3 ms·
When Civ 1 came out I played it religiously. To the point I could wake up at noon, start playing then look outside and find it was dark. I didn't really play C
by cletus 11y ago
When Civ 1 came out I played it religiously. To the point I could wake up at noon, start playing then look outside and find it was dark.
I didn't really play Civ 2 or 3. I just found them to be classic examples of sequels: adding tedium more than anything else.
Civ 4 I also played a lot, possibly as much as Civ 1. Civ 4 was, for me, a rare sequel that didn't just add feature bloat. It added a lot of depth while streamlining some other aspects.
But I didn't play the base game as much as I played a particular mod: Fall From Heaven 2. Fall From Heaven was, I believe, a mod that came with the game that was fantasy themed. Ffh2 was that taken to another level with years of development effort.
There was much more difference between civilizations. Unit promotions were about twice as strong (eg each strength was 20% not 10%). Heroes and magic were pretty interesting. I spent countless hours playing this mod.
I tried to like Civ5. Really I did. But it just never grabbed me. Some people got excited about hexes. Not me. Once you add in all the expansions (that fix a lot of issues with the original Civ 5) it's not bad but just not inspiring.
I'm not sure I have terribly high hopes for Civ 6. I mean, it might be a perfectly fine game but the smart money is on it not hooking me like Civ 1 or Civ 4 did.
Really I just want a Ffh2 successor.
- tormeh 11y agoThe right way to buy Firaxis games is to buy the "Complete Edition" or whatever. Civilization N with all expansions are almost always better than the base Civilization N+1 game.
- some-guy 11y agoI agree, I bought Civ 5 about a year ago on sale with all expansions and DLC for a small penny. Vanilla Civ 5 feels like an incomplete game with zero replay value. I'll most likely pick up Civ 6 in five years.
- BuckRogers 11y agoSimilar boat here. I burned out on Civ back in 1991. I believe most of the new Civ4 or later addicts simply started later and missed the original's release. I also played Civ2 for DOS and the Windows version that had multiplayer over modem. After that I was definitely done with the general mechanics and had my fill. I'm going to take a look at FFH2 out of interest, but more than likely won't start playing it. I can't play the same game for 25 years straight and I imagine most gamers my age have also just moved on. Maybe the others don't even play games anymore. But MOBAs are still new enough for me that I haven't burned out on those yet. I played WC3 Frozen Throne DOTA back in 2003 when it was new but I didn't play enough to really get it. Fast forward to when League of Legends came out in '09 I was hooked and been playing that ever since. I have friends that played Duke Nukem 3D over Kali with me and are still playing FPS games daily. That's another genre that I enjoyed but really can't do anymore out of overexposure. After League of Legends wears off on me I'll probably move to games built for VR as the formulas that work there are solved.
- jandrese 11y agoCiv 5 was arguably incomplete at launch. The optimal strategies ended up being pretty shallow and the AI was pretty brain dead. The expansions helped a lot (although Religion tends to feel like a sideshow), but BNW made it a little to easy to secure a culture victory IMHO.
- toyg 11y ago> although Religion tends to feel like a sideshow Does it? One of my favourite tactics in Civ5 is rushing to pile up religious wonders, convert the crap out of other countries, and proceed to actually get decent trade deals with their leaders. Combined with Patronage and a few network-oriented beliefs, religious domination will let me lock-in complete support from all City-States (as long as goddamn Alexander isn't in the picture) and dramatically ease my path to victory.
- touristtam 11y agoCiv4 had more depth (with expansions) regarding alternative way to dominate (religious or commercial).
- civilian 11y agoPssst, go treat yourself to Stellaris!