"Civ 4 Sucks!" A vain attepmt to address the many complaints.

[Phoenix_56721]

Ah Phoenix_56721, you are that bad, you just spoil my plot.

LOL.... I really dont want new info. about the game, I think it will be more fun to wait till i have it loaded into my computer!....

 

[wit>trope]

You've heard of Counter-Strike? Most famous mod ever?

That makes his point since you can download Counter Strike for free and not pay "full price"

My main concern for Civ 4 is the combat. Apparently this is one of the things they are making more RTS-like. In doing so they also took away a lot of the subtelity of the game. They could have just as well included upgrade bonuses without taking away attack and defense values. But they didn't do that because they knew doing that would confuse the mass market they are aiming for.

I wish there were game developers who cator to "hardcore" market for strategy games as well as RPG games. I predict Civ 5 will be a RTS just like the latest Lord of the Realms is RTS even though the ones before it were all TBS. Civ used to be the sole franchise catering to hardcore strategy players. Now it's not and there's none that cater to that market anymore. Same for RPGs. There will probably never ever be another non-real time RPG.

PS I enjoy other games including real time ones and even FPS, but it's too bad some types of games that I enjoy are not going to be made anymore in the future -- if my predictions turn out correct.

 

[Myzenium]

That makes his point since you can download Counter Strike for free and not pay "full price"

Like all mods, you gotta have the base software, engine, and all to make it work. Most good games aren't free. If they were, they would be called freeware.

(BTW, I am also aware that Valve is currently allowing the free downloads of legacy games through the Steam network. AFAIK, you gotta own at least one Valve title to download all the others. Not free at all. More like, "Buy one, get the others free.")

 

[Myzenium]

Nah, turn-based gameplay will survive for both strategy and RPGs. I'm sure of it, so long as there are board and card games.

 

[Helmling]

cierdan,

the whole concept of attack/defense bonuses on the scale of the game was kind of absurd anyway. A unit's effectiveness in real-world combat does not vary so dramatically based solely on who takes the initiative in battle. That my Hoplites were virtually impenetrable on defense but utterly useless on offense was illogical and historically inaccurate.

A strong fighting force is a strong fighting force. Yes, cavalry is better when charging, but when engaged by an enemy, what are we meant to believe our mounted Civ units do? Stand still? It's ridiculous.

I favor either a much more complex combat system that involves damage thresholds, ranges, response/reload times, etc. or something that smudges all that over into "strength."

 

[hclass]

Sorry, hclass, I'm not going to reveal any info (I may or may not have), but I do think I'll see if Barry wants to go out to lunch this week.

What about getting clarification on things already been revealed by either the preview or interview? For example, about the world builder, can you confirm with your Firaxis friend, can one start it any time (say at the very beginning of the game or in the mid of a game) and use it to take away the FOW (i.e. reveal the map) and continue the game to the end (with the map reveal)?

 

[Myzenium]

hclass: Don't push your luck. If warpstorm says no, he's not talking. He's been around the forums so long that he must have plenty of friends who like him for who he is and not for what he knows.

 

[wit>trope]

cierdan,

the whole concept of attack/defense bonuses on the scale of the game was kind of absurd anyway.

It may have been unrealistic, but I don't see it is any more unrealistic than having a single value and also the whole TURN BASED concept is unrealistic too -- so are you saying we should get rid of that too?

My point was that it allows for more strategy, whether realistic or not. They also did not need at all to get rid of it to introduce their upgrade bonus features. But they chose to get rid of it to make it more friendly to RTS consumers. I think that's what happens with games like this. They start out in a good niche market -- like hardcore strategy gamers -- then they get more popular, more exposure, more publicity, a solid franchise, and they set their eyes on something bigger -- a more mainstream market. If and when that happens hopefully some other company will set in to fill the shoes, to serve the hardcore niche market that was abandoned in favor of making more money with a larger mainstream market.

