Worst version of Civ EVER?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by C~G, Oct 23, 2010.

?

Worst Civ Ever?

  1. Civ I (Vanilla)

    28 vote(s)
    3.6%
  2. Civ II (Vanilla)

    23 vote(s)
    2.9%
  3. Civ III (Vanilla)

    119 vote(s)
    15.2%
  4. Civ IV (Vanilla)

    42 vote(s)
    5.4%
  5. Civ Rev

    222 vote(s)
    28.4%
  6. Civ V (Vanilla)

    348 vote(s)
    44.5%
  1. Cashie

    Cashie King

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    691
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Newcastle AU
    Civ Rev. I have it on my DS, and just can't get into it.
    Civ I was great even in 2001 when I played it. I never played Civ II, but chances are I'd like it (or would have). I didn't realise their was so much Civ III hate out there...
     
  2. Guardian_PL

    Guardian_PL Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    1,231
    Yeah, I'll give Civ5 that much. Voted for CivRev, since it was a first sign of trouble with the franchise - a big middle finger to long time fans with "we're going for the money" motto. There's nothing wrong with increasing sales, unless it is done at the cost of game design (vide Bethe$da products - you can't call them games, can you?).
     
  3. Maxor127

    Maxor127 Warlord

    Joined:
    May 28, 2003
    Messages:
    229
    I guess I'll say Civ5. I never played 1 or Rev. The other games were solid even despite any bugs. Civ5 seems even more unpolished than all of the previous games, and with the exception of the combat system, I don't like the core gameplay.
     
  4. Egnarts

    Egnarts Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    70
    Voted for Civ5. I've played civ rev on the tablet while traveling and it's awesome for that, Civ5 on the otherhand is useless.

    Better gfx is the only thing it holds over previous games of teh serie and we all know how that's important for the longviety of a civ game..
     
  5. DiabolicX

    DiabolicX Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2007
    Messages:
    85
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Shortly of why it sucks.
    You murder everything, have 1000+ sci, 500+ gold in modern era, 100+ turn golden ages, etc. Difficulty levels are a joke. :D
     
  6. Brawndo

    Brawndo Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    255
    I voted for Civ Rev, although CiV comes in close second.

    I don't get why people don't like Civ 3 - personally I liked it, maybe because it was the one that got me into the series. It also introduced a TON of features that have become standard for the series
     
  7. Esckey

    Esckey Deity

    Joined:
    May 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,321
    Location:
    Canada
    Hands down Civ4. Vanilla wasn't playable, after it was playable the bugs made it pointless
     
  8. Naokaukodem

    Naokaukodem Millenary King

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,330
    Voted Civ IV. Although I played a lot to Civ IV, especially multiplayer (was fun although imperfect), I never achieved a victory above Emperor in single player, whereas i finished all other games in Deity. AIs simply had too much bonuses.

    I hesitated with CivRev, because in that game AIs are too much agressive to the point you end up in war with every single of them, every game. The game thus become unplayable. (for me)

    But i feel it's an error to have put Rev in the poll, i would have like to know the preference of people for PC versions of Civ.
     
  9. jagdtigerciv

    jagdtigerciv Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    Messages:
    468
    Wow, I never realized there was so much dislike for CivIII. I've seen it more and more lately, seemingly out of the blue. Somethings tells me it's a lot of those people who started with Civ4, and then tried CivIII.
     
  10. Cashie

    Cashie King

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    691
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Newcastle AU
    Hmm. Not sure if I agree with you here. Going for the money, yes - winning new recruits, yes. Not really giving the finger to the fans, as they were pretty clear about the market. It was Civ's little brother for the bean-bag demographic. And that's why it's crap.

    Sid did say it was the game he'd always wanted to make, though... what is that: bringing strategy to the masses? It's like performing Hamlet with Sims characters
     
  11. Stiefel

    Stiefel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    67
    Of course, it's capitalist regimes like 2k that ruin perfectly good game franchises like Civilization by streamlining them and choosing middle-school brats as a target audience.
     
  12. KahunaGod

    KahunaGod Warlord

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    123
    Location:
    TEXAS - Born and Bred Thank God!
    I didnt vote CivRev but instead voted Civ5 because Civ5 IS CivRev for the PC, which makes it twice as suck.
     
  13. Akka

    Akka Moody old mage.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,568
    Location:
    Facing my computer.
    The fact is, most people saying that Civ4's launch was comparable to Civ5 are, simply put, blind fanboys. They are the same that caricature the issues with Civ5 as being about "people who just complain because it's not Civ4" and the like. Don't put much stock in what they say.

