I see you're a man of culture. Civ 5 while still decent to me(at least 100 hours) I don't really liked the simplified mechanics and the new maps/war aspects it just felt flat to me maybe is because I was expecting a enhanced civ 4 with the same polished mechanics. Civ 6 is definitely when the game took a really different direction. Man I really wish civ 4 gets a rework but sadly it is highly improbable.
Me and my roommate are pretty into history and we love the power fantasy of playing beyond the sword. We’ve tried other ones like 5 and 6 and none of them seem so straight forward without being monotonous. It’s worth mentioning that we only play with domination or conquest victories on. I remember civ 5 kind of trying to cock block your conquering and I was not about it
Civ 4 is the best! My challenge to civ players in 4: play with all 18 permanent alliances require complete kills no space race noble no vassals don't use slavery and try to win
Revolution was the first Civ game I ever played. I had it on the DS and I was so addicted as a kid. Definitely hooked me on the series but also made it hard going from a simple experience to something so complicated like Civ 6
Anyone here remember Civilization 2: Test of Time, which introduced some alternative game settings, such as a fantasy and sci-fi setting, along with the ability for some units to shift between planes, such as going between the surface, underwater, sky, and underground layers in the fantasy setting, and going between the main Earth-like planet's surface, orbit, a barren planet's surface, and a gas giant in the sci-fi setting?
Oh I remember... I was really hooked by the sci-fi Lalande 21185 scenario, wondering about strange future tech, weird shape-shifter architecture, and also ha'Gibborim ruins and knowledge which the game creators, sadly, didn't seem to have explored further into a viable victory condition, which was a pity...
You are right! I write to it over there: Civ 1was only on PC DOS AND AMIGA!!! AND you forget Civ II Call to Power and Civ II Test of Time!!! This Games were Grandious!!! And Colonization and Alpha Centauri isn't on the List too!!! The best games was Civ II and Civ II Test of Time and Civ III. Civ 1 was great too!!!! I played it days and night!!! If you wasn't a CIV I player in 1991 - you can't judge this game !! And CIv VI is a bad game!!!!! To much complicated,actions - When you play it not on PC,but on PS4,with a controller an no mouse, YOU'LL HATE IT ANYWAY!!!
@@pazuzu9495 Call To Power does not deserve to be mentioned with real Civilization games. Activision bought the rights to the name "Civilization" from board game manufacturer Avalon Hill out from under Sid Meier's Microprose, Sid left Microprose to start Firaxis and began work on Alpha Centauri (which couldn't use the Civ name), Microprose put a new skin on top of Civilization 2 and called it Test of Time (so at least it is still a Civ game), while Activision made their ridiculous Call to Power game. Firaxis got the rights to use the Civilization name after Call to Power was critically panned and did not sell well, and so Activision made the improved Call to Power 2 without the Civ name, as it should have been in the first place.
@@captbloodbeard Thank you for this information... I just bought the 2 Call to Power games... Because I wanted to complete my Civ games,but I just played Test of time,and I think this is a good game! Sadly I lost my Civ 2 Big box!! I lend it to a friend,because I wanted to lend 20 Euros... He and his Wife and kids moved away and I lost the contact... The Civ 2 Big box is soooo expensive nowadays...Very sad!! And Civ 1 I played on my Amiga 500,.. It is lost...
I believe the problem with Beyond Earth, wasn't really 'straying too far' from the historical model (I mean: it has a futuristic premise!) but straying from the excelence model of Alpha Centauri, wich was not only fun to play but a really good sci-fi piece, period.The lore, the characters, their personality, the critique and insight of the conversations, technology and wonder descriptions, was really ahead of its time (or more precisely, it was truly timeless), whereas Beyond Earth really lacked content despite its improved gameplay (it is decades more modern after all)
Good call! I suppose I was thinking about the player’s perspective at the time. Civ 4, Civ 5, and then Beyond Earth! A strange fit for those players who fell in love with the series during the 4/5 era. Good points though - AC is timeless.
@@JumboPixel Odd that you would rank Beyond Earth but not Alpha Centauri. I know it doesn't have Civilization in the name but we all know it is a CIV game :) Out of all the games I've played from Civ I to Civ 6 nothing ever got me as much as Alpha Centauri did. Civ 2 was close, I played that for hundreds of hours. After Civ 2 none of the games really captured me any more. I've found that I'd rather be playing EUIV type of games as CIV is so unrealistic as to be pointless.
@@ZayAh193 To anyone old enough to have played it when it launched Alpha Centauri is the greatest all round CIV game ever. From the characters, to the variable nature of each civ. The voice acting to the genuine ability to win a game in almost any fashion desired and enjoy every second of it. I think Alpha Centauri played a huge part in Beyond Earth being so widely hated from the second it launched. People expected AC and instead got some sloppy boring space game that offered little to nothing.
One point missing for CivII - It encouraged widespread modding via the Fantastic Worlds expansion. Arguably that is where the Civ modding scene started, which took off in CivIV.
I agree that modding for CivVI is poor, especially compared to CivIV. I have played every version since CivI, and honestly, CiV is probably my least favorite. I’m pretty laid back in my play style - I enjoy building wonders and dressing up the land around my mostly tall empire. In CiV, I felt like everything was too geared toward the destination of your chosen victory condition. I couldn’t just play to have fun. CivVI let me play my way again, and I love it for that, and it gave me districts to further customize the landscape. I did love how CiV treated improvements and Great Person improvements though; it was the first time I ever enjoying building stuff like that.
Now I feel old…. I don’t believe I ever heard ‘MS-DOS’ pronounced as all individual letters. We called it /M.S. DAW-S/, where the ‘O’ had an /AW/ sound and the S was an unvoiced S (like in the word ‘hiss’).
@@JumboPixel Could be, and it certainly wasn't a criticism. I like what you put out. I just sat back and realized how long ago it was when I was playing Civ 1. My younger brother and I played the single-player game taking turns, and we were both under ten years old back then.
@@JumboPixel I think pretty much the entire English speaking world pronounced it like that (with maybe some regional variation). Here in Australia that's how we pronounced it too.
Hell yeah! It’s the first strategy game I ever played. I was born in the mid 90s so it was my older brothers game that I played first starting in like 2000/2001. I remember playing for the first time. Not reading the tutorial I just started a game and was confused about my tan mostly naked man on some grass in the middle of black empty space. I just figured out how to play based on trial and error. Man what I good memory 😊
That it was ranked b shows that he hasnt played it much, civ2 was my introduction to the franchise and i just loved the game, the advisors are a meme still to this day.
So glad you put 4 as S teir!! Having spent thousands of hrs from 3-6, 4 is the GOAT! still play it all the time. Every time I play 5 and 6 (which I also love) I'm always shocked to remember that they dont have things that 4 does!
Interesting. I'm looking into getting one and I'd love to know why ud put 4 above the rest. I came here from a guide that said 2 was a great game and here now I'm wondering why 4 is really the best and what it has over newer releases in 5 and 6 ?
@@Max-px5ym What was the last game he actually directly worked on then. Not being a consultant or advisor. "Sid Meier was more directly involved in Civilization IV compared to Civilization V. For "Civilization IV," released in 2005, Meier was heavily engaged in its design and development. By the time "Civilization V" was in development, released in 2010, he had taken on a more advisory role, with the Firaxis team handling much of the day-to-day development."
@@Gamerad360 the dude is the creative development director of firaxis. Of course he's no longer coding himself, but he's worked on every single civ game. If you want to know the latest one, just watch his reveal of Civ VII
Civ 3 forever. Started with Civ 2 in late 90s, but the 3rd one is the best of all afm. Nothing unnecessary and without cartoon grafics like in the next ones.
for me civ 3. the first one I started off with (over 15 years ago), the most nostalgia, and I have found it oddly replayable. was still playing it a couple years ago
You are right!!! I wrote above: Civ 1was only on PC DOS AND AMIGA!!! AND you forget Civ II Call to Power and Civ II Test of Time!!! This Games were Grandious!!! And Colonization and Alpha Centauri isn't on the List too!!! The best games was Civ II and Civ II Test of Time and Civ III. Civ 1 was great too!!!! I played it days and night!!! If you wasn't a CIV I player in 1991 - you can't judge this game !! And CIv VI is a bad game!!!!! To much complicated,actions - When you play it not on PC,but on PS4,with a controller an no mouse, YOU'LL HATE IT ANYWAY!!!
Alpha Centauri really should've been on this list. It not saying "Civilization" in the name doesn't matter. It's absolutely a Civ game and one of the best 4Xs ever created.
I can’t recall but I’m guessing I didn’t include it because it doesn’t satisfy being either: historical strategy and/or a creation of this century. Fair point though - it’s a massively well respected, old-school spiritual successor to Civ ✌️
I was looking forward to him going over Colonization after he showed both versions in his opening, but he included neither. I guess that he was just using a a screenshot of someone else's list and he didn't intend to cover them for the same reason that he didn't cover Alpha Centauri. That's too bad because I'm really fond of the original Colonization.
I hav played civ for 29years now. Civ 6 is great etc but civ 1 was chockingly good the first time i played it. I have also played The 1980 avalon hill civilization bord game that it was loosly based was also great
A remastered Civ 2 especially , would be much better than Civ 6! Even a remastered Civ 1. Remember the throne room and the screen of your city growing as you added buildings? Shame they took those out...and the advisors in Civ 2 were hilarious. I think it's underrated here and I would rate it second only to Civ 4. With Civ 1 in third and the rest- 3, 5 and 6 as all having too many flaws, janks, clunks and irritations to bother with them.
@@OrangeNash Also agree Brian I think the guy in the video hasn't played much of the original games, which tbh is not their fault. But i also remember listening to the advisor council from Civ 2. One of the funniest and best things in the whole series was listening to them arguing. Id also place civ 2 second only to civ 4.
2023 and Civ 4 is still my go to of the franchise. I thought Civ 2 was a fantastic game as well; doesn't hold up as well as Civ4 now, but it was a huge step up back in the day.
My ranking: Civ III hands down no doubt. Been playing since i was 7 years old. Civ IV beyond the sword and the in game worldbuilder are godly Civ 5 loved that they toned down the cartoony stuff. policy trees are sexy Revolution not a fan. Its a slimmed won walmart brand civ 4 Civ 6 barely played. Not a big fan Civ I & 2 couldnt get into them. I miss all the stuff ive grown to love. Wouldve loved them as a kid Edit: the soundtrack for civ 3 is unbelievably good. I still listen to it in my freetime
Civ Revolution was the best man. Can't believe you put it in a C. If they combined the in depth of the pc civs and the gameplay of civ rev it would be perfect.
Civ 5 is my fave, just started playing 4 (haven't been able to get into 6, going to try again, though) and I am very new still, but I noticed 4 seems to be faster. I could see this being the case. I am really liking 4.
I'm right there with you! Although I play 4 on marathon. But it does still feel quicker because you don't have to wait a full min between turns haha love 4 and 5. Kinda hate 6
Civ 2 (Civ 2 Advanced) was AMAZING. Back in the day, it was a huge refinement of Civ 1, and for it's time it was supremely intricate. It had mini movies on the CD Rom for wonders and stuff, a virtual encyclopedia of history. Very easy to learn but difficult to master. I still think it's the one that impressed me the most, and sucked me in. I love Civ 5 + 6 but never had that intense willingness to improve and restart over and over just to see what percentage I could end with.