Companies always try to get CUSTOMER LOYALTY -- it's even a concept in economics "consumer loyalty" or "brand loyalty" -- but for some reason companies these days don't think ONE IOTA about COMPANY LOYALTY to customers! How about it if a company after been successful with a niche hardcore market instead of abandoning it to server larger mainstream market and make more money choose to make LESS MONEY and STICK with the customers they are supposed to be loyal to? LOYALTY should work BOTH WAYS

I favor either a much more complex combat system that involves damage thresholds, ranges, response/reload times, etc. or something that smudges all that over into "strength."

I'm fine with a more complex system, but I would want it to stay streamlined -- meaning that it doesn't go into a separate screen. Having it be streamlined means that it will be less realistic -- but just like in movies you suspend disbelief, you have to do it in games too.

 

[Gunner]

Ahhh! Civ is actually taking some good ideas developed by other generes! The end of TBS games is nigh!

Do you honestly realize how ridiculous you sound?

 

[wit>trope]

Ahhh! Civ is actually taking some good ideas developed by other generes! The end of TBS games is nigh!

Do you honestly realize how ridiculous you sound?

Then explain to me the fact that the Lord of the Realms series which used to be TBS is now RTS? Hmm? Bet you can't!

And explain to me how in at least one case that I know about -- which means there's probably many more -- due to pressure from a publisher -- they said the publisher "requested" it -- the game Freedom Force was published as real time instead of turn based? Hmm?

Also they aren't taking good ideas from other genres for the sake of incorporating good ideas. What they are doing is to APPEAL to those who play these other genres or fans of these other genres. They are taking RTS features -- not really ideas -- to appeal to RTS market. It's just like with Rome Total War versus Medieval Total War -- they chose to change the interface EXPRESSLY to appeal to the RTS market -- I believe the company ADMITTED to doing this -- admittedly this was a mere interface change (how you move units and stuff in the battles), but still...

 

[Gunner]

What specific features are you complaining about?

The idea of a single combat strength isn't really an RTS thing so far as I've heard. And I actually think its a pretty good idea.

They are making Civ4 faster paced so that it will be good for multiplayer, I think thats good too. You can choose various game lengths for your own taste.

I really don't care about purely cosmetic interface changes. I guess you could take issue with having a bar at the bottom of the screen but there will probably be a mode where you can minimize it. Thats an idea, dare I say it, from RTS's.


I actually do understand what you are saying about games trying to broaden their appeal. I mainly disagree with your branding of it as being evil. I think it would be pretty boring if Firaxis didn't make some major changes to Civ4.

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: Civchu - you weary me.

7 days.

Continue to post as you are, and you will no longer post here.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Dominus Romae]

I think we should approach Civ4 with caution. What about the substance? The graphics are amazing, but the Civilization series are falling into the nasty hole of the games with good appearance and no gameplay or substance. So, what they may be trying to do: trying to impress people with these amazing graphics (and system requirements) so that everyone can pre-order a pretty looking game with no original substance or recklessly programmed (like - AI stupidities get worse, bugs keep crashing your game). This can be wrong, but Firaxis is only aiming at the profits they can get by impressing civ players. I recommend most of you to wait and see what Civ4 is really is, and not what it looks like to be, until you can spend your money on it.

 

[hclass]

I think we should approach Civ4 with caution. What about the substance? The graphics are amazing, but the Civilization series are falling into the nasty hole of the games with good appearance and no gameplay or substance. So, what they may be trying to do: trying to impress people with these amazing graphics (and system requirements) so that everyone can pre-order a pretty looking game with no original substance or recklessly programmed (like - AI stupidities get worse, bugs keep crashing your game). This can be wrong, but Firaxis is only aiming at the profits they can get by impressing civ players. I recommend most of you to wait and see what Civ4 is really is, and not what it looks like to be, until you can spend your money on it.

The problem of Civ3 and coming version (which we already know up to quite an extend of what it has to offer) is not so straight forward.

