Civilization series

[icycalm]

These days I'm playing Gun Valkyrie, Killer 7, Civilization II and Panzer Dragoon Zwei.

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?p=8664#8664

Let's clear something up here: Civilization II is in no way, shape or form the best Civilization game. I have no idea how this ridiculous notion began, but it has now gained wide acceptance within the artfag community, and it is driving me nuts. It's always the same story. Some retard (usually from the US) decides one day to come up with some ridiculous, entirely unjustified assertion (SMB 3 is the best 2D Mario; DMC 3 is the best DMC; the Zelda games are something special; MGS is postmodern; etc. etc.), then five years later everyone is parading this shit as if it had been handed down from the heavens, all the while, of course, being completely incapable of justifying it.

So, as regards the case that concerns us here: Civilization III is vastly superior to II. Merely the fact that III allows twice as many opponents and a much greater map size is enough to send the complexity through the roof, and compensate for whatever "balance" or whatever the fuck other spurious issues the artfags might invent in order to defend the reputation of their ridiculous received opinions.

Moreover, IV is quite probably better than even III -- at least from what I've seen of it, though I haven't played it yet.

Revolution, on the other hand, is a dumbed down Xboxified sequel for the masses, so there's no point discussing it.

So, the provisional Insomnia Civilization ranking (provisional because I have not fully explored the series yet) is as follows:

IV > III > II > I > Revolution


P.S.

Oh, and the Call to Power games suck (not entirely: I'd probably give them *** if I were to review them). They are not officially part of the Civilization series though.

[mothmanspirit]

I said Civilization II because it's the only one my computer seems to be able to run. Thanks for the clarification!

[mothmanspirit]

Some retard (usually from the US) decides one day to come up with some ridiculous, entirely unjustified assertion (SMB 3 is the best 2D Mario; DMC 3 is the best DMC; the Zelda games are something special; MGS is postmodern; etc. etc.), then five years later everyone is parading this shit as if it had been handed down from the heavens, all the while, of course, being completely incapable of justifying it.

Tim Rogers. The only claim I haven't seen him make is the one about Devil May Cry.

[MjFrancis]

I wouldn't think that Civilization Revolution would have been simplified beyond the scope of the original Civ, but I haven't played the first game in a long time. Civ IV is light years ahead of Revolution, which should only be a last resort for the Civ addict lacking access to a computer. I spent too much time with Revolution that could have been devoted to Rhye's in Civ IV.

Civilization IV seems like Civilization III with a more refined set of rules. I haven't spent enough time with III, oddly enough, to judge the consequences of the rule changes, but I don't believe that the game was reduced in complexity.

I didn't need to play more than a few games of Civilization: Colonization to find out that it was a big crap sandwich, though. Your list should probably read:

IV > III > II > I > Revolution > Colonization.

A reviewer on Amazon summed it up nicely:

It's an awesome economic sim, where economics has nothing to do with winning the game.

Incredibly complex rules that are potentially meaningless if you actually want to win the fucking game. Bravo, Firaxis.

[Bradford]

It's really amazing, I've loved all four of the numbered Civilization games, since being introduced to the first one by a friend circa 1993 or so, and I never stop coming back to play these games again. In fact, my recent discovery of Dwarf Fortress has reminded me so much of how it felt to be playing Civ for the first time that I was compelled to purchase the Civ IV and expansions bundle (only $20 on Amazon right now) so I can get back into it.

I happen to agree that each numbered sequel has seemed to improve upon the game preceding it, but I never played any of the games competitively, so take my opinion for what it's worth.

Also, I've been really looking forward to trying out Fall from Heaven II.

[MjFrancis]

I personally like Civ 3 over the newer Civ because the new civ is starting to get a little too complex.

http://boards.ign.com/civilization/b5542/107641659/r130144244/

Why am I not surprised?

[sadinotna]

My take:

Q=U+M

Where Q is the total quality of the game, U is the quality of the unmodded game, and M is the quality of the best mod available.

Unless CivII 's best mod is as good as CivIV's best mod, CivIV is better.

Civ IV has better mods.

How anyone can argue with this is something I never really got.

[ganheddo]

Unless CivII 's best mod is as good as CivIV's best mod, CivIV is better.

No, this would only mean that the modded CivIV is better than the modded CivII. It wouldn't tell us anything about CivII vs CivIV. The modded Civ is a different game than the unmodded Civ.

[sadinotna]

Yes, and one that you shouldn't play if the modded game is better, which is usually the case because most mods take the entire complexity of the vanilla game and add to it wihtout removing.

Perhaps I didn't articulate correctly When I say "CivIV" or "CivII" I mean the mods because they are better games. Unmodded games are as irrelevant to discuss as unpatched games. They are both incomplete in comparison.

[icycalm]

I said Civilization II because it's the only one my computer seems to be able to run. Thanks for the clarification!

No idea how this escaped me at the time, but given the fact that the post was made in 2009, I call bullshit on this statement, which is the reason that you are now banned.