just look at how unpopular Civ5 still is.
Supr49er
2011 Thunderfall Cup
Civ 4 - especially the Fall From Heaven II and Fall Further mods. 
I'm only old enough to really enjoy Civ4, and that was in its last year or so before Civ 5. I played Civ 3 a little bit once, and I couldn't get hooked on it the way I did on Civ4. Too spoiled by playing 4.
I'm about the same age as you, and I got hooked on Civ III.
Cull
Big Daddy
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,838
You were like 5 when it came out, and 9 when Civ 4 came out. I mean the age where you know you can probably play on the highly lvls without going WTH, when you microd tiles, AND when the online community of civ still played civ 3 mostly. Not after civ 4 came out, you found civ 3 and got hooked on it.
Plus I'm pretty sure you played 3 first.
Plus I'm pretty sure you played 3 first.
I have to disagree. Almost all the IV players have been around a couple of years and will be as likely to go to OT as CivIII players. There probably is a little CivV bias due to very new players being in V. But then, if they've only played one of the games, their opinion might actually be a bias in itself.
I think the poll is pretty fair and it's good that nobody's trolled. Quite often in these discussions somebody gets very defensive about "their" game.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I don't remember anyone hating civ3 when it came out. A few people stuck to civ2 but out of disinterest of change more than anything.
Moderator Action: Spam posts removed. Stay on topic, please.
You've completely forgotten. I remember the huge outcries over the lack of multiplayer, the spearman vs. tank phenomenon as the modern units not only lacked the hit points and firepower of Civ2, but were deliberately made weaker relative to ancient units, some functions of airpower being completely ineffective, the lack of good modding tools (Civ3's modding ability is still inferior to Civ2's) and the promotion of Infinite City Sprawl from simply being the best broken PC strategy to the required strategy.
What if, in spite of all that, some of use still enjoy playing and moddingimmensely?
Some people like Rebbecca Black's Friday aesthetically.
Please don't compare civ3 to Rebecca Black.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
None of those were game breakers, and some of those were not actually a problem. The spearman/tank thing was almost endearing and it just meant "needs moar artillery". most got fixed by the end and either way, the game was fun the whole time.
Nope. ICS never got fixed; it was a fundamental design flaw. Modding didn't get fixed. You can't even do something as simple as trigger an event, preventing any serious quality scenario from being developed. Unit weakness didn't get fixed. The fundamental problem of Civ3 being a game of tedious micromanagement as opposed to strategy didn't get fixed, either.
Cashie
King
Meh. I'm hanging out for octagons in Civ 6
Also, you get to move 2 thingies instead one 1.
I still haven't tried Fall From Heaven... Did I mention Rhye's rocks?Civ 4 - especially the Fall From Heaven II and Fall Further mods.
For me, it is 4 > 3 > 2 > 1 > 5
I have always moved on to the next version when they came out, 5 is the only that does not do it for me. it is totally another class of game. it comes out some where between civilization and age of empires. if the name Civ 5 is not tagged on it, and if it was not hyped up so much before it came out sept 2010, i guess i would be very much content with it. just not as a successor of Civ 5.
I have always moved on to the next version when they came out, 5 is the only that does not do it for me. it is totally another class of game. it comes out some where between civilization and age of empires. if the name Civ 5 is not tagged on it, and if it was not hyped up so much before it came out sept 2010, i guess i would be very much content with it. just not as a successor of Civ 5.
You've already discarded civ5?Meh. I'm hanging out for octagons in Civ 6
Also, you get to move 2 thingies instead one 1.
Yes, it does!Cashie said:
Similar threads