It is neither graphics nor gameplay alone which make experience players worry or dislike these version. For me I think the main problem is: Firaxis is unaware of the contradiction between features. They simply squeeze all GOOD features into the game and that eventually leads to an inevitable situation "Imposible to make everyone happy"

e.g.
1) Good graphics is contradicting low requirements of hardware (the poor and the rich)
2) Tech trade is contradicting Science research (The smart one and the hardworking one)
3) Diplomatic deals are contradicting with the focus of activities on the map (The talker and the worker)
4) Conquer victory is contradicting the curb of BIG empire with lot of cities (The big and the samall)
5) Multiplayer gameplay/game length is contradicting with the epic's (The many and solo)

and so on...


There are things simply can't be well-aligned into the same piece of game.

 

[Commander Bello]

[...]but there seems to be excessive amount of criticism on the forum threads about our beloved franchise and the direction its moving.

Well, meanwhile having quite some misreputation as being sceptical about Civ4 (and Firaxis' games, based on my experiences with Civ3 to C3C), I would like to comment some of your sentences.
"Beloved franchise"... ah... that's good! Couldn't you emphasize it even more?
In other words, wouldn't less have been more? Personally, I like many things I had the honour to spend money for, like my car, my computer, my whatever.... but would I call any of them "beloved"???
Well, maybe this just is your style. Ok. Yet, it doesn't sound like a "voice of reason", sorry.

and most of the problems of things being left out are well within the capability and imaginations of modders to fix.

As somebody already answered to you, some of us just would like to have a "good" game out of the box and wouldn't have to wait until a skilled modder shows up to "repair" what shouldn't have been subject to repair.
Personally again, I have to admit that not only I like the idea of a game so completely moddable as Civ4 has been announced to be, but I think this was a very clever marketing strategy as well. And it already pays off.
In every thread somebody clever shows up and mumbles: "If you don't like it, then just mod it!"
Seems to be a strong argument at first glance, no doubt about it.
Now, just let me ask you a question: If your new car came with a toolbox and a complete handbook, what would you say if the manufacturer would say: "If the breaks don't work, just fix 'em!". Now?

The Graphics question which seems to be the forum of much complaint (*wags finger* and you call yourself civ fans) is nothing more then a question of style vs substance.

I had to quote the whole sentence to keep the meaning of the part in the brackets, sorry.
Oh, so now civ fans are not allowed to complain about they dare not to like the graphics?
In other words, as long as they have hope for the game they just have to shut up and buy it?

It has the substance it needs to convey the message and anything beyond that should be considered creame...

Well, what should I do if I like the strawberry cake, but dislike the cream in it?
Well, enough about the graphics, which for some reasons indeed have been changed as more and more people did complain about them.

Techs turns and maps oh my. Everyone has a problem with something. Other then the fact that all of the above mentioned can and will be modded I have one question?

Well, some people (including me) were complaining about the announced reduction in map sizes, as this was linked to the change to 3D.
I am pretty sure that a company nowadays just HAVE to release 3D graphics, no doubt about it. Yet, what you make out of it may very well be a matter of discussion.
Now, 3D was announced to offer an "even more living map". We were promised to see little carts being pushed around, we were promised to see birds, waves, eating horses and what not else.
Yet, meanwhile you read more and more: "Do you really think you will play the game always zoomed in so much?"
Now, what does this question mean? It means that quite some people are unhappy with the appearance of the game when zoomed in. And the "defenders of the game" more and more a moving to the last defense line: "If you don't like it that way, just zoom out!"
But what about those sweet little carts? What about those sweeeet birds? And what about those cuuuuute little horsies?
As you said in your posting: cream. Eye-candy.
Cream and candy, which just makes the game fat. And fat means that game to become slow on bigger maps.
Well, for quite a lot of people this is no problem, as they like playing on smaller maps, which is absolutely fine with me. Yet, there is at least a countable minority of players who like to play on BIG maps.
We've been told that this annoying city limit was to fall. But does this help if I have to pay for the bigger map with inter-turns of 10 minutes again?
3D could have massively improved the graphical appearance of the game. As it will make the game just slower, I would have preferred to stick with 2D. Not because I like 2D more than 3D, but because I like REALLY epic games - and epic games are just not 150% of the standard game turns (with most probably 150% of science costs, or how are they going to achieve this by using the same rules?), epic games mean epic maps as well.

