Comment by haolez

18 hours ago

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

8 comments

haolez

Reply
caminanteblanco  17 hours ago

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

whizzter  2 hours ago

I played a lot of Civ1, Colonization and Civ 2. First time I tried Civ 3 I lost some city due to some culture or religious influence and ragequit (I was also working my first job at that point so didn't have as much time to spare).

Played a bit of Civ 4 and 5(or 6?) but never was really as hooked on them.

SL61  10 hours ago

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

Macha  18 hours ago

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

  • vintermann  12 hours ago

    Civ 2 was without doubt a much uglier civ 1, though. Isometric graphics in win 3.11 wasn't a good bet.

    Civ 1 had good pixel art (look at those mountains! Not to mention the intro), good colors (and more of them!) and clean iconography. For me the look was part of the magic, so I never got into Civ 2.

  • antihipocrat  10 hours ago

    I considered Alpha Centauri as the sequel, both in the continuation of Civ 1s final goal and the expanded gameplay.