22 ms·

Can anyone give some hints on what made Civ 1 special compared to other classic entries in the franchise? Despite the nostalgia factor, of course.

by haolez 6mo ago

Macha 6mo ago
Honestly it feels to me that Civ1 - Civ2 is the most direct upgrade in the series. Civ 2 was mostly just a better civ 1. From civ4 onwards, the series was a lot more willing to shake things up in its gameplay.
- Narishma 6mo ago
  Civ 3 already started to shake things up.
- vintermann 6mo ago
  Civ 2 was without doubt a much uglier civ 1, though. Isometric graphics in win 3.11 wasn't a good bet. Civ 1 had good pixel art (look at those mountains! Not to mention the intro), good colors (and more of them!) and clean iconography. For me the look was part of the magic, so I never got into Civ 2.
- antihipocrat 6mo ago
  I considered Alpha Centauri as the sequel, both in the continuation of Civ 1s final goal and the expanded gameplay.
caminanteblanco 6mo ago
In my opinion, Civ1 was fundamentally simpler than any other Civ game. It is like the difference between playing DOOM and Halo. Civ 1 has very few units, very few civ types, very few anything really. That means that it is easy to keep the whole game in your head at once. For me, its a totally different experience.
SL61 6mo ago
It's simple (both in terms of gameplay and graphics) and it's the fastest Civ game to complete a full playthrough. Later releases made the game slower and more complex.
TiredOfLife 6mo ago
1. It was the first civ. 2. The Settler unit was a big eared bat
- kubanczyk 6mo ago
  > The Settler unit was a big eared bat You validate my feelings. I always knew that at heart.
whizzter 6mo ago
I played a lot of Civ1, Colonization and Civ 2. First time I tried Civ 3 I lost some city due to some culture or religious influence and ragequit (I was also working my first job at that point so didn't have as much time to spare). Played a bit of Civ 4 and 5(or 6?) but never was really as hooked on them.

Can anyone give some hints on what made Civ 1 special compared to other classic entries in the franchise? Despite the nostalgia factor, of course.

by haolez 6mo ago

Can anyone give some hints on what made Civ 1 special compared to other classic entries in the franchise? Despite the nostalgia factor, of course.

Macha 6mo ago

Honestly it feels to me that Civ1 - Civ2 is the most direct upgrade in the series. Civ 2 was mostly just a better civ 1. From civ4 onwards, the series was a lot more willing to shake things up in its gameplay.

Narishma 6mo ago
Civ 3 already started to shake things up.
vintermann 6mo ago
Civ 2 was without doubt a much uglier civ 1, though. Isometric graphics in win 3.11 wasn't a good bet. Civ 1 had good pixel art (look at those mountains! Not to mention the intro), good colors (and more of them!) and clean iconography. For me the look was part of the magic, so I never got into Civ 2.
antihipocrat 6mo ago
I considered Alpha Centauri as the sequel, both in the continuation of Civ 1s final goal and the expanded gameplay.

caminanteblanco 6mo ago

In my opinion, Civ1 was fundamentally simpler than any other Civ game. It is like the difference between playing DOOM and Halo. Civ 1 has very few units, very few civ types, very few anything really. That means that it is easy to keep the whole game in your head at once. For me, its a totally different experience.

SL61 6mo ago

It's simple (both in terms of gameplay and graphics) and it's the fastest Civ game to complete a full playthrough. Later releases made the game slower and more complex.

TiredOfLife 6mo ago

1. It was the first civ. 2. The Settler unit was a big eared bat

kubanczyk 6mo ago
> The Settler unit was a big eared bat You validate my feelings. I always knew that at heart.

whizzter 6mo ago

I played a lot of Civ1, Colonization and Civ 2. First time I tried Civ 3 I lost some city due to some culture or religious influence and ragequit (I was also working my first job at that point so didn't have as much time to spare). Played a bit of Civ 4 and 5(or 6?) but never was really as hooked on them.