@@subboid Yeah definitely the best Civ game. Alpha Centuri just a reskinning of it, to be fair. Another incredible game. They were on fire back then. Can't say I've spent enough time with Civ 4 to rate it accurately, but best theme song of any game - EVER! :D BABA YETU YETU LI-EPING! GOONY YETU .....
Civilization VI bugged me because it was incomplete when it was released. You couldn't even name your cities and still can't name your leader. Plus, it left out medieval and revolutionary malee units, so you went from Legionnaires to Musket men to Infantry. They've since fixed that by adding pike and shot, men-at-arms, and lineman. But that was pretty bad for a start.
My personal ranking based on the enjoyment I had with these games: 1) CIV 4 The gameplay just feels so natural and organic, it feels like you are actually growing a civilization, music is great. 2) CIV 5 Most realistic map, solid features, not too gamey. 3) CIV 2 Amazing game for it's time, the wonder videos really emersed me in the history. 4) Alfa Centauri Great innovative gameplay, Terraforming!, the leaders have a lot of character, did not like the mind worms though. 5) CIV 3 Felt constricting, ugly leader portraits, music okay. 6) CIV 6 Not too bad, but feels excessively gamey, absolutly hate districts. 7) Beyond Earth If you look at the game isolated then it's not a bad game, but it's almost impossible not to compare it to the other games, especially Alfa Centauri. Was very disappointed in the lack of terraforming features. 8) CIV 1 Fine game for it's time, but a bit cumbersome and buggy, haven't aged well, only play for nostalgia. Don't play console/mobile games, so I have no opinion on Revolutions
@D.R Packed with content? not really. More mechanics then Civ2, perhaps base Civ2, but not really after it's expansions. Also modding was more difficult with Civ3, so most modding happened after Civ4 had been released. So I was quite disappointed with Civ3 back then. Was happy again when Civ4 arrived. But don't get me wrong, I played it a lot for several years, I just didn't enjoy it as much as I had Civ2, and later enjoyed Civ4. And at the same time we had Alfa Centauri.
Civ 6 has been a rollercoaster journey for me. At first, I didn’t like it much. The district concept was weird and the graphics were off putting. I thought there was no way I’d ever enjoy it as much as Civ 5, which was and still is my most played game ever (except for maybe Oblivion and Skyrim across all platforms). But I really came to love it, especially after all the DLCs launched. And now when I go back to Civ 5, I always think the areas around my cities look like a lot of wasted space. I find myself wishing I could build a campus in the middle of that valley, or a harbor next to those coastal resources, or a dam-aqueduct-industrial zone triangle on that river. But I can’t. It’s all mines and farms and it just seems like my cities should be doing something else with the land. Civ 6 has really stuck with me, and I do think it’s only a matter of time before my play time in 6 passes my time in 5. Only about 200 more hours till that happens.
That's really similar to my journey too, so I get where you're coming from! I also find myself planning campuses for no reason in civ 5 these days haha
Just for reference, during interviews leading up to the release of Beyond Earth, the developers were always keen to inform everyone that it was NOT supposed to be taken as a successor to Alpha Centauri.
I mostly agree with your rankings. I have to put Civ 2 in A class. Was just too good of a game when it came out. I agree not playable now so misses S tier but a clear improvement on Civilization. I wholeheartedly agree with 4 & 5 being S tier and 3 & 6 being A tier. Never played Civilization Revolution so cannot judge. The dumbed down play would probably have me say it was either C or F tier. I'd put Civilization Beyond Earth as a C tier game. To me it was fun and I liked the futuristic aspects but it was disappointing when compared to Alpha Centari. To me Alpha Centari is the greatest Civilization(like) game ever made. They ripped up the storybook and created a futuristic game with fantastic factions to choose from. The maps were wonderful and so was handling the fungus and native units. If I rated Alpha Centari in the Tier system, easily S tier.
I agree Civ 2 was a well made progression from civ 1 - both A's for me. However both 1 & 2 are deeply flawed with a game breaking exploit that made the game much easier and virtually impossible to compete against. Not gonna share it... you figure it out.
Yeah i agree too Civ 2 should definitely be higher up then civ 1. Ive played all of them and i still have a copy of civ 2 that I play from time to time.
@@JumboPixel I think CIv 5 is looked down on a lot of super fans of Civ 4 because when 5 came out it was universally disliked. It wasn't till it was in it's final form that it really became a good/great game. It was SO disappointing at first and took me till the announcement of 6 to even get into 5 and I feel like that is the same for a lot of people since it was shown to have been so improved by then. I'd go as far as saying the Civ 5 launch was more controversial than 6, it just didn't have the same impact without the full scope of social media.
@@johsaogegorn4364 the graphics and simplicity are the best part, but it greatly suffers from the AI of the civs. your deepest allies will randomly betray you, once civs get nukes they basically all nuke each other to death so it kinda requires an edited game with nukes turned off, and there's issues with territory. other than that it's just great
I know this might not be a popular opinion, but for me, Civ 1 did a bunch of cool things that the series has mostly abandoned, and for that reason it would be my lone S-Tier pick. My arguments for the supremacy of the original Civilization: 1. Nations: In Civ I and II, the various nations had no special perks--they just gave you a different leader and a different pre-assigned player color. Nations having unique attributes wasn't a thing until Civ III, where the nation that you picked would determine which techs you started with and would give you one unique unit. Then later they added unique buildings, special powers, etc. For me, lack of innate nation differentiation is a feature rather than a shortcoming. The thing is, it's gotten to the point where the nation that you pick effectively dictates what victory you should pursue, or at least narrows your options considerably. You can pursue a cultural victory as Scythia in Civ VI, but you're giving yourself a significant handicap, and you are at a distinct disadvantage against other nations that get culture-oriented civ bonuses. At the same time, the nations aren't so asymmetrical that the game feels wildly different based on who you play, so it's not like you are getting much in return for being forced into a specialization right out of the gate. On balance, I feel like the game would be better if civilizations were a purely aesthetic choice. Let the player develop any of the civilizations however they want, and then differentiation would happen entirely based on the choices you make in-game. Or at most, give nations some very minor perks or starting techs (ala Civ III) that don't necessarily channel you into any specific style of play. 2. Victory Conditions: Speaking of victory conditions, remember when "victory" in Civ I was merely surviving until the end of the game? If your nation was still standing when the game ended, that was considered a win, and you would log a score in the hall of fame. Winning the space race or conquering all the other nations gave you a score bonus that might well put you in first place but were not otherwise mandatory. In hindsight, I kind of prefer that system. In the moderns Civs, the game mechanics push you quite hard toward specialization, right from the moment you select which civ you want to play. In Civ I, you could dabble in different things. Civilizations in any of the more recent games are all highly specialized, out of necessity. I really think that Civ I had the most thematic victory mechanic of any game in the series. The binary win conditions introduced in Civ II (space race or domination) were more game-y, and in some ways more constraining. There's a reason why a lot of modern board games employ a victory point system rather than a race to a singular win condition. Victory point systems can give players a wider range of possible paths through the game, including hybrid strategies that mix and match different point-scoring activities. It's kind of counter-intuitive, but the more victory conditions they add, the more strategically constrained the gameplay becomes. There are now five different victories in Civ VI (plus a legacy score victory that is basically broken and shouldn't be used), which seems like it should add more variety? But in practice, the path to any one of them is awfully narrow, so in the course of a single play-through, you actually have less variety. In Civ 1, by contrast, you'd earn points in a bunch of different ways. Wonders? Those earn you points. Citizens give you points, but only if they are happy or content (with more points being awarded for happy citizens). Fighting pollution? Well, that prevents you from losing points, which is basically just as good as earning them. Each Future Tech researched? Points. Each turn that the world is at peace? Points. (I particularly like that one). I'll conclude by noting that other developers seem to have come to this conclusion, too, and have gone back to an old-school score system for victory. Old World and Humankind both do this, and it's a marked improvement over Civ's laundry list of victory conditions, in both cases. 3. Research: Civ 1 has the best research system and tech tree of the entire franchise, full stop. For example, it had a system kind of similar to Master of Orion in which research options were semi-randomized. You were never shut out of any particular tech forever like you are in MOO, but each time you selected a new research project, your choices (typically five or six) were randomly picked from the pool of techs for which you had met the prerequisites. This means that you can have a plan and work towards it, but sometimes the game throws you curve balls, and you'd have to deal with that. You might want to do a Legion rush, but then the game doesn't offer you Bronze Working, and you'd have to reconsider your plan. Another really neat facet of the original Civ research system is that advances didn't have fixed costs. The cost to research something was a base cost (determined by the difficulty level you had selected) multiplied by the number of advances you had already researched. So every time you research something, all of the unresearched advances get more expensive, no matter where they are in the tree. This forces you to make some hard choices--every time you decide what to research in a given tier, all the other advances in that tier (and *every* tier) become more expensive to research. And there are a lot of other advances in each tier, because Civ 1's tech tree is very wide. This means that eventually it makes more sense to push forward in the tree rather than hoovering up all the low tier advances that you skipped, because if you reach a point where your options are The Wheel or Gunpowder and it costs the same to research both, then you are going to say "Screw the Wheel." So in games of Civ 1, it was really common to skip techs, and you might even choose to skip entire branches of the tree, based on your strategy. Modern Civs don't work this way, and it's a shame. In Civ VI, each advance has a fixed research cost, and the costs get higher and higher as you move up through tiers of the tree. You don't skip over a lot of techs in the first place, because the tree is quite narrow (3-4 advances in each tier, on average, compared to 7-9 per tier in Civ 1), and you will eventually pick up the ones you do skip over, because as your research output ramps up they become increasingly trivial to grab. So maybe you skip Sailing at first, but eventually your research output has grown to the point where you can research it in one turn, and at that point you are just going to grab it because: why not? If you skip Horseback riding in Civ 1, though, you might not ever pick it up, because eventually it will be too expensive to be worth learning. For my money, Civ VI has the worst tech tree(s) of the franchise. The main research tree is *so* narrow, there are hardly any real choices to be made. Then they added a second tech tree that you move through via culture, which makes the game more fiddly without really broadening your options, because you move through both trees simultaneously. Seriously, they could have combined all the advances in those two trees into a single, wider tech tree, and the game would have been much better for it. Anyway, there's more, but those are the main three reasons why I think that Civ 1 is still the best Civ. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
Civ3, while far from perfect is still the best of the series. Civ4 interface messed things up badly and the graphics, who cares if the 3D gfx is "real" when they provide a much worse overview! It's the game that almost caused me to quit the series. Yes it had a lot of innovation, but it didn't use those well, instead ending up with "overcluttering" the game to the point where you essentially need to have read the manual to have a chance of understanding what's happening and what you need to be doing. Civ1, 2 and 3, you could work out the interface by sheer logic and you could instantly jump into playing the game. Civ6 basically has the same problems as Civ4, but much better handled. S: Civ3 A: Civ2, Civ5 B: Civ1, Civ6 C: Civ4 Never played the other 2.
