CIV IV vs CIV III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey lets both say this went on longer then intended. After all you said this is my final word aboyt 5 posts ago lol

"I wont talk about CIV4 with you anymore"

Never said it was my last post :) I think all my posts after that one werent talking about CIV4 or CIV3 with you, were it?


Good night.
 
Ya thats good, but whats all this calling out accusations of personal accusations?. Sounds like you were hurt, but Im not sure what I said that wasn't in tone with your posts.

Don't worry, I wasn't hurt - I'm simply not personally involved enough in forum discussions like these to possibly get hurt. While there were some passages in your posts which could be read as accusations, I simply chose not to do so, and frankly didn't care much about it. As I said, I tend to concentrate on the facts. I lead these discussions because sometimes they yield new facts, new data, or new insights, not because I enjoy personal conflicts, so anything else would have been counterproductive anyways.
 
Arlborn said:
Never said it was my last post I think all my posts after that one werent talking about CIV4 or CIV3 with you, were it? Good night


...six pages back:
Arlborn said:
I will say it just one more time.
I guess this meant nothing then, oh well ! :)

Hey! Since really you havn't contributed to much 'cept some complaints and apologies(all to or about me) I feel blessed we still got to enjoy your comic relief the entire 9 page's through! (My material was kind of dry)

Merry Xmas son an Im lookin forward to your witty comantary on many other of my posts this NewYear.! cheers!
 
Don't worry, I wasn't hurt - I'm simply not personally involved enough in forum discussions like these to possibly get hurt. While there were some passages in your posts which could be read as accusations, I simply chose not to do so, and frankly didn't care much about it. As I said, I tend to concentrate on the facts. I lead these discussions because sometimes they yield new facts, new data, or new insights, not because I enjoy personal conflicts, so anything else would have been counterproductive anyways.

Great thanks for takin another time out to address that. Ya Im the same as you though, Im never leading the show ;) Ya I guess Im not as invloved as you then. Takecare yourself
 
...six pages back:

I guess this meant nothing then, oh well ! :)

Hey! Since really you havn't contributed to much 'cept some complaints and apologies(all to or about me) I feel blessed we still got to enjoy your comic relief the entire 9 page's through! (My material was kind of dry)

Merry Xmas son an Im lookin forward to your witty comantary on many other of my posts this NewYear.! cheers!

Why complain of us if you just did the same? Quoting only a part of my post makes it a bit strange and looks like I said something that I didnt say. The real quote was:

"I will say it just one more time.

Firaxis surely made a marketing research about the requiriments. I'm studing business, and I found out that most of top game producers for the computer makes some kind of marketing research before release a great(big, or really modern or so) game. So I bet they found out that putting the computer requiriments some higher would be a valid choice when it comes to sales.
"


See? So different :p And that was the last time I talked about why I think the graphics are better yes..

And it was not all posts for you or about you, not if you read all with attention. Well, I think you dont anyway ^^

Merry christmas for you too! And happy new year! I hope you still can enjoy my comments in the next year :) Although sometimes you sounds a bit blind to some of them ;) .
 
Basicly you stuck to your guns and I respect that, but its over, time to relinqish your claims. Hey your not sweat'n it I understand, but still It coundn't hurt after all these posts we commited already, to finnaly put things right.

Actualy you suggested it could be more then 85% after I questioned this whole 9 in 10 (rounded) love of CIv4 more the Civ3!. I can't see how you stayed straight faced the whole time!...(oh ya internet the whole face hidden thing!)
Psyringe said:
Yep, I actually believe it because I still haven't seen a better number.

I tend to believe that the disappointment rate was lower than 15%, T.A says: that last bit (bolded)was the part I loved!!!(n disproved the most)

I'll stay at 15% as its the best approximation we have
not any more lol

Hey I though we would leave this off with some cold facts and hard proof from a far more neutral source!
REAL SURVEY!!!
THis is a great source of info to quell you claims!, A lil proof you despratly needed. Now you can get a l better grip on whats real out there(I hope) unless you knew along n' just likes to stick to your guns, ether way enjoy the read.

You only need to go about 3 pages to raise enough questions regarding your claims and the legitamcy of the great surveys you touted so assuredly it was absurdly obvious you were one sided to a strange cause.

