civ 3 players will not move on

[Civinator]

you know why they dont accept why other people don't play civ 3? ... keep in mind this thread started in a civ 4 forum and wasnt aimed at stalwart civ 3 defenders. it was aimed more at people who liked civ 4 and had experience playing both. ...explain why convincing you that civ 4 is worthy to be played over civ 3, worthy in its own right?

Excuse me, but this thread was started by a Civ 4 player, who doesn´t accept others who don´t play Civ 4 -not the other way around you are saying here.

These kind of Civ 4 "fans" (to avoid another word or the word "asperger enthusiasts" as you use it) also post in Civ 3 forums. In his later posts Churchill 25 showed his true intentions about his postings.

I really don´t need to be convinced about Civ 4, also I´m open for that. But this thread is about convincing Civ3 players about Civ 4 and if there are arguments about this, these people also must deal with the responses about them. If Civ 4 players now on their own forums are confronted with some sides where Civ 4 is not so shiny, they must live with it. If they now are disturbed in their own small Civ 4 world (to use your words about "asperger enthusiasts") it is the problem of the people who start these kind of threads.
Without "a bunch of loudmouth, insecure civ 4 fans that perk up every time" the problem in this and other threads "about a bunch of loudmouth, insecure civ 3 fans that perk up every time" as you call it, would not exist - at least not in this thread.

 

[Ambidexter]

I share my house with my wife and adult daughter. All of us are Civ players. Presently, I play CivIV BTS, my daughter plays C3C, and my wife plays Civ II. All of us prefer the games we play for different reasons. We can appreciate what other versions of Civ offer, and occasionally play other versions, but we always go back to our preferred games.

There's a Latin expression, de gustibus non est disputandum [there's no disputing taste], that sums up the situation perfectly.

 

[gps]

Bottom line:
Its my belief that the improvment of historical epics is made possable through vast vats of user-created resources.

Oh my god, YOU really kill me. Civ III as well as Civ IV are not historic epics, they are stupid little computer games that even now only a few stupid little geeks like you and me ARE actually interested in. Go out on the streets and ask people if they are worried or upset by Firaxis changing the history making and art genre defining but slightly outdated Civ III 2d graphics to up-to-date but totally unbearable 3d graphics (thus ruining the greatest historic epic of the new millenia - sacrilege!!! ). Most won't care, the majority probably won't even know what you're talking about. That's how important Civ III and it's 2d graphics (and also Civ IV and it's 3ds) are. In twenty years all hardware you could play it on will be crumbled to rusty bits and in fifty years they will be completely forgotten! That's not what I'd call a historic epic. Maybe you should try to get a focus on what REALLY matters in life. I'd do so before getting worked up so badly I couldn't enjoy it any more...

 

[Shigga]

So who are the heathens in this discussion? Just so I know who to hit over the head with my pointy-stick-rhetorics. I will smite thee!

 

[r_rolo1]

^^you can point in both directions.... There the diehard Civ IV fans , the diehard civ III fans , the people in the middle and the ones that play both . Just choose....

 

[Civinator]

^^you can point in both directions.... There the diehard Civ IV fans , the diehard civ III fans , the people in the middle and the ones that play both . Just choose....

Well spoken.

 

[MarkC1]

Ive played both and I think Civ 4 graphics are much better but Gameplay is far worse. Civ 3 graphics were dull by comparison (but good enough for a strategy game) and yet the gameplay was awesome.

There's just too much unnecessary crap in Civ 4 that make the gameplay slow to a crawl. e.g. promotions ,too many techs, too many modifiers. Too many things to keep track of in cities as far as whats getting obsolete, etc.

 

[CyberChrist]

There's just too much unnecessary crap in Civ 4 that make the gameplay slow to a crawl. e.g. promotions ,too many techs, too many modifiers. Too many things to keep track of in cities as far as whats getting obsolete, etc.

Heh - normally we are hearing Civ III fanatics complaining about the 'dumbed down' gameplay of cIV. Nice to be hearing the truthfull reality of the matter as an argument for not playing cIV for a change

*braces himself for rampaging replies*

 

[Ace of Gold]

Churchill 25 you showed in some later posts, that your real intention was to create another flame thread against Civ 3. So these remarks about real civ fans who play civ 4 are as superfluous as the clasical "smoking chimney"-position that lots of civers just have commented in a way I don´t want to citate here.

