Civ 4 - Huge Disappointment

Most of these kind of reviews are on the extremes; either 1 star or 5 star. I notice this same thing about books especially those about hot topics. I find most of them completely useless.

Comon Smiddy for a guy who says he gets 15 minutes waits on a Civ3 game but on the same computer plays Civ4 like a dream, whos posting on a CIv"fanatic' site and never missed a chance to take a stab at someone who tells the truth in their view, on Civ4's lack luster qualitys, don't you think your the one whos got more of the extreme view?

The fact you actually took the time to try an invalidate 200 other's comments cause they didn't agree with you as a whole is a big indicater your more the less credible type when it comes to an un bias opinion.

Take care man
 
Me been fun of civ serials, belive that Civ4 is a big step forward in Civ game serials.
Especially compare wth Civ3, which was pretty bad from cronological point of view.Me been fun of Civ serials, believe that Civ4 is a big step forward in Civ game serials.
Especially compare with Civ3, which was pretty bad from chronological point of view.

Civ4 Firaxis manage to achieve a good balance between vertical and horizontal development, balance between Civilizations why still have very good variety and flavor to them.

AI cheating less then in any other Civ games. There are thinks that are not perfect, nothing ever is. But compare to any previous game of Civ or any other somewhat similar strategic games Civ4 is the most intellectually rich one.
 
I know I still enjoy Civ. I'm not bashing the game or coming here just to complain. I just think Civ can be so much more than it currently is.

We already have a great, intricate city management and planning system. Why not combat? It would make this great game the greatest game ever.

Only you can decide if the game is good or not, no one else. If you feel like complaining, complain to your hearts content.

The reason Im disappointed is that I had such huge hopes, Because I like the civ series so much.
If it was a game Ive never heard of before, Im sure I wouldnt think twice about it.

What gets me is that you waited over a year to express your opinion.

I like the game and have been playing it ever since it was released in October of 2005.

I got the game about a month ago and didnt play until last weekend. So what?
 
Jaws II said:
The reason Im disappointed is that I had such huge hopes, Because I like the civ series so much.
If it was a game Ive never heard of before, Im sure I wouldnt think twice about it.
Yeah I was dissappointed too. For me it seemed that 2 was twice as good as 1. Then 3 was twice as good as 2. Then there was 4, about half as good as 3. :( So really only equal to 2 but better than 1. But 1 was DOS so that isnt too hard to beat :p

The moddability of the game really helps... sorta. If you know what you are doing which I don't. :lol: I think threads like this are a good thing. It helps those of us who are frustrated to vent a little bit. :)
 
More choices in units and buildings = more flexibility. I can actually win the game in several different ways. I dont just spam one single unit like howitzers in civ 2.

The units and buildings arent any more difficult to learn then in previous games. Learning things in this game doesnt take anymore time then a rpg (especially mmo), or a lot of other strategy games (sim city comes to mind). The game concepts has certainly gotten more complex but you dont need to micromanage to do well. We have several younger players that do well and pick up the ideas quicker then some adults. Its dumb of me to say Im proud of them but...I think its pretty cool that our younger friends are grasping concepts such as diplomacy and trade at say...age 12.

You dont like more is better...fine. I think youre missing out on the best civ game of the series, and it sounds like you dont like change and innovation. There are certainly lots of people like you...the most popular console games are often sports sequels that change little more then their rosters for instance. I personally do like change and innovation, thats why I think this game is better then civ 2 and 3...I especially think it took some concepts from civ 3 and defined them much better (culture for instance).
 
I personally do like change and innovation, thats why I think this game is better then civ 2 and 3...I especially think it took some concepts from civ 3 and defined them much better (culture for instance).
you know we all like innovation and new concepts...Civ3 had plenty of them as well...it introduced culture and armies, etc...fun elements
CIV has some nice concepts, but it has extremely unfun elments as well...some of them break the game for many of us...no civic combination for a no WW government...reding out trading...WFYABTA rubbish...very few units...tedious combats...warlords gave us completely broken vassals...

and don't even talk about the slow game just because they need to satisfy the kids with 3D graphics, that are uttely redundant...

maybe the game gives more choices (actually not really) and more candy, but it's less fun to play for quite a few of us
 
Yeah I was dissappointed too. For me it seemed that 2 was twice as good as 1. Then 3 was twice as good as 2. Then there was 4, about half as good as 3. :( So really only equal to 2 but better than 1. But 1 was DOS so that isnt too hard to beat :p

The moddability of the game really helps... sorta. If you know what you are doing which I don't. :lol: I think threads like this are a good thing. It helps those of us who are frustrated to vent a little bit. :)

Good for you, nothing wrong with venting alittle, after all you paid good money for this game.

