1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Which Civ Version You Like Best? Civ 2 still ranks higher than Civ 4

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by jcikal, Jan 14, 2006.

?

Which Civ Version do you like best?

  1. Civ 1 - The One that Started it All

    9 vote(s)
    2.7%
  2. Civ 2 - The One to beat

    50 vote(s)
    14.7%
  3. Civ 3 - The Middle Child

    41 vote(s)
    12.1%
  4. Civ 4 - The New Ruler

    239 vote(s)
    70.5%
  1. Armorydave

    Armorydave Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Messages:
    439
    Location:
    Baltimore, Maryland
    My rankings:

    Civ 4
    Civ 2
    Civ 1
    Civ 3

    Three had too much maintence work for my tastes and the end game dragged. I still thought it was a great game but for me the least enjoyable of the franchise. Armies were absurdly over-powered as were artillery. Basically any game could be won on the back of an early army so the incentive to war-monger was overwhelming. Also Civics were overly simplistic and religion was effectively not a part of the game. Spy "exploits" and other "tricks" (being able to store production for two great wonders under the palace and forbidden palace being a great example) made it even cheesier.

    I really loved 2 but it is hard to ignore how much inclusive and better thought out Civ 4 is than any of its predecessors. I am still not completely warmed up to the game (tech advances too fast in relation to production IMO making space race trivial and lame) but with a few more tweeks it will probably rate as my favorite strategy game of all time (well until Civ 5 at least).
     
  2. Sir John

    Sir John The evil one...

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,834
    Location:
    Norway, Bodø
    I voted Civ3 It was the game that got me into turn based strategy games and I didnt like civ 4 to much.. I think it was the graphics that scared me off tough.. Im not a big fan of putting to much effort into graphics in games like this and I think it lost much of the simple style that civ 3 had :)
     
  3. boneys26

    boneys26 BTS Play session tester

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    839
    Location:
    Coventry, England

    Lets hope with civ5 they don't rush it to the shops and spend alot more time testing it
     
  4. Exel

    Exel Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2001
    Messages:
    440
    Location:
    Finland
    Civ3 still ranks higher in my books until Civ4 gets its problems patched out. Civ4 is a great concept, but it doesn't feel (yet) as finalized as Conquests did. Hopefully that will change in the near future.
     
  5. ReccaSquirrel

    ReccaSquirrel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    60
    I never played Civ III. I went straight from Civ II - Test of Time into Civ IV. I was frustrated with the game for about five minutes. The first thing I did was found my city in a Settler game of Earth. The recommendation was for a Warrior and Barracks and I did a Warrior (Barracks suck in Civ II). Once I had a population of 2 I knew I could build a Settler for the population drop. Wait... Settlers and Workers... that's odd.

    I first realized how much better this game was when my culture border grew. I saw it toss the evil Romans away and saw it gave me more squares to improve. Beyond that, here are the things I saw that I really liked in Civ IV that Civ II lacked:

    City Bombardment
    Great People
    Religion
    Diplomacy
    Unique Units
    Resource Requirements
    No Caravans
    No Diplomats
    Air Units*

    Here is the list of things I dislike about Civ IV that Civ II did better:
    Air Units*
    Space Race**

    * Air Units are improved and not at the same time. I love how I don't need to worry about landing them at the end of my turn... it is automatic. I hate how they can't attack other air units and that bombers can't airstrike tanks and the like.

    ** I am having heck of a time winning by Space Race but I'm sure that will come to me with time.

    Overall, it is a major improvement in my mind.
     
  6. DynamicSpirit

    DynamicSpirit Fear him of the pink tie Moderator GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,136
    Location:
    London, UK
    1. Corruption [nice idea but really badly implemented in Civ 3. The Civ 4 model on corruption is much better in fun terms]

    2. Too much geared towards military - if you wanted to win you basically had to be aggressive and conquer your neighbours.