But Thats not the only intent here (to validate my posts) really, its refreshing to hear the voice of the average consumer on this tired debate!, the hell with mine for the umph teen time! or the guy who will say pritty much anything then deny when hes wrong just to try n hold up against that someone like me(A Someone who brings the truth to where its not welcome :cool: )

All Im saying is THis might be a tad more neutral then your survey!
Theres a 150 votes right on this link, all short and all very telling.( to the inaccuracy of what you insisted upon).* no I didn't recognize any of you guys there. You coudn't wait for the mail to come lol)

Remeber if you check this out, according to syringe, 9 out of ten will be praising Civ4 and saying Civ3 was worse.


ONe more thing...

Dude Im just wondering, In regards to my sales remark, CIv3 out sold Civ4, you said :
1.However, you don't give any proof
2 unfortunately I still don't see any proof for your claim.
3.Do you have any numbers to back that up?

but an hour later on another thread....
Psyringe said:
PtW sold badly. It also got bad reviews

Why bother with making an assumption like that right after countering my claim with "back up your statments with proof" tisk tisk
For a guy needing proof on sales for Civ3's "better reception"Im just wondering, wheres the proof PtW sold poorly? more important: what exactly did you use as criteria to judge this 'poorly' accusation on? Was it Warlords perhaps? Last I checked it was't even ranked in the top twenty

I made the comment "Desprate indeed" when your game is behind houswives in sales:D
Am I wrong!!?So how poorly is that?(no need to reply, I think Im done here! I 'll 'catch' ya somewhere later bud.
 
I can't believe this thread is still being posted to. Not that it matters to me. I like Civ4 better than Civ3. Furthermore, I have CivWin, Civ2, Civ2:ToT, and Civ4 installed on my PC. Guess which Civ is missing? It's all a matter of personal preference. I don't like Civ3. That's my privilege. If you like Civ3, that's your privilege and no skin off my nose.

If we all liked the same thing, it would be a very dull world indeed. :xmassign:
 
I can't believe this thread is still being posted to. Not that it matters to me. I like Civ4 better than Civ3.

Ya I can see how this thread didn't end up being one of your favotires....
(some threads contain many member specific, but rule obeying, conversations. The continuation or number of posts is often influenced by this(so you know next time)

Still Its Many times more popular then anything on the gen board right now.( hits per day ratio). Are you still surprised? This thread you yourself coudn't resist even posting in has more than 3000 views.


Heres a Merry one back at cha man:)
 
I can't believe this thread is still being posted to. Not that it matters to me. I like Civ4 better than Civ3. Furthermore, I have CivWin, Civ2, Civ2:ToT, and Civ4 installed on my PC. Guess which Civ is missing? It's all a matter of personal preference. I don't like Civ3. That's my privilege. If you like Civ3, that's your privilege and no skin off my nose.

If we all liked the same thing, it would be a very dull world indeed. :xmassign:

My thoughts exactly (just that for me the missing civ is IV). :D Great attitude towards this, IMHO.
 
I can't believe this thread is still being posted to. Not that it matters to me. I like Civ4 better than Civ3. Furthermore, I have CivWin, Civ2, Civ2:ToT, and Civ4 installed on my PC. Guess which Civ is missing? It's all a matter of personal preference. I don't like Civ3. That's my privilege. If you like Civ3, that's your privilege and no skin off my nose.

I actually got CIV4 and CIV3 installed! But CIV1 still somewhere aroud here :)
 
I haven't read the whole thread, I started on page 1, went to two, skipped to 5, then skipped to the end and decided to post. :)

Anyways, I liked Civ 1, Civ 2 was even better, Civ 3 was mind-blowingly awesome with all the new features like culture, the artillery model, a better leveling system even though GGs were little crazy. Also, Civ 3 was where the first major steps in diplomacy were tackled. I loved diplomacy in 3 - not because of the ability to exploit the computer which I only did when I first discovered the ability to - but because this was the first time the AI seemed to have personality based on leaders. Civ 3 was the first time it felt like an empire game with diplomacy instead of a game of Risk and world domination.
Civ 3 had alot of tedious micromanagement if you sought to get the absolute best outcome out of every move you did but I am a more laid back player myself. I don't aim for the absolute max outcome - rather, just one that suits my fancy. I actually prefer the diplomatic side to it more than anything - which 4 has improved greatly.

