3 reasons for civ 4 over civ 5
- Thread starter phillip1882
- Start date
Lexicus
Deity
I can't believe you guys are still
We still talk with reverence and awe of civ 4, which came out 10 years ago!
You've found yourself in a dark corner of the Internet my friend.
Playsoneasy
Chieftain
I've only just got Civ4, so please don't stop now!
plasmacannon
Emperor
Well, then you have time to play the original Civ4 and enjoy it.
If your version has the Beyond the Sword expansion, then you'll have time to enjoy the changes.
You will notice a large number of mods already made for Civ4 with hundreds of thousands of downloads.
Everyone has their favorite.
So, plenty to enjoy. Many of us skipped Civ5 and are considering Civ6.
Oh, I just saw that you already on it. Enjoy.
How so?
Aristos
Lightseeker
shakabrade
Praise Vivec!
I can't believe you guys are still
I believe the problem with Civ5 is that it doesn't fit into Civ feel. I played all civs (although I started in 2000) and every edition was better than the previous one (maybe a bit iffy for vanilla Civ3 but still, not critical). Also, it had its civ feel and added complexity.
Firaxis decided that people who would still play civ are fresh from the kindergarten and that older ones stopped playing games as games are for children. So they wanted to appeal to the new kids. What happened is that we still haven't stopped playing games, many automatically bought new Civ because Civ never failed hard up to that point and kids loved it. And also there is Steam who made people buy all games more than ever before and that helped management to justify their decision, although it would have had the same effect on old feel Civ5 if they decided to go for it.
With Civ 6 old people will not take that risk and will probably not buy it, at least at full price. People who loved 5 will buy civ 6, new kids will fall for the hype and buy it too.
In the end, I believe Firaxis will make more money with this simplified android friendly game than with what Civilization should have been after path set by Civ4 BTS, but bitter taste of betrayal (that is exactly what happened) will stay forever.
That, Skwink, is why we will rant forever. Also we are only getting older and older people only rant.
Staler87
Warlord
I think you should probably wait until you play civ VI before calling it a simplified Android game. I agree that civ V kinda went on a detour towards progress in the series but both the expansion packs significantly improved the game and now the guy who did the expansion packs is working on civ VI. Schaufer had very little design experience as Ed Beach has had a lot of experience in both video and board games.
If you truly think that civ is becoming a simplified android game then that's great, but it obviously demonstrates that you have not played the recent civ games, have not played Android games, or are just making a vast overstatement to be heard.
I will agree that civ V was not as good as civ IV, but that was because of poor design decisions, not because upper-management at Firaxis had the brilliant idea to make a bad game to attract kids (How does that even work?).
shakabrade
Praise Vivec!
@Staler87
I played Civ5 (also it was probably the most anticipated game in my life) and it has taken me less than a month to win Deity consistently. It was only after that that I moved to Civ4 BTS (played vanilla before). My disappointment is as real as was my open heart to Civ5.
That doesn't mean Civ5 is a bad game. It is still quite a good game. But it doesn't fill in the slot of an EMPIRE BUILDING game. Now in Civ6, they are focusing on city building, but it is on a scale too small. I liked Caesar, Zeus, Pharaoh and SimCity and played them a lot and played them well. I also played Total War and HoMM3. Every of these games has different scale on which management and war is performed. Now Civ has gotten to a smaller scale and interfeers with other games who are already good at that and leave that former Civilization slot empty. Maybe EU4 is what I would need to switch to but I hate it when games have 20 expansion packs and DLCs.
Regarding gameplay.
Playing turns were unnecessary long in Civ5 because it tries to run on all platforms while Civ4 and Civs before were true PC games. Playing cross-platform games is always itchy experience, at least for me.
Regarding poor design decisions, 1UPT is very limited with tiles being this big. It wouldn't be a problem for PC to have more tiles, but for consoles it slows things down considerably. Therefore designers don't have an option to do the right move in this regard. I will not talk about global happiness and stuff because it will be gone in Civ6.