You should really spend more time with Civ 4. It's not just one of the best civ games--it's one of the best games period. The later entries are great (especially 5), but nothing scratches my brain like 4.
Honestly, CIV 4 would be the literal pinnacle of the franchise for me if it wasn’t for its horrible battle system, specifically Stack of Doom. CIV 5 is next best, I love CIV 6’s ideas, rest are ok. But CIV 4 was basically “if you don’t stack 100s of units, you will lose” “If you use those 100s of units badly, they all die to one longbowman who loses 2 health.” It’s not fun, nor is it strategic, it’s just a broken and poorly executed mess. It’s just such a letdown, and I want to play it so badly. CIV 5’s hex gameplay and 1upt were the best alternative for me.
@@DSX1 I know this comment is old (thanks algorithm I guess?) but I never understood this argument, and it seems to permeate from people who never actually played 4 enough to understand it was never an issue. Stacks of doom were never an issue in 4 due to the mechanic of collateral damage utilized by easy to produce siege units such as trebuchets. This mechanic allowed these units to attack and damage 5-8 units including the top most unit in a single tile in one turn. Thus, two-three trebuchets could absolutely wreck stacked units at little to no cost, making stacks of doom the weakest strategy in the game. People have tirelessly used that argument to defend the watering down of 5 into a single unit per tile system which merely made the game practically strategy-less and further degraded the quality of the AI which was absolutely terrible at orchestrating an attack under such limitations. Additionally, hex gameplay just reduced contacting tiles from 8 to 6 when you consider the fact that diagonal movement was possible under square grids.
@@Salem_Alexandria Thanks for replying! I thought this way because even if I used trebuchets against like 3 units, it almost never did anything, maybe it’d bring their health from 3 to 2/5 but that’s it from my experience. Are you supposed to stack trebuchets to do proper damage?
@@Salem_Alexandria This is my take too (2000+ hrs on civ 4). Siege units were the answer to stacks of doom and imo is balanced enough without extra modded units. Also stacks of doom were the natural answer for the higher difficulties (immortal and diety) as its the natural product of their discounted everything (to compensate limited ai). The game also penalizes stacks in gold maintenance for existing and in enemy territory, also building too much carries high opportunity cost. I at least prefer stacks over the one unit per tile both as a game mechanic.
I spent thousands of hours play civ 1,2,3,4,5,6. Civ 1 2 were a tier, Civ 2 was definitely better than civ 1, now they are dated b tier, civ 3 was b tier not nearly as good as civ 1 or 2, now civ 3 is c tier, civ 4 was s tier its still solid a tier, civ 5 is a tier. Civ 4 and 5 are the sweet spot and you can pick them up on sale for cheap. civ 6 was f tier upon release and for several years following because it didnt ship with a map of earth good luck simulating the civilizations of earth in a game with no earth maps nor were the modding tools developed to enable players to rapidly develop a map of earth it took years after release till there was a map of earth years, but now civ 6 is an A tier thanks to modders and steam workshop downloading convenience, but I wouldnt recommend anyone buy civ 6 cause the developer/publisher is nuts, they released civilization 6 without a map of earth, or decent modding tools to create a map of earth, civ6 is purely a graphics cash grab, now after many years and updates, and great efforts on the part of modders its much better but why support such a horrible development cycle, I doubt if I will ever buy another civ game civ 6 was such a disappointing absolutely horrible experience from the start with no earth map not even a crappy tiny earth map, not one scenario shipped with the game of a map of earth. beyond earth and alpha centari are garbage games, like someone modded civ 4 and civ 6 with spacy graphics and horrible gameplay, there is no story for either space game, civ 4s space scenario mod that ships with the game is much better than beyond earth or alpha centari.
imho civ 4 is the best heads and shoulders above the rest. It is so much more immersive and the mechanics are so well thought out. The mods are so good that some of them kick the game up to an even higher tier like S+ or something. Civ 5 vs 6? 5 had some underdeveloped ideas compared to 6 and the balancing was atrocious, there were specific techs to beeline, but the gameplay of 6 overall doesnt feel as good, there are too many fringe mechanics that you have to juggle and the entire culture victory type needs a college course worth of tutorials to understand. overall id say its 4>3>5=6>2>1 Alpha centauri would also be S+, the gameplay is janky as all fuck but the narrative is probobly the best scifi in videogames
So like, civ 6 was my first entry into the modern civ world. Comparing it to watching civ 5 gameplays, I couldn’t see how people could prefer 5. Having played about 300 hours of 5 now, I get it, and I think I prefer civ 5 to 6. There’s just something about it that really works, and civ 6 doesn’t -quite- get there.
Civ 5 was my first entry. Love and addiction at first sight. When Civ 6 came out, I tried, I really did. I couldn't get into it really. And I didn't feel motivated enough to get over the learning curve, and the graphics were neat, but... so off putting. I have been meaning to give it another honest crack. I did try civ 1, but couldn't get into it. I just got Civ 4 recently and just started playing it, and after a few hours of trying to figure it out, I prefer 5 so far, BUT, I already like 4 more than 6. I think after I get some decent Civ 4 playtime under my belt, I'm going to really sink my teeth into 6, take the time to really 'get' it, and give it a few honest play throughs and see how I feel then. But man, civ 5 is just incredible for me.
Civ3 easily is the only S tier. If they make a Civ7 with all the improvements of Civ6, but with a bit more polish, and without dumbing down the game, then maybe it can come close. Civ3 literally looks better than Civ4 and Civ5. And the gameplay is also far superior.
Absolutely agree. I wish they'd remaster Civ III because the Steam version has a lot of glitches and only let's you play the version with all the expansions. I'd like the option to play the original as I think was more balanced.
I do go back to civilization revolution for quick games when bored but also want to mention how impressed I was as a kid with civilization 2's videos from the council. I still have those quotes burned into my brain decades later. "Give me more units noble leader!"
CIV4 is the best. Still playing it. Current game, I am waiting for tanks with my 22, state property, caste system, workshopped, cities of the great Zulu empire with Ikandas everywhere and factories and coal plants ready to mass produce and crush them all.
Civilization revolution is where i first started playing, my friends and I had it on our xbox 360s and we would compete against each other to win. After a while I decided to buy civ 5 cause my friend had it on his pc and it has been my favourite video game ever since
Civ 4 also had built-in MOD support. The excellent scenarios are a very strong feature that I think made it the most popular of the series. Alpha Centauri is on the top 100 selling pc games of all times.
Civ 4 has the strongest non military opportunities. Civ 5 best addition was city states, but losing trade options, capitulation/vassalage, and reducing spy functions hurt the value of five's gameplay. Currently I am working through a Civ4 Caveman 2 Cosmos modded game (more techs/civs/units/government options that you can easily count) that has been going on for months. I haven't touched 5 or 6 for over a year.
The problem with modern Civ games is they put too much focus on graphics and less focus on how immersive the game feels. I miss the “list” aka of great kings or GDP or highest cultures. Civ 6 feels more like homework, focusing on percentages of bonuses.
Have only played 1, 2 and 3. Love 3, but forts should be stronger, and they should've kept sticky zones of control and 'We Love The King' population explosions.
CIV 6 in my opinion is the best in terms of art style and looks and feel of the game out of the whole franchis, unlike civ 5 the leader's didn't look uncanny ... But the only thing that killed civ 6 is the bugs , if the bugs weren't there like it older brothers it would have been a S++ tier game ... And another missed oppurtunity that take 2 missed is the mobile port it looked and felt as if it would be a cross platform game , and the mobile port from what i heard is the support services are full of crap.... If they fixed that before GTA 6 the take 2 shares would skyrocket since mobile has a huge install base and slow paced game like this is best for mobile devices ....And while on public transit or travelling to and from i would love to have that experience accesible and easy to reach through mobile.........
Civ revolution certainly wasn’t that great but I think it got a lot of people into civ that wouldn’t have played it otherwise. I might be biased because it was the first civ game I played but I think it was a pretty good entry point for new players.
CivRev is what got me into the civ series, i got it for free on xbox and it unlocked my love for strategy games. then I moved onto XCOM and eventually, civ 5 after getting a pc. in hindsight I have to agree that comparatively, it's not a great game for experienced civ players, but the learning curve is way easier compared to full civ games, making it MUCH easier for someone to get into and unlock their love of strategy. For that reason, as well as nostalgia, I'd put it at B-tier
Played them all since the beginning 1. Civ 1 is C-tier by modern standards. However for its time it was S-tier. 2. Civ 2 is B-tier by modern standards, as it was a noticeable improvement over the first game. (And for _its_ time it was also S-tier.) 3. Civ 3 is C-tier, as it felt a bit like differences for difference sake without really resulting in the same strategic depth. 4. Civ: Call to Power is F-tier. Understandable it wasn't included in Jumbo's vid heh. 5. Civ 4 is A-tier, and one of my all-time favorites. Granted, I think it was B-tier before the expansions, which really fleshed out your options. 6. Civ Revolutions is F-tier, due to being so shallow. 7. Civ 5 is C-tier, mostly due to the AI not even working for many of my early playthroughs. I often love when devs redesign things from the ground up, but the approach to cities for "tall vs. wide" playstyles really wasn't executed well in Civ 5. I really do think Civ should figure tall vs. wide out at some point: Civ 6 didn't even try, and just had going wide be _pure advantages_ and I think it's better if a game offers cool options for playing "tall". 8. Civ Beyond Earth is C-tier, but only because I was so desperate to enjoy it (it probably deserves F). The writing and balance were bad compared with Alpha Centauri. It's a shame because the UI was well done and the game was generally very nice to look at, it's just that the strategic depth wasn't there. For example once you chose an Affinity, you'd often just plunge that Affinity for the rest of the game to max its bonuses, rather than feeling like you were balancing a lot of different considerations. It's the sort of thing a balance mod could've fixed, so I kinda wonder if something like that might exist. 9. Civ 6 is S-tier. It's the second Civ that I've gone particularly hard at (Civ4 being the other) and it's just really satisfyingly deep at this point. I do think it's just like Civ4 where at launch both games were a step below where they are now (in fact at launch I'd probably have put Civ6 B-tier; it felt _really_ similar to Civ5 to me), but with those expansions it's awesome.
Civ 6 was the 1st game since civ 3 that I did not buy. The graphics and look I did not enjoy and sorry that was the main reason. He broken mechanical of the difference civs did not help either. Civ 5 had many broken ones and you would think they could of balance it a bit better. Civ 3 and 4 were the best single player experience and Civ 5 the best multiplayer. Though I did enjoy the Scramble for Africa in Civ 5. Wish they put that for multiplayer
I guess you're pretty young if I look at your choices and how you spelled out MS DOS 😂 Civilization I and II are games you can easilly return to and are just the best games in the series, I play them both once a year. Civ III is ok and after that everything is too cartoony. Civ IV is a good game but the graphical style is garbage. Civ V I tried but only played 3 times... not my game. Everything afterwards looks so unappealing. That's it. Grandpa out.
Nope. It's Civ 3. Period. Everything else afterwards is increasingly anachronistic and cartoonish as can be. 😒 This American removes America because of that annoyance in pregame setup. The differences between 3 and 4 was too much and I just couldn't enjoy the newer iteration. Left the series and haven't played them since...Total War and Paradox served to replace this series.