**********​
The main thing I find disappointing in 4 is that is has so much potential and has only tapped into 1/4th of it even with an expansion out. Traits are imbalanced still, UUs are slightly imbalanced (although this was somewhat addressed in the expansion) UUs should not be a deciding factor of your empire IMO. But only a couple UUs actually need to be addressed IMO. I think the actual base units need to be addressed more. I think it would be better also if all UUs came in only at the end of the ancient era. Like moving War chariots and Immortals to Horseback riding - or the Quecha(sp?) to bronze working but not require copper to make (like the jaguar). This would give those units more power and better lasting ability and pull away from the insanely imbalanced random starts.
Alot of 4 that I do not like is the early game and how it always plays out the same way every game. I think the development stage of the early game is the most dull. Because progess takes too long. Start a game on a coast with 3 food resources off shore and you can easily have 5 cities before your opponent has 3. (Dependant on difficulty level because of resource cheats - I usually play on Prince-Monarch myself anymore because it is the closest thing to 'fair' with my playstyle.)

Workers and Settlers should be able to pop out alot faster too IMO. Military units as well. There are times it is actually cheaper to build a city structure than a unit which IMO should never happen. I know this is a minor thing but I am actually beginning to dig more into the small details now. Basically though base units need to be readdressed and better balanced for gameplay and in effect it would 'trickle down' to the UUs.

Many other things show potential but are then left hanging. Here is a brief description of each that I like the new ideas but I feel they were just left hanging and has seen no attention since the game first came out.

Promotions - Great idea. Best unit leveling system to come into the game so far IMO. But they are out of whack. Why do you need to be level 6 to use commando? Are your imaginary people so ******ed that they only know how to walk on your roads? It is like once they leave your empire they forget how to walk on a cleared surface. Why can't an aggressive force gain attack bonuses on certain terrain? Defenders get terrain bonuses, attackers should too but all they get so far is tiny 10% str bumps and city raider. But as far as combat in the field goes, all you can do is fortify to take advantage of the terrain and 'hope' the opponent attacks you so you get the terrain bonuses.

Religion - Neat idea... does nothing. It is a crutch for someone who doesn't know how to build an actual economy OR is an overpowered boost to economy as it can grow stronger than most average size economy if you found simply 2 religions and actually mess with spreading them at all. All it really does as far as gameplay goes past that is work as a happiness booster, by +1 then 1 more if you make a temple. I honestly think if they took it out and just made the default happiness of cities a +2 it would make the system more balanced. Really you dont even have to throw in the +2 :) in all cities. The game is actually more balanced without it, and it doesn't offer a victory type or anything special except help out minorly as a cultural victory if you build acadamies. (For more see 'Diplomatic Modifiers' below.) Religion was a big fat 'swing and a miss' IMO. If they were going to ***** foot around it this bad, they should have not put it in.

Trade & Commerce - Kinda short and sweet here. I love the new ideas implemented and for the most part I like the new commerce system personally.
Trade - What I don't like is the problem we have had in all civ games really. The AI has no clue how to determine a good deal. Just in the past, they have been morons that were suckers in negotiations and would trade you their arm, a leg, first born, and 100 gold - for 50 gold. In four they tend to offer you the 50 gold and want you to be the sucker. Hehe, plus now they get pissy if you don't. But at least now they are not idiots entirely so I can count that blessing. Even though it may just be wishful thinking, I would like to see the computer come to a better understanding of what is rediculous and what isn't.
Example: One game that really stands out to me is one I posted about once before. Germany wanted me to give him like 12 luxury/food resources and all my GPT for 1 source of iron. This is not an uncommon offer with AIs. The thing is I was 5 times larger than his little 7 cities he had. PLus, I hade almost encircled him by invading all of his neighbors. My power was off the charts compared to his. If I wanted the iron that bad, I would just invade him for it. So in the end, he kept his iron, got nothing for it, and I ended up getting a source when I finished off the malinese. (a neighbor of his)
Additionally, he didn't offer me the iron when I needed it. (At the beginning of the war or even midway) He waited until the end of the war as I was 'cleaning up' and it was inevitable that I would end up with a source of iron. It was just a bad deal - I have many more concerning techs, amnd other trades and even more are posted in this same forum. Probably in the Warlords forum too.