Could it be that the mind of some Civ 4 players doesn´t exceed the radius of their Civ 4 dvds ?

Churchill 25 , in fact with your question in your first post of this thread you did one of the most spectacular self goals in the history of Civ3 hate threads. In your first post you showed that you yourself have no arguements for convincing civers who still enjoy to play Civ 3 to switch for Civ 4. In the following tons of postings it was demonstrated that the other Civ 4 fans didn´t have these arguments too (and this is no wonder as the civers who still prefer Civ 3 over Civ 4 have their reasons for doing it, so most of them have bought Civ 4 and its expansions). On the other side you got tons of hints about weaknesses of Civ 4 with mostly well-founded arguments why this group still isn´t convinced about Civ 4.

Churchill 25 and all other Civ 3 hate posters, please don´t forget that in this thread you want to convince Civ 3-civers to move to Civ 4. These Civ 3-civers don´t want to convince you to move to Civ 3.

like i said a million times before my true question is why are people still playing civ 3 and not moving on and i gave you a couple of days before i came in and found out that you guys are just posting posts that sayse civ 3 is better and giving no proof and just saying civ 4 sucks so i went in there and gave my opinion. Im just happy now because there are some people who support me now but in the first couple of threads i was all alone trying to talk to a bunch of caveman

 

[pikesfan]

5 examples of Civ 3 Graphics being better than Civ 4 graphics.

1 - Tribal Villiages.
The number of times I've walked past a tribal villiage in Civ 4 is incredibly frustrating. They blend in too well with the surroundings. Civ 3 tribal villiages are very clear and noticable, and are impossible to miss.

2 - Leader Heads
Why is Gandhi's head twice the size of his body? Why is Darius a gorilla? Why does Boudica have breasts the size of her head? Why is Alexander so old? Why do Pacal and Suleiman have bright red eyes? Why does Montezuma look like a drug addict? Why does Hatshepsut wear a potato sack? Why does Lincoln look like a cartoon character?

3 - Resources
Unless you turn on the Show Resources tags, it is extremely easy to miss the locations of Silk and Spices. Realism be damned, give clear pictures to show what each resource is and where.

4 - Unit Clarity
It is frequently difficult to see who owns what unit and what it actually is.

5 - Moddability
Very few people have the same ability to create original graphics for Civ 4, and this difference is magnified when compared to those who can for Civ 3.

1. I've not had this problem.
2. I agree with the leaderheads being more cartoonish in 4 than in 3, and I do miss the clothing changes with each era. On the other hand, for some reason I find it easier to "relate properly" to the leaderheads because they aren't realistic looking. The AI can behave like a person; I just don't want it to look like one. It's easier to backstab a cartoon character than a real person; the guilt is much less
3. I think I've grown more practiced in spying out the resources, but I can always turn on the resource button if I want to be on the safe side.
4. I've not had this problem; the little banners are clear enough for me. It beats just having them distinguished by colour.
5. I can't create original graphics for Civ 3 either, so this point is completely moot.

I prefer Civ 4 graphics to Civ 3 because they are more vivid. I actually preferred Civ 2 graphics to Civ 3, even though they weren't as sophisticated.

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

5 examples of Civ 3 Graphics being better than Civ 4 graphics.

1 - Tribal Villiages.
The number of times I've walked past a tribal villiage in Civ 4 is incredibly frustrating. They blend in too well with the surroundings. Civ 3 tribal villiages are very clear and noticable, and are impossible to miss.

2 - Leader Heads
Why is Gandhi's head twice the size of his body? Why is Darius a gorilla? Why does Boudica have breasts the size of her head? Why is Alexander so old? Why do Pacal and Suleiman have bright red eyes? Why does Montezuma look like a drug addict? Why does Hatshepsut wear a potato sack? Why does Lincoln look like a cartoon character?

