It is very smooth, love the interface. I have to play some more though.
I went through the same thing, lol!
Be honest! Who currently still prefers Civ IV?
- Thread starter kamex
- Start date
I went through the same thing, lol!
Oerdin
Deity
Civ4 was a classic which I still play all the time. Civ5 just isn't as good, maybe after an expansion pack but right now it isn't on the same level.
I really don't understand why people keep saying this. Just because a UI might be able to be navigated with a game controller doesn't mean that it's designed specifically with a game controller in mind.
Bill Bisco
Callous Calling
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 590
If you take the options and information CivIV gives you vs. CivV.
1. Combat Statistics
2. Diplomacy Modifiers
3. Annoying Narrator Voice for Civ INTRO!
4. Map Buttons
5. Ability to easily play modded MP Games
6. Ability to easily save MP Games
7. I simply Double-Click Civ4 BTS or whatever Mod Shortcut I have and BOOM! Instant mod game. Rather than having to click Steam junk, and EULA agreement Junk and select mods junk, etc.
8. Strength adjusted according to damage in Civ4, now in Civ5 I have to guess what my actual Strength is and what my HP are.
etc. etc.
Civ5 as of yet, doesn't match up and give me the big oomph to recommend it over Civ4. 1 Unit/tile is a nice start as getting away from city defense battles all the time is refreshing, but that isn't enough.
1. Combat Statistics
2. Diplomacy Modifiers
3. Annoying Narrator Voice for Civ INTRO!
4. Map Buttons
5. Ability to easily play modded MP Games
6. Ability to easily save MP Games
7. I simply Double-Click Civ4 BTS or whatever Mod Shortcut I have and BOOM! Instant mod game. Rather than having to click Steam junk, and EULA agreement Junk and select mods junk, etc.
8. Strength adjusted according to damage in Civ4, now in Civ5 I have to guess what my actual Strength is and what my HP are.
etc. etc.
Civ5 as of yet, doesn't match up and give me the big oomph to recommend it over Civ4. 1 Unit/tile is a nice start as getting away from city defense battles all the time is refreshing, but that isn't enough.
Murky
Deity
CIV IV was more intuitive in terms of the interface. Maybe with some heavy modding, Civ V will turn out to be a good platform.
Civ4 was kind of lame. I barely played any vanilla civ4 after the good mods started coming out. It was all about the mods. I hope civ5 is like that, too, because it's so homogenized and simplified it feels a bit boring. It is nicer for the late game, which might have been one of their goals, and that is kinda cool. I just keep having this feeling like vanilla civ5 is a really elaborate tutorial. I can't wait to get into some mods that have some depth to them.
Maybe I'll have to dig into the guts and see exactly how moddable it is myself.
Maybe I'll have to dig into the guts and see exactly how moddable it is myself.
The_Tyrant
Values Guardian
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 619
If they add religions or corporations in a later expansion pack, then I will prefer Civ 5. But for now, it is just too simplistic.
I played my first game tonight, 3 hours of a simple game on prince level, huge map, epic speed, rest default settings.
My first impressions is that I like it. There are some quirky interface things that I find annoying, but nothing deal breaking.(things like canceling a unit move) But it could just be I haven't found all the tricks yet.
But I find combat is very satisfying to me. It's miles better then civ4.
And on my map the barbarians are a bit over the top. They keep popping up all over the place. I mean they are reproducing like bunnies.
I wasn't trying to win, just play around to get to know the game. I spent most of the time running around playing with the different combat scenarios killing all the previously mentioned barbs.
I did have one laugh out loud moment that my wife hollered up asking if i was ok. I had a damaged warrior unit left(one guy left out of the 10) and I attacked a full squad of enemy archers and the little guy was swinging his heart out taking out every single archer one at a time. Had to be there moment i guess.
I guess the answer to the OP is I don't prefer civ4 over civ5, I would not go back to civ4 unless it was to play multiplayer with some friends, but even then I would try to convince them to give civ5 a chance. The new version takes a bit to get used to but change is good. I find it a refreshing update on the game.
Also I do find the the river graphics are strangely flat and lacking detail, but I noticed on my computer when they are close to the right side of the monitor, they suddenly come alive like real water(faintly but I can see it) . Must be a bug of some sort that I'm sure they will figure out.
My first impressions is that I like it. There are some quirky interface things that I find annoying, but nothing deal breaking.(things like canceling a unit move) But it could just be I haven't found all the tricks yet.