Commerce - Awesome new model. Now I dont have to build a road on every tile. :D Cottages are a cool idea, And I really have very little to complain about here. However, I wish trade routes were manual and grew over time if you traded with the same people for long periods of time. This is an idea someone posted on here a while back and I have been playing with it myself a little lately. More is mentioned in the Diplomacy modifiers section but basically, you would have new options based on this.
Another example: You get open borders with Catherine and set up some trade routes with your cities. Time passes and you discover the Rome who is becomes pleased with you very fast. Your current trade routes you have had with Catherine are pretty profitable but Rome is further away and you can make more profit from them. However, your diplomacy with Catherine will go down if you stop trading with her (See Diplomatic Modifiers section) and you will have to take a slight income hit when you intially swap to Rome. However, if you do relations with Rome will go up and eventually you will be gaining more money from trades with them.
In this example Catherine is probably very close, a neighbor even. so the diplomatic penalty might cause war. You would have to weigh your options. Or you could trade with both even but it is more profitable to trade entirely with Rome.

Diplomacy Modifiers - I love this feature, first off. But the computer seems to be a moron on who it should befriend. It crosses it's diplomacy way too much. And I don't mean 'double-cross' everyone is guilty of that from time to time I think. Even me, and I actually try not to because - well, for one I don't like the tactic and second the AI is too easy to do it too because it rarely if ever gets suspicious. Mainly, I like sort of roleplaying my empire. I almost always back my friends to the end. (Even AIs so long as they don't do something stupid like attack the most powerful country in the world when they are 2nd to last in power - but even then I sometimes will.)
Where the modifiers get sticky is the number values attached to stuff. And it definatly isn't the way it is currently because of balance.

A)Religion - AI's most ******ed insane modifier they attach to stuff. Sure empires have fought over religion before. But most wars in history have been fought over land control, balance of powers (e.g. most powerful), and in game terms "favorite civic". So why in the game is the religion modifier so large? At most you should get -/+ 3 for religion and no more.

B)Declared war - this should be a big slap to diplomacy but I think it only sits at -2. It should be a -5 every time you declare war. Then go down 1 point every 50 turns after peace or something. So if you keep declaring war on a nation and making peace, it wont take long for the AI to want you expunged and start bringing in others.

C) Open Borders and Trade Routes - The backbone of political relations. However, It would be nice if these were seperated IMO in regards to the Commerce section I mentioned above. Open borders should give you its normal +1-2 for the ability to move all units through your territory. Another form of OB should be added for only trade routes. This 'additional Open borders' would only give you +modifiers based on each level of growth of the trade routes you have with them. I think the trade routes should only reach level 3-4 at most. (sort of like cottages.)

Each route adds whatever default commerce based off distance and then an additional +1:commerce: and +1 You are a good trade partner for every level.
So up to a +3-4. So having both Open Borders and 'Open Trade' agreements would offer the player between +1-6 plus extra gold the longer you keep with the trade agreement. Which is a pretty strong modifier but makes since because you trade with them which makes you want to watch out for them sort of.

Alliances - Ah, now alliances. A very undershot part of the game. They don't come in until WAY freakin' late. And then they lock you in. :sad: I don't mind that too much but it doesn't help the AI at all because they are moronic. If you play with other players at all you will notice people form alliances in the ancient era. And this of course, put the AI at a serious disadvantage because they don't know how to do it. If an additional alliance was brought in at the classical era, or somewhere around writing, you could actually have AIs get to take part in a "mostly player game". The player that everyone is ganging up on would actually get to ask the AI for help. Imagine that. :crazyeye: However, I think this early alliance should be the new home for Defensive Alliances instead of military tradition that is way late anyways and a defensive alliance is the most basic of alliances.
An offensive alliance should be brought into the game with late medieval era, as well as a neutrality alliance. These are just some parts I am planning out atm myself, though and the details are being grabbed from some interesting threads on here and my own tweaking.
***********​

