Be honest! Who currently still prefers Civ IV?

Thanks for your opinion. I guess that means I don't have to worry about seeing you post in this forum anymore as you obviously think the game is horrible. Actually I'll just save myself the trouble and put you on my ignore list as clearly you have nothing to say worth reading about the game. Just immature "junkware" comments.

I want to give mva5580 hugs and reputation!! ;)
 
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.

I agree totally. Civ4 had more diversity between how I played the game with different civs/leaders. There are only 3 or 4 civs in civ5 that really stand out from the others. The combat in civ5 is much more fluid, strategic, and has more meaning. Civ4 has way more to offer during times of peace. I find myself going to war in civ5 just to keep entertained. In 4, I only went to war when someone was is the way of my expanding empire.
 
Um...civ 4 has been out for years ..thats the point...they could have growth with it ..instead they took 5 steps back..these are the times that seporate the people who will take old yeller behind the barn and the people who will sit, quiver and watch him suffer. Civ 5 is junkware
That's similar to my thoughts. When you make a sequel to a game. I expect the sequel to be everything good the previous game was and more!
 
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 like it too but what about the penalty for annexation, is it better to annex at some point. Right now I have Venice as a puppet, and it took me forever to found a coastal city. The whole coast is taken up by city states. I guess next time I will limit the numbers of city states. I could not find the more advanced options, on the advanced options tab. I must not have looked close enough, this is going to take alot of getting used to.
 
It's a little early to say whether V is better than IV or not. My only complaints so far is that I haven't been able to figure out how to turn off combat animations or find the clock/timer that was so useful in IV.

Remember that when IV came out, if you had an ATI video card the game didn't work at all. But peole forget stuff like that, especially after a few years.
 
That's similar to my thoughts. When you make a sequel to a game. I expect the sequel to be everything good the previous game was and more!

Kind of hard to do that when the predecessor had 2 expansions and more modding than a person can count.
 
well i really like it, cant see me ever playing another game of civ4 again and looking forward to civ5 maturing into the full game that civ4 was by the end
 
I will give Civ V a lot of play time to see if it grows on me, then if it does not I will wait for mods or expansions.

But I will certainly be playing Civ 4 BTS - Legends of Revolution a heck of a lot. I know it almost better than my GF's body and its an incredibly polished game. I cannot just waste the time I spend on that Leaning Curve, to get my play down to an art.
 
Some of the comments here have me worried (haven't played it yet), but my fear was that Civ V will be a dumbed down, shallower, "consolised" version of Civ. And it is sounding like this is indeed the case.

Well, that's not quite fair. It isn't so much dumbed down as severely cut back and refocused. Combat is far more interesting, for instance. But based on the demo, you are missing complete levels of game play -- pollution, for example, and of course religion -- that you had to take care of in Civ IV. And everything is more focused on money.

So if it feels simplistic, it is because everything seems to be focused on two things: Combat and money.
 
Well, that's not quite fair. It isn't so much dumbed down as severely cut back and refocused. Combat is far more interesting, for instance. But based on the demo, you are missing complete levels of game play -- pollution, for example, and of course religion -- that you had to take care of in Civ IV. And everything is more focused on money.

So if it feels simplistic, it is because everything seems to be focused on two things: Combat and money.

Well then, I suppose that makes Civ V more realistic than Civ IV anyway.
 
I only played the demo so far, and I was disappointed with the way the game looks and feels. Granted, I do not have the best system out there, but I expected more from my rig. I would think they can still fix done performance hiccups wroth patches though.

I can see the potential in civ5, so I will say 5 for now.
 
At the moment Civ IV as Civ V runs quite badly on my PC and I can't get into it. I'm just going to wait until I get a new PC, which should coincide with some patches for Civ V. Hopefully by then it will be a better game.
 
Does anyone think that the sense of unease about Civ V is in fact just that? The unease that comes from being unfamiliar with it, compared to a game that we now know like the back of our hands?

My sense playing though the tutorials, including the "learn while you play" (two civ duel map on settler), gave me the following impressions:

Still getting comfortable "seeing" the map ... at a distance, units get lost in the terrain, I need the resource icons to sort our their terrain representations, seems to me the interface could occupy less of my screen space (maybe there is a way to shrink it?). Tile yield graphics are taking some getting used to, compared to the Civ IV method. This is all a matter of getting used to a new presentation ... it is getting better the more I play.