3 - Resources
Unless you turn on the Show Resources tags, it is extremely easy to miss the locations of Silk and Spices. Realism be damned, give clear pictures to show what each resource is and where.

4 - Unit Clarity
It is frequently difficult to see who owns what unit and what it actually is.

5 - Moddability
Very few people have the same ability to create original graphics for Civ 4, and this difference is magnified when compared to those who can for Civ 3.

1. Agree. I haven't played Civ3 but I've seen screenshots. But still, if you leave blue circles on, they will be easier to see.

2. Diehard Civ3 fans are going around saying that Civ4 looks cartoonish. If you think so, why don't you check out Empire Earth III; that's a truly cartoonish-looking game.

3. From reading Sullla's "A Picture Farewell to Civ3" he pointed out that Civ3's resources were hard to see clearly. This is why Civ4's Resource Pointer was introduced.

4. Heh?! I was having a hard time seeing units in Civ3 screenshots.

5. Modding is, at most, only 50% of the game.

 

[King Flevance]

It's amazing how the fanbase has been so split, that one often feels a need to seek justification for playing one of the sequels of the same game. What I find even more amazing is that on these forums (Civ 4 forum) It is more socially acceptable for you to play Civ 2, then Civ 3.

EDIT:The other Civ forums (1, 2, & 3) are not like this. You get your discussion over the various sequels here and there but not near as much as here. And yes, seeing a thread titled much like this one does tempt me to come in. Just to see some of people's comments. Much like if I was on a FF discussion board, I would be more tempted to walk in on a discussion over the sequels. (Of course FF7 wins those discussions hands down. Which is why a FF7 part2 has actually been released. A sequel, to a sequel. But FF18 will still be topping the charts.) BUt just because someone thinks that FF7 was the best, doesn't stop them from supporting future FF games. SO to all the people saying "Civ 4 is the best, move on - a good majority Civ 3 users did indeed purchase Civ 4, thus have supported Firaxis financially so that you may soon abandon the abomination that is Civ 4, and move on yet again to 5, "the best". Although, with Firaxis's lack of support due to 2K management, 5 will be the first time I do not support Firaxis upon release day. I actually will not support them until the final expansion and complete comes out most likely.

What's actually amusing, is when I see people claim that anyone who likes Civ 3 still only do so because they like to cheat. Or exploit the AI's intelligence. (Which is available in both and even discussed alot.) As for modding I recommend anyone that hasn't done it, to give it a whirl if they have a little time. XML modding in Civ 4, can totally shift the way the game plays out. (And not always in your favor - modding isnt cheating unless you want it to be.) Modding can improve both versions of this game as well as many other non-Firaxian products. A 68 Shelby Mustang GT remains a 68 Mustang GT even if you do a custom paintjob, install a footprint gas pedal, custom interior, and upgrade to a higher performance engine, and much better stereo system. Some would even say it is better than factory.

All personal preferences aside, I wouldn't rule out any of the Civ games as worse than 3 or 4 personally. And the last two (3 & 4) tie in my book as the best... but 2 isn't too far off. And even though 1 is IMO the "worst", I still play it. So obviously I wouldn't say it's horrible or considered an abomination unleashed on humanity like I see some people refer to Civ 3.

5. Modding is, at most, only 50% of the game.

But it also determines how much 1% actually represents.

 

[Combat Ingrid]

like i said a million times before my true question is why are people still playing civ 3 and not moving on

If you ask me, it's very simple: Civ3 is a great game and some people just don't like the changes in gameplay in Civ4. Personally, I have "moved on" to Civ4 and have not touched Civ3 for about a year, but it's very easy for me to understand why some people still prefer Civ3. Although I currently prefer Civ4, Civ3 (as well as Civ1 and Civ2) still has a special place in my heart

 

[Plotinus]

The problem here is that Churchill 25 seems to think that each new game in the Civ franchise is, as it were, a "replacement" for its predecessor. Thus, with the advent of Civ IV, Civ III has become obsolete. Anyone who still plays Civ III when Civ IV is around is therefore rather like a soldier using a matchlock when rifles are available.

