安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
I find Civ III the best Civ game in the series, because it was the last game made in the series that had gameplay before graphics. I played Civ (original) and found it was TOO simple. Civ II was fun, but Civ III beat it by a mile. Civ IV wasn't very challenging, and it was way too complex (in my opinion). Also, I hated how they got rid of the Aerial View, because I LOVED the view and how I could see what my city truly looked like. I also hated the 'WorldBuilder' feature, because it allowed you to cheat and made the game not even a challenge. Civ Revolution's graphics looked like a cartoon, the AI sucked, and it was WAY too easy. Civ V's graphics look like a cartoon with toy soldiers, only a bit more realistic. I find that the AI isn't all that good, and it isn't challenging at all. I also hate how they pretty much removed the map customizing feature, and that you have to search through the haystack and find the needle, or should I say, feature hidden in it. And, to add on, the most recent three (Civ IV, Civ Revolution, and Civ V) have graphics before gamplay, and not the other way around which made the first trilogy of Civ games what they are and why some people like them better.
You may call me biased, but I don't care. Civ III is the best game, in my opinion.
This. When I'm playing a strategy game, the graphics and extra tidbits are secondary to a well-designed and functioning game. III is simple yet complex, and there is a reason why I've got hundreds of hours on it.
2 was a little more simplistic, and it focused a little bit differently. To me, 3 will always be the best. I think that calling it poorly made is to underappreciate how far advanced 3 was from 2, and I have been playing Civ since 1999.
I like Civ2 and 3, 3 offers a more robust gameplay and better automation options (which speeds up play). 4 is good, although it is tedious at tiems. 5 I have given up on, I spend more time waiting at the end of my turn for stuff in the world to happen than I do playing, and I have a decent computer (Crysis at full settings no lag). So maybe I'll like 5 in 5 years on a faster rig, but for now it's just too damn slow.