Worst version of Civ EVER?

[C~G]

You know the drill.
Same as with that other poll about Best version, here's poll for the worst version.

I bet there are lot of u haters (for whatever version that is) so bring it on!

You can remind us also shortly why it's the worst.

Keep it civil.

 

[lschnarch]

I was unsure whether to vote for Civ3 or Civ0.V.

Since the design AND its implementation are so poor in 0.V, I voted for this.

Civ1 was brilliant at its time, Civ2 was apparently made with so much love and Civ4, regardless of all its flaws, allowed for brilliant mods due to a consistent game design.
All of this I miss in 0.V

 

[Chibiabos]

I have played every PC version of Civilization, and of those, Civ V is the worst.

However, I cannot answer the poll as it includes Civ Rev which I have never played, and after feeling disappointed with the $50 I blew on Civ V, I certainly don't feel compelled to shell out $300 to buy a console and another $50 or whatever to shell out on Civ Rev just to say I have played it so I could give a more honest, definitive answer to this poll.

In terms of vanilla versions, I'd say Civ V is even worse than Civ IV:Colonization which without Dale's patch is pretty bad compared with the rest of the series and expansions.

 

[Skwink]

Civ 4 had a TON of bugs at release. BTS was great though.

 

[Mutineer]

I voted for civ 3. Corruption and other stuff just killed it for me in civ 3 straight away and otherwise there was nothing interesting.

Civ 5 is very bad, but because it had 1UPT + hexes and I never played hex based combat game before it had some novelty for me.

 

[PieceOfMind]

CivRev hands down. I can understand people being disappointed with civ5 and even not liking it at all, but CivRev still has nothing on it. Perhaps those voting for civ5 have not played civrev?

So far on the forum, I have not seen many arguments for civrev being a better game than civ5. Would be interesting to see how that position gets put forward.

 

[Skwink]

CivRev hands down. I can understand people being disappointed with civ5 and even not liking it at all, but CivRev still has nothing on it. Perhaps those voting for civ5 have not played civrev?

So far on the forum, I have not seen many arguments for civrev being a better game than civ5. Would be interesting to see how that position gets put forward.

I like Rev for DS. It's great for long trips and stuff like that.

 

[Osetjka]

Voted for ciV. It simply had little to no wow factor whatsoever for me, even in the first couple of games (many ended in chores and frustration, in fact). The new hex tiles and great graphics were quickly overshadowed by gameplay issues, atrocious UI and many missing features (from cIV vanilla, not post-Warlords). But I'll stop right there - there's already more than enough discussion about those in the forum.

What amazes me is that despite of what people said about cIV being very divisive and disappointing during release (which I could find little to no evidence of in the forum archives) the game at the moment holds the lowest vote count for being the worst in the series w/o expansions.

Of course, like others here I've never played Revolutions, so I can't really comment on that. However, from what I had read it was marketed more towards casual gamers. And I'm fine with that - it wasn't the main entry in the franchise and in my opinion shouldn't be judged on the same standards as previous civ games, as it was more of a Civilization-lite. Only later did we find out that ciV was developed with similar undertones, a month after the game was released..

 

[Justicex]

CivRev hands down. I can understand people being disappointed with civ5 and even not liking it at all, but CivRev still has nothing on it. Perhaps those voting for civ5 have not played civrev?

So far on the forum, I have not seen many arguments for civrev being a better game than civ5. Would be interesting to see how that position gets put forward.

I have been promoting Rev over V for a little while now. Rev may not be IV BtS, but is sure has it all over V. Having said that, both games are great and I enjoy all the hours I've spent with both. Looking forward to many maore

 

[Black Gate]

I like Rev for DS. It's great for long trips and stuff like that.

That game is horrible! The UI doesn't tell you anything, and battle is so cheesy. They shouldn't have ever put such a large game on such a tiny processor.

 

[AriochIV]

There's no way Civ V is worse than Civ Rev. People are letting their anger cloud their judgement.