The city screen method of showing which tiles are worked is a step backward, I think ... those silly David's heads, just ad more clutter on top of yields and resource markers ... and that line of "demands (resource)" is placed in the way. Nice if they could fix this ... the circles were so much simpler.

Then there is the issue of not knowing what is optimal for this game's mechanics. Find myself looking for the cottage (the trading post seems to be the nearest thing), laughing when the fishing boat only adds gold production, granary adds food per turn (is not a multiplier). And with citizens making science (funny idea, maybe, but is turning gold into science any more realistic (what kind of alchemy is that)? Dollars are not science without scientists.) ... All that means is that in this game, food is science, instead of gold being science. All of this is not a problem, it is what makes it a different game!

Self embarking units is different to be sure. Loving the ranged attacks!

Bottom line, feel very different from Civ IV, which I think is as it should be. I recall my limited understanding of Civ IV before I started playing XOTMs and reading war academy article, after which a whole new layer of depth emerged. In Civ V, perhaps there is less detail of city micromanagement, but I can see more "path" options ... what is the optimal tech path, in particular mixed with what is the best social policy path, and the best city state diplomacy path, to reach a particular objective.

So rather than complain about the Civ IV things you don't find in Civ V, why not embrace solving the puzzle of the new items that are in Civ V?

dV
 
Some of the comments here have me worried (haven't played it yet), but my fear was that Civ V will be a dumbed down, shallower, "consolised" version of Civ. And it is sounding like this is indeed the case.

I trust the opinions of those on this site over the good/positive reviews in the media. I have trouble trusting "game site" reviews, as the reviewer is probably not a civ-fanatic like most of us are. In fact, they're probably console-game-players that go from one game to the next each day.

Play the demo and see for yourself.
 
I love civ IV, but I am going to really try to play just V to learn it well. I like it more and more as I play it.
 
Civ 5 is superior unless you like spreadsheets, stack bumping and excessive micromanagement.
 
Civ 5 is superior unless you like spreadsheets, stack bumping and excessive micromanagement.

Not that there's anything wrong with that ...

J/K, I like V better than IV. But I'm waiting to buy V (been playing the demo) because I don't think it's worth 60 dollars and I want to see what the prices/options on DLC are. So in the meantime I'll enjoy Civ IV.
 
I'm in Europe and have downloaded the demo and am already bored after 80 turns...

Although I like some of the new changes and although I would love to like Civ V more, I just really miss having to deal with:
- religion
- pollution
- espionage
- more different civs

plus, Civ IV really did give you a feeling of a board-game, this one just doesn't. I know I'll need to get used to it, but it reminds me too much of games like Age of Empires or Empire Earth - which are great games of course, but the clue about Civ is the turn-based part and I really can't get into it...

The hexes are a good change and look of course better, but if one actually pays attention, squares give you more options about movement. Social policies look pretty good, but I think there's still some improving possible (I don't know exactly how yet but it feels a little shallow, it looks like a lot more but is in fact less.)

what I absolutely LOVE is the restriction of one unit per tile/hex. It requires a lot more strategy and is not just about who has more units stacked on one tile anymore. also I love the ranged attacks, as they make a lot more sense now...


other than that, I don't know... the animation of the leaders are fun (although it seems like nothing can upset them, in Civ IV you actually started to like and dislike leaders just bc of the way they were acting and that was fun.)

I also believe (as mentioned by a few above) that the civs and leaders don't stand out enough, which was better in IV. The whole tile/territory-buy thing is a nice idea, but requires all that money that I keep on not having (and I'm not SUCH a bad player ;) )

City-states: GREAT! probably the best change to the new version...

well I probably am also being unfair, since I'm just playing the demo for right now and probably not giving it enough time to get used to it. but I did have high expectations after Civ IV and the BTS expansion. To me, it has been the best game I've ever played.

I know I'm probably repeating a lot of things that have been said before. but for right now, if I had to choose between the games I would choose Civ IV a hundred times over Civ V. Which is why I'm about to play IV again :) :goodjob:
 
civ5 seems too easy vs the AI

vs humans it seems like it's going to be a lot more about luck based on who gets more luxuries. can't afford to make happiness buildings everywhere vs someone who doesn't have to... maybe if there's something like hereditary rule it might end up ok, but i haven't noticed it in any of the early social policy options
 
Top Bottom