What was good in Civ5 expansions is that they eventually and revolutionary brought back some game aspects that were already there before Civ5 tried to reinvent the wheel.
And in future, I'd appreciate if you don't talk about me and what I "obviously did or didn't" and rather talk about what I said.
I played Civ5 (also it was probably the most anticipated game in my life) and it has taken me less than a month to win Deity consistently. It was only after that that I moved to Civ4 BTS (played vanilla before). My disappointment is as real as was my open heart to Civ5.
That doesn't mean Civ5 is a bad game. It is still quite a good game. But it doesn't fill in the slot of an EMPIRE BUILDING game. Now in Civ6, they are focusing on city building, but it is on a scale too small. I liked Caesar, Zeus, Pharaoh and SimCity and played them a lot and played them well. I also played Total War and HoMM3. Every of these games has different scale on which management and war is performed. Now Civ has gotten to a smaller scale and interfeers with other games who are already good at that and leave that former Civilization slot empty. Maybe EU4 is what I would need to switch to but I hate it when games have 20 expansion packs and DLCs.
Regarding gameplay.
Playing turns were unnecessary long in Civ5 because it tries to run on all platforms while Civ4 and Civs before were true PC games. Playing cross-platform games is always itchy experience, at least for me.
Regarding poor design decisions, 1UPT is very limited with tiles being this big. It wouldn't be a problem for PC to have more tiles, but for consoles it slows things down considerably. Therefore designers don't have an option to do the right move in this regard. I will not talk about global happiness and stuff because it will be gone in Civ6.
What was good in Civ5 expansions is that they eventually and revolutionary brought back some game aspects that were already there before Civ5 tried to reinvent the wheel.And in future, I'd appreciate if you don't talk about me and what I "obviously did or didn't" and rather talk about what I said.
MyOtherName
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,526
I think the key point to take away from his rant is that he has lost faith, and so he won't be one of those people -- instead he's going to wait for those people to play it and give reviews it before considering purchasing the game.
It works by putting more value on things that don't make it a good game (but still attract sales!), and less value on the things that do make it a good game.
(also, what is "good" varies by demographic -- what's good for civ veterans may be very different from what's good for other groups)
Lexicus
Deity
Saying it is an Android game is obvious hyperbole. The fact is that Civ V is less complex than Civ IV, as evidenced by how much easier Deity is in the former than in the latter. I have a similar experience to shakabrade, except on Emperor - it took me about a month to consistently win BNW on Emperor, after a few more games I lost interest and haven't played V since. Contrast that with Civ IV, which I've been playing since 2006, but only got up to Emperor this year.
Aristos
Lightseeker
Although I am the first to put the entire responsibility of vanilla civ5 fiasco on Shafer (and that's why he was fired), FXS/2K do not escape unharmed.
How do you do that? You make a simpler game, with less crucial decisions, and with a lot (a huuuge lot) of Instant Gratifications for almost no effort... that's how you attract the newest generations, I am sad to say... don't believe me? Attend one KG/elementary class in the "modern" world and you will understand...
Aristos
Lightseeker
Staler87
Warlord
I've already agreed that civ V was easy, and simplified compared to civ IV. The fact that deity is easier has to do with the AI more than anything though. You can beat civ V deity using screw around strategies that the game actively dissuades you from using like ICS (I've done it in BNW).
I'm just tired of people saying:
A) civ V was the worst game ever (or really close), I mean it wasn't even close it still had some good ideas and features, especially after the expansion packs.
B) Civ VI is as bad or worse than civ V. It hasn't even been released yet. Just because the graphics are stylized rather than ultra-realistic reflects nothing about the gameplay.
C) That somehow game companies are making bad games to attract kids. For a couple reasons this is kind of stupid.
1. If kids don't care about quality, then Adults do and so why limit yourself to one demographic.
2. Most kids actually do care about game quality (at least if they're old enough to have an interest in a game like civ). I started playing the game (civ IV) in Junior High when civ IV came out and probably would not have stuck with it if it was crap.