If certain fans of the game want to take it as personal attacks on them, thats their problem.

Im actually feeling alittle better about the game now. Im gonna do what someone said earlier, put this game on the shelf for now, but maybe later (maybe in 6 months, I doubt earlier) Ill give it another chance.

We cant just take computer games back to the store and get our money back, or I probably would.

I might talk to you all later, if I start playing Civ 4 again and come back here to talk about it. For now Peace out.

PS. Its just a game. :)
 
Yeah I was dissappointed too. For me it seemed that 2 was twice as good as 1. Then 3 was twice as good as 2. Then there was 4, about half as good as 3. :( So really only equal to 2 but better than 1. But 1 was DOS so that isnt too hard to beat :p

The moddability of the game really helps... sorta. If you know what you are doing which I don't. :lol: I think threads like this are a good thing. It helps those of us who are frustrated to vent a little bit. :)

Wow, I'm the exact opposite. I got tired of how tedious Civ3 was with worker management, and the lack of built-in stack management. I tried to find ways to win the game quicker just so I wouldn't have to clean up pollution in the modern age (ugh...), and I avoided anything larger than a Standard map like the plague.

But in Civ4, you can stack move workers, so you can create the minimum number of workers in a stack to clean pollution, and just move the stack and click one button. Done! This was a dream come true!

Additional buildings, additional troops...if you are building every building in every city, you might want to stop. My military production cities typically have barracks, stables, and forges but rarely universities or banks (take too long). The cities now are no longer generic locations where you farm or mine around. There are several terrain improvements (although some can only be put on special resources) and buildings to allow you to customize and specialize your settlements.

One thing I miss was the modern age Nuke submarines, tactical nukes, paratroopers...they've been mentioned before, but that's what I want in the game next (please, next expansion pack...dozen civilizations, two dozen leaders, and these units!).

And the implementation of religion--I'm impressed by it. And how the great people work, and the civics...I think this is a case of being overwhelmed. The fact is, I'm trying to figure out how. The game uses a simple point-and-click interface with no goofy menus with special options or weird button combinations to do things. If you don't know what to build, it gives you recommendations while you learn. It gives you worker recommendations. It gives you places to settle, etc. Overall, I found it easy to get into Civ4, and once I stopped trying to play it like Civ3, I enjoyed it even more--less micromanaging, more features that are easy to use because of the simple methods by which they have been implemented. By the way, if you are trying to use your Civ3 strategies in Civ4, I encourage you to take a peak at an article in the War Academy.

There's my $.02. I know the critics of the game probably won't care, but this was a great step for the Civ series--less micro, implementing the good government system from Alpha Centauri (why didn't they do that in 3?), etc.
 
I think the combat system is better. I think we all remember losing our tanks to phalanx in Civ2, so they brought out the health bar for units in Civ3. So then came out the stacks of Doom, where our large army would just roll over other Civs. So for CIV they introduced the "Rock, Paper, Scissors" theory to balance out the units more effectively.

And I still dont see your point about CIV having more units than Civ2. You say that the Alpine, Caravan, etc had specific purposes. What do you think the ones in CIV do, especially with the new combat system? Or are you referring to the missionaries and great people?
 
Wow, I'm the exact opposite. I got tired of how tedious Civ3 was with worker management, and the lack of built-in stack management. I tried to find ways to win the game quicker just so I wouldn't have to clean up pollution in the modern age (ugh...), and I avoided anything larger than a Standard map like the plague.

Indeed, I don't miss sweeping up pollution and such tasks from 3. There are some upsides to the new things in 4 as well. Like if 1 citizen is mad they don't all go on strike.


Additional buildings, additional troops...if you are building every building in every city, you might want to stop. My military production cities typically have barracks, stables, and forges but rarely universities or banks (take too long). The cities now are no longer generic locations where you farm or mine around. There are several terrain improvements (although some can only be put on special resources) and buildings to allow you to customize and specialize your settlements.

This may be where new people get off on the wrong start possibly. I know I had a rough time with it for the first few weeks of playing it myself. My military cities usually are setup the same but I always take some spare time when they get it to build markets and banks in them. But never libraries and universities (no science stuff). Honestly, they are lucky if they get any religious buildings past a temple too. So, they stay real low on culture value.

