Civilization

[Izeroth]

 Who here plays Civilization?

[James Gryphon]

Which version/s?

I've played all of them at one time or another, and own Civ II, Civ3 and Civ4. (I've also got SMAC/X and Call to Power, but whether you count either of those is up to you.)

[Izeroth]

 I own Civilization 4, which I've had for ages, and Civilization 5: complete edition, which I got on sale from Steam just last week.

[James Gryphon]

Tell me truly: is Civ5 any good? I've read that it focuses too much on the 'city-states', that the diplomacy is wonky, and other things.

[Luftwaffles]

I own the fifth one (I never actually played it) and I have played the first two. Civ 1 was kind of boring and it definitely felt old, no matter how you look at it. Civ 2 was a ton of fun, but it is really hard to play on modern hardware (I think that I only got it to work once or so).

Tell me truly: is Civ5 any good? I've read that it focuses too much on the 'city-states', that the diplomacy is wonky, and other things.

One of my friends uninstalled it within the same day. He was basically complaining about how the graphics messed up with the size and scale of things (giant tanks, he said).

[James Gryphon]

One of my friends uninstalled it within the same day. He was basically complaining about how the graphics messed up with the size and scale of things (giant tanks, he said).

He never played Civ2, did he?


I played Civ1 after Civ2, so I was biased against it myself. The trouble it has is that Civ2 was the same game bigger and better, and lost little or nothing in gameplay that Civ1 had (edit: other than Phalanxes beating Armor), whereas all the later ones had fundamental differences from each other.

Civ4 is pretty good, and once I was able to dig into it, I felt like I did when I was young and got Civ2. The main complaint I have about it is that there seem to be very few scenarios that use only elements from the basic game, unlike Civ2 -- the developers all seem to feel like scenarios have to serve as modpacks too. That's bad, since for the most part I like vanilla Civ4 (both the original game and Beyond the Sword).

[Luftwaffles]

One of my friends uninstalled it within the same day. He was basically complaining about how the graphics messed up with the size and scale of things (giant tanks, he said).

He never played Civ2, did he?

He probably didn't, we both grabbed Civ 5 from a Steam giveaway. But the exaggerated scale of things seems to be a recurrent problem with him... he could barely stand the giant ships of AOE 3 as well (and the game was promptly removed from his harddrive soon after the fact).

I'm personally looking forward to play Civ 2 and Caesar III again (as soon as I find a way to do it, though. Windows 7 hates them passionately).

[Delthion]

I only have Civ 4 with Warlords, it's fun, especially with the world editor.

[Unimaginative]

CIV V!!!!

[Izeroth]

Tell me truly: is Civ5 any good? I've read that it focuses too much on the 'city-states', that the diplomacy is wonky, and other things.

I didn't think I'd like the game as much as Civ 4, but I've warmed up to it.

To be honest, the city-states aren't very powerful, and I don't think they can expand. They're pretty useful, though, as you can trade with them and recieve troops. The diplomacy... I don't know. Most of the Civs seem to dislike me, but that might just be because of my aggressive style.

One of my friends uninstalled it within the same day. He was basically complaining about how the graphics messed up with the size and scale of things (giant tanks, he said).

If the graphics were to actual scale, your units would be so small that you would barely be able to see them.

[Rusvul]

   Civ V is fun. Granted, I haven't played any of the previous games, but I'd definitely say Civ V is worth it if it's on sale.

  Civ Beyond Earth is also fun. It's a loooot like Civ V, but with a number of improvements I like. It has much less emphasis on which Civ you choose, but has a few other customization options from when you start the game, and the Affinity system is interesting, but not hugely varied. The new system for spies is really great, and the aliens are more interesting and more of a threat than barbarians (but are otherwise mostly equivalent.) I think it's like Civ V but with more in depth systems and a greater quantity of interesting options. And it's sci-fi. I like sci-fi.

[Captain Tammo]

I have the Gods and Kings edition of Civ 5 and it's loads of fun. A lot of people say that the Brave New World pack is better. In G&K, if you are friends with city states, you're pretty much set. I love strategising on which civ to be. Personally, I love the character perks, they really add a fun twist to things.

I do wish that faith was expanded upon more (same with culture). I think a Brave New World does that a bit with tourism or something like that. I've never played it.

I have a question though, If you already have civ V, is Beyond Earth really worth it?

[Wylder Treejumper]

Hmm... I've played Civ II, that's fun, Civ III is actually my favorite. I also have Civ IV and now mostly play Civ V because my Civ II and III games are broke.

[Lady Ashenwyte]

I only own Civ V (Vanilla). Pretty fun but at one stage it just becomes a steamroll. The city states are pretty useful, choosing the right one to protect can make or break your civ.

[Izeroth]

 Has anyone ever beaten the fall of Rome scenario?