Am I the only person who is mad?

[Mobilize]

i'll edit l8er

 

[North King]

Actually, I'm with Mobilize. It appears they've gone for the graphics without any real additions to gameplay, and they're animations in bad taste.

But my main thing with this is gameplay. It looks like, as usual, we won't have flanking have any effect, it would appear that any kind of strategy is out, as usual. Unit combat looks like it's going to be the usual horde of units throwing at each other like crazy, except this time we'll have a thousand bonii to keep track of.

Resources are going to be identical to the previous games. Either you have a source or you don't. No quantities, no stockpiles, nothing. Just the same old meaningless glands on the tiles that apparently secrete the resource you need on matter what you demand from it.

Religion seems like it's going to be a mere label. If no religions give specific bonii, then why have them at all? It won't matter one bit what religion you are, it seems. You just choose whichever one fits your people, there's not going to be any balancing between the religion that's best for empire vs. that best for people.

Civics, at least, I like.

The civs are again rather pitiful; they've chosen from those that will get them the most customers and name recognition. The leaders are again a simple nod to the bare basics. As usual they've picked Ghandi for India instead of their potential pick of Ashoka or Chandragupta to make this an educational opportunity. Caesar for the Romans. Again.

A non evolving UU system, again. No mention yet on any real bonuses to the civs themselves. Maybe they'll throw in traits, if we're lucky.

Etc, etc, etc.

Unless this gets spectacular reviews, I doubt I'll buy this. It looks like Civ 3 with better graphics (though worse style), same gameplay, improved civics, and another whole horde of completely meaningless generic bonii. They aren't even making this interesting from a historical aspect.

No thanks.

 

[Xen]

Caesar for the Romans. Again.

where did you hear this tid-bit of information? That said, while it woudl float my boat to see an emperor like Vespasian, or Aurelian, the only Leader of Rome out side the two members of gens Julii is going to be Marcus Aurelius, and even then only becaus eof Gladiator (which, by all means, is more then good enough to get the leadership of Rome outside of the Caesars, even if under them things were great, and arguments could be made that Octavian was amoungst th ebest leader of the Roman world, and holds his own weight against most other leaders that the world has seen period)

 

[troytheface]

lol "better graphics , worse style"

like that line - think i 'll rip it off to use in a conversation- change it to -better painting- worse aesthetic ......i suspect- after reading the unedited version of Moblize's re-complaint i see the real issue- and it is one of aesthetics. He is a modder- one that has talked himself into thinking that modders are the true aestheticians if i read that correctly. Not sure i agree.
As to the other post there ...An "Evolving UU system"? that kind of comes from nowhere. Unique- one of a kind
a one of a kind that evolves into a one of a kind that came from a one of a .....Again not sure about that. Modders - if they are good enough i suppose- could probably shape a whole game--with their own visions...of course confronted with a different aesthetic and new ideas they would be taken aback.
I agree with the flanking attack tho- they seem to be avoiding true strategical battles-
even at a low level- however, i am impressed with ...A Camel Archer! nice selection.

 

[North King]

where did you hear this tid-bit of information? That said, while it woudl float my boat to see an emperor like Vespasian, or Aurelian, the only Leader of Rome out side the two members of gens Julii is going to be Marcus Aurelius, and even then only becaus eof Gladiator (which, by all means, is more then good enough to get the leadership of Rome outside of the Caesars, even if under them things were great, and arguments could be made that Octavian was amoungst th ebest leader of the Roman world, and holds his own weight against most other leaders that the world has seen period)

Intuition, and the Prerelease Info thread. In other words, they always pick Caesar, and do a horrible depiction of him.

I wish they would have a little variety.

 

[North King]

An "Evolving UU system"? that kind of comes from nowhere. Unique- one of a kind
a one of a kind that evolves into a one of a kind that came from a one of a .....Again not sure about that.

I mean one where you can have more than one unique unit, and your units can change with the times. No sense in a Roman Legion if they don't have iron, no?

Modders - if they are good enough i suppose- could probably shape a whole game--with their own visions...of course confronted with a different aesthetic and new ideas they would be taken aback.

I'd rather have a good game released, than one which modders need to make into a good game from a bad one.

 

[bkwrm79]

Is it confirmed that resources will be an all-or-nothing deal (bar trade)? I haven't seen anything that says quantities matter for your own consumption, but I haven't seen anything to the contrary either (which may just mean I missed something).

I believe I read that there will be leader traits rather than civ traits.

 

[Chinese American]

I absolutely hate what this game that I've been waiting for, for several years, has come to look like.

I am relentlessly angered by what I see. The screenshots made me upset, but furthermore, the demo videos, have made me disgusted..

This game does not look like a Civ game, I don't think it deserves to be labeled as CivIV, very much like I don't think Warcraft III deserved to be labeled as Warcraft III.

Here are some reasons why I absolutely loathe CivIV:
1) Terrain looks to generic and ugly.. it's too large, there is one mountain per mountain tile, I just think the terrain is absolutely non-realistic. Terrain is also too few and too square. Those continents look absolutely terrible.
2) Units are too large and how they have 3 soldiers is completely moronic. I never ever cared much for multi-units because they tend to clutter your map.
3) City tiles look rediculous, and how come in all the screenshots/videos there are too few and too spread apart. It seems to me like a whole nation has a total of 3 cities. I wish they would return to the CivIII, one city per tile look.
4) Leaderheads are too cartooney.. c'mon Gandhi's head is huge. CivIII most definantly had better looking leaderheads.
5) National borders are too colorful and distracting, CivIII's were much much better because they were more defined.
6) There are too few civs, unit types, wonders, and improvements. Also, how come they couldn't have 2 leaderheads for every civilization instead of 2 for only a few.. I really don't think that's quite fair.