As for improvements, I tend to find that every tile has a best option. For instance a Plains/Hill either gets a lumbermill or a mine. (Depending on if it has a forest on it or not.) I personally prefer the lumbermill alot of times but the mine gives you that 5% chance of finding something in the hill. Grassland by a river is pretty much a garaunteed cottage. Plains are always farms and VERY rarely cottages. Grassland/Hills almost always windmills.
So, generally for me, the topography itself defines my cities. I like the options but I haven't built a watermill for so long they could take them out and I wouldn't even notice. Workshops are also rarely built by me but I have found uses for them here or there.

And the implementation of religion--I'm impressed by it. And how the great people work, and the civics...I think this is a case of being overwhelmed. The fact is, I'm trying to figure out how. The game uses a simple point-and-click interface with no goofy menus with special options or weird button combinations to do things. If you don't know what to build, it gives you recommendations while you learn. It gives you worker recommendations. It gives you places to settle, etc. Overall, I found it easy to get into Civ4, and once I stopped trying to play it like Civ3, I enjoyed it even more--less micromanaging, more features that are easy to use because of the simple methods by which they have been implemented. By the way, if you are trying to use your Civ3 strategies in Civ4, I encourage you to take a peak at an article in the War Academy.

Religion I don't care for. I will just say I actually think the game would be better balanced if they just removed it than leave it as it is now and leave it at that. Great People and civics I do like and was a step in a positive direction. The interface seems bland and unuseful alot to me personally. The advisor screens in all previous versions were more useful than 4's.

The militay advisor is so worthless it is a crying shame. I seriously have no clue who thought that was a good idea. I want the civ3 military advisor back myself.
The domestic advisor is way too simplified and offers no real overview beyond basics of you cities and you cant even select a city from the advisor screen to cut to that city as we used to be able to do.
Then the financial advisor gives you no real record of the budget. It is almost as if the numbers just come out of nowhere and it is the responsibility of the player to track down the budget themselves to see what all of these values are coming from. Inflation gives no warning and just juts out at you unless you are an extreme micromanager and count turns and such. The whole financial advisor screen just seems to sum everything up so basically that there is no real reason to look at it to try and figure out where the money is being lost really. The players had to actually test a bunch of city placement in WB to find out hw the budget defines city maintenance when this could have been included into the financial advisor. I could go into this more but the finacial advisor seems to have went on long enough, hehe. Basically, the financial advisor offers no help. This is probably why so many new people post about a how their games end up forming economic blackholes and they have no clue how to fix it. And no one really knows how to get in and figure out where they messed up because there is no real good way to look at it. The answer is just "build more cottages" or "found a religion". No one ever says "Look at your financial advisor and see where your money is going" because we all know that darn advisor isn't doing squat for the player.

I don't mean any of this as a personal attact on anyone's view on the game... even though I quoted you Antilogic. Alot of people like the new simplified system and that's cool. You just brought up some things I figured I would add to in light of the discussion. I am not a heavy micromanager myself but I think too many things are hidden behind the curtain this time around and I think it hurts the game more than it helps. Anyways, there is some more to add to this little thread. :)
 
I got the game about a month ago and didnt play until last weekend. So what?

Nothing is wrong with it except that most posts like yours are made shortly after the release of a particular game. Posting over a year after a game's release is somewhat unusual.

However, some gamers are just now playing Civ1 and Civ2, so go figure.
 
However, some gamers are just now playing Civ1 and Civ2, so go figure.

Thats because it took Windows 3.1 on a 486 to run Civ1, which I still have, and cost me $189 to upgrade the RAM to 4Mb. :)
 
P.S. Have I ever mentioned that Drill is just crab. Combat I gives better results than Drill 1 + Drill2. The last ones are efficient only when units are wounded, but these are rare cases


Hail Drill 4!

Hail Scout promotions!

PS: Hail City Defend!


And I agree with most people who dont agree with the original post.
 
its fairly straight forward, read my original post. Im asking others if theyre as disappointed with the game as I am. and if not, is there anything about the game they dont like.

well, I have been playing civilization since my little brother showed me civilization (the first game) cant remember exactly when, probably in the mid 90s, it was a few years before the second one came out.

I spent all night tonight playing civ 2, which i think still is the best game in the series, and civ 3 is a close second.

I think there was nothing wrong with the combat system at all, and totally abandoning the old system for this new game of Rock, Paper, Scissors that is the current system was a big misstake. also I liked the civ3 artillery system alot.

there was nothing wrong with the old system, so why fix it if its not broken?

and yeah I would learn all the new stuff, the many many new city and terrain improvements, all the new wonders etc if I played the game more than 2 days but I dont see myself getting over the new combat system.

but its still not a good idea to make any game to complicated, I shouldnt have to study for hours to play a game good.