3.The Adult demographic has a lot more money and is growing. For basically the first time Adults are entering the market growing up with highly complex video games. It would be stupid not to target this demographic.
4. What things do you mean? Graphics? To me this statement is too overly vague to discern any real argument from it.
5. I will admit different demographic groups like different things but don't think that it is as radically different as you would think.
Ultimately, my point is that civ V being a sub-standard game (compared to civ IV) is because of poor design decisions not because management at Firaxis thinks that sub-standard games make more money. And if civ VI turns out to be bad then it will be for the same reason (although I'm more optimistic than pessimistic about this).
@shakabrade - I apologize for talking about what you did or did not do. I don't know you and it was an unfair assumption.
I'm just tired of people saying:
A) civ V was the worst game ever (or really close), I mean it wasn't even close it still had some good ideas and features, especially after the expansion packs.
B) Civ VI is as bad or worse than civ V. It hasn't even been released yet. Just because the graphics are stylized rather than ultra-realistic reflects nothing about the gameplay.
C) That somehow game companies are making bad games to attract kids. For a couple reasons this is kind of stupid.
1. If kids don't care about quality, then Adults do and so why limit yourself to one demographic.
2. Most kids actually do care about game quality (at least if they're old enough to have an interest in a game like civ). I started playing the game (civ IV) in Junior High when civ IV came out and probably would not have stuck with it if it was crap.
3.The Adult demographic has a lot more money and is growing. For basically the first time Adults are entering the market growing up with highly complex video games. It would be stupid not to target this demographic.
4. What things do you mean? Graphics? To me this statement is too overly vague to discern any real argument from it.
5. I will admit different demographic groups like different things but don't think that it is as radically different as you would think.
Ultimately, my point is that civ V being a sub-standard game (compared to civ IV) is because of poor design decisions not because management at Firaxis thinks that sub-standard games make more money. And if civ VI turns out to be bad then it will be for the same reason (although I'm more optimistic than pessimistic about this).
@shakabrade - I apologize for talking about what you did or did not do. I don't know you and it was an unfair assumption.
Rodney Nelson
Chieftain
Civ V isn't the worst game ever, it just isn't as good as Civ IV. As for Civ VI, I'll see what the critics and the players say before I consider buying it.
I'm 68 (I know, there are rocks younger than me). I started with Civ II and bought each game when it came out. I like complex games. Right now I'm switching between ROM-A New Dawn and FFH2, which keeps both of them fresh and interesting. I have completed a C2C game (which was a slog towards the end between the CTDs and MAF errors) but now I prefer something not quite so involved.
I'm 68 (I know, there are rocks younger than me). I started with Civ II and bought each game when it came out. I like complex games. Right now I'm switching between ROM-A New Dawn and FFH2, which keeps both of them fresh and interesting. I have completed a C2C game (which was a slog towards the end between the CTDs and MAF errors) but now I prefer something not quite so involved.
Lexicus
Deity
I was just looking over it on Steam and they want $60 for it. I was like "yeah right".
Imperator Knoedel
Simperator Knoedel
Well duh, every new game that isn't some minor indie title costs 60 bucks at release.
Try $80 in Canada. $105 for the "deluxe" version.
And people wonder why I'm waiting for a sale...
Oh, and more on topic, I found this little gem in this Civ 6 thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=573604
Civ 5 took a lot of the micro away from Civ 4 already (and made a few things harder to deal with, like troop movement). Part of the fun of Civ is managing your empire. Not instant gratification.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=573604
This is the kind of thing that makes me want to bang my head against something. If you don't want micro, why play a game like Civ at all? Why run an empire? I hope this guy's ideas don't catch on.
Civ 5 took a lot of the micro away from Civ 4 already (and made a few things harder to deal with, like troop movement). Part of the fun of Civ is managing your empire. Not instant gratification.
Similar threads
