Which Civ game was better, Civ IV or Civ III?

Which Do You Think Was Better?

  • Civ III

    Votes: 41 16.9%
  • Civ IV

    Votes: 202 83.1%

  • Total voters
    243

dutchking

Deity
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
3,317
In your opinion, which Civ game was better, Civ IV or Civ III? Personally, I like Civ III because the adivsors actually have faces, but I also like Civ IV for everything else, any thoughts? I'm going to add a poll.
 
I prefer Civ IV because they eliminated most of the tedious micromanagement from it, and the combat system is much much more exciting (with promotions, units specialized against other types of units, etc.)... I think Civ IV is the best of all Civ games.
 
Well i like civ 3 game play better because of the micro management. Makes the game more realistic.
 
^That's true, It would be awesome if they made some Leaderheads of Advisors! Ahhh! That would be the best!
 
Civ IV is the best computer game ever, but I really don't play many computer games. But I have played both, and Civ IV beats Civ III on every level imaginable (except Civ III had guerillas; but they were too weak).
 
The corruption in Civ3 ruined it for me. Once beyond a ridiculously small distance from your palaces, cities only produced one unit of production or cash, so you had to feed them with units from your core cities in order to build anything,
So I find Civ4 far, far better, But it would have been nice to be able to feed new cities with extra production, sometimes.
 
The corruption in Civ3 ruined it for me. Once beyond a ridiculously small distance from your palaces, cities only produced one unit of production or cash, so you had to feed them with units from your core cities in order to build anything,
So I find Civ4 far, far better, But it would have been nice to be able to feed new cities with extra production, sometimes.
In civ 3, you could switch to Communism and those waste/corruption problems would be over, but with the democracy, you had all the money to rush production.
 
Civ 4: less mirco-managing=more fun playing...
The graphics are cool too.
 
I consider CIV III the 'classical' Civ. Civ IV has a lot of changes and thus is the 'new' civ. I like new more, though!
 
Civ IV is the best computer game ever, but I really don't play many computer games.
:crazyeye:

not another of those threads please. In this forum, almost everyone will praise CIV, go to the Civ3 forum and it would be the other way round.
Be happy with whatever version you like and enjoy the game. Both have the pros and cons
 
In this forum, almost everyone will praise CIV, go to the Civ3 forum and it would be the other way round.

Don't worry, T. A. Jones will soon come.. ;) :deadhorse:
 
I played Civ II and Civ IV, but never played Civ III... But I don't see how it could be any better than Civ IV :)
 
i more like Civ4, though Civ3 is pretty good
 
Not *another* one of these threads. Hasn't the dead horse been beat up enough? :rolleyes:

I play Civ4, but I much prefer Civ3 simply for the reason that it has a much more epic feel and because I don't need programming know-how or 3d Studio Max to mod it. I actually find Civ4 graphics absolutely horrible, but gameplay comes first and Civ4 gameplay is quite good. Civ3 gameplay, however, is more to my liking. It's just a matter of taste, not a matter of which is "better" than the other.
 
II for what it's worth was the most groundbreaking of all of them.

I proved the concept and showed some promise, but II was truly groundbreaking and showed what could happen with TBS.

III was ill concieved from the start in many ways.

IV took the bad aspects of III out and paired it with good graphics. If I had to rank them.

II
IV
III
I
 
Top Bottom