But I find combat is very satisfying to me. It's miles better then civ4.
And on my map the barbarians are a bit over the top. They keep popping up all over the place. I mean they are reproducing like bunnies.
I wasn't trying to win, just play around to get to know the game. I spent most of the time running around playing with the different combat scenarios killing all the previously mentioned barbs.
I did have one laugh out loud moment that my wife hollered up asking if i was ok. I had a damaged warrior unit left(one guy left out of the 10) and I attacked a full squad of enemy archers and the little guy was swinging his heart out taking out every single archer one at a time. Had to be there moment i guess.
I guess the answer to the OP is I don't prefer civ4 over civ5, I would not go back to civ4 unless it was to play multiplayer with some friends, but even then I would try to convince them to give civ5 a chance. The new version takes a bit to get used to but change is good. I find it a refreshing update on the game.
Also I do find the the river graphics are strangely flat and lacking detail, but I noticed on my computer when they are close to the right side of the monitor, they suddenly come alive like real water(faintly but I can see it) . Must be a bug of some sort that I'm sure they will figure out.
digitalcraft
Warlord
I think I still prefer 4. It's not that 5 is bad, it just appeals to a different audience, one I'm not part of.
I think the potential is there. It's just going to take a lot of work (by Firaxis and modders) to change things. I thought Civ4 was very playable out of the box (just like I do with Civ5) but like with Civ4, they certainly changed (and especially, added) a lot of things for the better by BtS 3.19.
Oerdin
Deity
Civ3 was a stinker too so I guess the odd ones always suck.
There was absolutely nothing "better" about Civ 3 even on release day. Civ 3 was an abortion of a game which should have been flushed down the toilet instead of released. Civ 1, Civ 2, and Civ 4 I can remember loving right out of the box but even though I loved the Civ series 3 was just a total turd.
I've switched to Civ V.
I am really digging the city states & the fact that resources are only good for building a certain amount of units. This REALLY gives some more reasons to get wars started in game. In Civ 4 it was just "He has an oil & I need/want it." In Civ V it can be "I really need 5 more oil so I'm gonna take that one" or "Florence is at war with Venice who is allied with my arch rival.. This gives me the perfect excuse to ally with Florence & crush them." It fits in better with my storytelling playstyle.
I am really digging the city states & the fact that resources are only good for building a certain amount of units. This REALLY gives some more reasons to get wars started in game. In Civ 4 it was just "He has an oil & I need/want it." In Civ V it can be "I really need 5 more oil so I'm gonna take that one" or "Florence is at war with Venice who is allied with my arch rival.. This gives me the perfect excuse to ally with Florence & crush them." It fits in better with my storytelling playstyle.
Sadly, the game is a big disappointment so far. Ok, I live in Europe so I've only played the demo so far, but the first 100-150 turns were always the fun part of the earlier games; City placement, maximizing the science output while expanding quickly. You could do this by founding religions, building cottages, going for the pyramids or by waging really offensive wars (and in BTS, use spies). The different civs and leaders gave you endless possibilities. I often were awake many nights and planned upcoming games in my head.
"Nonsense", you say. "The Pyramids were too powerful", "Cottages were too powerful", "very little strategy was needed". But one thing that you can't deny, is that the first 100 turns were crucial. Getting the economy working in the long run was easy, but getting it working QUICKLY was a tough challenge. You searched for gold and gems, you built the Oracle to be able to chop early Courthouses, you let your neighbour build the Pyramids so you could steal them from him...
It's not possible to come up with such strategies in Civ5, because you have very few options. You get science from population and to get a high population, you need happiness. That's it. Not only is it boring, but also completely unrealistic. The slider gave you the option to invest all money in culture, sacrifying research and military. Though it wasn't perfectly implemented, it gave you tons of option and you could always feel as you had control.
This game kind of feels like a turn-based RTS (paradox!). Build your base >>> collect resources >>> FIGHT! Simply, because if you don't fight, the game will be boring as hell, as there's almost nothing else to do.
"Nonsense", you say. "The Pyramids were too powerful", "Cottages were too powerful", "very little strategy was needed". But one thing that you can't deny, is that the first 100 turns were crucial. Getting the economy working in the long run was easy, but getting it working QUICKLY was a tough challenge. You searched for gold and gems, you built the Oracle to be able to chop early Courthouses, you let your neighbour build the Pyramids so you could steal them from him...
