Reviews (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0009XH4CK/ref=pd_ecc_rvi_3/202-7492357-2863829)

Amazon.co.uk Preview

Civilization is one of those games that had the unfortunate luck of being pretty much perfect the first time around. Unfortunate because it means that the developers didn’t really have much else to do for any of the sequels. Not until number three anyway, at which point they almost ruined everything by overcomplicating it.

In a nod to the graphical ability of modern day PCs the graphics have been upgraded all the way from rubbish to okay-ish. Actually, the 3D effect as you zoom out to a view of the whole globe is quite nice but otherwise this is not going to be giving Doom 3 any sleepless nights.

The far more important changes are to the gameplay which has had all the overcomplicated elements from Civ III ripped out and, most interestingly, many of the features from the original that had been considered sacrosanct. City riots and rebellions are now extremely rare and other tedious elements such as pollution have been removed. This all adds up to a tighter, faster paced game that doesn’t get bogged down once you get a lot of cities up and running.

A new team-based online modes attempts to add a similar injection of speed to the multiplayer – although whether that will prove as successful remains to be seen. More promising is a greater emphasis on religion in the game, as well as great people from history that can help morale, combat or research and sometimes all three. With strategy games becoming ever rarer Civ IV looks like it could finally make them, if not fashionable, at least popular again. -- Harrison Dent

This preview is based on an incomplete version of the game; features or problems mentioned above may not appear in the finished game.






Do you agree with what Harrison Dent writes about Civ III ? Anyone would think it was a failure from his words. True that all the MMg was at times somewhat tedious and repetitive (pollution, corruption, riots...) but one just cannot overlook the fact that the game has become better with each new installment. I loved Civ II, but I prefer Civ III even better. I have the sneaky suspicion that history will repeat itself with Civ IV: It'll be a great success.

Regarding C4 he places all his faith in C4 in both Religion (?) and Great People. The former has been toned down considerably to be "politically correct" and is certainly not going to be THE killer feature as was Culture back in Civ III. As for the latter it's just like a C3C GML or SGL, big deal. What a superficial analysis of a game.

At times I wonder if these so called reviewers of Amazon actually play a game more than 5 times before writing down a review.

And Mr Dent, the people who like Civilization are not all that concerned over its graphics, mentionning Doom 3 is totally off the point. It's gameplay what we care about. If you want some fancy graphics go play Rome Total War or God of War. :rolleyes:

How can you review an unfinished game anyway? Shouldn't he be writing it as a preview instead?

@Drakan, make I think your thread would read better if you put the article first and your anaysis last.

As for the article, I agree with you. Graphics may concern other people but not me. Nor do I think, or know of anyone else who thinks, that Civ III, Civ II nor Civ I were crap.

I know the diehard Civ 2 fans will not agree, but in my opinion each civ has gotten better then the previous and it appears as if Civ 4 will continue this.

@Drakan, make I think your thread would read better if you put the article first and your anaysis last.


Point taken. :goodjob:

Well since either he's only played a demo, or used opinions from other people and pre-release photos and summary, i dont take his opinion too seriously.
Wait until real reviews come out, im sure they'll be glowing.

How can you review an unfinished game anyway? Shouldn't he be writing it as a preview instead?

Exactly. The game is in a beta version now.

He was probably invited over at E3 with some other colleagues and was explained the main key-features of the game in an hour or so.

That's hardly enough time to understand the game, let alone to even dare write a review yet.

I bet you this guy flunked two chieftain games of Civ III years ago and hasn't even played Civ IV and is already giving his opinion in a most condescending manner.

My point exactly farting bob and Drakan - how can one write a serious review of a game if one has only played or seen it for an hour or so? One that isn't released for a good couple of months too at that. The review was not only pathetically short for a preview, but compared a strategy game's graphics with Doom 3s!

First off, strategy games are strategy games - they are not games where people want to go round rambo-style and use no strategy at all and kill monsters (ala Doom 3), but games where gameplay and depth are paramount. The fact that the bloke from Amazon started off by slating the Civ series' graphics shows me that he knows bugger all about the strategy genre and that he should stick to reviewing Half-life and Unreal Tournament.
Graphics are important, yes, but only to a limit. Civ 4 i hope will get the balance between graphics and gameplay right (which i'm sure it will).

Poor "review" by an inept reviewer.

Well, it's in the "Reviews" section, but it clearly states "Preview" twice, so it's not like they're trying to fool anyone. It's basically just a feature list for cIV, and it mentions all the big stuff: religion, great people, less micromanagement, 3D, multiplayer, etc.

The statement about civ3 is weird (what's more complicated in civ3 than civ2?). It makes him sound like he doesn't play many strategy games. But he's entitled to his opinions. Does anybody seriously go to Amazon for game reviews?

Does anybody seriously go to Amazon for game reviews?
I often look at customer reviews, but generally ignore the amazon review. As for game previews, i go to fansites since they generally have lots of previews from places, and arent just trying to sell the game, which official sites are (and as a result, suck).

