is it worth playing the awkward middle children in a long running series?seems to me a lot of games released in the 2000s that were the "latest and greatest" at the time have aged incredibly poorly
no
>>11355415yes
2 is a classicCivRev is 2 but newer but not retro4 is last civ game.
>>11355415Games like Civ 4 kind of felt like that at the time. Remeber, the early 2000s is when PC gamers were subjected to the swap to ugly 3d. So you had games like Civ 4 which looked like a big downgrades compared to the previous entry.
>>11356115What? Civilization 4 wasn't the jump to 3D, it was Civilization 3, which had the kind of 3D you're talking about.
>>11355415Hardly, 3 is the awkward middle child from that era (but I still played a shitload of it)4 is commonly considered "the last truly good one"
>>11355482>>11356410>4 is the last oneWhat's wrong with 5? I really enjoy five.
>>11356124Civ 3 does not have 3d graphics. It has pre-rendered sprites like most PC games of the time.
>>11355415The last good Civ game.
>>11356582Civ 5 has a lot of merits, but it's so different from the previous entries in the series that it would have arguably been more fitting if they changed the name and made it the first entry in a new series.Alpha Centauri has more in common with Civ 1-4 than Civ 5 (or 6) does, even taking the science fiction theme into account.
>>11356582Nothing. It's just the usual salty bitches because V is considered the best in the series instead of their preferred entry.
What kinda stupid?Many time the earlier ones are totally shit compared to their fixes they added later.