But of course it's not like that. It's more like a film series. The fact that the third Pirates of the Caribbean film came out after the first one doesn't make the first one obsolete, and it wouldn't be weird for people to prefer to watch the first one rather than the second (after all, the first one was the best). You wouldn't think that Psycho II made the original unwatchable (even though it was in colour!). Civ IV is a sequel to Civ III and the others, not a replacement for them; if it were a replacement then the earlier games wouldn't have any features that are lacking in Civ IV. But of course Civ III has features that Civ IV lacks, just as Civ IV has features that Civ III lacks. People can argue back and forth about which is better. But to suppose that the later one automatically makes the earlier obsolete is foolish; and calling those who prefer the earlier one "cavemen" is bordering on flaming.

 

[Ace of Gold]

The problem here is that Churchill 25 seems to think that each new game in the Civ franchise is, as it were, a "replacement" for its predecessor. Thus, with the advent of Civ IV, Civ III has become obsolete. Anyone who still plays Civ III when Civ IV is around is therefore rather like a soldier using a matchlock when rifles are available.

But of course it's not like that. It's more like a film series. The fact that the third Pirates of the Caribbean film came out after the first one doesn't make the first one obsolete, and it wouldn't be weird for people to prefer to watch the first one rather than the second (after all, the first one was the best). You wouldn't think that Psycho II made the original unwatchable (even though it was in colour!). Civ IV is a sequel to Civ III and the others, not a replacement for them; if it were a replacement then the earlier games wouldn't have any features that are lacking in Civ IV. But of course Civ III has features that Civ IV lacks, just as Civ IV has features that Civ III lacks. People can argue back and forth about which is better. But to suppose that the later one automatically makes the earlier obsolete is foolish; and calling those who prefer the earlier one "cavemen" is bordering on flaming.

it is not a movie its a comptuter game. like you said if you watched pirates 3 you would be confused because you had to watch the first 2 movies to understand the 3rd. Civ is not like that you do not have to play civ 3 to play civ 4 so techinically it is kind of like a replacement, another reason i think it is a replacement is because stores do not sell civ 3 anymore, you have to get it on the internet. you can tell when a game is obsolete when a store does not sell it.

 

[Red Door]

I salute all of the the real civ fans who are playing civ 4 right now and not lagging behind and playing civ 3.

Because you play an older version of a series, you aren't a fan of the series? Do you realize that makes no sense, and that logic is among the worst I've seen, and I'm not exactly known for being a logic guy.

about the graphics its not at all cartoonish. I cant believe your arguing that civ 3 graphics are better because on civ 3 a mine is a circle, its horrible. in civ 4 its an actual mine and you can see the mine cart going in out of the mine. also the smoke coming from the tribal villages, its awsome. so again the people who say civ 4 graphics are bad and look cartoonish, go get your eyes checked.

The graphics look more crisp. Civ IV's look cartoonish. The little effects of the villages are cool, but how does that add to gameplay or the graphics? If Civ III's villages had smoke, I think that'd be pretty cool, but when the village looks like it came straight out of a cartoon, I don't know.

That some people have a complete utter lack of ability to comprehend the simple fact that people may have different preferences continues to amaze.

Some people like Civ4 and other people like Civ3 - deal with it and quit screaming "my dog is bigger than your dog" like the big whiny prick at the school yard.

It's e-penis on the internet.

it is not a movie its a comptuter game. like you said if you watched pirates 3 you would be confused because you had to watch the first 2 movies to understand the 3rd.

You could understand it, you just won't get some of the jokes, people, or something. I just watched Ocean's Thirteen this weekend without watching the first two, and I got it fine.

Civ is not like that you do not have to play civ 3 to play civ 4 so techinically it is kind of like a replacement, another reason i think it is a replacement is because stores do not sell civ 3 anymore, you have to get it on the internet. you can tell when a game is obsolete when a store does not sell it.

No, that does not technically make it a replacement. It means it's a new game in the same series. A replacement is a different version of the same thing. An expansion pack can be viewed as a replacement. A new game cannot. Stores still sell Civ III, I've seen it, you just have to look harder. Even so, that doesn't make it a replacement, it means that the store will put newer games that will be more likely to sell. Civ III is obsolete, but that does not mean it has been replaced. You seem to be arguing one thing in your post when you mean something else.

