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

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. grommit5

    grommit5 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Messages:
    264
    Location:
    Washington, the state, not DC
    voted for 5. BTS will most likely be the peak of the civ series. i play civrev on the PS3 and while its certainly isnt a great game, maybe not even a good game, it still beats civ5. its good for a quick fix when i don't have the time or energy for a long game.
     
  2. Jolly Rogerer

    Jolly Rogerer Prince

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    402
    What didn't you like about 2, and what's your favorite of the series?
     
  3. Abegweit

    Abegweit Anarchist trader

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Messages:
    4,869
    Location:
    One step ahead of the authorities
    Indeed. I find that an astonishing statement as Civ II was basically the same game as Civ I except that it was improved in a whole range of ways, starting with the graphics. I really can't understand why anyone would prefer Civ I to Civ II.
     
  4. Psyringe

    Psyringe Scout

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Messages:
    3,394
    Location:
    Berlin, Germany
    I was wondering the exact same thing, so I'm curious as well. :)
     
  5. aziantuntija

    aziantuntija Prince

    Joined:
    May 21, 2010
    Messages:
    533
    Location:
    Finland
    Im not sure why i didnt really care about civ2 but i just didnt. I remember reading about all those cool new stuff that they were adding to the game and being exited about them but when i played it for couple of days i was starting to get bored. Maybe because it wasnt so much of a new game, instead it just added more stuff to the original civ game wich i allready played for hours and hours.

    Civ3 had much more great new stuff in it like cultural borders, how air units worked etc..

    EDIT: To Jolly Rogerer, i cant name my favourite civ game, right now im playing 5 and enjoying it.
     
  6. Martin Alvito

    Martin Alvito Real men play SMAC

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,332
    Going to have to second those that feel this statement is mind-boggling. Civ II corrected a number of Civ's flaws, and didn't introduce any undesirable mechanics that I can recall. It might have been underwhelming after hype, but that doesn't make it an inferior game. At worst you could call it disappointing.

    I don't see how people that played both games legitimately think that Civ 5 is worse than Civ III was at release. That remains the only Civ game that got a swift uninstall from my hard drive and never saw the light of day again. Part of the problem may have been comparison; SMAC was still so much better that there was no cause to play Civ III. But it seemed intuitively obvious at the time that Civ III's mechanics were broken beyond repair, and the results seem to confirm that hypothesis.

    By comparison, Civ V has the building blocks of a quality game. If rebalancing strengthens badly underpowered options such that they become meaningful, this can become a quality product. You would end up with a game similar to Civ II that doesn't provide a lot of challenge, but does provide a sandbox permitting a lot of possible approaches.

    If you're judging the game on the strength of the AI, though, I'd say it's a hopeless case. In hindsight, we should have expected the outcome given the radically new 1UPT mechanic. The devs had to create new combat AI from scratch, and it took a lot of iterations to get an AI that could perform decently under the stack-of-doom regime.
     
  7. Bandobras Took

    Bandobras Took Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,922
    Location:
    Orem, UT
    Wholeheartedly agree with that analysis.
     
  8. ThunderLizard2

    ThunderLizard2 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Messages:
    213
    I voted for Civ 5. The broken AI makes it too boring to play more than once. I've played Civ Rev, but it is a console game not a PC game - I see it as a different category and have lower expectations. That being said, it's still better than Civ 5 in its current state.
     
  9. aziantuntija

    aziantuntija Prince

    Joined:
    May 21, 2010
    Messages:
    533
    Location:
    Finland
    :confused: So by just adding new stuff to the old base game is always a good thing?

    You are wrong. To me civ2 is the worst game of the series and thats it.
     
  10. ShuShu62

    ShuShu62 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    183
    Aquaducts and sewer systems.

    Health was much better than the hard caps introduced by civ 2, but "We Love the King Day" rapid expansion in early eras was a gameplay style that CIV 2 broke.

    Quantum leaps vs. smooth curve in military was also eliminated in Civ 2 but returned in subsequent versions.
     
  11. Surgeon

    Surgeon Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    154
  12. Psyringe

    Psyringe Scout

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Messages:
    3,394
    Location:
    Berlin, Germany
    You slam the whole stock value discussion thread as being "filled with conjecture", and then come here and feel confident enough to attribute the votes of 243 people to a single factor, which you derisively call "emo nerd rage". Do you see a contradiction in these approaches?

    If you read the thread, you'll see that several explanations for the result have already been offered. Some voters apparently haven't played CivRev, some hold it to different standards since it wasn't a PC game ("mobility outweighs complexity" etc.), and some simply didn't have a lot of expectations for CivRev and hence weren't as disappointed. I also wouldn't exclude the possibility that a lot of people simply regard Civ5 as a pretty bad game, especially in its released state.
     
  13. elijahtary

    elijahtary Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    44
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    This. :goodjob:

    Civ V isn't the worst of the series, it just needs some minor (and major, obviously) tweaks, and it will be at the level of Civ 4.
     
  14. Bandobras Took

    Bandobras Took Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,922
    Location:
    Orem, UT
    I thought that was Civ 3?
     
  15. Jolly Rogerer

    Jolly Rogerer Prince

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    402
    I had a similar reaction to Civ2 at first. I realized that it had better graphics, more content, and repaired some broken game features, but it was pretty "meh" for someone who had played a gazillion hours of Civ1. As time has passed though, and I've turned to Civ2 to get my Civ fix my appreciation for it has grown. Civ3 was my most hated version, I bought it on release and played it for perhaps a week. I realized that I was never going to like it.
     
  16. bryanw1995

    bryanw1995 Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,459
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    rev sucks, don't get the console. I have it on my iphone, it was fun for a few hours, maybe 20 or so, but all it did for me was rekindle my interest in civ iv. It might be better on a console or ipad, but definitely not worth it for the investment required imho.
     
  17. Ellada

    Ellada Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    26
    Location:
    EU
    I voted CIV III, CIV II is still my all-time favorite. I recall a WW1 scenario where i defeated the Germans as..... Spain! Ooohhhhh. the memories.......
     
  18. Akka

    Akka Moody old mage.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,523
    Location:
    Facing my computer.
    My point was precisely that the gameplay fine-tuning was off, and as such the new concepts weren't very balanced.
    BUT, these concepts were real advances in the franchise that were sound in their core principle and made it very hard to get back on previous iterations.
    That's what Civ5 lacks. City-States are a completely artificial construct that really feels tacked-on and is perfectly removable. Social policies are just civics but far worse.
    There is simply no core concept that adds to the franchise and make the previous games looks dated - the only potential candidate is the 1upt, and it's quite doubtful if it's really an improvement in the end.
    Blind with fanboyism much ?
    Moderator Action: Don't troll here.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
  19. Bandobras Took

    Bandobras Took Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,922
    Location:
    Orem, UT
    Again, anybody who played Alpha Centauri would say the same thing about Civ 3 -- culture, unit maintenance, and resources were artificial constructs that were tacked on and perfectly removable -- not to mention corruption. The only real candidate was culture, and it's doubtful if it was really an improvement in Civ 3, given how much better Civ 4 was at handling it.
     
  20. civ_king

    civ_king Deus Caritas Est

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    16,368
    People, this is about VANILLA versions. I played Civ V and thought it was decent, then I played Vanilla Civ IV and I wanted to gouge my eyes out because of it's crappy AI and other lame stuff like that. Then I played BTS and I liked it because it was a MASSIVE improvement over Civ IV Vanilla. Also fully patched Civ IV Vanilla was way better than basic Civ IV, likewise with BTS.
     

Share This Page