Well, I personally think that it all depends on how you rate it, if you rate them based on graphics the older games are obviously going to be the worst ones of the series, but I really think that Civ III was the worst one for me, I did not really like it at all, was a whole disappointment for me, that's my opinion though.
I agree with Casiox that if you're rating on graphics, then it only makes sense that the newer games will win for obvious reasons, but I haven't really played any of the older versions so all I have to go on is what I've heard others expressing as their opinion in the past. The worst one in the series is III without a doubt.
As the series evolved it should always be getting better but Civ III was not a very good game. If I remember correctly you could stack units and they could only move in certain ways, sort of like chess. Please let me know if my memory is failing me on this one. The first Civ was great and I liked Civ 5 enough to buy the expansion pack.
You're absolutely right, I think most of us share the same thinking when it comes to deciding which game is the worst or the less popular one, by the way, which Civ 5 expansions did you have the chance to purchase?
Civ III was by far the worst, the game has come a long way though and given the circumstances and time the game was not THAT awful in comparison to other games of it's era.
Honestly I don't think any of the Civ games past the first two are much good. They rely far too much on graphics and have slowed down the game play so that in my opinion it is incredibly boring. Civ III was just the first step to making the game more graphics dependent which it honestly just did not need.
Well first off I actually liked Civ III and that is really how I got into it, so I guess maybe that plays into me liking it a little more. I also thought it was talking about the civs themselves, and I was so ready to bash the English.