At the bottom line:
Most of the opinions stated here in this and other forums are based on the information available at the time of writing. Sure, some people just state: "This will be crap!" And they don't give arguments about why they think so.
But, where are the "voices of reason" when someone posts: "This game will rock! Must have it! Must have it now! Can't wait!" and so on and so on and so on....
Are these more valid statements? Have they been issued by more reasonable people?

Did YOU raise your voice against them in the past? Sorry, I must have missed this.

So, I learn that you are willing to defend an unreleased game against what you feel to be unbased confrontation. This is your good right.
But, by giving yourself the name "Voice of reason" I would have expected a better based and better balanced statements of yours.
You should have called yourself "The last defender" or whatever else.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

"Beloved franchise"... ah... that's good! Couldn't you emphasize it even more?

I applaud you for reading my introduction. But if you read a bit further.

Your right the opptimist will be let down but quickly rcover because they "know" it will be fixed in good time, the pessimists will be pleasently surprised and the realist in us will see that its just a F***ing game.QUOTE]

And then later.

I'm a realist about this and expect Civ 4 to be inperfect as far as maitaince and number of cities goes I'm afraid that I can't tell you how I like them or not. I haven't seen the new dynamics in action so I'm suspending judgement.

Ahhh the sad thing about sarcasism is it never quite comes across right in all these ones and zeros and if I seem a bit to ummmm genuine in what I write you'll have to forgive me. Its all very tongue in cheeck on this side of the monitor I assure you..

Now, just let me ask you a question: If your new car came with a toolbox and a complete handbook, what would you say if the manufacturer would say: "If the breaks don't work, just fix 'em!". Now?

Ohhh Bello I know exactly what you mean. I owned a Chevy with a limited warenty. I think that we should push for a quality product from our "Beloved Franchises". That is the hallmark of being a good consumer. Sadly if you think the game will be perfect upon release I'm afraid your expetations are to high. And I want just as badly as you to be wowed by a good game. I expect it not to crash, be riddled with bugs, induce siesures, or cause my computer to explode. So I'm going to tell you what I told H Class and what I plan on doing. If your worried about getting anything other then "good" game right out o' the box pick up a gaming magazine, read a review or look at the forums. If its not above par take your hard earned Deutsche Marks or Euros and buy another game. May I suggest Dance Dance Revolution. From what I heard that game didn't need any fixs and was "good" right out of the box.

Oh, so now civ fans are not allowed to complain about they dare not to like the graphics?
In other words, as long as they have hope for the game they just have to shut up and buy it

No. every complaint is valid and should be disscussed if it has a good foundation to rest on. EVEN THE OPINIONS THAT DON"T ARE IMPORTANT. Because they matter to a gamer out there. But before we open our mouths and bring them to the forum we should have a strong arguement behind them and, if we're pushing for change, eventually numbers to back us up. Begin with questions and then form conclusions.

Well, what should I do if I like the strawberry cake, but dislike the cream in it?
Well, enough about the graphics, which for some reasons indeed have been changed as more and more people did complain about them.