Civ 3 was my least favorite of the main titles. It just felt uninspired at the time. I skipped Civ 5. Civ 4 is probably my favorite. Good game and very mod-able which kept me playing.
I personally can't rank Civ5 and Civ6 above D tier. They were such a step back from Civ4 that I feel like I'm being generous placing them above F tier, for my own taste anyway. The fact that the AI had no idea how to handle one unit per tile really made Civ5 a failed game imo.
I started playing Civ back with Civ 1. Played all basic games with probably Civ 3 and Civ 5 played the least. One thing I remember fondly about Civ 2 was the terraforming element.
@@chiemingman As far as I know, the only Terraforming in anything other than Civ 2 is cleaning up radiation. There might be some mods that allow it, but I haven't found them.
CIV IV is the best - I spent over 10k hours in that game probably. Civ II was awesome - it was my first civ and played it a lot as well. CIV V and VI are bad, Gathering Storm - the best expansion ? I didn't like a single thing introduced, I thought it was the most useless expansion ;-) Opinions ...
I will never be satisfied with any Civ game until captured workers wear shackles, and I can release cities into vassal states that are actual major powers. Plus I miss the random events that popped up, like a controversial wedding because my people are Buddhist and my neighbors Christian.
Civ-1, the original, just one more turn, addiction game. I remember starting a game Friday after work. It's 6, I'll just play til 7 and get dinner. Look up, it's 8. Well, there's still restaraunts open til 9, just play til I get Steel. Look up it's 10. Well, nothing's open now. I'll just play to midnight. Look up, it's 3am. Oof. 😂
Hahahahahah!!! When I was in college a friend introduced me to Civ I with the following reason. When playing the game, a drinking buddy of him refused to go out drinking. All he was saying was: "One more turn, just one more turn. I'll be there soon".
I wish I could play beyond earth, im going to be honest it is probably my favorite game but it is just not stable... no matter what i always have issues with it crashing a few turns in.
I’m still playing Civ5. It was a shame that I never got into Civ6, because on paper all the mechanics of it are better. I want the mechanics of civ6 but in civ5.
Civ 5 bored me and went back to civ 4. I dont see how you can rank civ 5 above 4 when civ 5 combat AI is incompetent providing no challenege in war. 1 archer on a hill can beat a whole ai army.
civ 6 is nowhere near a tier . im not great civ player and i never lost game on civ 6 ,ai is just to dumb. diety is like king difculty on other civ series.
I've been playing civ 6 for some hours now and I can't friggin get to the same super easy level as the AI 😵 they always seemingly have way higher precious resources and way higher tech count
Agreed for the most part. I'd downgrade Civ 5 to A-Tier because I think its UI was a downgrade from Civ 4. Civ 4 gave you all the information you needed about your empire and no decision was made blind. Civ 5 made a deliberate choice to hide some info, particularly diplomatic info, to make the player feel like they were playing against a human rather than an AI, and I really didn't like it (they slightly backtracked on this design choice with one of the DLCs and gave an indicator as to why a Civ likes or dislikes you). I also really liked that Civ 4 would let you minimize the diplomacy screen when a leader was offering you a deal so that you could look at your various information screens and decide whether that deal was worth taking; namely, if a Civ offered to team up in a war against another Civ, I could see at a glance whether that Civ has allies. That feature wasn't in Civ 5 or 6 (I never accept a joint war deal in Civ 5 or 6). I think my ideal Civ game would basically be Civ 4 with a few upgrades (hexes, limits to unit stacking, ideological systems from Civ 5 BNW, Civ 6's "play-the-map" gameplay philosophy). Also, Civ 5 BE was okay. I wouldn't put it in F tier; maybe C or even B if I was feeling generous. In fact, I think its UI, especially after the expansion, was pretty good and I liked what it did with the various factions and the tech web. Its only real downside was that many of the campaigns felt very same-y after a while.
I have been playing civ games since CivII, but became a fan in Civ3. I love Civ3, Civ4 and Civ5. I'm playing Civ6 more but not like it as much as Civ5. Civ 5 is still my favorite. Gladius, Alpha Centauri, Test of Time are too good non civ games imho.
@@arishokqunari1290 at the time of writing this, I had only played 6 without the expansions that corrected a lot of the issues. Having now played the whole game, it's much better
The thing I liked MOST about Civ V and following is the removal of Unit Stacks No longer could the Computer stack 50 spear-men into one space and kill a tank
I personally still prefer the way Civ II handled combat. Each unit has a hit point and firepower stat, HP being how much punishment a unit could take, and firepower is how much damage it would deal in a single blow. Plus, each unit also has the traditional attack/defense stats, with units trading blows until one dies. So, a tank with 10 attack/5defense/3 HP/1 firepower, would easily smoke a stack of phalanx (spearman) with 1/2/1/1. Really, the problem of tanks dying to spearmen begun in Civ III, and Civ V basically adopted II's system but dumbed down and fights are no longer always to the death. For example: in the Samurai scenario in Civ II there's the ninja unit that has 4/2/0/4, four firepower meant it could one shot most units, but with 0 HP if the target lives to strike back the ninja dies instantly. Closest thing you get to that in Civ V is submarines, but it's still a less flexible system.
I used to play Civ Revolution all the time on Xbox 360 I loved it. A week or two ago I started thinking about it and watching videos on it and looked it up on steam and sadly it wasn't there. But in a weeks time I bought Civ 5 and sunk around 80 hours in it already lol along with your videos I've been having a blast. I give Revolution an S just for Nostalgia and making me get into Civ again (: love the videos and the list man keep it up
Well...........There is something kinda like Civ revolution that you can buy right now......it's for your mobile phone and the ps vita and with the same title in the name, it's Civilization Revolution 2. Rumor has it that this game was going to console but it was decided to put it on mobile exclusively. I even have civ revolution for the original iPad that came out in 2010.....I keep my old iPad around for that game. I also have civ rev for the 360 and ps3......in fact I own every civ game.......I love the series!
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I have been playing Civ4 for 15 years and still play all the time. Its so good that I struggle to play anything else.
A timeless classic really
I see you're a man of culture. Civ 5 while still decent to me(at least 100 hours) I don't really liked the simplified mechanics and the new maps/war aspects it just felt flat to me maybe is because I was expecting a enhanced civ 4 with the same polished mechanics. Civ 6 is definitely when the game took a really different direction. Man I really wish civ 4 gets a rework but sadly it is highly improbable.
Me and my roommate are pretty into history and we love the power fantasy of playing beyond the sword. We’ve tried other ones like 5 and 6 and none of them seem so straight forward without being monotonous. It’s worth mentioning that we only play with domination or conquest victories on. I remember civ 5 kind of trying to cock block your conquering and I was not about it
Me 2 . I tried both Civ 5 and 6 and fall asleep while play the games . I tried it so many time and can not enjoy it . Struggle is a right word.
Civ 4 is the best! My challenge to civ players in 4: play with all 18 permanent alliances require complete kills no space race noble no vassals don't use slavery and try to win
Revolution was the first Civ game I ever played. I had it on the DS and I was so addicted as a kid. Definitely hooked me on the series but also made it hard going from a simple experience to something so complicated like Civ 6
Oh tell me about it lol. I had only known civ rev for years and years and then I got civ 6 for the switch and was sooo lost
Think of it as a polished version of Civilization 1. If you played it you know what it felt like for those of us who started on Civ 1 in the 90s.
same. it was so fun tho! (as a teen)
Hoping they make a civ rev 3
Anyone here remember Civilization 2: Test of Time, which introduced some alternative game settings, such as a fantasy and sci-fi setting, along with the ability for some units to shift between planes, such as going between the surface, underwater, sky, and underground layers in the fantasy setting, and going between the main Earth-like planet's surface, orbit, a barren planet's surface, and a gas giant in the sci-fi setting?
Oh I remember... I was really hooked by the sci-fi Lalande 21185 scenario, wondering about strange future tech, weird shape-shifter architecture, and also ha'Gibborim ruins and knowledge which the game creators, sadly, didn't seem to have explored further into a viable victory condition, which was a pity...
I really loved that game, and added some interesting concepts for civilization and games of the time.
You are right! I write to it over there: Civ 1was only on PC DOS AND AMIGA!!! AND you forget Civ II Call to Power and Civ II Test of Time!!! This Games were Grandious!!! And Colonization and Alpha Centauri isn't on the List too!!! The best games was Civ II and Civ II Test of Time and Civ III. Civ 1 was great too!!!! I played it days and night!!! If you wasn't a CIV I player in 1991 - you can't judge this game !! And CIv VI is a bad game!!!!! To much complicated,actions - When you play it not on PC,but on PS4,with a controller an no mouse, YOU'LL HATE IT ANYWAY!!!
@@pazuzu9495 Call To Power does not deserve to be mentioned with real Civilization games. Activision bought the rights to the name "Civilization" from board game manufacturer Avalon Hill out from under Sid Meier's Microprose, Sid left Microprose to start Firaxis and began work on Alpha Centauri (which couldn't use the Civ name), Microprose put a new skin on top of Civilization 2 and called it Test of Time (so at least it is still a Civ game), while Activision made their ridiculous Call to Power game. Firaxis got the rights to use the Civilization name after Call to Power was critically panned and did not sell well, and so Activision made the improved Call to Power 2 without the Civ name, as it should have been in the first place.
@@captbloodbeard Thank you for this information... I just bought the 2 Call to Power games... Because I wanted to complete my Civ games,but I just played Test of time,and I think this is a good game! Sadly I lost my Civ 2 Big box!! I lend it to a friend,because I wanted to lend 20 Euros... He and his Wife and kids moved away and I lost the contact... The Civ 2 Big box is soooo expensive nowadays...Very sad!! And Civ 1 I played on my Amiga 500,.. It is lost...
I believe the problem with Beyond Earth, wasn't really 'straying too far' from the historical model (I mean: it has a futuristic premise!) but straying from the excelence model of Alpha Centauri, wich was not only fun to play but a really good sci-fi piece, period.The lore, the characters, their personality, the critique and insight of the conversations, technology and wonder descriptions, was really ahead of its time (or more precisely, it was truly timeless), whereas Beyond Earth really lacked content despite its improved gameplay (it is decades more modern after all)
Good call! I suppose I was thinking about the player’s perspective at the time. Civ 4, Civ 5, and then Beyond Earth! A strange fit for those players who fell in love with the series during the 4/5 era. Good points though - AC is timeless.
@@JumboPixel Odd that you would rank Beyond Earth but not Alpha Centauri. I know it doesn't have Civilization in the name but we all know it is a CIV game :) Out of all the games I've played from Civ I to Civ 6 nothing ever got me as much as Alpha Centauri did. Civ 2 was close, I played that for hundreds of hours. After Civ 2 none of the games really captured me any more. I've found that I'd rather be playing EUIV type of games as CIV is so unrealistic as to be pointless.
@@ZayAh193 To anyone old enough to have played it when it launched Alpha Centauri is the greatest all round CIV game ever. From the characters, to the variable nature of each civ. The voice acting to the genuine ability to win a game in almost any fashion desired and enjoy every second of it. I think Alpha Centauri played a huge part in Beyond Earth being so widely hated from the second it launched. People expected AC and instead got some sloppy boring space game that offered little to nothing.
