Am I just crazy or is Civ4 just not as fun as Civ3?

[FatTurtle]

I had the same feeling, I learnt the basics, won a few games with different victory conditions, moved up a few difficult levels until I couldn't get any further etc. Then I felt like ok, what now, and started playing other games instead.

Then yesterday I thought I might try an internet game, just cuz I was bored and I had the computer all for myself for the afternoon, and what a change! Apart from having to interact with real ppl instead of the AI in the trades and wars (me and a guy had a massive cold-war style buildup at the border, no-one had any plans on attacking the other but the mere sight of his stacks of units promted me to reinforce my stacks, and so on), it mainly adds a whole new level of competetiveness (is that even a word?) to the game. That is of course for the better and worse, as some ppl I've met online seems to take it a bit too seriouly, but overall it revived my interest in the game and I feel that I can use many more of the options in the game as you need to be much more flexible, and I can't wait to get home and play later on!

 

[Indiemonkey]

I actually prefer 4 to 3 - for some reason I just find it more enjoyable. I could never get into 3 as much as I did 2, or SMAC for that matter- I found the difficulty levels were kind of misleading, I hated the whole land-rush that would happen where you'd just get loads of enemy units rushing through your territory to grab like one square of unclaimed land. I did enjoy the culture idea that 3 brought in - but it just seemed too weighted in favour of the AI for me (of course, there is the possibility that I just wasn't very good at it )

 

[MikeH]

Maybe you should just play Civ3 again to see. You know, it's maybe like those celebrities who get half-saint status in the view of people after they die. Because no one want's to remember their bad stuff since you don't do that with dead people.

Rince

I did, I dug out the CD to play Civ 3 GOTM 50 for old times' sake, but I'm afraid I gave up because I realised I'd rather be playing Civ 4 and frankly I wasn't looking forward to micromanaging pollution clearing in the modern era on a large map.

Reading other forums though I've noticed people who like the first two games but hated Civ 3 think that Civ 4 is much better. I'm not in that group, but it took time for Civ 3 to grow on me, Civ, Civ 2 and Civ 4 hooked me right out of the box.

Perhaps Civ 3 had something that some people loved and some people hated that the other 3 games don't have.

 

[Garand]

Being a long time veteran of the Civ series, I too can say that I feel there's something missing from Civ IV, but I can't put my finger on it. However, I am still having fun playing Civ IV and have some very interesting games going on. One of things that I do not like, however, is that the pace of the game seems far faster than in Civ III. I play for a few hours, think "Oh, well, it's probably around 1300 or 1400." Then I look up at the date and it's 1750.

I guess one reason I'm not tired of it yet is that I play in bits. I play World of Warcraft a lot and that takes up most of my gaming time during the week. If I can sneak in 4-5 hours in the week for Civing, that's pretty good, and it keeps me interested in the game!

 

[Randwolf]

I feel there's something missing from Civ IV, but I can't put my finger on it.

Yea, just how I feel. I'm still enjoying CIV alot though.

 

[Manty]

I have to agree with something being missing. i bought civ 4 and then returned it and started playing civ 3 again. i think that civ 4 is beautiful, graphics, religion and close up fighting, but it lacks that satisfying epic feel of slowly taking over over civs and slowly building up your empire and looking back in those moments of quiet and scanning all you have done. everything seems to happen faster and with less theatrics in civ 4. there is a great feeling taking ages to build up and army and invade your neighbor, i found in civ 4 by the time the army was built the unit were obsolite.

not complaining about civ 4 just wish some of the features and looks could be applied to civ 3

 

[NikNak]

I have to say I prefer Civ IV. I think it's pacing and ease of play is scads better than Civ III's late game bogginess. In fact, I absolutely LOVE Civ IV. I want to make sweet, sweet love with my Civ IV CD. I want to make babies with it. Wonderful spawn of human genes and Firaxis programming! I will name it my heir. It will ascend to my mighty throne upon my passing and rule benevolently as I fade into legend. I want... Wait. This is getting weird.

Let me just leave it at this. Civ IV is really good.

 

[BubbaYeti]

I think what might be missing from IV is the impetus provided by missing resources (ie. that resources are too plentiful). I cant think of an early game where I didn't have access to either copper or iron, and only one where I didnt have access to oil in the late game (and in that case I had uranium). Also, you do not need a special rescource to make gunpowder units. In III, you needed saltpeter so if you didn't have it you had to get creative really fast. That provided a bit more of an "edge" to things. Maybe cut the spawning of strategic resources down about half?

 

[TylerDurdon]

Now, before we start hating on me, hear me out...

I think Civ4 is a great, beautiful game. I think its one of the best games out, and the best Civ game. I have a very high end system so the game can be played with all options on/high and on huge maps with no problems...

I just feel like something's missing? I play it, enjoy it, play on harder difficulties that challenge me, and yet I'm just finding myself opting to play other games more often.

Is this common for anyone else? Is there something different or missing from this interation that makes it not quite as addictive?

Or am I just crazy?