 

[Chibiabos]

Nah, most of us avoided shelling out $300 for a console and $50 for the game, so couldn't rate it in determining which was the worst Civ game. I also notice CTP wasn't included -- which is good, as I didn't like what I read about it when it came out and decided not to get it.

Of all the Sid Meier's Civilization series for the PC, Civ V has successfully supplanted Civilization IV: Colonization (vanilla) as my least favorite in the series. Congratulations, Civ V team!

 

[Left Foot]

Civ 3 hands downs. The corruption, the city-flipping with the now-you-have-20-units-now-you-don't factor, the awful diplomacy (Turn 100: you are my bestest friend in the universe! Turn 101: Die scum!).

Followed by Civ 5.

Never played and have no intention of playing Civ Rev.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Just a thought, but if you haven't played civrev and are therefore voting for civ5 (or any of the others for that matter) because it's (believed) the worst of the main series, perhaps this poll is doomed to failure.

Honestly, if this poll ends up showing that civ5 is a worse game than civrev for the people who voted, something about this forum would just not make sense anymore. We have people complaining about dumbed down games, yet a game that is streamlined much more harshly than civ5 is considered to be more acceptable. (sarcasm removed)

 

[Skwink]

Just a thought, but if you haven't played civrev and are therefore voting for civ5 because it's (believed) the worst of the main series, perhaps this poll is doomed to failure.

Honestly, if this poll ends up showing that civ5 is a worse game than civrev, something about this forum would just not make sense anymore. We have people complaining about dumbed down games, yet a game that is streamlined much more harshly than civ5 is considered to be more acceptable.

I agree. So far this poll shows that most people here would prefer Rev over V.

But all polls have flaws. So far, mine says the worst is Civ I.

 

[Psyringe]

So far on the forum, I have not seen many arguments for civrev being a better game than civ5. Would be interesting to see how that position gets put forward.

Perhaps people are holding it to different standards since it was a console game. From what I heard about, it should indeed lead this poll hands down. But I never played it (the last console I owned was an Atari VCS 2600), so I can't answer the poll.

Excluding CivRev, I think the answer depends on the frame of reference. Civ5 is definitely the version that fell most short (can you say that?) of the fans' expectations, and the one that fell most short of the standards for 4x games at the time of its release. On the other hand, if we ignore the release dates and just compare the gameplay, then Civ1 is probably worst: incompetent AI (throws units at you piecemeal, can't handle ZOC, can't handle naval invasions, will gang up on you to prevent you from winning), imbalanced cheesy strategies (ICS, conquer the world with 3 tanks, hoard money and buy everything, etc.), and much less content than the other games of the series (no multilateral diplomacy, no religion, fixed governments ...). The surprising thing is how close Civ5 comes to Civ1 in this comparison, basically you just need to exchange "tanks" for "horsemen", and interpret "fixed governments" a bit differently, and you can say the very same things about Civ5.

 

[turboraton]

Civilization 3 for me and almost every peruvian is the WORST vainilla release.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Psyringe, yes, and here we come back round to the discussion we had about this many weeks ago.

The fact that civ4 was so enormously successful meant that civ5 had very big shoes to fill. A lot of people simply can't allow themselves to see the decent but imperfect game for what it is because of their enormous expectations they had from having experienced the joy of civ4.

It really is the case that if this game had been called civrev2 people would be raving about it. I think there is a problem with people's judgement of games if so much depends on what its name is.

EDIT
And personally I hold civrev to the same standards I do with every video game. Perhaps that is why I fail to see many positives about the game, unlike those who say there is some good fun to be had with it. Yes it can be played on a portable handheld, but so can civ4 on a decent netbook (I think?). I don't treat consoles and PCs like they are fundamentally different realms.

 

[Methos]

I voted for Civ Rev, but in all honesty I haven't played it much. I got it for my iPhone and never could get into the game, so ended up deleting it off my phone. All past versions of Civ I spent many, many hours on, so they're not even possible choices. The simply fact I couldn't get drawn into Civ Rev was enough for me to place my vote for it.

 

[kiwitt]

I voted CivRev - because I was never motivated enough to buy it. I would have bought Civ 1, but by then Civ 2 was out and I was hooked.