Well there you have. I probably missed a few things.

I wish CivIV was more realistic looking. I think 3d is worthless if it's unrealistic. Hopefully terrain will be moddable into 2d.. or else I will never buy this game. Hopefully everything I hate will be moddable.

Firaxis, I demand an apology for making me wait for several years for CivIV and come up with a piss-poor looking game. You have betrayed me, you have betrayed the modding community, and you betrayed yourselves.

That's all from me for now.

1. The terrain looks great and detailed. What screenshots have you been looking at? The colors are nice and not too bright (unlike III.) Sometimes less is more. In this case, it allows them to fit the improvements like mines to the single mountain without it looking out of place.

2. First you complain about lonely mountains, then turn around and complain about multi-units cluttering the screen. It looks more realistic and impressive to stare down at an entire army rather than solitary warriors. This lets you make quicker decisions.

3. The city dynamics are different, so they threw out the old method.

4. Ok now you're just being difficult and antagonistic. Gandhi looks very impressive. Animations are smooth. Everything is detailed. It's actually much less cartoony than III.

5. New borders let you see which side is the inside or outside of a nation. So it's much better. Especially zoomed out.

6. CivIII had 65 units; IV has 83. III originally had 16 civs; IV 18. III has 24 great wonders and 10 small wonders. IV has 30 great wonders and 10 small wonders--with movies.

So why are you complaining again?

 

[Luthor_Saxburg]

And I find it funny how people get angry over such a thing as a computer game. It's just a freakin game, not life!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Heresy!

Civilization is life! The rest is just... is just... something else too irrelevant!
How else could I justify the number of hours spent in front of this screen??? And with a stupid, unfriendly AI??

 

[Bast]

I'm actually hating the graphics too. I think Civ III graphics were fine, and they should've just stayed with it. Couldn't they have just improved the gameplay?

 

[Own]

I agree with you, I've sorta been saying to myself "Boy, this is gonna SUCK!" but never said it on the forums, except about corruption.

 

[Own]

I'm actually hating the graphics too. I think Civ III graphics were fine, and they should've just stayed with it. Couldn't they have just improved the gameplay?

If they just wanted to improve gameplay, it'd be an expansion pack not a whole new game. It's just that the new game looks really bad. But that's just a first impression, it may (and probably will) turn out to be awesome.

 

[henry k c]

Yes, I think civ 4 looks as lame as it gets. It lost it's unique style for a louzy Age of Empires interface. I have decided to buy Rome total war and quit civilization.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Once again, must we remind people about SUBSTANCE over STYLE? I actually think it does look very nice, and smooth-and that continuous zoom is just to die for. That said, though, it won't mean a damn unless it plays well, and from what I am hearing, most of it will play VERY well INDEED!!!
Oh and, as for resources: as I have so often heard 'abscence of evidence does not mean evidence of abscence'. Try and leave your complaints to what is confirmed to be in the game, not on what you THINK won't be in the game-at least thats my opinion!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[troytheface]

yes, after relooking at the graphics they are way nicer on the eyes.
That and moving rivers and resource animation ...life!...make it superior from a graphic point of view. The complaints seem odd indeed.

 

[Mobilize]

You know, a lot of you who like CivIV's terrain graphics so much probably have never seen sn00py's, womoks, etc. graphics terrains. I think they look much better.

 

[Smidlee]

I really don't care about graphics. What really got my attention with cIv 4: AI improvements
In PCGamer Johnson said" Civ 3 AI had a good idea what to do with individual units,but not how to manage them on the bigger scale" Johnson promises that the new AI will have a better grip on the big picture and will no longer order individual units to be picked off one by one.
This sound very promising to me. I hope Johnson pulls this off.

 

[Quebec Patriote]

Who gives a f*** about graphics... its all gameplay!

Graphics can ruin gameplay. I can't see a thing on the map, that's not what I call fun gameplay. Hopefully I will be proven wrong, but the map is way to crowded and dark (contrast is good you know).

 

[CoolioVonHoolio]

you know what i think? i think that the makers of civ dont really care about people like you who dont like it. cs there are alot more people who will buy it, first day probably. and these guys have a fixed salary, its not like if it is a dud they'll go broke! sure there will be some problems but nothing is perfect. youve just gotta deal.

 

[Quebec Patriote]

you know what i think? i think that the makers of civ dont really care about people like you who dont like it. cs there are alot more people who will buy it, first day probably. and these guys have a fixed salary, its not like if it is a dud they'll go broke! sure there will be some problems but nothing is perfect. youve just gotta deal.

I love when fanboys accept lower quality products because well, they are fanboys. Just because a game is good, doesnt mean we shouldnt ask for a bit more. I have no problems agaisnt poor graphics as long as it doesnt infringe on gameplay. From what I see (again, I could be proven wrong eventually), the graphics are too crowded and dark to my liking.

Any good company listens to it's clients feedback. A thing the gaming industry doesnt do enough IMO because people jump on games the first day it comes out. At least there are a few gems out there like Paradox. God bless em.