It's not possible to come up with such strategies in Civ5, because you have very few options. You get science from population and to get a high population, you need happiness. That's it. Not only is it boring, but also completely unrealistic. The slider gave you the option to invest all money in culture, sacrifying research and military. Though it wasn't perfectly implemented, it gave you tons of option and you could always feel as you had control.
This game kind of feels like a turn-based RTS (paradox!). Build your base >>> collect resources >>> FIGHT! Simply, because if you don't fight, the game will be boring as hell, as there's almost nothing else to do.
gouldilocks
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2010
- Messages
- 16
I'm still on the fence. I want to like civ5 but im not sure i do.
The Bad
1) Interface feels clunky to me; civ 4 imo had a cleaner layout
2)Maintenance Costs. I HATE paying to maintain roads and buildings. F'in lame.
3)No foreign trade routes; This takes away a lot of strategy imo.
4)National Wonders now require buildings in ALL your cities and many are empire wide effects; this really dilutes the concept of city specialization that civ4 fostered.
5) All civilizations are too similar. The leader traits just dont do enough to change how you would play the game. The leader traits in civ4 were MUCH more polished and meaningful and had a profound effect on the strategies I used. I dont see this as being the case at all in Civ5. I think this is my biggest gripe with the game. I think it will get stale as each civilization is pretty much the same.
The Good
1) Social Policies are cool
2) Combat system is much more strategic and satisfying that civ4.
The Bad
1) Interface feels clunky to me; civ 4 imo had a cleaner layout
2)Maintenance Costs. I HATE paying to maintain roads and buildings. F'in lame.
3)No foreign trade routes; This takes away a lot of strategy imo.
4)National Wonders now require buildings in ALL your cities and many are empire wide effects; this really dilutes the concept of city specialization that civ4 fostered.
5) All civilizations are too similar. The leader traits just dont do enough to change how you would play the game. The leader traits in civ4 were MUCH more polished and meaningful and had a profound effect on the strategies I used. I dont see this as being the case at all in Civ5. I think this is my biggest gripe with the game. I think it will get stale as each civilization is pretty much the same.
The Good
1) Social Policies are cool
2) Combat system is much more strategic and satisfying that civ4.
StargazingDog
Warlord
I do. I can't stand BTS. I prefer the elegance of the vanilla game. I don't want vassals, or espionage, or corporations, or...
CaptainKapow
Immortal
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2010
- Messages
- 90
I think it's very silly to think anyone can make a useful comparison between 4 and 5 when no one has played 5 for more than 24 hours yet.
I'm not discounting any one individual's opinion who has posted, but I generally wouldn't put much weight behind anyone's comparisons between a game they've played and grown into for years to another game of which they only have a first impression.
It's like a new pair of shoes. There is always a little discomfort at first as you stretch them out, and you don't really know how well they'll fit until you've worn them in.
I'm not discounting any one individual's opinion who has posted, but I generally wouldn't put much weight behind anyone's comparisons between a game they've played and grown into for years to another game of which they only have a first impression.
It's like a new pair of shoes. There is always a little discomfort at first as you stretch them out, and you don't really know how well they'll fit until you've worn them in.
I really don't think it's fair to compare Civ V on release day to Civ IV which has been out for 5 years and had multiple patches, expansion packs, mods, etc. Let's give it a bit of time.
Having said that, I like Civ V at this point, but I understand the complaints from this community. The game definitely has a bit of a "dumbed down" feel to it, made for a broader audience. I would imagine anyone who is a top level player of Civ IV will probably dominate in Civ V with relative ease, at least how things are right now. I think it would be nice if the expansion packs added a bit more of the "hardcore" stuff to the game, to balance that out a bit.
We'll see, but me, as someone who is frightened of playing on higher difficulty levels at this point, I like it. I'm interested to see where they go with it though, hopefully it's fleshed out through patches and exp packs to add more stuff.
Having said that, I like Civ V at this point, but I understand the complaints from this community. The game definitely has a bit of a "dumbed down" feel to it, made for a broader audience. I would imagine anyone who is a top level player of Civ IV will probably dominate in Civ V with relative ease, at least how things are right now. I think it would be nice if the expansion packs added a bit more of the "hardcore" stuff to the game, to balance that out a bit.
We'll see, but me, as someone who is frightened of playing on higher difficulty levels at this point, I like it. I'm interested to see where they go with it though, hopefully it's fleshed out through patches and exp packs to add more stuff.