@@JumboPixel You know you missed Civ Rev 2, Right?
One point missing for CivII - It encouraged widespread modding via the Fantastic Worlds expansion. Arguably that is where the Civ modding scene started, which took off in CivIV.
I agree, & that alone is why Civ 6 trails all the main releases Civ 1-5. Civ 1 as classic game in series. Agree about Civ 5 though.
I agree that modding for CivVI is poor, especially compared to CivIV.
I have played every version since CivI, and honestly, CiV is probably my least favorite. I’m pretty laid back in my play style - I enjoy building wonders and dressing up the land around my mostly tall empire. In CiV, I felt like everything was too geared toward the destination of your chosen victory condition. I couldn’t just play to have fun. CivVI let me play my way again, and I love it for that, and it gave me districts to further customize the landscape.
I did love how CiV treated improvements and Great Person improvements though; it was the first time I ever enjoying building stuff like that.
Absolutely! That's where the modding community was born! Civ3 took a step back, but Civ4 made it all doable again.
@@Nimariel Have you played Civ V with the Vox Populi mod. It is a different game, & AI is good to play against.
And that's why Civ II is (one of) the best Civ ever, easily moddable, you can even mod during your game without closing the game
Civilization 1 & 2 are solid S tier for me.
Agree, the impact these two had on the (turn based) game world was immense. I still play Civ II. In my opion the best games ever...
Now I feel old…. I don’t believe I ever heard ‘MS-DOS’ pronounced as all individual letters. We called it /M.S. DAW-S/, where the ‘O’ had an /AW/ sound and the S was an unvoiced S (like in the word ‘hiss’).
LOL!
I’m a noob. But also, I wonder if that’s an American thing?
@@JumboPixel Could be, and it certainly wasn't a criticism. I like what you put out. I just sat back and realized how long ago it was when I was playing Civ 1. My younger brother and I played the single-player game taking turns, and we were both under ten years old back then.
@@JumboPixel in the UK it sounded like M.S. Doss
@@JumboPixel I think pretty much the entire English speaking world pronounced it like that (with maybe some regional variation). Here in Australia that's how we pronounced it too.
@@JumboPixel No, it isn't. Heard it pronounced in various languages and it sounded like Floyd wrote.
I proudly own and played for many years Civ 2, with its original box package, manuals and content. I just love it
Hell yeah! It’s the first strategy game I ever played. I was born in the mid 90s so it was my older brothers game that I played first starting in like 2000/2001. I remember playing for the first time. Not reading the tutorial I just started a game and was confused about my tan mostly naked man on some grass in the middle of black empty space. I just figured out how to play based on trial and error. Man what I good memory 😊
@@samuelfraley8737 fr fr yeah my first play thru was in the 90s, I am from 1980 ^^ hehe
That it was ranked b shows that he hasnt played it much, civ2 was my introduction to the franchise and i just loved the game, the advisors are a meme still to this day.
@@Fitzgerald934 Trade sir, discover it!!! This is you, this is a clue, get a clue, discover trade!
So glad you put 4 as S teir!! Having spent thousands of hrs from 3-6, 4 is the GOAT! still play it all the time. Every time I play 5 and 6 (which I also love) I'm always shocked to remember that they dont have things that 4 does!
Civ 4 was the last Civilization game Sid Meier directly worked on.
Interesting. I'm looking into getting one and I'd love to know why ud put 4 above the rest. I came here from a guide that said 2 was a great game and here now I'm wondering why 4 is really the best and what it has over newer releases in 5 and 6 ?
@@Gamerad360that's hilariously wrong
@@Max-px5ym What was the last game he actually directly worked on then. Not being a consultant or advisor.
"Sid Meier was more directly involved in Civilization IV compared to Civilization V. For "Civilization IV," released in 2005, Meier was heavily engaged in its design and development. By the time "Civilization V" was in development, released in 2010, he had taken on a more advisory role, with the Firaxis team handling much of the day-to-day development."
@@Gamerad360 the dude is the creative development director of firaxis. Of course he's no longer coding himself, but he's worked on every single civ game. If you want to know the latest one, just watch his reveal of Civ VII
Civ 3 forever. Started with Civ 2 in late 90s, but the 3rd one is the best of all afm. Nothing unnecessary and without cartoon grafics like in the next ones.
Fax
I completely agree...everything else after 3 is small in scale, increasingly anachronistic, and cartoonish as can be. 🙄😒
I agree, can have a huge world the others can't handle.
Civ 3 forever.
Scale forever.
It is supposed to feel like MS Excel, not AngryBirds.....
@@volsmik1333 scale?
for me civ 3. the first one I started off with (over 15 years ago), the most nostalgia, and I have found it oddly replayable. was still playing it a couple years ago
Same here! It's easy to jump into and the gameplay is fast and tight.
@@hoi-polloi1863 haha I forgot I commented on this. But yeah it's a great one that will stand the test of time!
As a HoMM III, Civ3 also is a legend
The OST
And dont forget op spearmen
I feel like you only put I and II at B because you never played them.
You are right!!! I wrote above: Civ 1was only on PC DOS AND AMIGA!!! AND you forget Civ II Call to Power and Civ II Test of Time!!! This Games were Grandious!!! And Colonization and Alpha Centauri isn't on the List too!!! The best games was Civ II and Civ II Test of Time and Civ III. Civ 1 was great too!!!! I played it days and night!!! If you wasn't a CIV I player in 1991 - you can't judge this game !! And CIv VI is a bad game!!!!! To much complicated,actions - When you play it not on PC,but on PS4,with a controller an no mouse, YOU'LL HATE IT ANYWAY!!!
Alpha Centauri really should've been on this list. It not saying "Civilization" in the name doesn't matter. It's absolutely a Civ game and one of the best 4Xs ever created.
Agree. It's a Sid Meier game, and all the magazines at the time called it "Civilization in space".
I can’t recall but I’m guessing I didn’t include it because it doesn’t satisfy being either: historical strategy and/or a creation of this century.
Fair point though - it’s a massively well respected, old-school spiritual successor to Civ ✌️
Civ 1 for life!!! Also, Colonization is an often overlooked gem.
Yeah col civ 4 kinda ruined it as its too short to play, TAC mod and other mods make it much better though.
I was looking forward to him going over Colonization after he showed both versions in his opening, but he included neither. I guess that he was just using a a screenshot of someone else's list and he didn't intend to cover them for the same reason that he didn't cover Alpha Centauri. That's too bad because I'm really fond of the original Colonization.
I hav played civ for 29years now. Civ 6 is great etc but civ 1 was chockingly good the first time i played it. I have also played The 1980 avalon hill civilization bord game that it was loosly based was also great
A remastered Civ 2 especially , would be much better than Civ 6! Even a remastered Civ 1. Remember the throne room and the screen of your city growing as you added buildings? Shame they took those out...and the advisors in Civ 2 were hilarious. I think it's underrated here and I would rate it second only to Civ 4. With Civ 1 in third and the rest- 3, 5 and 6 as all having too many flaws, janks, clunks and irritations to bother with them.
@@OrangeNash
Also agree Brian
I think the guy in the video hasn't played much of the original games, which tbh is not their fault.
But i also remember listening to the advisor council from Civ 2. One of the funniest and best things in the whole series was listening to them arguing.
Id also place civ 2 second only to civ 4.
2023 and Civ 4 is still my go to of the franchise. I thought Civ 2 was a fantastic game as well; doesn't hold up as well as Civ4 now, but it was a huge step up back in the day.
My ranking:
Civ III hands down no doubt. Been playing since i was 7 years old.
Civ IV beyond the sword and the in game worldbuilder are godly
Civ 5 loved that they toned down the cartoony stuff. policy trees are sexy
Revolution not a fan. Its a slimmed won walmart brand civ 4
Civ 6 barely played. Not a big fan
Civ I & 2 couldnt get into them. I miss all the stuff ive grown to love. Wouldve loved them as a kid
Edit: the soundtrack for civ 3 is unbelievably good. I still listen to it in my freetime
Civ Revolution was the best man. Can't believe you put it in a C. If they combined the in depth of the pc civs and the gameplay of civ rev it would be perfect.
I love civ 4 and 5. I go back between the two frequently. When I want a quick game I play 4, when I want a long in-depth game I play 5.
Civ 5 is my fave, just started playing 4 (haven't been able to get into 6, going to try again, though) and I am very new still, but I noticed 4 seems to be faster. I could see this being the case. I am really liking 4.
@@luketrottier9388 In Marathon speed, Civ4 is in no way a fast game. It's all up to your settings preference.
@@Clery75019 yeah. My favorite setting is “Big and Small” or “Fractual” map at marathon speed and noble AI + Raging & Argressive Barbarian in Civ4
I'm right there with you! Although I play 4 on marathon. But it does still feel quicker because you don't have to wait a full min between turns haha love 4 and 5. Kinda hate 6
@@sethtanner1722 Sure, it's still pretty quick when not many AIs on the map.
Ah, Civ IV. My personal love and joy. A tad buggy and a very annoying Vassalage system, but to each its own, it's a masterpiece for its time.
Oh and not to forget to stupidly broken Longbowman.
Games never really get vassalage right some how, do they?
Civ 2 (Civ 2 Advanced) was AMAZING. Back in the day, it was a huge refinement of Civ 1, and for it's time it was supremely intricate. It had mini movies on the CD Rom for wonders and stuff, a virtual encyclopedia of history. Very easy to learn but difficult to master. I still think it's the one that impressed me the most, and sucked me in. I love Civ 5 + 6 but never had that intense willingness to improve and restart over and over just to see what percentage I could end with.
Yeah should be S tier along with Civ 4 and Alpha Centuri
@@subboid Yeah definitely the best Civ game. Alpha Centuri just a reskinning of it, to be fair. Another incredible game. They were on fire back then.
Can't say I've spent enough time with Civ 4 to rate it accurately, but best theme song of any game - EVER! :D
BABA YETU YETU LI-EPING!
GOONY YETU .....
Civilization VI bugged me because it was incomplete when it was released. You couldn't even name your cities and still can't name your leader. Plus, it left out medieval and revolutionary malee units, so you went from Legionnaires to Musket men to Infantry. They've since fixed that by adding pike and shot, men-at-arms, and lineman.
But that was pretty bad for a start.
we couldnt even play co-op at release. It was a disaster at launch. Left a pretty bad taste..
My personal ranking based on the enjoyment I had with these games:
1) CIV 4 The gameplay just feels so natural and organic, it feels like you are actually growing a civilization, music is great.
2) CIV 5 Most realistic map, solid features, not too gamey.
3) CIV 2 Amazing game for it's time, the wonder videos really emersed me in the history.
4) Alfa Centauri Great innovative gameplay, Terraforming!, the leaders have a lot of character, did not like the mind worms though.
5) CIV 3 Felt constricting, ugly leader portraits, music okay.
6) CIV 6 Not too bad, but feels excessively gamey, absolutly hate districts.