    The thing I most disliked about Civ 3 was that if you wanted cities away from your capital you needed the forbidden palace. But the production hit from the corruption made the forbidden palace next to impossible to build anywhere where it would actually be useful - unless of course you got a great leader to build it. How do you get great leaders? You have to do lots and lots of wars. Thus is the military strategy forced on you whether you like it or not.
     
  7. RoboPig

    RoboPig Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    my ranking:
    2 and 3
    4
    1
    close between 2 or 3, i voted 2. 4 is overrated and too much RTS interface 2 is great because it has such a simple style and IMO a great modern age, 3 is cool, better diplomacy and all, but the game is too long and it takes more work to get to the modern age
     
  8. DynamicSpirit

    DynamicSpirit Fear him of the pink tie Moderator GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,136
    Location:
    London, UK
    Agreed. Remember though that Civ 3 also took several patches to fix various bugs too. My (very unscientific) general impression is that while there are a lot of complaints about bugs etc. in Civ 4, that's still not as many as there were about bugs in Civ 3 when that first came out.

    Most annoying thing for Civ bugs I recall [may have some facts slightly wrong as this is a long way in the past - correct me anyone if you think I've misremembered] was in Civ 2 when they brought out multiplayer and I upgraded. For some reason they changed the graphics to use DirectX. The DirectX graphics looked completely unchanged from original Civ 2 graphics, so I have no idea why they put all the effort in to upgrade [1] - but they didn't work nearly as well and a some tendency to crash.

    [1] Actually I do have a suspicion. I bet it was the developer team saying 'let's do this coz it's cool and groovy and up to date and it means we can play with the latest packages.' I know that sort of thing happens coz I'm a developer myself :lol:
     
  9. DynamicSpirit

    DynamicSpirit Fear him of the pink tie Moderator GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,136
    Location:
    London, UK
    I agree that the corruption was managable once you knew how to deal with it, but I think there was a real problem that it
    (a) wasn't fun because the way corruption destroyed your production meant that it was very hard to deal with immediately.
    (b) wasn't documented adequately.
    (c) until Firaxis released the patches that lessened corruption, it was just too severe.

    I deeply remember the first few Civ 3 games I played - I just couldn't understand why cities more than a few squares from my capital had only 1 shield production, no matter what I did. The manual did say corruption would damage your production but didn't give any idea that it was to such a big extent. Also - crucial omission - the manual said that courthouses reduced corruption, but it didn't say that they were changed from Civ 2 (where they worked immediately) and now only worked slowly over time. So I was building courthouses, seeing that they, a couple of turns later, had no visible effect whatsoever, and was - well - stuck. It was only these CivFanatics forums that saved my interest in the game - I discovered a post in which someone explained how he'd built courthouses, left the cities and then come back some time later to find they were now producing - and hence it seemed courthouses needed time to work. Without that knowledge I think I would have completely given up on Civ 3 as being unplayable.
     
  10. Smidlee

    Smidlee Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,348
    I didn't like civ3 corruption since this basicly had you piling all your city tightly around your capital. So place cites in formation like cxxcxxc became more important than strategicly placing your city as in civ4. As someone point out civ3 was too heavily geared toward war more than any civ with armies and artillery being overpowering. So I ranked them as:
    Civ4
    Civ2
    Civ3 (close to second only with Conquest)
    civ1
     
  11. Lord_all_Mighty

    Lord_all_Mighty Watching....

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Messages:
    359
    Location:
    Here
    Civilization 4. Followed by Civ 2 and then Civ 3 (Have never played the first one). Civ 3, while introducing some good concepts (borders, culture, a less clunky diplomacy system and bombardment) was too much management (I remember having to open up diplomacy with every AI leader every turn, just to see if they had new technology, not fun on maps with more than a handful of nations) and it also simpliefied too much (combat and espionage to name a few). Civ 2 and civ 4 go along at a faster pace.

    To me, Civilization 4 seems to be a combination of the good aspects from civ2 and civ3 without most of the problems.
     

Share This Page