All said and done, this is just some ideas I have been thinking about for Civ 4 in a mod. But Civ 4 is a pain in the ass to mod for a regular person and I wish it was more friendly than this. But you can't have your cake and eat it too I guess.
So far though, I don't think Civ 4 is ever going to live up to its potential because I think Firaxis is just going to continue chucking in new things instead of balancing and defining all the new things already in it. Consumer crowds are fickle, and sadly people are more drawn to 'the new' instead of 'the quality' and it is 'the new' that many games have used as a tool for sales and it seems Civ is starting to do the same.
It is sort of like the Final Fantasy series. Each game, the system changes. Although, 7 was the best hands down. But it is the same story line just modified with 'the new' systems and charactors. It is still a successful title but I haven't bought a FF game since 8 and I just sampled the MMO. But no 'new' system can rival 7. IMO 7 should be expanded upon through the new systems. But people like 'the new' and tend to overlook 'the quality' for 'the new'. I ain't laying claim on anyone's intentions towards Civ 4 but it is just how I think we (consumers) tend to see things.

"They don't make 'em like they used to."
Anyways, Civ 4 is a pretty decent game. I don't agree with alot of the rave reviewers though. I think the quality of the product is very undershot for par. But the potential it has is astounding for sure. That I can agree with. However, I think it will be the modding community and not the company that will reveal the potential. And to me that says Firaxis is lazy as their version of the game is bland and dull compared to even some of the simplest mods.
Again, I know they had to code all the stuff originally which the modders didn't have to do and that takes time, I am aware. But not on the expansion Warlords. The expansion was a mod - just an official one. This was a disaster IMO. It hardly fixes any of the gameplay flaws to the model and just a bunch of crap chucked in. Like the system wasn't even evalutated for balance which is obvious it never really was too much in the first place.

Alot of my ideas are to my tastes and I am well aware alot of the stuff I listed may not be to everyone's liking. But having the company release the foundations of a game and expecting the players to add flavor is a cop out, and shows an extreme lack of creativity to me. Anyways, I could go on about vassal states even more but I gotta go run to the store at last minute and all for the holidays. :p
Here is a few more comments to tack on though. Civ 4 is definatly not better than 3. It is just different. The arguement with 3 was "The computer makes me have to use lame strategies to annhilate it." and "It is way too much micromanagement with no payoff" But only the second one is true. However, the first arguement can easily be avoided by not raping the AI's stupidity. The second was a nuisance and they fixed it in 4 but they added pretty much nothing and even tossed out some really great aspects. SO I don't see how 4 can be better myself. Only that it holds potential that I personally doubt it will live up to as far as Firaxis is concerned.
 
Hi Jones,

you can't just call it a day, can you? :)

Okay. Since your newest findings are relatively easy to refute, I'll take some time to do so - though I still suggest to just accept that Civ4 was not the failure in customer satisfaction that you claim it to be, and call it a day.

THis is a great source of info to quell you claims!, A lil proof you despratly needed. Now you can get a l better grip on whats real out there(I hope) unless you knew along n' just likes to stick to your guns, ether way enjoy the read.

Actually, this is very old news. The Amazon reviews have been thrown into this debate (and refuted) more than a year ago, you're a little late. :)

1. The problem with these reviews is that it takes *work* to write a review, much more work than taking part in a poll. Due to this, the following three groups of people are overrepresented in Amazon reviews: a) People who *love* the game so much that they actually take up the work to tell others about it, b) people who *hate* the game so much that they actually take up the work to tell others about it, and c) people who write Amazon reviews on a regular basis. As you see, this will lead to an overrepresentation of extreme opinions (people who hate/love the game), while all those lots of people who *like* the game, but don't *love* it, mostly won't bother to sit down and write a review. These people will participate in polls though. And this is why the average score of Amazon reviews is often lower than the average score of user polls. This is not an indication of a failed game, but simple psychology: the stronger you feel about the game, the more you'll likely to work your feelings into a review about it.

2. This effect can be observed for many games. Actually, it can be seen at the Amazon page for Civ3, the game you claim to be so much superior to Civ4. Many, many very bad reviews there. The total score is 3/5 for Civ4, and 3.5/4 for Civ3. What was your point again? :)

3. Now go back to the Civ4 page and sort the reviews after the "most helpful" criterion. Then look at the numbers. You'll see that the by far most helpful reviews were those that gave Civ4 5 stars (522 people agreed with a 5 star review (the by far most popular review of all), 315 people agreed with the second most popular review (5 stars also), and the most popular 1-star review had only 43 people finding it helpful. (Note: while "finding a review helpful" and "agreeing with the rating" are not exactly the same, there's clear evidence that many voters use their vote this way - otherwise a "review" consisting of nothing else but one short Shakespeare quote wouldn't be seen as helpful by 43 people, would it?). The numbers are surprisingly close to my estimation of 85% user satisfaction, although I'd be careful interpreting them due to a variety of reasons.