7) Beyond Earth If you look at the game isolated then it's not a bad game, but it's almost impossible not to compare it to the other games, especially Alfa Centauri. Was very disappointed in the lack of terraforming features.
8) CIV 1 Fine game for it's time, but a bit cumbersome and buggy, haven't aged well, only play for nostalgia.
Don't play console/mobile games, so I have no opinion on Revolutions
@D.R Packed with content? not really. More mechanics then Civ2, perhaps base Civ2, but not really after it's expansions. Also modding was more difficult with Civ3, so most modding happened after Civ4 had been released. So I was quite disappointed with Civ3 back then.
Was happy again when Civ4 arrived.
But don't get me wrong, I played it a lot for several years, I just didn't enjoy it as much as I had Civ2, and later enjoyed Civ4.
And at the same time we had Alfa Centauri.
I'd place them same except civ 3> alpha
Couldn't agree with you more about CIV 6 district placement. It was tedious and rarely satisfying.
disagree about civ3 leaders. I absolutely loved how leaders evolved throughout different eras (except modern days Joan of Ark)
Civ 6 has been a rollercoaster journey for me. At first, I didn’t like it much. The district concept was weird and the graphics were off putting. I thought there was no way I’d ever enjoy it as much as Civ 5, which was and still is my most played game ever (except for maybe Oblivion and Skyrim across all platforms). But I really came to love it, especially after all the DLCs launched. And now when I go back to Civ 5, I always think the areas around my cities look like a lot of wasted space. I find myself wishing I could build a campus in the middle of that valley, or a harbor next to those coastal resources, or a dam-aqueduct-industrial zone triangle on that river. But I can’t. It’s all mines and farms and it just seems like my cities should be doing something else with the land. Civ 6 has really stuck with me, and I do think it’s only a matter of time before my play time in 6 passes my time in 5. Only about 200 more hours till that happens.
That's really similar to my journey too, so I get where you're coming from! I also find myself planning campuses for no reason in civ 5 these days haha
Don't guys find 6 a lot easier? I still play 5 heavily on diety and its damn hard. Diety on 6 after industrial era just sucks.
Just for reference, during interviews leading up to the release of Beyond Earth, the developers were always keen to inform everyone that it was NOT supposed to be taken as a successor to Alpha Centauri.
I bet they were
I mostly agree with your rankings. I have to put Civ 2 in A class. Was just too good of a game when it came out. I agree not playable now so misses S tier but a clear improvement on Civilization. I wholeheartedly agree with 4 & 5 being S tier and 3 & 6 being A tier. Never played Civilization Revolution so cannot judge. The dumbed down play would probably have me say it was either C or F tier. I'd put Civilization Beyond Earth as a C tier game. To me it was fun and I liked the futuristic aspects but it was disappointing when compared to Alpha Centari. To me Alpha Centari is the greatest Civilization(like) game ever made. They ripped up the storybook and created a futuristic game with fantastic factions to choose from. The maps were wonderful and so was handling the fungus and native units. If I rated Alpha Centari in the Tier system, easily S tier.
I agree Civ 2 was a well made progression from civ 1 - both A's for me.
However both 1 & 2 are deeply flawed with a game breaking exploit that made the game much easier and virtually impossible to compete against. Not gonna share it... you figure it out.
Yeah i agree too
Civ 2 should definitely be higher up then civ 1.
Ive played all of them and i still have a copy of civ 2 that I play from time to time.
Shame you haven't explored Civ II. The mods are still by far the best mods ever in Civ. And no Alpha Centauri? It's a classic.
I love Civ 6 and I play it a lot.
But Civ 4 is Civ 4. Irreplaceable 🔥
The reason Civ 4 is so good is because that was the last Civilization game Sid Meier actually worked on.
Civ 4 is the best in the franchise, Civ 1 is the best nostalgia trip.
tbh Civ 4 will also be nostalgia for many by now.
4 > 5
6>4
@@Wet_Fungus nah
@@RANDOMNESS873ye
civ rev was just iconic as a teen. can still vividly hear all the country leaders babbling 😂
Civ IV has Fall From Heaven. Sadly, no Civ game can compete with it as long as that masterpiece of a mod is unplayable anywhere else.
The Rhys and Fall mod for Civ 4 is still the best overall Civilation experience. Keeping your empire stable was truely challenging.
Good call. The challenging aspect is a great point, and I feel like it’s often overlooked (by me anyways).
@@JumboPixel I think CIv 5 is looked down on a lot of super fans of Civ 4 because when 5 came out it was universally disliked. It wasn't till it was in it's final form that it really became a good/great game. It was SO disappointing at first and took me till the announcement of 6 to even get into 5 and I feel like that is the same for a lot of people since it was shown to have been so improved by then. I'd go as far as saying the Civ 5 launch was more controversial than 6, it just didn't have the same impact without the full scope of social media.
I loved Beyond Earth, it's Civ 5 with a scifi skin on it, imo it's substantially more than the CIV 5 vanilla game. It's A or B tier at worst. ;-;
Civ 2 was the best civ until Civ 5 released its last DLC and became the new king of civ....
Civ 5 complete edition is a fantastic game!
Civ4 beyond the sword is not only the best civ of them all. Arguably one of the best games in the world
i have 3+ years logged on civ iii - it's the greatest game ever made
3 is the king.
I am gone get it, to truly see if its the king as you clame
It is king. Played it since i was 4
@@johsaogegorn4364 the graphics and simplicity are the best part, but it greatly suffers from the AI of the civs. your deepest allies will randomly betray you, once civs get nukes they basically all nuke each other to death so it kinda requires an edited game with nukes turned off, and there's issues with territory. other than that it's just great
I know this might not be a popular opinion, but for me, Civ 1 did a bunch of cool things that the series has mostly abandoned, and for that reason it would be my lone S-Tier pick. My arguments for the supremacy of the original Civilization:
1. Nations: In Civ I and II, the various nations had no special perks--they just gave you a different leader and a different pre-assigned player color. Nations having unique attributes wasn't a thing until Civ III, where the nation that you picked would determine which techs you started with and would give you one unique unit. Then later they added unique buildings, special powers, etc. For me, lack of innate nation differentiation is a feature rather than a shortcoming.
The thing is, it's gotten to the point where the nation that you pick effectively dictates what victory you should pursue, or at least narrows your options considerably. You can pursue a cultural victory as Scythia in Civ VI, but you're giving yourself a significant handicap, and you are at a distinct disadvantage against other nations that get culture-oriented civ bonuses. At the same time, the nations aren't so asymmetrical that the game feels wildly different based on who you play, so it's not like you are getting much in return for being forced into a specialization right out of the gate. On balance, I feel like the game would be better if civilizations were a purely aesthetic choice. Let the player develop any of the civilizations however they want, and then differentiation would happen entirely based on the choices you make in-game. Or at most, give nations some very minor perks or starting techs (ala Civ III) that don't necessarily channel you into any specific style of play.
2. Victory Conditions: Speaking of victory conditions, remember when "victory" in Civ I was merely surviving until the end of the game? If your nation was still standing when the game ended, that was considered a win, and you would log a score in the hall of fame. Winning the space race or conquering all the other nations gave you a score bonus that might well put you in first place but were not otherwise mandatory. In hindsight, I kind of prefer that system. In the moderns Civs, the game mechanics push you quite hard toward specialization, right from the moment you select which civ you want to play. In Civ I, you could dabble in different things. Civilizations in any of the more recent games are all highly specialized, out of necessity.
I really think that Civ I had the most thematic victory mechanic of any game in the series. The binary win conditions introduced in Civ II (space race or domination) were more game-y, and in some ways more constraining. There's a reason why a lot of modern board games employ a victory point system rather than a race to a singular win condition. Victory point systems can give players a wider range of possible paths through the game, including hybrid strategies that mix and match different point-scoring activities.
It's kind of counter-intuitive, but the more victory conditions they add, the more strategically constrained the gameplay becomes. There are now five different victories in Civ VI (plus a legacy score victory that is basically broken and shouldn't be used), which seems like it should add more variety? But in practice, the path to any one of them is awfully narrow, so in the course of a single play-through, you actually have less variety. In Civ 1, by contrast, you'd earn points in a bunch of different ways. Wonders? Those earn you points. Citizens give you points, but only if they are happy or content (with more points being awarded for happy citizens). Fighting pollution? Well, that prevents you from losing points, which is basically just as good as earning them. Each Future Tech researched? Points. Each turn that the world is at peace? Points. (I particularly like that one).
I'll conclude by noting that other developers seem to have come to this conclusion, too, and have gone back to an old-school score system for victory. Old World and Humankind both do this, and it's a marked improvement over Civ's laundry list of victory conditions, in both cases.
3. Research: Civ 1 has the best research system and tech tree of the entire franchise, full stop.
For example, it had a system kind of similar to Master of Orion in which research options were semi-randomized. You were never shut out of any particular tech forever like you are in MOO, but each time you selected a new research project, your choices (typically five or six) were randomly picked from the pool of techs for which you had met the prerequisites. This means that you can have a plan and work towards it, but sometimes the game throws you curve balls, and you'd have to deal with that. You might want to do a Legion rush, but then the game doesn't offer you Bronze Working, and you'd have to reconsider your plan.
Another really neat facet of the original Civ research system is that advances didn't have fixed costs. The cost to research something was a base cost (determined by the difficulty level you had selected) multiplied by the number of advances you had already researched. So every time you research something, all of the unresearched advances get more expensive, no matter where they are in the tree. This forces you to make some hard choices--every time you decide what to research in a given tier, all the other advances in that tier (and *every* tier) become more expensive to research. And there are a lot of other advances in each tier, because Civ 1's tech tree is very wide. This means that eventually it makes more sense to push forward in the tree rather than hoovering up all the low tier advances that you skipped, because if you reach a point where your options are The Wheel or Gunpowder and it costs the same to research both, then you are going to say "Screw the Wheel." So in games of Civ 1, it was really common to skip techs, and you might even choose to skip entire branches of the tree, based on your strategy.
Modern Civs don't work this way, and it's a shame. In Civ VI, each advance has a fixed research cost, and the costs get higher and higher as you move up through tiers of the tree. You don't skip over a lot of techs in the first place, because the tree is quite narrow (3-4 advances in each tier, on average, compared to 7-9 per tier in Civ 1), and you will eventually pick up the ones you do skip over, because as your research output ramps up they become increasingly trivial to grab. So maybe you skip Sailing at first, but eventually your research output has grown to the point where you can research it in one turn, and at that point you are just going to grab it because: why not? If you skip Horseback riding in Civ 1, though, you might not ever pick it up, because eventually it will be too expensive to be worth learning.
For my money, Civ VI has the worst tech tree(s) of the franchise. The main research tree is *so* narrow, there are hardly any real choices to be made. Then they added a second tech tree that you move through via culture, which makes the game more fiddly without really broadening your options, because you move through both trees simultaneously. Seriously, they could have combined all the advances in those two trees into a single, wider tech tree, and the game would have been much better for it.
