Civ 4 or Civ 5?

[cepiolot]

What would you rather buy: Civ 4 or Civ 5? A while ago I was going to by Civ 4 but then Civ 5 came out so I bought that. Some people told me that was a bad idea.

 

[Bad Brett]

Easy decision. Civ 4 is superior in almost every single way.

 

[Shurdus]

4 is the better game right now. Keep in mind that that game became great with updates and that it was not an instant smash hit. I still gave good hope that 5 will be very cool in the future.

 

[Lazy Knight]

Civ 4 complete is currently 6,24€ on Steam. I'd advise anyone to pick it up regardless of Civ 5

 

[SuperJay]

I own them both. You own Civ 5 already. How do you like it? Are you considering buying Civ 4 in addition? I'm not sure what the question is, here.

 

[MrCynical]

Well given that Civ 4, while not perfect, is a much more polished game than Civ 5 I'd have to recommend 4 over 5 if you don't have either. Not sure where Civ 5 is going in the long run, or how much effort is going to go into patching it up - I'd definitely reccommend waiting a while if you don't already have it.

 

[bryanw1995]

yeah, I think that you can buy civ 3 + civ 4 both complete with every expansion/patch/etc for ~ $10 total for the 2 on steam right now.

edit: however, you appear to be more in the target market for ciV since you're not a fanatic. ciV is simpler/easier to figure out, cIV is VERY complicated and not for the faint of heart.

 

[cepiolot]

I own them both. You own Civ 5 already. How do you like it? Are you considering buying Civ 4 in addition? I'm not sure what the question is, here.

The question is which is better: Civ 4 or Civ 5?

 

[CivFart]

I never liked Civ 4 a great deal. I bought Civ 3 Gold, that game is truelly an amazing piece of achievement. I will long remember civ 3 gold.

If I were to choose between civ 4 and civ 5. Civ 5 would be my choice, no doubt.

 

[SuperJay]

The question is which is better: Civ 4 or Civ 5?

In that case, Civ 4 is the better game.

You can get Civ 4 + all expansions for cheaper than you can buy one DLC for Civ 5, too.

 

[Bad Brett]

4 is the better game right now. Keep in mind that that game became great with updates and that it was not an instant smash hit. I still gave good hope that 5 will be very cool in the future.

The problem with Civ 4 in the beginning was that there were too few units and some weird AI bugs. Also, certain graphic cards didn't work very well which made people angry.

But, very few people complained about the core game. Very few people wanted the old corruption system back, very few people claimed that the civics were bad and very few people thought that the new happiness/health mechanics were broken. Most people enjoyed the new combat rules, even though there were too few units in the game to make it really interesting. All Firaxis had to do was to fix some bugs and add more stuff.

But in Civ 5, people complain about the very core game. They don't like the global happiness, most of them agree that they AI can't handle 1upt and many don't like the fact that the game focuses too much on war. These problems can't be solved simply by adding more units or buildings.

 

[CGG1066]

I didn't play Civ 4 that much (since I just used a friend's copy), but I picked it up last night because it was ~$7 and played a game to the medieval era. For that price, it's a good buy regardless.

However, it's not like Civ 4 was the perfect game a lot of posters here pretend it was. While Civ 5 is a bit too simplistic, Civ 4 is a bit too complicated. In my view, there are too many units, too many techs, etc. to the point of which you're sort of lost and each step seems so minor that you wonder what the point is. Part of this is not remembering what each did, but part of it is that there are techs and units which really don't add to the game.

Civ 5 also does a much better job at organizing information and allowing you to control the order you do tasks during your turn. But what it gives you in organization, it takes away by not giving you very much info to begin with (there are a few really good mods that do this, which I highly recommend). Both could do a lot better - but after playing 4 again, I have a new respect for what they did with 5.

I also really, really missed hexes for both gameplay and aesthetic reasons. Other things V added: one tile city expansion (it really leads to better looking that don't claim a bunch of land you cannot work) and city defenses.

 

[Mr Jack]

I find the accusation that Civ 5 concentrates too much on war strange. City defences, and cultural policies and wonders that boost your units in your own territory mean that playing defensively is a lot easier than in Civ 4. In Civ 4 you had to continually build armies just to defend your own land with or be crushed by the AI's stack of doom; Civ 5 is a lot more forgiving on this front.

Personally, I like Civ 5 more than Civ 4. It's more accessible and rewarding to play. The happiness mechanic may be a little strange but it's less annoying and more flexible than the maintenance mechanics of Civ 4.