4. Now I said that Amazon reviews tend to overrepresent extreme positions, especially the negative ones, because dissatisfied customers are (on average) seven times more vocal than satisfied ones. This means that if we look at a *poll* instead of averaged user review scores, then the people who feel less extreme about the game should correct that picture. And they do. Have a look at this poll - find the box labeled "user voting" and click on "view results" there. Study the popup that comes up. Out of 366 voters, 179 gave Civ4 10 points, 94 gave 9 points, 44 gave 8 points, 13 gave 7 points, 13 gave 6-2 points, and 23 gave 1 point. As expected: In a *poll*, which doesn't demand a lot of work from the participants, the average score is far better, because the people who *like* the game, but don't *love* it enough to write about it, chime in. The people who hate the game are exposed as a rather small minority (just 7%, actually less than half the 15% that I estimated, which backs up my asumption that user dissatisfaction might be even lower than 15%).

5. Another poll, with more than 10,000 votes, can be found here. It shows even higher user satisfaction, with less than 5% of voters giving it less than 7 points. As expected - the more people take part in a vote, the more the vocal minority of dissatisfied customers loses its weight.

I still can't see where you see evidence for Civ4 being a failure in customer satisfaction. Imho, the evidence speaks strongly against you. Citing one web page (Amazon), which is known to overrepresent extreme opinions due to its system which requires "voters" to actually write a review, is a poor basis for your claims, especially when many other surveys speak against them.


ONe more thing...
Why bother with making an assumption like that right after countering my claim with "back up your statments with proof" tisk tisk
For a guy needing proof on sales for Civ3's "better reception"Im just wondering, wheres the proof PtW sold poorly? more important: what exactly did you use as criteria to judge this 'poorly' accusation on? Was it Warlords perhaps? Last I checked it was't even ranked in the top twenty

Well, check your sources again.

First of all, I thought that the comparably bad reception of PtW was common knowledge on these boards, and I honestly didn't expect to have to prove things that are common knowledge, especially not when arguing with someone who claims that he has some knowledge about the matter. However, if you need proof, it's not difficult to provide some.

Although Civ3 was a good seller, PtW never made it into the monthly NPD sales charts. It entered the weekly NPD chart for the week after its release, on position no. 9, and immediately fell out of the charts in the next week, never to reappear. (Apolyton has archived the relevant NPD charts here and here, another page also shows that PtW never even made it into the monthly top 20, not even in its release month.

Warlords, however, did not only hit the monthly top 20, it did even enter them as high as on position 4. (I think it even managed to top the *weekly* chart in its release week.) And not only that, Warlords even managed to pull Civ4 back into the chart, something that PtW absolutely failed to achieve because it didn't even manage to enter the chart itself.

So, do you see now that there is strong evidence for PtW selling badly, apart from this being common knowledge of most Civ fans who experienced its released? Moreover, where is *your* basis for your claim that Warlords sold badly?

Your main evidence seems to be that it is being outsold by "Desperate Housewives", a game that is bought on the back of one of the most successful TV shows we currently have, and which has a massive ad campaign slamming the game into the faces of every one of the millions of customers who watch this show. And to set the perspective right: The whole Civ franchise has sold about six million units during the last 15 years, while "Housewives" averages on 23 million viewers each week. Even when only 5% of those consider buying a video game, Housewives is *very likely* to outsell a Civ expansion. I really don't understand why this surprises you so much.

Conclusion: Neither Civ4 nor Warlords can be seen as failures in customer satisfaction. Civ4 was a success that actually, contrary to many other games in a popular series, managed to satisfy the overwhelming majority of its customers.

Personally, as I said, I like Civ3 and I have nothing against it. But I like Civ4 a lot more. If you (Jones) like Civ3 more, I don't have any problem with that. On the contrary, I'm happy that you *have* a game that you like so much. I do understand that Civ4 failed to satisfy *your* needs and wishes. What I don't understand is why you feel the necessity to claim that these personal feelings of yours are shared by a large share of Civ4 customers when they actually aren't.