Anyway, there's more, but those are the main three reasons why I think that Civ 1 is still the best Civ. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
My personal tier rankings:
S-Tier: Civ 1
A-Tier: Civ 4, Civ 5
B-Tier: Civ 3, Civ 6
C-Tier: Civ Revolution
F-Tier: Beyond Earth (SO disappointing)
Point 1 and 2 I agree spot on, especially 1
This was beautiful to read. Now I know I need to try Civ 1. I love 4 and can’t get into 6, mostly for reasons you mentioned.
Civ6 is garbage.
Apart from that I don't agree on anything.
(Civ5 master race)
Very interesting read, I agree with many of the points you make. Great post.
Civ3, while far from perfect is still the best of the series.
Civ4 interface messed things up badly and the graphics, who cares if the 3D gfx is "real" when they provide a much worse overview! It's the game that almost caused me to quit the series. Yes it had a lot of innovation, but it didn't use those well, instead ending up with "overcluttering" the game to the point where you essentially need to have read the manual to have a chance of understanding what's happening and what you need to be doing.
Civ1, 2 and 3, you could work out the interface by sheer logic and you could instantly jump into playing the game.
Civ6 basically has the same problems as Civ4, but much better handled.
S: Civ3
A: Civ2, Civ5
B: Civ1, Civ6
C: Civ4
Never played the other 2.
CIV 4 FOREVER!!!!
You should really spend more time with Civ 4. It's not just one of the best civ games--it's one of the best games period. The later entries are great (especially 5), but nothing scratches my brain like 4.
I know I really do want to get properly into civ 4!
Honestly, CIV 4 would be the literal pinnacle of the franchise for me if it wasn’t for its horrible battle system, specifically Stack of Doom. CIV 5 is next best, I love CIV 6’s ideas, rest are ok. But CIV 4 was basically
“if you don’t stack 100s of units, you will lose”
“If you use those 100s of units badly, they all die to one longbowman who loses 2 health.”
It’s not fun, nor is it strategic, it’s just a broken and poorly executed mess.
It’s just such a letdown, and I want to play it so badly. CIV 5’s hex gameplay and 1upt were the best alternative for me.
@@DSX1 I know this comment is old (thanks algorithm I guess?) but I never understood this argument, and it seems to permeate from people who never actually played 4 enough to understand it was never an issue. Stacks of doom were never an issue in 4 due to the mechanic of collateral damage utilized by easy to produce siege units such as trebuchets. This mechanic allowed these units to attack and damage 5-8 units including the top most unit in a single tile in one turn. Thus, two-three trebuchets could absolutely wreck stacked units at little to no cost, making stacks of doom the weakest strategy in the game. People have tirelessly used that argument to defend the watering down of 5 into a single unit per tile system which merely made the game practically strategy-less and further degraded the quality of the AI which was absolutely terrible at orchestrating an attack under such limitations. Additionally, hex gameplay just reduced contacting tiles from 8 to 6 when you consider the fact that diagonal movement was possible under square grids.
@@Salem_Alexandria Thanks for replying! I thought this way because even if I used trebuchets against like 3 units, it almost never did anything, maybe it’d bring their health from 3 to 2/5 but that’s it from my experience. Are you supposed to stack trebuchets to do proper damage?
@@Salem_Alexandria This is my take too (2000+ hrs on civ 4). Siege units were the answer to stacks of doom and imo is balanced enough without extra modded units. Also stacks of doom were the natural answer for the higher difficulties (immortal and diety) as its the natural product of their discounted everything (to compensate limited ai). The game also penalizes stacks in gold maintenance for existing and in enemy territory, also building too much carries high opportunity cost.
I at least prefer stacks over the one unit per tile both as a game mechanic.
I spent thousands of hours play civ 1,2,3,4,5,6.
Civ 1 2 were a tier, Civ 2 was definitely better than civ 1, now they are dated b tier, civ 3 was b tier not nearly as good as civ 1 or 2, now civ 3 is c tier, civ 4 was s tier its still solid a tier, civ 5 is a tier. Civ 4 and 5 are the sweet spot and you can pick them up on sale for cheap.
civ 6 was f tier upon release and for several years following because it didnt ship with a map of earth good luck simulating the civilizations of earth in a game with no earth maps nor were the modding tools developed to enable players to rapidly develop a map of earth it took years after release till there was a map of earth years, but now civ 6 is an A tier thanks to modders and steam workshop downloading convenience, but I wouldnt recommend anyone buy civ 6 cause the developer/publisher is nuts, they released civilization 6 without a map of earth, or decent modding tools to create a map of earth, civ6 is purely a graphics cash grab, now after many years and updates, and great efforts on the part of modders its much better but why support such a horrible development cycle, I doubt if I will ever buy another civ game civ 6 was such a disappointing absolutely horrible experience from the start with no earth map not even a crappy tiny earth map, not one scenario shipped with the game of a map of earth.
beyond earth and alpha centari are garbage games, like someone modded civ 4 and civ 6 with spacy graphics and horrible gameplay, there is no story for either space game, civ 4s space scenario mod that ships with the game is much better than beyond earth or alpha centari.
I checked this video just to confirm CIV IV was not disrespected 😁
To this day, I still hold Alpha Centauri with high praise. I can never get enough of it. Civ 4 & 5 are my faves.
imho civ 4 is the best heads and shoulders above the rest. It is so much more immersive and the mechanics are so well thought out. The mods are so good that some of them kick the game up to an even higher tier like S+ or something.
Civ 5 vs 6? 5 had some underdeveloped ideas compared to 6 and the balancing was atrocious, there were specific techs to beeline, but the gameplay of 6 overall doesnt feel as good, there are too many fringe mechanics that you have to juggle and the entire culture victory type needs a college course worth of tutorials to understand. overall id say its 4>3>5=6>2>1
Alpha centauri would also be S+, the gameplay is janky as all fuck but the narrative is probobly the best scifi in videogames
I remember playing Civ I for the first time and being completely lost for the first few run throughs.
Still playing Civ IV currently, and loving it.
So like, civ 6 was my first entry into the modern civ world. Comparing it to watching civ 5 gameplays, I couldn’t see how people could prefer 5.
Having played about 300 hours of 5 now, I get it, and I think I prefer civ 5 to 6. There’s just something about it that really works, and civ 6 doesn’t -quite- get there.
Awesome! Civ 5 does have an X factor that's hard to describe.. and I've tried!
@@JumboPixel Nostalgia?
Civ 5 was my first entry. Love and addiction at first sight. When Civ 6 came out, I tried, I really did. I couldn't get into it really. And I didn't feel motivated enough to get over the learning curve, and the graphics were neat, but... so off putting. I have been meaning to give it another honest crack. I did try civ 1, but couldn't get into it. I just got Civ 4 recently and just started playing it, and after a few hours of trying to figure it out, I prefer 5 so far, BUT, I already like 4 more than 6. I think after I get some decent Civ 4 playtime under my belt, I'm going to really sink my teeth into 6, take the time to really 'get' it, and give it a few honest play throughs and see how I feel then. But man, civ 5 is just incredible for me.
@@luketrottier9388 So. Is IV your favorite yet, as it should be?
Downvoted, then clicked read more, then upvoted. Good stuff
Civ III is the best game of all time
The graphics are good enough and the game play is nice....love the armies feature
Civ3 easily is the only S tier. If they make a Civ7 with all the improvements of Civ6, but with a bit more polish, and without dumbing down the game, then maybe it can come close. Civ3 literally looks better than Civ4 and Civ5. And the gameplay is also far superior.
Absolutely agree. I wish they'd remaster Civ III because the Steam version has a lot of glitches and only let's you play the version with all the expansions. I'd like the option to play the original as I think was more balanced.
I do go back to civilization revolution for quick games when bored but also want to mention how impressed I was as a kid with civilization 2's videos from the council. I still have those quotes burned into my brain decades later. "Give me more units noble leader!"
CIV4 is the best. Still playing it. Current game, I am waiting for tanks with my 22, state property, caste system, workshopped, cities of the great Zulu empire with Ikandas everywhere and factories and coal plants ready to mass produce and crush them all.
Civilization revolution is where i first started playing, my friends and I had it on our xbox 360s and we would compete against each other to win. After a while I decided to buy civ 5 cause my friend had it on his pc and it has been my favourite video game ever since
Love that civ journey. Mine was sort of similar but I was a loner playing civ revolution on my DS by myself haha
Civ 5 was the worst game I’ve ever played. Civ 4 is possibly the best game I’ve ever played
That’s quite the extreme!
@@JumboPixel well I just watched the new top gun movie so I like live on the extreme side. Woooo!!!!
Yes, civ 4 was the best. The ai in there was the best. Civ 6 ai is fucking stupid.
Civ 4 also had built-in MOD support. The excellent scenarios are a very strong feature that I think made it the most popular of the series. Alpha Centauri is on the top 100 selling pc games of all times.
Idk having Elvis as an advisor will always make Civ 2 S tier for me
Civ 4 has the strongest non military opportunities. Civ 5 best addition was city states, but losing trade options, capitulation/vassalage, and reducing spy functions hurt the value of five's gameplay.
Currently I am working through a Civ4 Caveman 2 Cosmos modded game (more techs/civs/units/government options that you can easily count) that has been going on for months. I haven't touched 5 or 6 for over a year.
The problem with modern Civ games is they put too much focus on graphics and less focus on how immersive the game feels. I miss the “list” aka of great kings or GDP or highest cultures. Civ 6 feels more like homework, focusing on percentages of bonuses.
Have only played 1, 2 and 3. Love 3, but forts should be stronger, and they should've kept sticky zones of control and 'We Love The King' population explosions.
CIV 6 in my opinion is the best in terms of art style and looks and feel of the game out of the whole franchis, unlike civ 5 the leader's didn't look uncanny ... But the only thing that killed civ 6 is the bugs , if the bugs weren't there like it older brothers it would have been a S++ tier game ... And another missed oppurtunity that take 2 missed is the mobile port it looked and felt as if it would be a cross platform game , and the mobile port from what i heard is the support services are full of crap.... If they fixed that before GTA 6 the take 2 shares would skyrocket since mobile has a huge install base and slow paced game like this is best for mobile devices ....And while on public transit or travelling to and from i would love to have that experience accesible and easy to reach through mobile.........
Fun content. I've been playing games by Sid for 30 years, and always welcome well thought out opinions on the relative value of his works. Well done.
Thanks!
This are not well thought out opinions, he's just bambling his opinions and talking nonsense to make a UA-cam video
Civ revolution certainly wasn’t that great but I think it got a lot of people into civ that wouldn’t have played it otherwise.
I might be biased because it was the first civ game I played but I think it was a pretty good entry point for new players.
It’s accessibility is one of its key strengths, you’re right. That’s also true of Civ 6 I suppose.
CivRev is what got me into the civ series, i got it for free on xbox and it unlocked my love for strategy games. then I moved onto XCOM and eventually, civ 5 after getting a pc. in hindsight I have to agree that comparatively, it's not a great game for experienced civ players, but the learning curve is way easier compared to full civ games, making it MUCH easier for someone to get into and unlock their love of strategy. For that reason, as well as nostalgia, I'd put it at B-tier
Civ II was my introduction to the Civ games. I really got a kick out of the animated advisors.
"Over the world marvelous is our superior intellect Sir"
Played them all since the beginning
1. Civ 1 is C-tier by modern standards. However for its time it was S-tier.
2. Civ 2 is B-tier by modern standards, as it was a noticeable improvement over the first game. (And for _its_ time it was also S-tier.)