Actually, it is titled "preview". It is the heading of this thread that is wrong.

However, even if it is a preview, the article is way too short (more like a synopsis of a large whole) and the references to games such as Doom 3 are completely out of place...

Not worth my time.

[B]Reviews (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0009XH4CK/ref=pd_ecc_rvi_3/202-7492357-2863829)
At times I wonder if these so called reviewers of Amazon actually play a game more than 5 times before writing down a review.
I think we might have to wait until 11/06 for any previews if that is what's required.
[QUOTE=Drakan]I bet you this guy flunked two chieftain games of Civ III years ago and hasn't even played Civ IV and is already giving his opinion in a most condescending manner.
That just brought me back. I think it was my 3rd game when I finally made it over the hump and got my revenge on those obnoxious AI's. That was fun.

0_o

Let me get it right : he says that CivIII was almost ruined due to being OVERcomplicated ?

o_0

Where does this guy get off saying that "everything was almost ruined" in Civ III? Problem is some people like to write their own opinions and present them as widely acknowledged facts. Probably why he's writing (p)reviews for Amazon instead of winning Pulitzers...

*kicks himself five years later when Harrison Dent wins a Pulitzer*

What a superficial analysis of a game.

Unfortunately, this is what Firaxis wants the game to be: attracting new players. Frankly speaking except for the graphics there is not much exciting to me in CIV4. Oh, maybe the new government system too.

CivIII was a bit more complex than the first two games, but by no means difficult to learn. It also added a number of elements that, now that they've been introduced, I'd be unwilling to give up in future games -- strategic resources and colonies, for instance. It is true, though, that a good CivIII game could run for several multi-hour sessions. That made completing a single game somewhat difficult unless the situation was especially compelling.

CivIV looks to be quite a bit more streamlined. Some of the core elements I hope to be in the game seem to be there. I'm just hoping that streamlining the game didn't weaken the overall gameplay. Pirates was fun and incredibly streamlined, but ultimately became boring after a month. CivIII, with all its complexity, still finds itself on my hard drive.

Unfortunately, this is what Firaxis wants the game to be: attracting new players.

So, you would rather Firaxis not try to attract new players? That way leads to the end of the franchise as you are trying to cater to an ever dwinling user base.

Ok it does say preview twice, granted. But it's under the heading in bold yellow letters of "Review".

In any case, I believe that this guy doesn't have much idea of the strategy genre and let alone civ itself. Moreover, I'd say he dislikes these type of games because he does seem to me somewhat biassed against it. But, that could just be me.

0_o

Let me get it right : he says that CivIII was almost ruined due to being OVERcomplicated ?

o_0
CivIII was quite ruined by the clutter. Civ2 is so lean and slim, I only hope Civ4 will be at least moddable down to that level.

I always felt that the main problem of Civ3 was that it was dumbed down -_-
Don't tell me people find it overcomplex, please...

So, you would rather Firaxis not try to attract new players? That way leads to the end of the franchise as you are trying to cater to an ever dwinling user base.

I was not judging good or bad. I was just stating the observation that there are not profound changes in CIV4 that could be compared to what CIV3 brought, such as culture. There are only superficial changes. Although they are probably enough to attract new players, they are not all that die hard fans are looking for.

Look people, this game will be dumbed down. That is an unfortunate given.
The point is the vast majority of people who post on this website, are hard core fans, and I am one of them. But we are a small, small percentage of the gamers out there, and for any game to survive commercially today, it has to have lots of pretty colours and big sounds and mayhem. When Civ first came out, graphics were nowhere near a big a deal as today in attracting an audience.
I would suggest the average age of a civ player on this site is about 30,maybe 33. That age group is more interested in making the mortgage than playing a game. Firaxis probably recognizes that , and is dumbing the game down, improving the graphics, etc, to attract the 12-17 year old males.

The only hope the hard core player (who if like me loves the complexity and richness of the earliers Civ's, but hates the AI) will have is if we can modify the code to build this complexity and intelligence back into the Civ IV game. I am not holding my breath on that one.

Civ3 did almost kill Civilization for me, too many expansions and they were buggy at best. The graphics were too cartoonish for my liking as well.

Can someone tell me how civ 3 was dumbed down from 1 and 2? And how civ 4 is going to be dumbed down from 3? I just haven't seen any evidence of this yet.

The only hope the hard core player (who if like me loves the complexity and richness of the earliers Civ's, but hates the AI) will have is if we can modify the code to build this complexity and intelligence back into the Civ IV game. I am not holding my breath on that one.

I disagree. Firaxis gathered the most hard-core players from this site (and the other major sites) and got their input on what would make a good Civ game. Knowing the calibre of players they gathered (bet you noticed some star players who used to be regular posters are kinda quiet lately), I feel that it will not be a dumbed-down game at all.

I was not judging good or bad.

I thought you said, "Unfortunately, this is what Firaxis wants the game to be: attracting new players." This sounds like a judgement to me.