So, after replying again, I again offer you, and even advise you, to simply let this matter rest. Let's play a game of Civ - Civ4 for me, Civ3 for you - instead of driving this thread further and further from what the OP actually wanted.
 
Ya sorry psyringe, truth be known I coudn't bring myself to read your post. I was to ashamed over how involved I became in all of this and didn't want to be reminded.(serious! it was regretable how things came down)

It takes a good night of real fun to make my head clear and I realized then, even its only a forum banter over a video game It was better to come to a postive end to our disscussions. No matter where are thoughs n feelings lie on the matter, it is after all Christmas. :smoke:

Sorry again for the trivial flavour of my last few posts. Best wishs to you and your German friends and happy Civving on behalf of me and mine from over here in Canada.:xmascheers:
 
Not that this matters anymore, but I have played Civ since '93ish, not quite exactly sure when I started but it was around then. But before that I played RailRoad Tycoon,:king: which is why I started playing Civ anyhow, kind of like the next step.
I, like a lot here, agree, Civ 3 just did not cut for me. CivII is still my favorite, I have to admit I have had a hard time playing much Civ IV, I think just too much time to get moving in the game. (Civ II is what I will stick with) Civ III PtW would make me so angry, I would play multi player with another, trade technology with the other player only to get my butt whooped, and playing at only second level, by some puny little neighbor that did not irrigate, build roads and had very few workers, city of 12 in the desert where I could barely get to 6 and started 300 years before him. Diplomacy sucked, I was definitely better than he was, he would want to trade monarchy for Printing and 240 gold, I said no, so he declared war, he sent in 50 immortals took 6 of my cities and yeah, attacked my weakest ones first not sure how he knew. I finally had to buy peace.
I wish diplomacy and allies were more readily available in PtW. The main reason I went to to Civ III and IV was because I heard the diplomacy was better. One of the things I hated about Civ II was that I would trade, give techs, and be nice to my neighbors only to have them turn on me and call me decadent and then not want to talk to me anymore, wah wah. I did not see where III and IV did much improvements.
I bought Civ IV last year, Dec 2006 and have only tried to play it 2 times.
Just too many graphics and seemed to take way to long to get anywhere.
I think some of my favorite aspects of civ II was consulting with my consul and the wonder vids, never got tired of it. The consul was nice cause I could consult and know in a second if I was doing good or bad in their humble opinion.
Thumbs down for III and IV
 
What the?? Well first welcome to civfanatics. and 2nd how did you dig this lil gem up? Dam bro, Must have been 80 pages back in the stack :eek: :lol:..hmmm

I hope your intention was not to rekindle a flame war between two other factions of which you both despise. What do they call you guys? Co-Adjutators ? You couldn't have grad from Georgetown cuz they stay better in disguise ;)

Seriously now, Nice to have you onboard. Its awesome to come full circle and see another year of civ down the drain. :goodjob:

Also couldn't help notice wiki sales figures I presented on the last thread would have come in handy here. I made the claim civ3 outsold civ4 was called on it, but had no backup. Musta based that one just on pure instinct ;)
 
I was not trying incite revolt....
I was just sitting thinking of how much I have not played Civ since I got the new version.. But I might eat some crow, I actually spent all weekend playing civ4 and the more I played it the more I liked it...will give it another try...one of my biggest gripes is how when you zoom out all gets cloudy...that is very not necessary...
 
Thread necromancy... :dubious:

However, in the spirit of all our new friends who recieved BTS for christmas, I'm willing to let this one pass.
 
Relax @ice. We'ze waz just playing. Glad to see your joining a side. ;)

coast said:
However, in the spirit of all our new friends who recieved BTS for christmas, I'm willing to let this one pass.
Ya Civ4 did well this year. I noticed a huge rash of tech forum posts since boxing day ;)
but Hey lets not forget... representing our side, All those new neighbours to CIv'3 'complete' street. Enough to sell out Amazon's bins the week before Xmas no doubt.
Welcome to the new age of civvin. Mybe are debates made such waves, enough to flood santy sleighs with civ3s :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom