Civ 4 is already done for me

[lifeaquatic]

It was cool at first because of graphics and fast gameplay, but as usually is the case, those elements are not lasting. Why is it that non 3D games that are older are so much longer lasting? I mean my favorite game is not 3D yet i never get bored of it and I still play iall the time. Civ 4 was only cool for the first few months that I owned it, then I went to playing MP games, then the expansion came out and I didn't buy it.

I think for me its the lack of realism with the war elements of the game. I mean come on, when would an army of nothing but archers be assembled to fight against an army of apparently just catapults ???

If Civ wanted to make a better game they should have kept the graphics for civ 3 and simplay added better elements, like having your armies consist of multiple units and a battle taking you into a real time battle view mode. That would be more fun for me. Just my opinion.

 

[Entrinzikyl]

Fortunately, Civ 4 is not done for me, and I have no desire to go back to Civ 3. Slowly moving up the difficulties, trying new strategies (there really are a lot of ways to win), I guess the games 1 year anniversary will be coming up soon. Since I got it a week after it came out, I think the CD has only left my computer 2 or 3 times. I'm sorry you got tired of it.

 

[Red Door]

I definetly seen where the OP is coming from since I did it too.

 

[napoleonbee]

I felt the same way about Civ2 --> Civ3, but I got over it, and so did everyone else, and started to love Civ3. Chances are, Civ4 will grow on you and when Civ5 comes out, you'll say "this is awful, it's nothing like the other games in the series, yadda yadda I'm going back to Civ4 for GOOD!!!!" Happens everytime

 

[ice2k4]

In my case I got CivIV and after about 6 or so months I got bored. Then Warlords came out and even though it had so little changes (to many people) it made my game so much more fun. I have had warlords for about a month or two and havent really gotten bored with it. Im making my way up through the difficulties and learning from my mistakes.

Now I dont have a really high end pc, but I just bought an 80gb hard drive off my friend for only $20. (I originally had a 42gb, 95% full.) With this I thought hey, let's install civ3, relive it a bit. I started playing and bam, it just didnt seem right. Wasnt as fun, things were more spaced out and I forgot a lot of the key game concepts that arent in CivIV which confused me a little at first.

I guess it really took me to actually go abck and play civIII to realize how much more I like civ4.

But as Billy Joel says, "Dont Ask Me Why"

 

[Kartik]

Get warlords its soo much better, or atleast wait for a price drop. Everything is greatly improved.

 

[*Nosferatu*]

Except for my Cossacks, they nuetered them.

Good for everyone else, bad for me...

 

[Liquidated]

try and play a succession game. Adds entire new aspects to the game.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=168


Cheers!
-Liq

 

[InFlux5]

Civ 4 did take a while to grow on me. I didn't like something(s) about it at first, and I had a hard time putting my finger on what. But it seems like you have an idea of what you don't like. The thing is, nothing says you have to mass Catapults at your enemy's cities defended by mass Archers. The mass Archers makes sense to me: a basic city garrison firing arrows from the walls/towers. But I only mass Catapults when I have no bronze or iron....

Civ 4 has its flaws, but so did Civ 3. In Civ 3 it was a matter of spamming cities non-stop until you won the game. I found this very tedious and not fun. So the fact that Civ 4 forces you to limit your expansion and focus more on your existing cities is a big improvement in my book. This is just one example.

 

[lifeaquatic]

I'm not comparing so much to Civ 3, other then graphics which i prefer the old ones, I'm comparing to other games that are far more realistic as far as military tactics are concerned. The one in my sig, for example.

 

[Swedishguy]

It was cool at first because of graphics and fast gameplay, but as usually is the case, those elements are not lasting. Why is it that non 3D games that are older are so much longer lasting? I mean my favorite game is not 3D yet i never get bored of it and I still play iall the time. Civ 4 was only cool for the first few months that I owned it, then I went to playing MP games, then the expansion came out and I didn't buy it.

I think for me its the lack of realism with the war elements of the game. I mean come on, when would an army of nothing but archers be assembled to fight against an army of apparently just catapults ???

If Civ wanted to make a better game they should have kept the graphics for civ 3 and simplay added better elements, like having your armies consist of multiple units and a battle taking you into a real time battle view mode. That would be more fun for me. Just my opinion.

I used to think so. When I found CivFanatics and the world changed for ever... at least for a few months.

 

[JavalTigar]

I like Knights of Honor as well. But comparing it to Civ is like comparing ice cream and pizza. Sure they are both food but they each please a different part of the pallet.

The scale of civ lends itself to abstract battle. Cause if you take combat to that level then you need to take economics to that level, plus civics, happiness, resource management..........

No one would have bought warlords, we would all still be playing our 1st game. Civ takes some of the best concepts of half a dozen games and combines them into one kick butt package.

I am finishing up a civ game right now and plan on starting a KoH game later in the week just for a change of pace. But I will always come back to civ.

ALWAYS!! That's why fanatic is in the title!

 

[eggrock]

Coming at Civ games (and any strategy games other than Sim City and Myth), this is a fantastic game. Dunno how long it's going to last me since I've only had it a few weeks, but I can see it playing in my PC for many months, well worth the $50 I paid for it (thanks for not dropping the price Best Buy.)

From a more experienced POV (RPGs), this sounds a little like the AD&D version battles, 2 vs. 3 vs. 3.5 vs. d20 etc. Just a little; D&D fanatics are more, er, fanatical, than most.

The config options in Civ IV look like they're good for a long time. Difficulty level, number of civs, maps, game options... I don't see any real issues but thankfully I'm new to the series so there you go..

 

[Swedishguy]

Age of Wonders would be better if they added the same aspects as CivIV.

 

[InFlux5]

I'm not comparing so much to Civ 3, other then graphics which i prefer the old ones, I'm comparing to other games that are far more realistic as far as military tactics are concerned. The one in my sig, for example.

Well, this isn't a military tactics game. It's kind of like comparing the city screen in Civ to SimCity. If you want a game that focuses just on combat, or city management, or empire building, there are other games. The appeal of civ is that you manage an empire from 4000 BC to 2050 AD. That's a very wide scope and things have to be simplified to fit them all in.

 

[Swedishguy]

Well that makes sense...

By the way, hail to Swedishguy!

Er, just a random statement.

 

[lifeaquatic]

ok well i enjoy KOH like 10 times more.

 

[Swedishguy]

It must be a good game. Or terrible taste.

 

[Syagrius]

Well that makes sense...

By the way, hail to Swedishguy!

Er, just a random statement.

Are everybody is as idiotic as this guy in Sweden?

 

[automator]

I think for me its the lack of realism with the war elements of the game. I mean come on, when would an army of nothing but archers be assembled to fight against an army of apparently just catapults ???

Huh? A year into the game, and I still haven't seen this.

For those who moan about the lack of realism, get real. It's a game. There's no real-world reason for why Infantry should have an inherant bonus against gunpowder units, but it's there for game balance. Nor is there a good reason for why Calvary are mounted units, giving a promoted pikeman a good chance against the Calvary. Yes, they are on horses, but by the time the pikemen dig in against a regiment of Calvary, they've all been shot dead.