Civ 4 A Step Backwards

[shag]

I may be the minority but CIV 3 is a better game, specifically: no city growth while building settlers & workers, less clear graphics, inability to do a lot of work through the advisor screens and worst of all the game is so slow - when u move a unit it takes far to long to scroll to the next one, or even tell you its turn over ( the PC is 3GHz, Audigy 4, 7800 graphics and 2GHz ram with a 2 day old windows installation).

 

[Lucas87]

I'll agree with you on its extreme slowness being quite annoying. As far as graphics, I really don't care at all cuz it's a strategy game. However, I think the lack of growth while making settlers and workers is very good for game balance and I think it's one thing that certainly makes it a better game. You have to change your strategy a bit away from super rapid expansion, but IMO that change makes for a better game.

 

[CaptainF]

been here, done this...

 

[weimingshi]

something wrong with your computer setup, either graphic driver not update or some other problem. or you simply play with a too high graphic setting. It runs flawless on my 3 year old system on huge maps up until modern age. It does slow down on huge maps at mordern times.

 

[opticaljim]

It's a different game with a different style.

I used to run through Civ III and I was so focused on where I wanted to be that I didn't enjoy how I got there.

Because the graphics in Civ IV are cooler I have a tendency to play at a much slower pace then I did in Civ III, kind of living in the moment. I also spend more time managing my cities and moving units around.]

During the later stages of the game I can spend an entire hour working on my Civ without making a single move. That's not necessarily a bad thing is it?

 

[warpstorm]

I hate to say it but there might be something wrong with your setup. My computer is about half that strong and it smooth on any setting less than huge (which it chugs a bit on admittedly).

The Domestic advisor allows you to tweak the build queues of any city.

The Diplomatic advisor lets you see what the AIs have for trade and will initiate it for you if you want.

The military advisor is, well, kinda useless.

 

[EdCase]

I may be the minority but CIV 3 is a better game, specifically: no city growth while building settlers & workers, less clear graphics, inability to do a lot of work through the advisor screens and worst of all the game is so slow - when u move a unit it takes far to long to scroll to the next one, or even tell you its turn over ( the PC is 3GHz, Audigy 4, 7800 graphics and 2GHz ram with a 2 day old windows installation).

Hmm I would suggest some investigation here..I have 3 pcs running civ 4 varying in spec from slightly above your specs..down to the dinosaur well below and none have scrolling problems..the dinosaur chugs somewhat on huge but other than that....

As for graphics, personal taste here, I prefer them and having all the info "right there"

 

[Agraza]

I enjoyed myself much more in civ3 because I think making your people happy had a larger impact in civ3, and I just tried to keep people happy. In Civ4 everyone is just constantly pissed off and no matter how hard you try to appease anyone it doesn't make much of an impact. Really a dreary world, especially if you don't have many religions.

 

[Sir_CharlesIII]

The only thing I dislike about Civ4 is the slowness especially after you play for a while and especially in the later ages. Otherwise I really think they improved the game play and got rid of some annoying aspects of the previous games.

 

[doug2134]

I prefer the easier interface for civ IV but i can see why one would prefer Civ III. But in the end i like the look and feel of IV better.

 

[Riothamus]

I'd have to say I love Civ IV. Civ III without mods was kind of lame, but the modding community was what really made the game. Here's looking to the future of Civ IV!

 

[calyth]

Civ 3 without mods have enough AI exploits to make it not particularly on strategy, but to figure out what these exploits are and build enough troops to steam roll the enemy.
Civ 4 by comparison, is a lot harder. I'll actually have to work at it. I have to counter AI's moves. I'd have to really manage relations if I don't particularly want war.
After my first week of playing Civ 4, I went back and play Civ 3, and it was much much easier. There are moments in Warlord in Civ 4 that I swear like crazy because AI just did something that can really screw me.
Your computer, maybe with the exception of the CPU, is as bleeding edge as it is. If your game is slow in Civ 4, it's probably because there's something in your system. Did you installed Windows connected to the network, before you can even put antivirus on it? Is the machine behind the firewall at all times? I'd look for that first if I were you.

 

[Jando]

I'm with the original poster here. While I like many of the new gameplay features in Civ4 the poor technical implementation is just killing my playing fun. Everything's just too slow, too choppy, too jerky. And no, it's not my computer. A computer that has no problems playing the current MMORPGs shouldn't have problems playing a turn based game, after all the computer has nothing to do while it waits for me to move a unit - and still somehow the game needs many CPU cycles to do nothing.

Combine that with a - in my opinion - poor visual presentation that looks very unfinished and unpolished and it's just not worth it. The main problem is that Firaxis slowly gets a reputation for good game design and very poor software engineering combined with an obviously absent quality assurance: after all it's just a year ago that they released Pirates in an equally poor and unfinished state with bugs galore.

 

[Smidlee]

I'm with the original poster here. While I like many of the new gameplay features in Civ4 the poor technical implementation is just killing my playing fun. Everything's just too slow, too choppy, too jerky. And no, it's not my computer. A computer that has no problems playing the current MMORPGs shouldn't have problems playing a turn based game, after all the computer has nothing to do while it waits for me to move a unit - and still somehow the game needs many CPU cycles to do nothing.

The only MMORPG I've put a lot of time in was FF 11. First, you pay 12-15 dollars a month for mmorpg. At first they are far from perfect and the one I've played can become extremelt laggy when there's a lot of people in one area (which happen very often when leveling up in a game like FF 11). I don't think you could compare the two.
With 3gH processor, 7800 and 2gb of ram as in OP, you shouldn't have any problem running civ4 even on bigger than huge maps. In my case (I also have 7800,2gb of ram) the framerate can vary a lot during late in the game in these huge maps (15fps to 60fps) depending on how many huge cities are shown on the map and the globel view is very slow (only 3 fps; the more cities the slower it gets) but it is far to hinder the gameplay or the speed of the game. Plus the turns are faster than civ3.

 

[Rince]

I may be the minority but CIV 3 is a better game, specifically: no city growth while building settlers & workers, less clear graphics, inability to do a lot of work through the advisor screens and worst of all the game is so slow - when u move a unit it takes far to long to scroll to the next one, or even tell you its turn over ( the PC is 3GHz, Audigy 4, 7800 graphics and 2GHz ram with a 2 day old windows installation).

Can't agree on the settler thing but i think the slowness in your case is not due to your hardware but by design.

What i mean is that the game was programmed to have smooth but slow transitions between events. I also don't like it too much, especially not in late game where you have to handle dozens of units per turn.

Rince

 

[Zhahz]

Civ 3 is highly exploitable and prone to strategies that involve cheesing game mechanics (giving AIs 1g regularly to get good relations, swapping building projects to "prebuild", being able to do zero research and buy your techs, and that's just the tip of the iceberg). If you like crappy game mechanics and cheese I guess Civ 3 is a better game.

Civ IV isn't perfect and some of the interface elements could use serious help but the overall gameplay is vastly superior to Civ III and gameplay is the most important part of this type of game.

 

[Colonel Kraken]

I agree that Civ3 had a few great things that are missing from Civ4 --which I totally cannot understand. In the end, however, I do like Civ4 more.

 

[Benjie]

Good Job you have Civilization III then isn't it.

 

[MattJek]

Good Job you have Civilization III then isn't it.

???????