3. Civ 3 is C-tier, as it felt a bit like differences for difference sake without really resulting in the same strategic depth.
4. Civ: Call to Power is F-tier. Understandable it wasn't included in Jumbo's vid heh.
5. Civ 4 is A-tier, and one of my all-time favorites. Granted, I think it was B-tier before the expansions, which really fleshed out your options.
6. Civ Revolutions is F-tier, due to being so shallow.
7. Civ 5 is C-tier, mostly due to the AI not even working for many of my early playthroughs. I often love when devs redesign things from the ground up, but the approach to cities for "tall vs. wide" playstyles really wasn't executed well in Civ 5. I really do think Civ should figure tall vs. wide out at some point: Civ 6 didn't even try, and just had going wide be _pure advantages_ and I think it's better if a game offers cool options for playing "tall".
8. Civ Beyond Earth is C-tier, but only because I was so desperate to enjoy it (it probably deserves F). The writing and balance were bad compared with Alpha Centauri. It's a shame because the UI was well done and the game was generally very nice to look at, it's just that the strategic depth wasn't there. For example once you chose an Affinity, you'd often just plunge that Affinity for the rest of the game to max its bonuses, rather than feeling like you were balancing a lot of different considerations. It's the sort of thing a balance mod could've fixed, so I kinda wonder if something like that might exist.
9. Civ 6 is S-tier. It's the second Civ that I've gone particularly hard at (Civ4 being the other) and it's just really satisfyingly deep at this point. I do think it's just like Civ4 where at launch both games were a step below where they are now (in fact at launch I'd probably have put Civ6 B-tier; it felt _really_ similar to Civ5 to me), but with those expansions it's awesome.
Civ 4 and 5 were the best. Every version of civ made it had to play the previous version until 6, which I never was able to enjoy.
Civ 6 was the 1st game since civ 3 that I did not buy. The graphics and look I did not enjoy and sorry that was the main reason. He broken mechanical of the difference civs did not help either. Civ 5 had many broken ones and you would think they could of balance it a bit better. Civ 3 and 4 were the best single player experience and Civ 5 the best multiplayer. Though I did enjoy the Scramble for Africa in Civ 5. Wish they put that for multiplayer
I guess you're pretty young if I look at your choices and how you spelled out MS DOS 😂
Civilization I and II are games you can easilly return to and are just the best games in the series, I play them both once a year. Civ III is ok and after that everything is too cartoony. Civ IV is a good game but the graphical style is garbage. Civ V I tried but only played 3 times... not my game. Everything afterwards looks so unappealing. That's it. Grandpa out.
Nope. It's Civ 3. Period. Everything else afterwards is increasingly anachronistic and cartoonish as can be. 😒 This American removes America because of that annoyance in pregame setup. The differences between 3 and 4 was too much and I just couldn't enjoy the newer iteration. Left the series and haven't played them since...Total War and Paradox served to replace this series.
Civ 3 was my least favorite of the main titles. It just felt uninspired at the time.
I skipped Civ 5.
Civ 4 is probably my favorite. Good game and very mod-able which kept me playing.
I personally can't rank Civ5 and Civ6 above D tier. They were such a step back from Civ4 that I feel like I'm being generous placing them above F tier, for my own taste anyway. The fact that the AI had no idea how to handle one unit per tile really made Civ5 a failed game imo.
Civ 5 better be S tier.
You betcha
I started playing Civ back with Civ 1. Played all basic games with probably Civ 3 and Civ 5 played the least. One thing I remember fondly about Civ 2 was the terraforming element.
Is Civ II the only Civ with terraforming (by engineers)? I missed that in Civ 3 and went back to Civ 2 ever since.
@@chiemingman As far as I know, the only Terraforming in anything other than Civ 2 is cleaning up radiation. There might be some mods that allow it, but I haven't found them.
CIV IV is the best - I spent over 10k hours in that game probably. Civ II was awesome - it was my first civ and played it a lot as well.
CIV V and VI are bad, Gathering Storm - the best expansion ? I didn't like a single thing introduced, I thought it was the most useless expansion ;-) Opinions ...
I will never be satisfied with any Civ game until captured workers wear shackles, and I can release cities into vassal states that are actual major powers. Plus I miss the random events that popped up, like a controversial wedding because my people are Buddhist and my neighbors Christian.
Civ-1, the original, just one more turn, addiction game. I remember starting a game Friday after work. It's 6, I'll just play til 7 and get dinner. Look up, it's 8. Well, there's still restaraunts open til 9, just play til I get Steel. Look up it's 10. Well, nothing's open now. I'll just play to midnight. Look up, it's 3am. Oof. 😂
Got my roomy hooked too. He asked me to wake him up. Knocked on his door. He responded talking in his sleep, "Must Build Settlers!"
Hahahahahah!!! When I was in college a friend introduced me to Civ I with the following reason. When playing the game, a drinking buddy of him refused to go out drinking. All he was saying was: "One more turn, just one more turn. I'll be there soon".
I wish I could play beyond earth, im going to be honest it is probably my favorite game but it is just not stable... no matter what i always have issues with it crashing a few turns in.
CIV III is all I ever play now. Much more enjoyable than the later entries. Don't understand the hate it gets.
CIV 2 should be in the S category without a doubt...but given that a 20+ kid made this video i can understand his poor understanding of quality games
I’m still playing Civ5. It was a shame that I never got into Civ6, because on paper all the mechanics of it are better. I want the mechanics of civ6 but in civ5.
Exactly
I must say tho quite a few of the new mechanics in Civ vi can be found in Civ v mods.
I truly believe civ 4 is 101% better then civ 5 and the mods for it such as the Road to War, Napoleonic mod, and so many more make it amazing.
Civ 4 is honestly my favorite. I liked 3 a lot. But 4 was just grand! I still play it..... for me personally, 5 and 6 were both steps down FOR ME.
Civ IV, awesomeness! Civ V pretty damn close...Civ II- Build DaVinci's Workshop and railroad on every tile---> win game
Gotta stop watching after you put Beyond Earth at F tier lmao. It’s a better Civ V. (Not to mention Civ IV being miles ahead of V)
Civ 5 bored me and went back to civ 4. I dont see how you can rank civ 5 above 4 when civ 5 combat AI is incompetent providing no challenege in war. 1 archer on a hill can beat a whole ai army.
wrong list. Best CIV III (S) second CIVII (A or S-) all others folow people withe 40+ years old know what i mean.
That Civ Rev rating is criminal. Civ rev is my childhood. That shit is, admittedly "dumbed down" and "simple" but, it is the real shit.
civ 6 is nowhere near a tier . im not great civ player and i never lost game on civ 6 ,ai is just to dumb. diety is like king difculty on other civ series.
Civ V - still play it avidly today after so long. Just couldn't buy into the graphics and card system of Civ VI
I've been playing civ 6 for some hours now and I can't friggin get to the same super easy level as the AI 😵 they always seemingly have way higher precious resources and way higher tech count
Agreed for the most part. I'd downgrade Civ 5 to A-Tier because I think its UI was a downgrade from Civ 4. Civ 4 gave you all the information you needed about your empire and no decision was made blind. Civ 5 made a deliberate choice to hide some info, particularly diplomatic info, to make the player feel like they were playing against a human rather than an AI, and I really didn't like it (they slightly backtracked on this design choice with one of the DLCs and gave an indicator as to why a Civ likes or dislikes you). I also really liked that Civ 4 would let you minimize the diplomacy screen when a leader was offering you a deal so that you could look at your various information screens and decide whether that deal was worth taking; namely, if a Civ offered to team up in a war against another Civ, I could see at a glance whether that Civ has allies. That feature wasn't in Civ 5 or 6 (I never accept a joint war deal in Civ 5 or 6).
I think my ideal Civ game would basically be Civ 4 with a few upgrades (hexes, limits to unit stacking, ideological systems from Civ 5 BNW, Civ 6's "play-the-map" gameplay philosophy).
Also, Civ 5 BE was okay. I wouldn't put it in F tier; maybe C or even B if I was feeling generous. In fact, I think its UI, especially after the expansion, was pretty good and I liked what it did with the various factions and the tech web. Its only real downside was that many of the campaigns felt very same-y after a while.
I have been playing civ games since CivII, but became a fan in Civ3. I love Civ3, Civ4 and Civ5. I'm playing Civ6 more but not like it as much as Civ5. Civ 5 is still my favorite. Gladius, Alpha Centauri, Test of Time are too good non civ games imho.
I agree with all your rankings. But I will say that Civ VI has challenged me more than the others and I like that.
Nice point!
I think 4 is better than 5 in gameplay, but 5 is more realistic.
S- Civ 5
A- Civ 4
B- Civ 1, Civ 2, Civ 3
C- Beyond
D- revolutions
F- Civ 6
What's your problem with Civ 6?
@@arishokqunari1290 at the time of writing this, I had only played 6 without the expansions that corrected a lot of the issues. Having now played the whole game, it's much better
Civ 3, Civ 5 and Beyond Earth- Rising Tide are the best!
Civ 1 was my first game. Nostalgia is strong. I’m not a big fan of civ 5-6. Civ 4 is probably best from the modern era civ.
Civ 3 all the way!
The thing I liked MOST about Civ V and following is the removal of Unit Stacks
No longer could the Computer stack 50 spear-men into one space and kill a tank
I personally still prefer the way Civ II handled combat. Each unit has a hit point and firepower stat, HP being how much punishment a unit could take, and firepower is how much damage it would deal in a single blow. Plus, each unit also has the traditional attack/defense stats, with units trading blows until one dies. So, a tank with 10 attack/5defense/3 HP/1 firepower, would easily smoke a stack of phalanx (spearman) with 1/2/1/1.
Really, the problem of tanks dying to spearmen begun in Civ III, and Civ V basically adopted II's system but dumbed down and fights are no longer always to the death. For example: in the Samurai scenario in Civ II there's the ninja unit that has 4/2/0/4, four firepower meant it could one shot most units, but with 0 HP if the target lives to strike back the ninja dies instantly. Closest thing you get to that in Civ V is submarines, but it's still a less flexible system.
how can you talk about Civ 2 and not talk about the high council? only a B Tier tier list
I used to play Civ Revolution all the time on Xbox 360 I loved it. A week or two ago I started thinking about it and watching videos on it and looked it up on steam and sadly it wasn't there. But in a weeks time I bought Civ 5 and sunk around 80 hours in it already lol along with your videos I've been having a blast. I give Revolution an S just for Nostalgia and making me get into Civ again (: love the videos and the list man keep it up
Awesome!! Civ Revolution was such a good introductory game. Glad you're loving Civ 5!
Well...........There is something kinda like Civ revolution that you can buy right now......it's for your mobile phone and the ps vita and with the same title in the name, it's Civilization Revolution 2. Rumor has it that this game was going to console but it was decided to put it on mobile exclusively. I even have civ revolution for the original iPad that came out in 2010.....I keep my old iPad around for that game. I also have civ rev for the 360 and ps3......in fact I own every civ game.......I love the series!
Civ Rev is second only to Civ4
Rpcs3