 

[jessiecat]

You've just said, "Civ 3 is obsolete but that doesn't mean its been replaced".
Using the word "obsolete" puts you in the same camp as Churchill. You can't
have it both ways. You should have said that Civ4 is one of a series of games
based on the Civ idea. None of them have been replaced and none of them
are obsolete. They are still played by thousands of people, each able to choose the version we like best. That's why the Civ concept is so brilliant.
Civilization as a game will never die. Long Live Civilization!

 

[gps]

It's amazing how the fanbase has been so split, that one often feels a need to seek justification for playing one of the sequels of the same game. What I find even more amazing is that on these forums (Civ 4 forum) It is more socially acceptable for you to play Civ 2, then Civ 3.

EDIT:The other Civ forums (1, 2, & 3) are not like this. You get your discussion over the various sequels here and there but not near as much as here. And yes, seeing a thread titled much like this one does tempt me to come in.

I don't really see a split fanbase. And I don't see many people socially not accepting anyone for what Civ version whoever plays. Maybe guys like you and T. A. Jones provoke that conterreaction by the way YOU are acting. Come on, this whole thread is so pointless - nevertheless I have to admit it's kind of weirdly entertaining. Several times already I thought to myself: "These guys are SO ..., just leave them alone, it doesn't get you anywhere." - and here I am back again. I said in one of my very first post: "If this guy likes Civ III, let him play!" and "I like them both, what's the problem." You guys however seem to have made it your mission to prove how bad Civ IV is. What do you expect? Me saying: "Yes, King Flevance and T. A. Jones are so right! How could I only be so stupid and blind for months playing that monstrosity of a game. Thanks for saving me from a pointless rest of my life wasting it with Civ IV, it's so much better beeing back with Civ III."
Nope, does not work. Forcing a position on people (especially fans of a thing in the biggest fan forum of that thing) always provokes resistence and counter-reactions - and might seem to the people that are the cause of that counter-reactions to be a widely split fanbase. From my point of view it's just a handfull of people, that are so fanatically in love with Civ III, that they obviously can't accept and have a big problem with Civ IV looking and playing and feeling and beeing modded not like Civ III but like Civ IV. But obviousley it HAS to look and play and feel and be modded like Civ IV because if it would not look and play and feel and be modded like Civ IV, it would not be Civ IV.
And what I really don't understand in that context: if you guys are so addicted to playing a game that looks and plays and feels and can be modded like Civ III. Then heck, WHY ON EARTH don't you go and play the VERY game that looks and plays and feels and is modded like Civ III??? No one took it from you. Noone really cares, noone really wants to try and cure your 'madness'. It's OK. So please be tolerent and try to understand us actually enjoying Civ IV. It's really not that bad. And it won't be the downfall of the occident!
*sigh*

 

[Ace of Gold]

I don't really see a split fanbase. And I don't see many people socially not accepting anyone for what Civ version whoever plays. Maybe guys like you and T. A. Jones provoke that conterreaction by the way YOU are acting. Come on, this whole thread is so pointless - nevertheless I have to admit it's kind of weirdly entertaining. Several times already I thought to myself: "These guys are SO ..., just leave them alone, it doesn't get you anywhere." - and here I am back again. I said in one of my very first post: "If this guy likes Civ III, let him play!" and "I like them both, what's the problem." You guys however seem to have made it your mission to prove how bad Civ IV is. What do you expect? Me saying: "Yes, King Flevance and T. A. Jones are so right! How could I only be so stupid and blind for months playing that monstrosity of a game. Thanks for saving me from a pointless rest of my life wasting it with Civ IV, it's so much better beeing back with Civ III."
Nope, does not work. Forcing a position on people (especially fans of a thing in the biggest fan forum of that thing) always provokes resistence and counter-reactions - and might seem to the people that are the cause of that counter-reactions to be a widely split fanbase. From my point of view it's just a handfull of people, that are so fanatically in love with Civ III, that they obviously can't accept and have a big problem with Civ IV looking and playing and feeling and beeing modded not like Civ III but like Civ IV. But obviousley it HAS to look and play and feel and be modded like Civ IV because if it would not look and play and feel and be modded like Civ IV, it would not be Civ IV.
And what I really don't understand in that context: if you guys are so addicted to playing a game that looks and plays and feels and can be modded like Civ III. Then heck, WHY ON EARTH don't you go and play the VERY game that looks and plays and feels and is modded like Civ III??? No one took it from you. Noone really cares, noone really wants to try and cure your 'madness'. It's OK. So please be tolerent and try to understand us actually enjoying Civ IV. It's really not that bad. And it won't be the downfall of the occident!
*sigh*

