Well... I'm pretty sure I'm counter current here but I'm going to go with what I always said anyways: Civ II is the worst game of the whole lot that I've played.
Civ I is really great if you don't want to spend to much time playing this type of game. You can easily end up a game in a whole day. The graphics are of course way too old for "modern" gamers, so it can turn many off.
Civ II was way too slow for me. Close to the original but with very little more to show up when compared to Civ. The only real difference for me was the graphics and slightly improved engine which was only natural because of the limitations of computers back in the time Civ was made. The only real plus side I have for Civ II was the cinematics when you research a topic but that's really only some unrelated fluff.
Civ III actually added quite a few new and well thought concepts. You can now win with a more elegant culture and border setting (which was initiated in Civ II but greatly improved upon) and it is really a great and well polished game.
Civ IV is to Civ III what I consider Civ II is to the original: nothing much to show up except graphic overhaul.
Never bothered with Civ V, really.
|