There is something with Your words. I also like civ2 the most. It has a soul and was more... I would say epic. Civ4 is more mathematic. Everywhere numbers, and what is worst - even in diplomacy. Is it "epic"? Not enymore.
Implement civic A, take religion B and Montezuma will love you on +6 level - great. Combat system sucks because of lucky losts like in Civ 1 where even nukes sometimes used to lost.

But what sucks most is reguirments of game. How many time can you wait for next turn? You cannot play it on slower comps.
But Civ4 have some advantages too, for example modding - when I bought Warlods I bothered to play it just once then turned to mods.
 
The militay advisor is so worthless it is a crying shame. I seriously have no clue who thought that was a good idea. I want the civ3 military advisor back myself.
The domestic advisor is way too simplified and offers no real overview beyond basics of you cities and you cant even select a city from the advisor screen to cut to that city as we used to be able to do.
Then the financial advisor gives you no real record of the budget. It is almost as if the numbers just come out of nowhere and it is the responsibility of the player to track down the budget themselves to see what all of these values are coming from. Inflation gives no warning and just juts out at you unless you are an extreme micromanager and count turns and such. The whole financial advisor screen just seems to sum everything up so basically that there is no real reason to look at it to try and figure out where the money is being lost really. The players had to actually test a bunch of city placement in WB to find out hw the budget defines city maintenance when this could have been included into the financial advisor. I could go into this more but the finacial advisor seems to have went on long enough, hehe. Basically, the financial advisor offers no help. This is probably why so many new people post about a how their games end up forming economic blackholes and they have no clue how to fix it. And no one really knows how to get in and figure out where they messed up because there is no real good way to look at it. The answer is just "build more cottages" or "found a religion". No one ever says "Look at your financial advisor and see where your money is going" because we all know that darn advisor isn't doing squat for the player.

Sad true as well. Where my best drunk military advisor from Civ2? hehe
Game should me more epic, and less mathematics or more random factors.
 
Sad true as well. Where my best drunk military advisor from Civ2? hehe
Game should me more epic, and less mathematics or more random factors.
Random factors? Like what? Plagues and natural disasters...oh, yes, those'd be fun. You're chugging along just fine, and....WHAM! one of those innocent-looking peaks is a volcano dumping lava all over your main production city during a war. Yeah, that's fun. Or even better... a plague wipes out a whole bunch of population in all of your cities, putting your money and beakers into the crapper, and you with it. How fair...

Epic? You've gotta define that. I don't know what's more epic than sitting in my chair with my stomach full of butterflies over sending in that Combat 1/Medic 1 spearman that wasn't supposed to do anything but heal my stack against the last enemy defender with ~70% chance to win, knowing full well the rest of my stack is too beat up for the city to last another turn. What possibly CAN be more epic than leading a civilization through all of time? Yeah, I'm aware Civ2 had nice little bells and whistles, like the advisers and the amazing wonder movies....but, really....you don't mean to tell me those things DEFINED your experience, do you?

Oh, and nitpick for drill promotions. If the strength ratio between the two combatants is within 1.38 or so, drill>combat. Drill is a very powerful promotion, it just doesn't show up on many good units. Try out a Machinery slingshot and get Cho-ko-nus early, and then tell me that drill promotions suck. Drill IV gunpowder units are certainly no laughing matter either...
 
King Fleverance said:
As for improvements, I tend to find that every tile has a best option. For instance a Plains/Hill either gets a lumbermill or a mine. (Depending on if it has a forest on it or not.) I personally prefer the lumbermill alot of times but the mine gives you that 5% chance of finding something in the hill. Grassland by a river is pretty much a garaunteed cottage. Plains are always farms and VERY rarely cottages. Grassland/Hills almost always windmills.So, generally for me, the topography itself defines my cities.

Spoiler :
JAWSO.JPG


In civ3 it was always a mystery how well a city would turn out in some areas cuz the soil underneth the realistic proportions of forested or jungle area, were scattered with rich minerals you are always unaware to the exact location of.
Spoiler :
D_mo.JPG


I now use Elephant taming Civs as the first jungle clearers thus giving the rest of the Civs a little time to concentrate depleting the forests before they learn how to get down in dirty in the jungle elephantless. I still let the white settler plop down on jungle turf if they feel like it(chances are if there near a jungle smart CIv early in, they get cultured out iof the jungles in not to long a time, the mods also have a few extra early culture buildings!)
 
All I can locate is my original Civ 3 disc. No Conquests for me atm. :( I may have to go buy Civ 3 complete to get ahold of C3C. I am getting Rise of Nations today for 10 bucks. Then me and a friend are going to check it out online. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom