These are valid arguments. Not that I would agree with Civ4 being overwhelmingly complex, but this is your view at it and I can't argue against your view.
And actually, I think a lot of people are sharing your view.
IV or V? Or nothing at all?
- Thread starter Metal Bunny
- Start date
These are valid arguments. Not that I would agree with Civ4 being overwhelmingly complex, but this is your view at it and I can't argue against your view.
And actually, I think a lot of people are sharing your view.
Arsenic Steel
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2010
- Messages
- 155
It is possible to derive more pleasure from a game made 5years ago than a game made 5months ago. Some folks like CoD:MF1 over MF2, GTA 3 over 4, GTA 4 over 5, Neverwinter Nights over Dragon Age, etc the list can go on because increasing the increment of a franchise does not unquestionably increase any given player's enjoyment.
Back to civ IV. My daughter also plays IV. She has tons of fun with the in-game worldbuilder but it doesn't exist in V, so V is not an option for her at all. I had a civ break between V and the patch, then tried V after the patch, IV, and had fun with IV and not with V so I stick to Civ IV.
I feel civ 5 has a lot of broken features. like no multiplayer lobby, no worldbuilder?? and its really hard to find information during the game about your statistics, since u have to rely on random popups. and the civopedia has vague, inaccurate information.
arosenberger
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 23
I went back to Civ IV ROM-AND two weeks after 5 came out. I check on civ V's progress every so often, but won't get serious until the modders and patches get through with it. I'll probably go back in ~2 to 3 years . I should have waited for the gold edition to come out.
To be honest, there is a worldbuilder in Civ V, but it's an external program, so it can be used to create a map. It cannot however be used to alter the game during play (although Tuner is said to be able to do that, but unreliably if you want to change terrain, and it's an extraordinarily complex way to do it compared to IV).
I don't get it. Most Civ IV bugs have been resolved already.
Portent
Chieftain
Voted for Civ 5.
Been playing since the first one, all have had their flaws, so i'm going to wait and give Civ 5 a chance.
Been playing since the first one, all have had their flaws, so i'm going to wait and give Civ 5 a chance.
Ramesses
Ruler. Visionary. Pimp.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1,176
It's a bit complicated to explain, but I'll try. See, as unrefined as Civ V is, I still enjoy a lot of the things that make it different from IV. Because Civ V did in fact fix a lot of stuff I hated, while breaking a lot of stuff I liked. So either way, it's like playing a broken version of the other game.
If you don't understand that logic, don't try to figure it out, lest your head asplode.
Arsenic Steel
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2010
- Messages
- 155
When logic is sound heads don't asplode.
Ramesses
Ruler. Visionary. Pimp.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1,176
I am very much liking Civ V. So I'm going to stick with it. I was getting a tad bored with IV anyway, so something new to play with is a better option regardless of the comparative merits of each. And even if I was sick of the core Civ V game (which I'm certainly not), there seem to be lots of mods to play with before I'd give it up.
Well I would have to say Civ 4. I like the way you actualy have to think a little while playing. Other then that Civ 5 removed religion, health, SoD, Tech trading... all of which I loved, plus when I play Civ IV I can win 3/4 on Noble, with Civ 5 I won 100% of the games I played on the hardest dificulty.
PS: IF YOU SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THOSE TECH PACTS AS A ARGUMENT FOR TECH TRADING IM SERIOUSLY GONNA KILL YOU!
PS: IF YOU SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THOSE TECH PACTS AS A ARGUMENT FOR TECH TRADING IM SERIOUSLY GONNA KILL YOU!
Ermak-
Prince
It doesnt matter if you go back, you already paid for civ v. So evil Sid wins.
Similar threads
