DemonDeLuxe said:
@henrycccc
In case you haven't noticed: Those who complain the most actually are those who love the CIV series the most. The average Joe who happens to buy CIV4 as the first edition of the series doesn't have enough emotional ties with it to really get angry enough to invest the energy of posting here.
There are a few who've made their points for disliking the game very clear, and were respected for those points; but as more and more new people come onto these web-boards only to make the same points, it loses it's face value, and nobody really wants to hear it any more.
Many seem to be looking for hundreds of, "Yes Men" to sign their petition.
Thats what I don't understand. They really shouldn't expect complete support in their crusade against a game from that game's FAN-SITE.
Then, there are some who are so disaffected that they regurgitate one bad point with the intention of over-emphasizing it so that it is blown up into a huge spin about why this game is bad, and why nobody should ever enjoy it. This of course springs up a bandwagon mentality, where people who have never even played the game before, are coming on to the web-board to resonate a point that wasn't even very widespread or impotant to begin with. They do it because it directly competes with their favorite game; be it Civilization 3, Age of Empires 3, or some other obscure game that belongs in the RTS or TBS catagories.
Then you get some people who are like JakeCourtney, and do it for the Theatrical value. They just want attention. You have to remember this is the same guy who said he got Civilization 4 three days before it was released, and then came out two weeks later to tell us that he doesn't even own the game, despite his constant complaining about the game...
DemonDeLuxe said:
The more a fan of the series you are, the more likely it is that you are disappointed by one or more aspects of CIV4. This has nothing to do with "hate" but (if you absolutely want to stick with the emotional reference) with disappointed love.
Why not just say - The more you are of a fan of the 'original' game, the more you are likely to enjoy Civilization 4. Most people who dislike Civilization 4, got their beginnings with Civilization 2, Civilization 3, and CFC.
The blatant contradiction that I made in the prior paragraph is to prove a point. You don't have to be a, "True Fan" to enjoy a game. Being a "True Fan" doesn't make you any more likely, or less likely to enjoy a game, nor does it make you better than somebody who is not a "True Fan."
What these "Dedicated Fans" from all eras of Civilization fandom fail to realize, is that every Civilization has had horrible bugs that made the game feel less than up to snuff to the standard of the time... In fact, there hasn't been a standard of the time. All games have bugs. All games. Every single one I've ever played has had a bug in it. This includes console games.
As for the bugs that I spoke about for Civilization?...
Civilization 1 {DOS} had horrible crashes. WinCiv was literally unplayable. CivNet was over-run with bugs, especially with taking another players city... Urgh... The most annoying thing about Civ 1 was when other Civilizations would plop a city right down next to your city, and you couldn't get rid of it!
Civilization 2 prior to the Gold Edition had so many graphical issues. Not to mention the Railroad over Water issue. Conquering worlds was very painful in this game, especially as partisans started popping out nearing the end. You'd need huge stacks of 20 just to hold a city, with each turn taking longer than the last...
Civilization 3 had so many loopholes to cheat a win from the AI that it was virtually impossible to find a challenge in the game. A ******ed monkey could win on Deity. CFC had balance issues thanks to the Agriculture trait. It was fun for a while, but after you reach 600 AD and realize you're going to win no matter what the enemy AI does, the game loses it's flare, especially as you're forced to spend 2 hours finishing up a game you've already won. This version also had the annoying need for stacks of 20 just to hold a city, with each turn taking longer than the last...
These are all fine points that fans know about. This is why there are so many out there willing to forgive Civ 4's faults. Because we know that these faults will be forgotten when Civ 5 is out; when a whole new slew of whiners comes out of the woodworks to compare and complain.
DemonDeLuxe said:
Personally, I think Firaxis wasted a huge amount of opportunities, concentrationg on fully redundant (what some people call) "eye candy". In a CIV game, I call this "disappointing" because CIV has always been about ingenious gameplay and a superb interface (AND a nice game atmosphere!), all of which I find lacking in this edition.
I think Firaxis did a great job. I call the game wonderful. My only gripe is that it is too graphics intensive; but even I am willing to overlook that, considering that it's more playable than Civ 3 original was.
Edited: Because many of my points sound as if they're directed at Demon, when they're mainly subjective views about the same people Demon is talking about. They are not directed at him.