Rank the Civilization games?

I'm really not sure how one can say that II is better than IV without some kind of nostalgia filter. And I certainly don't understand how one can rank IV lower than the hackjob that is III. My only complaint about IV is that the framerate can be rather fickly, especially on larger maps (seriously, was full 3D really necessary?). Civ IV really improved considerably on the series.

Now, if only the same thing could be said for Civilization 4: Colonization (seriously, I waited nearly ten years, others even more than that, and that's what we got?).

I'm not sure how to rate them. I have really good memories of Civ II and especially Civ Net, but all I really have are memories - I haven't really gone and played them since I was a kid. Though I want to say they're the best, I'd only be speaking from Nostalgia Filter, and that's about it.

Civ III was the first Civ game I played where I was really at the point of looking at mechanics and seeing what I liked or disliked in a game - and I really disliked it... mostly for a simple reason. The Culture/Border System, though a very interesting and novel idea, was greatly flawed, such that in conjunction with the way Production worked it essentially made playing as a non-Expansionist and often militaristic empire to be a chore and. If you weren't constantly challenging the borders of the countries surrounding you, you would eventually end up at a poor advantage unless you were already leagues ahead of them... and if you were the slightest bit behind it would eventually snowball into total reliance. I will admit that the earlier games probably made vertical rather than horizontal growth easier than it should've been, but III essentially removed it as an option completely, which as a more passive, diplomatic and technological player, left it with a sour taste in my mouth.

Also, the colonization system pissed me off. So useless.

IV improved it somewhat - the optimal gameplay style wasn't so rigid and while you were expected to be expansionist you weren't required to always be imperialistic and antagonistic to your neighbors. Instead, the game encouraged a mix between vertical and horizontal growth(rather than constantly horizontal, and then and only then would be capable of vertical at all), just the way I liked it. The added freedom, at least, makes it a step up to three for me - no matter what other differences I at least find IV to be playable.

edited 13th Nov '12 11:36:58 PM by KnownUnknown

Ooh. Someone's mad.

^ Indeed.

Hypocrisy, really?

Anyways, you're implying that I ignored IV entirely when there's actually a paragraph or so on it in my post, about how I feel it implemented the border system in a better way than III. And if the system is praised in Alpha Centauri perhaps it's because it was also implemented well there rather than have the flaws III suffered from it, as apposed people simply playing favorites?

I wouldn't know, I haven't played it, but your generalizations and accusations of favoritism and hypocrisy seem... well... myopic, and your claim that everyone who dares to criticizes the game is just a noob who can't play it is the best example.

edited 14th Nov '12 10:35:59 AM by KnownUnknown

Out of those three games, guess which one is actually a Civilization game? Yes Alpha Centauri was made by the same person, but if thy wanted it to be considered a part of the series, then the word "Civilization" would be in there somewhere. CtP on the other hand - while very derivative, as I've mentioned - isn't even vaguely part of the same series.

The issue is that Civ 3 does it to a point where other methods of play just aren't feasible in the slightest. Other 4X games, including every other Civ game, don't have this problem. Therefore, being a 4X game is not an excuse worth considering.

Your attitude is unfit for a gentleman. I suggest you reign yourself in a little before you do anything you might regret.

You are the only one ranting here, dude. Seriously, calm down and focus on more important issues. Like ponies! Ponies are cool!

You know, I knew this thread would turn a little nasty after the necro.

Threads usually come back wrong once raised from the dead.

Hey, I'm a non-combatant. I'm not dodging or changing anything.

I think I'll go back to lurking now.

Out of curiotisty, which Civ games have everyone played?

Only touched V.

Just V, though I've done a bit of Alpa Century as well. Good games, good times.

II, Civ Net, III and IV.

I also played a little Test of Time a long time ago, but it was years before I actually found out what it was.

edited 15th Nov '12 8:37:59 AM by KnownUnknown

Somehow, I'm not surprised about this development. I'm still glad that I missed it, though.

Anyway, I played all main Civilization games (including Test of Time), except for V. I recall that I tried out Call to Power, but I have no idea whether it was the first or the second.

Of related games, I played Colonization (which, as I mentioned, I played before Civ), Master of Magic (wasn't to my liking, though), Birth of the Federation and Alpha Centauri. With the latter, I was frustrated that Alien Crossfire didn't work on PC (hell, trying to get the main game to run was hard enough). If the GOG version had the expansion, I would buy it from there immediately.

Civilization, Civ2 (and ToT), Civ3, Civ4(Both with and without the expansions), Civ5 (although not much), as well as the related/similar games Colonization and Master of Magic.

I was only responding to what he said. At first I wanted to prove him "wrong", I'll admit, but one I realized why he thought what he did I only wanted him to understand why I had the opinion I did (and still do).

His post were deleted not because he was wrong, but because he was being an ass about it. There were civil ways to express his opinion, but he didn't use them.

At least, I think that's the case. I'm no mod, so I don't know what their reasoning was exactly.

I've played III, V, Revolution, and IV. I played III first, which is probably why I have a much better opinion of it than you guys seem to.

I would comment on that, but I can't take somebody who uses the word "rape" in such a "casual" manner seriously.

1. IV. 2. II 3. V. 4. III 5. I