I'm feeling the same way... my passion for the series just went away with this one... not that the game not good... but maybe not up to the expectation!!! I dont know really... but after reading the "already bored thread" I realize that I suffer of the MP game pace and modern area syndromes... at that point I just want the game finish already and took me a lot courage just to go over it... I LOVE the early game though... where you still have things to do other than pop the same millitary units and FLY throught the tech tree (4 turns for a tech is consider on the edge of being slow)...

But in the other hand... I play now only 2 or 3 games a month... which isnt bad for my RL... and now thinking about it... i might just spend more time here on this forum than actually playing the game

 

[Khan_Asparuh]

Sam, you're not alone in this. Come on, everyone can cry at me, but after something like 4 years of Civ3 non stop and god knows how much on the previous, I preordered and tasted CIV and decided to go and try HOMM4. The HOMM5 is out too; I think I'll try it too.

So guys, be my guests, worship CIV and it's AI and so on. I'll go and collect some vampires, to get rid of this bunch of phoenixes. Everyone has the right to choose and to like the game he wants. And don't try to convince me I'm crazy. I know it already.

Cheers.

 

[GIO888]

CIV4 Rocks, and going back to CIVIII you suddenly realise you actually quite like the eye-candy stuff, but Firaxis certainly made it difficult for themselves with the technical bugs!

The 3 shades of cr@p I had to wade thru technically - drivers, upgrades, blah - took the edge off a game I was DESPERATE to play, so when it was fixed and running I was "oh, right then."

Took me a week not to hold my breath every end of turn, in case something else CTD'd my @ss!

CIV4 is far superior to CIVIII in every way, a triumph. You just have to be hardcore to get thru the fog to it!!

CIV ON!

 

[deo]

I think that the simplicity of Civ 3 is more funny than the complexity of Civ 4 or perhaps i know Civ 3 too much but 4 is too new to me so i hate to open the Civilopedia every minute.

 

[Salarakas]

There seems to be many old timers who agree with you Warlord Sam... Civ4 just isn't as much fun as the previous games. Some of the changes are excellent but the magic isn't there. There are a couple of excellent threads about this which you might want to browse through.

Not a Beginner, bored with the game...
Have they killed the fun for warmongers

 

[symon]

Interestingly enough, I went to the trouble to fix the dreaded 'can't load font' problem in Civ3 last weekend, so much did Civ4 make me want to play Civ3. (Fixing that bug proved amusing).

So no, you aren't nuts.

 

[CautiousChaos]

I think what might be missing from IV is the impetus provided by missing resources (ie. that resources are too plentiful). I cant think of an early game where I didn't have access to either copper or iron, and only one where I didnt have access to oil in the late game (and in that case I had uranium). Also, you do not need a special rescource to make gunpowder units. In III, you needed saltpeter so if you didn't have it you had to get creative really fast. That provided a bit more of an "edge" to things. Maybe cut the spawning of strategic resources down about half?

Bingo! There's a distinct lack of tension when that happens. I remember all too many games where I had one saltpeter near a border and had to defend it agressively. Or, when oil appeared in a place just out of reach of me or my opponents. Race ya!

Civ IV lacks that entirely, plus with the maps sizes "feeling" smaller, by the time the strategic sources appear, nearly every square is occupied, so someone's going to get 'em.

-cc

 

[RX2000]

I like Civ 4 the best, but yea sometimes it gets boring.

I think a lot of that is probably because I always win. Maybe I need to challenge myself more.

 

[MattJek]

Bingo! There's a distinct lack of tension when that happens. I remember all too many games where I had one saltpeter near a border and had to defend it agressively. Or, when oil appeared in a place just out of reach of me or my opponents. Race ya!

Civ IV lacks that entirely, plus with the maps sizes "feeling" smaller, by the time the strategic sources appear, nearly every square is occupied, so someone's going to get 'em.

-cc

I found this more of a problem in civ3. The start of the game was a huge land grab where everyone was churning out settlers trying to get dibs on the best places on the map. I remember in about EVERY civ 3 game I played the AI would plan a city in a place that I was planning to build one, a lot of the times I already had a settler heading there. By the middle ages, the whole map was settled and this was one the larger map types too.

 

[Warlord Sam]

Very interesting, and reassuring, to find out that I'm not the only one who feels the same way. Thanks for your responses, and hopefully they'll have a patch that introduces this mysterious x factor, be it scarcity of resources or the ease of defense or whatever else it might be. =D

In the meantime, I'll continue to play various games in addition to Civ4, and not feel that overwhelming compulsion/addition to play "just one more turn" Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Who's to say..

 

[Volstag]

Play until you're bored of it... then play something else. Come back when it's appealing again.

 

[Phoenix_56721]

I started playing Civ with Civ3 and I really liked the pace over RTS games that I was used too. But I think the pace was a bit too slow for my tastes, but now with Civ4 I think its just right. The new Multiplayer features also add a lot to Civ4, Civ3 just wasn't a Multiplayer game at all.

From what I can tell from reading this forum is that people who really liked Civ2 also really like Civ4, and people who really liked Civ3 don't care for Civ4 as much. Sounds like I would have enjoyed Civ2 more then Civ3, I guess I missed out wish I would have heard of Civ sooner on in my gaming career.