    Civ4 had a lot of troubles bug-wise, and there was definitely lots of complaints about the bugs, crashes and the like, but it was nevertheless celebrated for its gameplay right at the start. Most everyone said "it's buggy, but the game is great".
    And I was part of the people who had a hard time getting into it, so it's not like I didn't see it from the most unfavourable point of view. Still, it was plainly obvious that the mechanics were very fine-tuned and the concepts sound.
    Civ 3 had a LOT of holes in its design.
    Corruption was insane and made getting cities rather pointless.
    Diplomacy was completely broken (either you exploited it, playing the broker, and it was overpowered ; either you didn't exploit it and it was simply totally useless, the AI always wanting several times more than what they accepted to give).
    Many concepts were badly implemented (the quoted "you have a stack of units in a city, it suddendly revolt and your stack vanish").
    The ending was a joke (the same as Civ5 : just a pop-up saying "you win !", save for the Space Race that had a little movie).
    No wonder movies.

    It was very unpolished - especially gameplay/design-wise - at release. Many people compared it unfavourably to Civ2, and it was rather divisive of the community.
    But unlike Civ5, it had a lot of saving graces that made it a worthy addition to the serie : it was very immersive (the whole interface was very neatly designed to drawn you into the game) and more than anything, it made the franchise go forward, adding new concepts that were so integral to the game that it made going backward very difficult - the whole culture and borders thing, units maintenance based on gold drawn from the whole budget rather than the weird "shield from home city" and the like.
     
  14. Bluetooth

    Bluetooth King

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    379
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sweden
    I voted Civ 5 as I didn’t even expect Civ Rev to be a good game.
     
  15. PieceOfMind

    PieceOfMind Drill IV Defender Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,319
    Location:
    Australia
    Have you played CivRev?


    So you are more likely to consider something good if you expected it to be bad?

    This could explain some things, because I expected civ5 to be pretty bad.
     
  16. Psyringe

    Psyringe Scout

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Messages:
    3,394
    Location:
    Berlin, Germany
    No, Civ3 had a bit of a troubled design process. The lead designer left Firaxis in the middle of the process, others had to take over, interesting concepts were introduced but weren't really thought out thoroughly, and Soren Johnson (as he admits himself) made several beginner's mistakes (he was a hugely talented, but not yet very experienced designer at this time). Prior to Civ5, I'd say that Civ3 was the least "well-rounded" game of the franchise. That didn't make is less enjoyable for me; for me, the new concepts it introduced shone through although the implementation was somewhat questionable. And while there were concepts that I simply regarded as unfixable design errors (corruption), they didn't keep me from enjoying the game. But I can understand why Civ3 ranks low for many players. Another factor is probably that Civ3 has a successor that obviously "fixed" many of its shortcomings, which may have made the existence of these shortcomings in Civ3 more salient.
     
  17. Egnarts

    Egnarts Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    70
    I agree with him, Civrev is in all aspects a superior product, had it been for the PC it wouldn't have been. Same reason Civ5 is in all aspects a inferior product, as has been stated, it's basicaly Civrev for PC, cept that :):):):) just don't fly on PC. Call it dumbed down, call it streamlined, simplified or whatever you want it's just a hollowed out game.
     
  18. Benzidrine

    Benzidrine Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2010
    Messages:
    39
    Civrev was better then ciV for me as hard as that is to believe, SP in civrev sucked but at least it was an okay MP game. Especially considereding previous version of civ had been too lengthy for me to enjoy most MP setups so there was a novelty factor for me playing any civ on multiplayer. Whereas ciV is a terrible SP game and the MP is close to broken. Also as lame as SP was in civrev I had a little bit of fun seeing how fast I could win or novel ways of breaking the broken mechanics, there was a short period of campy fun to winning at 1000bc. ciV doesn't have that going for it due to the much lengthier games.
     
  19. PieceOfMind

    PieceOfMind Drill IV Defender Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,319
    Location:
    Australia
    So you enjoy playing civrev more than you do civ5?

    Is that what you are saying?

    "Civrev is in all aspects a superior product"

    Or have you not played civrev?
     
  20. The Exile

    The Exile Tiesto Fan

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    116
    Location:
    beyond the Outer Rim
    I agree with this. CivRev is meant to be a simple game. Easy, portable and simple. It served those purposes well. But Civ5 is a full-fledged PC game that has no snap, crackle or pop and brings virtually nothing new to the table except for the city-state system.

    Civ5 definitely got the axe from me in this poll.
     

Share This Page