Firaxis gathered the most hard-core players from this site (and the other major sites) and got their input on what would make a good Civ game. Knowing the calibre of players they gathered (bet you noticed some star players who used to be regular posters are kinda quiet lately), I feel that it will not be a dumbed-down game at all.

That's exactly where I'd place all my hopes in Civ IV. And that's why I continue posting that this fourth installment willl be the best to date IMHO.

I just cannot stress how much I trust the elite players of Poly and CFC. They will know even better than the programmers themselves what has to be tweaked so as to deliver an exciting and challenging civ game.

The input of 100 of those players will prove invaluable. They will help to improve the C4 AI with their strategies which Soren will include and program the AI with.

I dislike the catoonish graphics I'm seeing but I'm more than willing to be put through them as long as the gameplay shines.

I thought you said, "Unfortunately, this is what Firaxis wants the game to be: attracting new players." This sounds like a judgement to me.

It was a response to the original "superficial" comment. It's unfortunate to the commenter (and to people who expect more profound improvements) that it is superficial by design.

I guess if you had held an impartial position yourself you'd have understood it better.

I don't see how civ3 was over complicated, nor do i see strategy games as being out of fashion either. As far as the graphics comment, civ doesn't need super graphics, as its got substance. Doom isn't exactly taxing on the mind to play so it needs the graphics, otherwise why would anyone buy it.

I guess if you had held an impartial position yourself you'd have understood it better.

I admit that I am a Civ fan and am not particularly unbiased.

as dumb as civ3's AI was..it was light years better then then civ2's. and i was really glad to see some specialized units go. i agree that givin potential shown in call to power and smac i thought civ3 would be light years better then it was. but that being said , i feel it has been an upward trend in the overall game and i feel it will continue..though i doubt that we wont be back on this very forum after its realeas with thread titles like "what were they thinking" and soo on.. but i will only look for reviews from my fellow civ-ers..thats you!

With respect to Civ 3 being overcomplicated, I am not sure, but I believe it was less INTUITIVE than civ 2. I know three huge fans of civ 2 who did not in the least become addicted to civ 3 after having tried it. Some things I think may have been non-intuitive: culture, war weariness, the forbidden palace and gpt trades that suddenly become impossible to make.

PS - I, on the other hand, pull up the slack for those who did not become addicted.

With respect to Civ 3 being overcomplicated, I am not sure, but I believe it was less INTUITIVE than civ 2. I know three huge fans of civ 2 who did not in the least become addicted to civ 3 after having tried it. Some things I think may have been non-intuitive: culture, war weariness, the forbidden palace and gpt trades that suddenly become impossible to make.

PS - I, on the other hand, pull up the slack for those who did not become addicted.

Can someone explain to me how to play Civ II? I found the disk and couldnt really figure it out after having played civ III all this time.

With respect to Civ 3 being overcomplicated, I am not sure, but I believe it was less INTUITIVE than civ 2. I know three huge fans of civ 2 who did not in the least become addicted to civ 3 after having tried it. Some things I think may have been non-intuitive: culture, war weariness, the forbidden palace and gpt trades that suddenly become impossible to make.

PS - I, on the other hand, pull up the slack for those who did not become addicted.

Right, unlike say each unit taking away shields from its home city (oh God how I $#@! hated that) :), or your citizens becoming unhappy the instant one of its units strayed outside of the city boundaries of your civ. Or fundamentalism being completely overpowered (heck I would build the Statue of Liberty to get fundamentalism early!??!). Or having to play on Deity to even have it be challenging. I mean I loved Civ 2 back in the day, but geez this is no freakin' way I could go back to that. I wouldn't even remember how to play it now.

Actually here's a good story I was reminded of when I heard that roads won't give a commerce bonus anymore in Civ 4. When I first started playing Civ 2, I didn't realize that roads gave you gold, and I only built roads to link up cities. I kept wondering why the heck they didn't balance the game better, because I kept running out of money! :)

CivIII isn't overcomplicated, it's underautomatized. There's no reason that you as God Emperor should have to check every city to catch those about to go into disorder, or oversee routine clearing up of industrial waste.

Since the developers are apparently working hard at fixing this, CivIV should be faster-paced at equal or even greater complexity.

The Last Conformist, unfortunately you couldn't be any more wrong if you tried.

Civ3 DOES have governors and they DO manage cities hapiness automatically.
Civ3 Can be configured to set each city to even concentrate on a particular aspect [production food commerce etc...]
Civ3 workers CAN be automated [even a new feature to automate them to the specific task of pollution and nothing else]
Civ3 Cities' build queues can even be placed under a governor so that it will produce what is "needed" (according to the AI) automatically.


The problem is that everyone prefers to micromanage EVERYTHING themselves and then they complain about it. They want the best of both worlds which they will never get.

Yes, you can automate all those things, but that isn't much help if the AI that handles the automation is so incompetent. Personally, I find that civassist takes away most of the worst micromanageent (checking for civil disorder and tech trades especially). If they include similar features for the advisors in civ4, I for one won't complain about micromanagement