I totally understand that people still play civ 3 but im making all these arguments because some people are saying the same thing im basically saying
except its against civ 4. ( civ 3 is better the graphhics are not cartoonish) so i am basically saying the same thing they are but it is civ 4 is better than civ 3. Everyone has there opinions but i never even thought about getting into this argument. instead if saying civ 3 is better you guys can say i know civ 4 is a newer game and probubly an improvement but i just like playing civ 3 better, the classic. I know some of you probubly say that but others are trying to argue that its better . as i said before i did not start this argument.

this thread makes me so mad sometimes.

 

[King Flevance]

I don't really see a split fanbase. And I don't see many people socially not accepting anyone for what Civ version whoever plays. Maybe guys like you and T. A. Jones provoke that conterreaction by the way YOU are acting. Come on, this whole thread is so pointless - nevertheless I have to admit it's kind of weirdly entertaining. Several times already I thought to myself: "These guys are SO ..., just leave them alone, it doesn't get you anywhere." - and here I am back again. I said in one of my very first post: "If this guy likes Civ III, let him play!" and "I like them both, what's the problem." You guys however seem to have made it your mission to prove how bad Civ IV is. What do you expect? Me saying: "Yes, King Flevance and T. A. Jones are so right! How could I only be so stupid and blind for months playing that monstrosity of a game. Thanks for saving me from a pointless rest of my life wasting it with Civ IV, it's so much better beeing back with Civ III."

You already play Civ 3 though I thought you said. The fanbase is split though. Check out this guy.

civ 3 players can rot. i dont want them to change to civ 4 if they havent already. they seem prefectly happy being in their own little world, having acute knowledge of civ 3 exploits and bandying about how great it is. why should i change them?

why is it many civ 3 fanatics and self diagnosing asperger enthusiasts want to be convinced to like civ iv for no other reason than do defend civ 3?

I can dig up more comments like this too. But let's look at these two posts. Obviously, any Civ 3 fan should not be allowed to provide any input towards how Firaxis can be improved. Firaxis should first check if a Civ fan is a Civ 3 fan before taking their opinion into consideration. Obviously, someone playing Civ 3 to this user's opinion is just trying to make cheating more commonplace in Civ 4 or something.
As for the second statement there is a very thread I found last night in Civ 3 general discussion where Swein (the guy above my last post) goes into the Civ 3 forums opens a thread asking people why they still play Civ 3. Because "Sullla said it sucks". Then when people provide their answer, he does exactly as mrt144 here describes. It becomes more and more clear as you read through the thread he isn't wanting to discuss the game, he wants to attempt to use Sulla's reasoning for not liking Civ 3 as his own.

What I am not saying is Civ 3 is the best ever. I wasn't even planning on getting into this thread like I have. At first I only watched what other people were saying and chimed in only here and there but with only minor points until I saw rolo discuss a 3-D map. So I figured I would mention a couple things I agreed with rolo on. I never understood why Civ 4 just had to be 3D since the first time I played it. But in that post, since I knew people where going to start quoting me I threw in this:

I still play Civ 3, and also Civ 4 both. And I claim they are as good as one another.

And then go on to mention what I would think if I was Churchills friend. Mentioning that I think Churchill is a close minded individual.

I had to look back to see why I even came back in to this discussion and it was because you quoted me about my saying newer is not always better - its subjective. Then you proceeded to tell me I was trying to convert people because I like Civ 3 and I was siding with a game I like. Civ 4 isn't perfect, or even close. Same for 3. But to me there are times I feel Civ 3 is closer. There are times I feel Civ 4 is closer. But neither one has ever pulled ahead drastically.
It seems it then proceed to be about how much greater 3D is to 2d. Again something subjective if 3D offers no gameplay purpose. Which I was never truly convinced of.