Wow. and here I never opened my mouth and the developers improved the graphics because of all of you who complained. I owe you a debt of thanks. Afterall I thought all the screen shots were in debug mode and pictures of an unfinished game. Again thank you for your splendaid contribution! And I have no idea about your "cuuute little horses" and zooming in and out. I personally am going to be playing in whatever mode allows me to play the ****ing game. Like I said everything else is creame *smile* or maybe your right and its some kind of rancid frosting. And I couldn't agree with you more, I enjoy playing epic games with huge maps and I have my concerns. I don't know if this installation of the game will finally answer the eternal question of whether size really does matter or how the # of cities will playout but I could enjoy the new system. Or it could dash all my hopes and I'll smoke a clove, listen to Radio Head, and feel compelled to off myself. Regardless I have no clue and won't speculate as to how I feel until I get more information.

Did YOU raise your voice against them in the past? Sorry, I must have missed this.

Being a noob I'm hardly to blame for that.

But, by giving yourself the name "Voice of reason" I would have expected a better based and better balanced statements of yours.
You should have called yourself "The last defender" or whatever else.

Note to self- Be less pretentious in the names one gives one self. But Jesus Christ does everyone have to take a jab *rolls eyes*

The point of this thread was simple. I didn't want to stifle genuinely constructive critique and concern. But to have everyone take a step back and stop with the narrow minded, unimaginitive, instant gratifying, and sometimes outright ignorant posts. We are all taken alot less seriously when we open our mouths without a leg to stand on. And people who are captureing the general thoughts trends and questions that are on all are minds do us all a great service in helping with the finished product. Ohhh and by the way I have nothing to defend but my ideas Bello... I don't have the game yet so what do I know .

 

[yoshi]

1. The Graphics question which seems to be the forum of much complaint (*wags finger* and you call yourself civ fans) is nothing more then a question of style vs substance. Beyond being a matter of taste as to whether the art is good or bad in setting an "atmosphere" does it do its job. Which is to display iconically what is going on in the game. To that I say yes. Every release of new screenshots that I've seen is clearer then the last in depicting that which its trying to depict whether unit city improvement ect... It is evolveing beyond the cluttered early screenshots into an easy user friendly interface. It has the substance it needs to convey the message and anything beyond that should be considered creame...

This is taken from the Civrules' Civ4 Pre-release Article:

Due to the move to 3D, Barry Caudill (senior Civ4 producer) says that the largest maps in the game will be slightly smaller compared to those of Civilization III.

Putting aside people who criticize the game from an aesthetic viewpoint, the source of the "complaints" lies in that the 3D inevitably affects performance. The above quote proves this point by showing how the 3D engine will use system resources that would otherwise go to powering more activity on a larger map without the game suffering from frame-rate and other related problems.

Where the specific example is concerned, bigger maps have always been a prioriy for players and modders alike, so this is a relevant issue.

One can assume that a large number other Civ4 feature limitations are also due to the 3D engine.

Graphics are fine as long as they don't limit or interfere with other (more important) features in the game.

Although there were (understandable) reasons for going with the 3D, I still object to it's inclusion into a game that doesn't actually require it for gameplay (unlike FPS, for example) when it comes at a cost to performance.

(And personally, I thought the max. map size in Civ3 was insufficient!)

 

[warpstorm]

Where the specific example is concerned, bigger maps have always been a prioriy for players and modders alike, so this is a relevant issue.

Always? No. Sorry, not for me. Civ3 games on maps larger than the Large size take too long and consist of way too much busy work for my taste.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

Yoshi has a good arguement. I think the transition to 3D was due to marketing preasure. But like I said I dig large maps and if the graphics engine made them alot smaller I will be a little bumed.

 

[oldStatesman]

Companies always try to get CUSTOMER LOYALTY -- it's even a concept in economics "consumer loyalty" or "brand loyalty" -- but for some reason companies these days don't think ONE IOTA about COMPANY LOYALTY to customers! How about it if a company after been successful with a niche hardcore market instead of abandoning it to server larger mainstream market and make more money choose to make LESS MONEY and STICK with the customers they are supposed to be loyal to? LOYALTY should work BOTH WAYS

Have you been reading Jerry Maguire's memo, errr, mission statement again?