I picked up the Civ collection during the steam sale and I wanted Giant Bomb's opinion. I have never played a Civ game before and I wanted to know which is best for a new player to start with? Also, will playing 5 first make 3 to difficult/annoying to go back to? Thanks in advance GB!
3, 4, or 5: Which is best to start with?
Hmm, I never played 3, but from my experience, 4 is more complicated than 5, and the same may be true for 3 and 4. I would recommend going in order, from 3rd to 5th, just so that you can see how the series has evolved. Or, if you would rather skip the old graphics and UI, Civ 5 would also be a great intro to the series, because it also gets rid of a lot of stuff that made the 4 more frustrating. I imagine if I went back to 4, I wouldn't like it nearly as much as I do 5.
If you are determined to play all 3, then for sure start with 3, because it won't be easy to go backwards.
Start with 5, and never look back. I've been playing Civ since 2, and 5 is all of the good stuff with none of the crap. It's the only one in the series that doesn't really bog down in the late game, and there's so much verstaility in how to play that you aren't a prisoner to your starting location. I HIGHLY recommend the Gods and Kings expansion for any number of reasons.
Start with 4 or 5. Civ 3, while competent in its own right, is a low point in the series in my opinion. 4 and 5 are on relatively the same plane, depending on your tastes, though most Civ fans seem to believe that 4 is superior. From what I've read and seen of the new expansion for Civ 5, though, it might just put it at the top of the stack.
I'd say you won't want to go back to 3 after playing 4, but 5 is its own bird. So, if you want to play all of them, go 3, 4, 5. If you just want to have a good time, as it's your first experience with Civ, I'd say go with 4 and then 5.
Civ 3 was great for its time, but in my opinion, 4 is simply better for a new player. Though, Civ fans generally disagree on 3 vs 4, and I'm sure other Civ fans in this thread may disagree with me. ha. You'll usually like one and dislike the other(though they're both pretty high-quality; it's more about personal preference). So, give 4 a shot, if it isn't for you, then fall back on 3 and see if its pace is a bit more to your liking. Either way, play Civ 5 last, as it changes things up and will probably make it hardest to go back.
IV or V. I've played since II, and I always found III to be a little lackluster. Never really got into it. V is probably easiest to get into if you don't mind going back to unit stacking and square tiles to play IV later. I highly suggest starting with IV if you're willing to take the time to learn everything going on in it.
I started playing Civ back with #2 so I guess I'm the wrong person to ask. I would say so far 4 is probably the most traditional and 5 takes most of that and throws it out. Most of the strats from 4 don't really work in 5. Also, If I was just starting out I would definitely enable the expansion if I was going to start playing 5. After all, why not learn everything all at once.
I am no expert, but V really felt boring to me. I'm not an enormous Civ guy or anything, and I still felt like they stripped out a lot of the complexity that made the older games good. Not only are there less systems at work, but the ones that are a work just seem trivial. Maybe it was just me, but the amount of ways to actually play the game and win seem to be limited compared to the older games. It felt like they wanted to make it easier for people to get into, but they really just made the whole thing seem limited in scope while still being as slowly paced as ever, really making the entire game way more monotonous and laborious.
My time with Civ III was so long ago that I have completely forgotten everything about that game, but I remember playing Civ IV and feeling like the presentation was better, but the mechanics of how the game actually worked weren't as fun. In conclusion, I would probably play Civ III or IV. If you find that it's over your head, move on to V. When you feel like V is just too boring, move back to IV or III.
I think Civ4 is the best overall, but the combat in Civ5 is way better, which is good considering that diplomacy is insane in 5 and the AI seems to be modeled after "internet deathmatch kid" who just wants to go to war all the time.
My favorite way of playing Civ4 was to be pretty peaceful and just build up a fly ass culture that was so awesome that I could take over cities solely because the citizens knew I was the shit and wanted to role with a winner. Civ 5 completely removes all of that and all of my games are just constant war and insane AI that never does anything that makes any sense.
Civilization V is probably the best one to start with.
Playing that before IV+BTS does show that there are more options, but most of the streamlining was in the service of removing items that were less interesting. And Gods and Kings is out now :D>.
Alpha Centauri (GOG) is also pretty awesome if you are wanting an older Civ game though. To me, it had seemed like IV was overtly build and peace oriented, so it lacked the tension on any of the reasonablish difficulties.
At this point civ 3 and civ 4 have merged in my head, so I would choose 4 over 3 just for the better presentation.
@sickVisionz: The culture stuff in Civ 4 felt overpowered to me, too easy to use culture bombs. I had hoped that the religion stuff in Civ 5 would be similar - civs with same religions would be friendlier, etc. Doesn't seem to be true from what little I plaid of the new expansion though.
The insane AI through is much more realistic for me though as history has shown. But hopefully for Civ 6 they take the criticism of diplomacy and make it better.
i don't see any real point in playing 3 nowadays other than out of curiosity, because it is most likely pretty dated in comparison to 4 (although i haven't actually played 3 since 4 came out). As others have said, a fairly significant number of changes were implemented in 5, and 4 is my favorite ever Civ game, so it is possible, depending on your personal tastes, that you will prefer 4 over 5. with that said, i would recommend playing a bit of 4 and then a bit of 5 and assess your preferences then. Leave playing 3 for a time when you have played the others enough to appreciate the leaps that are made with each new version.
I have the whole Civ collection that I bought as a bundle ages ago, and started on the 5th instalment but I couldn't get to grip with it. But I recently picked it up again and gave it the time it deserved and now I love it. The mutliplayer is especially fun with a few friends. So, I'd recommend starting on the 5th game from my experience, although I haven't actually touched the previous games.
V is the easiest and most accessible, and will introduce you to a lot of the mechanics even if they are somewhat different.
If you want to get into IV it will involve a lot more "studying" and is less fun during the learning phases as you're basically useless until you get it.
V and never look back. Compared to IV they removed complexity in some areas and added it elsewhere. V with the expansion seems to be the best choice. The hardcore community also seems to approve. You totally can win other conditions than domination. But it requires you to be more aware of the diplomacy side of things.
I look at the Civ games more as evolutions than as sequels and you'll be doing pretty much the same thing in all the games so there's really no reason to play 3 & 4 anymore. Unfortunately 5 took a few small steps back from 4 but also made some huge leaps forward.
The expansion for 5 is also important becaus it makes it closer to the game it could have been.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.