I once again wentback to work on my new Civ 3 mod and just watched the thread from the sidelines. Until I saw Civinator think about (maybe) re-installing Civ 4 so he could swivel the camera. I only chimed in to let him know that all he will be doing is seeing the game from a 45 degree instead of 90. SO he doesn't mess with installing it (if its uninstalled) to find out it is only a new angle and changes nothing.

Then it seems I chimed in when mrt144 did with his asperger comment. If you look through this thread you will see that Civ 3 fans (despite of the fact if they like and play Civ 4 as well) are being put on trial here not Civ 4 fans. In my experience on these forums (Visting at least once a week but usually once or more a day) Civ 4 fans seriously can't handle someone making bad comments against Civ 4. In their eyes there is no such thing as constructive criticism. (I am aware not all of it is constructive) But they don't even try to dicuss the features in the game. Only defend them.
It's like the thread here: Is there a way to stop the AI repeatedly asking for the same thing (i.e. help in war)
Instead of it leading to conversation about how to mod this and people discussing possible changes to the system it leads to talk about the current diplomacy system. (Which is inevidable especially in the early part of the thread) But then you see a guy come in later in the thread and say basically "You guys are insane the diplomacy system is fine. You are just using it wrong." He even goes on to say something along the lines of "If you think role-playing a king is fun, wake up this game isn't for you its for strategy fans. And strategy fans like having to suck it up and take crap deals."
That is overexaggerated but that is the underlying message. I would actually post it but its sot of leading off topic. Just check it out. If you want to go straight to his comments skip to page 3. But the point is he comes off like "These people don't like/enjoy a mechanic in Civ 4? These fools! I'll set them straight and tell them how they are playing it wrong."

Nope, does not work. Forcing a position on people (especially fans of a thing in the biggest fan forum of that thing) always provokes resistence and counter-reactions - and might seem to the people that are the cause of that counter-reactions to be a widely split fanbase. From my point of view it's just a handfull of people, that are so fanatically in love with Civ III, that they obviously can't accept and have a big problem with Civ IV looking and playing and feeling and beeing modded not like Civ III but like Civ IV.

Who is forcing you to do anything? If anything CIv 3 players are trying to be forced into putting it down and moving on. I have problems with Civ 4. Not because it isn't Civ 3, but because some of its systems are broken and don;t work. Civ 3 has this same issue. In fact, Civ 3's issues were abandon for this version. And it is actually strikingly similar which is why I am not going to be supporting 5.

As to the bolded part, that was clever. It's complete speculation based on nothing outside of your opinion but a clever way to make me out to be "paranoid". I got news for you though the fanbase is split. There are people that see Civ 3 as an abomination. These people usually tend to look down on someone the moment they say anything good about Civ 3. You seriously can't say anything good about Civ 3 in the Civ 4 forum without getting snarled at. It was the one to bring in cultural borders, resource dependancy, cultural victory, domination victory, diplomatic victory, AI that doesn't team up on the player on a trigger, etc. Many concepts that are in Civ 4 that people like were brought in by 3. Civ 3 had good concepts. Including artillery and a couple like it that never made it to Civ 4. Civ 4 has alot of Civ 3's good concepts and some of its own. It also has concepts, I think are worse and see no reason why they were removed.

But obviousley it HAS to look and play and feel and be modded like Civ IV because if it would not look and play and feel and be modded like Civ IV, it would not be Civ IV.

Obviously.

As for the part about my madness, I am not even going to reply to that. It's all been covered pretty much.

@Churchill: The problem comes in due to the fact that Civ 4 is an entirely new set of systems. Some people prefer the old system that was in 1, 2, & 3. So they do not see Civ 4 as an improvement. So this statement:

instead if saying civ 3 is better you guys can say i know civ 4 is a newer game and probubly an improvement but i just like playing civ 3 better, the classic.

Would be false to them. If you removed the underlined section, it would make it true.