Is Sid Meier's original civ considered a good game?

Good enough to charge the atmosphere with strange gases.

>>3009997
Yes, 2 is a quantum leap though.

dude on the left is Sid himself

I haven't tried ii yet. I'll try to check it out. Only played civ 1 and civnet

>>3011771

A lot of people consider 2 to be the series' height.

>>3012148
it's 5, technically

>>3012251
but is it better than Civilization 5 with the Brave New Worlds expansion? XDXD

>>3012253
It's about the same. 5 is equal to 5, you know?

>>3012259

Do people say that? I must admit that I didn't follow Civ 5 much beyond it's release. I haven't had the time to play Civ type games lately.

Is it supposed to be very good?

>>3013084
I was making a joke. The games are numbered. Mathematically 5 is greater than 2, no debate about it. Gameplay-wise, I can not comment. I love 1, and I have 4 because it looks like a modern variant of 1 to me. I skipped 2 and 3 entirely. And I refuse to treat 5 as part of the series, because Civ was never using hexagonal maps.

>>3010209
It occurred to me a while ago that prefixing every one of his games with "Sid Meier's" was a bit Garth Marenghi.

Putting his face in the game just tops it off.

IV>II>V>III>I

>>3013106
I don't think it was his decision at first, and then eventually turned into a brand on its own. I know he's also prominently featured in Civ 4, and all in all, I think it's kind of a cool thing. No idea if he's in 2 or 3.

>>3013096
Thats stupid

Freeciv is superior

File: civilizationv_brave-new-world_01.jpg (449KB, 1623x1080px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 1623x1080px

>>3013096
>And I refuse to treat 5 as part of the series

You are really, really missing out. A lot of people think it's the best in the series.

>>3014351
it's probably an excellent 4x, but it ain't no civ, and nobody will ever be able to convince me otherwise.
The people that think it's "the best in the series" also think that squares inherently suck. Sure, they may, but that doesn't matter. Civ used squares. That amount of suck was part of the deal. Civ 5 removed it, it betrayed the series.

>>3014368
>it ain't no civ

But it is.

>The people that think it's "the best in the series" also think that squares inherently suck.

No we don't.

>it betrayed the series.

No it didn't.

Anyone else liked the Call to Power games more?

>>3013118
Alpha Centauri>III>Colonization>II>IV>V>I

File: 1455892426969.png (249KB, 495x498px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 495x498px

>>3009997
>Roman
>wise men

>>3014590
I know, it's redundant.

>>3014368
Are you autistic? Civ isn't civ just because it has square tiles on its map, don't be retarded.

>>3012148
>>3012251
3 is the best fucking civ and always will be.

>>3014368
You're opinion is so damn shitty it hurts.

>>3015105
It always felt empty and the leader portraits scared me

>>3009997
Of course it is. Back in the day, it was one of the most accessible strategy games, made the 4X genre popular and had a really clean user-interface.

While Civ 2 is a better game, it only improves on balance and additional discoveries, as most of the core gameplay is the same as Civ 1.