The hardcore fans certainly seem to prefer Civ 4, that's true, but I suspect for most players who just want a distracting, enjoyable and engaging game Civ 5 is the better choice.

 

[markantony]

Civ 4 easily. Although that is not a compliment as Pac Man is a deeper and more challenging venture than Civ Panzer General.

 

[@Rob76]

I too own both games. And I enjoy them both. But I much prefer Civ5. Sure, it's a less perfected product than Civ4, but it's the one and only Civ game designed for domination play to be as prominant (and unhandicapped) as the other victory conditions. Now, I do think Firaxis went too far in the 1.135 patch. If they don't repeal the local city happiness feature, then we're doomed to the kind of micro-management burden we all thought we'd seen the last of in Civ3.

But I do think that Civ4 is the next to best Civ game, at least through the Warlords expansion. I'm sure I'll play Civ4 again, but not the BtS version. Corporations were a extraneous complexity w/o elegance, a complication for the sake of complication that detracted from the strategic thrill of play. And the espionage feature was nothing more than an interfering nuisance--almost as bad as the espionage feature that poisioned the strategic fun of Civ2.

 

[CivFanaticMan]

Civ4, not because Civ5 is so broken (all Civ games are broken at release), but because Civ5 has no immersion. I cannot immerse myself in Civ5 at all. Immersion has been the reason why I play Civ5. The developers changed the game up and took out immersion to try and make Civ5 more a strategy game. I feel about as immersed in Civ5 as I would be in chess.

While its great they wanted more of a strategy game, they sacrificed the 'empire building' aspect of the game. If I wanted to play strategy Civ I play online. Single player Civ is for immersion.

 

[AfterShafter]

Right now, Civ IV. A Civ game tends to take years to mature and become the game that it has the potential to be. Two or three years from now, Civ V *may* be able to compete with Civ IV, but right now it simply can't.

I own Civ V because I've been playing Civ IV for years and wanted something fresh. Even though it isn't the game the Civ IV is, right now, I'd rather play it for that reason. For a new player, I'd go Civ IV and come back in a few months to a year.

 

[Khan Quest]

But, very few people complained about the core game. Very few people wanted the old corruption system back, very few people claimed that the civics were bad and very few people thought that the new happiness/health mechanics were broken. Most people enjoyed the new combat rules, even though there were to few units in the game to make it really interesting. All Firaxis had to do was to fix the apparent to improve the game was to add more stuff.

But in Civ 5, people complain about the very core game. They don't like the global happiness, most of them agree that they AI can't handle 1upt and many don't like the fact that the game focuses too much on war. These problems can't be solved simply by adding more units.

Bad Brett has made the most compelling point in this thread - Very few complaints were made about the core game of Civ IV; Most of the complaints about civ V are about the core game. This truley summarizes the overall civ community's sentiment.

 

[AfterShafter]

Bad Brett has made the most compelling point in this thread - Very few complaints were made about the core game of Civ IV; Most of the complaints about civ V are about the core game. This truley summarizes the overall civ community's sentiment.

Yes there were. Taking away ranged attacks, smaller maps/world, much smaller empire, game was faster even on marathon... Those are just off the top of my head, and I seem to remember complaints about zone of control and many other things being changed for the worse. There were a lot of people who stuck with Civ III for a long, long time and vehement opposition to the game out of the gate didn't really quiet down for months after release. The reality is buzz words like "consolized" weren't as known at the time, whereas now they're common vernacular in gaming forums across the net.

It's easy to paint it in an idealized light because it hit its stride so well, but, Civ IV didn't get off to as smooth a start as many of you paint it as in hindsight.

 

[SuperJay]

The hardcore fans certainly seem to prefer Civ 4, that's true, but I suspect for most players who just want a distracting, enjoyable and engaging game Civ 5 is the better choice.

Not trying to argue here (since this is all opinion anyway), but I'm not a "hardcore" Civ player, and I still prefer Civ 4 by far. I rarely venture above Prince or King, and I'm not an advanced strategy guru by any means. I'm effectively a casual player, just one that happens to be passionate about his favorite strategy game franchise.

So, by your description, I should be the target audience for Civ 5. But it's not fun, engaging, immersive, or replayable to me at all. Three weeks and I was bored to tears. I know there are plenty of people who love Civ 5 and have spent 300+ hours playing it, but when I see those posts I can't help thinking "doing what??"