1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

civ 5 and civ 4 my conclusion... different games

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by jojorah, Mar 20, 2011.

  1. jojorah

    jojorah Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    520
    Okay now we can all agree that civ 5 is glitched and it wasnt right to put out the game at such a high price to custumers. But theres somethings, no one can denie that are wonderfull about civ 5. They are just covered under many glithes and game play flaws. So today i went back to my copy of civ 4 witch is a wonderful game as well. It felt very different from civ 5 though, the diplomacy was less general and more spesific to actions that one did, i like both styles of diplomacy both, and i think that if the civ 5 diplomacy wasnt as flawed it would be just as good if not better than civ 4s. I also took a glance at the borders, i liked the civ 5 ones better. Then i came to the battle feild and it felt a little akward to take a city that didnt have any units in it at the time, and then for the enemy to take my city that was unguarded. But also there are many flaws with the civ 5 warfare seeing how it feels like im playing against a two year old. Then i got to religions and i compared it to the denouncements in civ 5, basicly the same but religion was more historicly accurate. Lastly i got to policies vs civics, i liked policies better and felt them to be more historicly accurate. Unfortunatly seeing how you cant change the policies it took some of the historic value away

    Over all i felt refreshed after playing civ 4, i had goten a little ciVed out. But my finale word is that they are different games, with similar features. And should be treated like different games. Tell me your comparision of the game in the comments plz
     
  2. fat_tonle

    fat_tonle Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Messages:
    540
    I prefer policies to the civics even though there is less flexibility. I just don't think there is enough diversity or bonuses/penalties in the current policy tree. I'd like them to significantly expand on the tree in expansions for me to say it is vastly superior to Civ IV civics, which it isn't IMO.

    Preferred religions to denunciation because it was additional content and a fresh new element, even though it led to some broken diplomacy. I'm going to take the religion mechanic any day of the week just because of how important it was in our history. I'd almost prefer if your empires were thrust into crusade wars in Civ IV rather it being an optional mission that came up once in a blue moon.

    Combat. Obviously ciV V is more intriguing but it is broken as ****. Until they fix it, I am going to only give ciV a slight edge. The stacks of doom in IV were pretty lame, but you can chip away with siege. ciV V can make a mess of itself at times.

    Empire growth/stagnation. Liked Civ IV better. Don't think the global happiness mechanic works in ciV. It felt more fulfilling sustaining an economy while satisfying the individual needs of your people in civ IV. The generalized approach in ciV does not make achieving growth and prosperity as fulfilling an achievement as it did in civ IV.

    Civ IV: 9/10
    CiV: 6.5/10 (With plenty of room for improvement. I'd say vanilla civ IV was like an 8/10 for me)
     
  3. Disraeli

    Disraeli Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Messages:
    26
    Hmm, well I guess the two unarguably better parts of Civ 5 would be the Hexes and the unique Civ abilities, though I definitely wish Civ 5 would add more leaders with different abilities through DLC or (god forbid!) a free patch.

    Civ 5's biggest change would be the combat system, which isn't a real improvement for me because I see no problem with stacks of doom, I think they have enough tactics and they also feel far more epic than just a few individual units; showdowns with tens of units on both sides might take forever, but they sure feel awesome. Also for those like me who care about realism, stacks of doom are far more realistic. I also find that one of the biggest problems with Civ 5 is the slower production times, for me it just feels a lot more like a real empire when stuff is constantly going on, and although I haven't experienced this, at higher levels there's the blanket of doom which is unarguably worse than the stack of doom.

    The Civ5 UI is worse than Civ4's, as I don't care about the number of buttons, I just want to get to things with the least amount of clicks possible, and Civ 5 buries a lot of stuff in submenus adding unnecessary clicks.

    Graphics in Civ 5 are way better comparing both the vanilla versions, but Civ 4 modded comes close although is still beaten out by those beautifully realistic coastlines and mountain chains. I do wish there was more animation, the Civ 4 animated worked tiles was a really nice feature and just more general animation adds to the experience. But as I said earlier, despite all of that, Civ 5 is better IMO.

    I dislike Civ 5's tendency to cut features instead of improving them; while Civ 4's religion system certainly could have been better, it added so much to immersion. Likewise with the health system. Civ 5 could have added religious crusades, schisms, plagues, and even more! Instead they chose to remove those features, likely to prevent being branded as Civ 4.5, which I actually would have been pretty happy with considering how great Civ 4 is.

    Global Happiness is another thing I don't like, I made a post in a different thread describing my problems with it, in a nutshell it's that I find that it's unrealistic, so it breaks immersion and to top it all off, it's less fun.

    I prefer Civics to social policies, as it's more fun and more realistic to be able to switch governments every now and then, albeit with great cost in the form of a revolution. Civ 4 sadly fails to model this, but it has several great mods that do it quite well although the Revolutions mod doesn't have any lasting penalty for Anarchy, but Rhye's does it well.

    Now, this is just comparing Civ 4 to Civ 5. Civ 4 I consider to be one of the greatest games of all time, whereas I feel Civ 5 has quite a ways to go. It's my hope that after several expansions, Civ 5 will grow to be just as good as Civ 4. I also think that Civ 5 will never be as good until a mod comes out that adds a bunch of real features, such as Rise of Mankind or LoR.

    Final score:
    Civ 5 - 8/10
    Civ 4 - 10/10
     
  4. sharkles

    sharkles Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    Messages:
    77
    Nope.
     
  5. Revoran

    Revoran Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2010
    Messages:
    493
    I don't agree.

    Your thread title says it all, CIV 5 and CIV 4 are different games. I realise you and people like you wanted CIV 4 2.0, but you're just going to have to deal with it.

    Moderator Action: Don't direct such accusations against members here, it's seen as trolling.
     
  6. jojorah

    jojorah Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    520

    Okay i disagree with alot of what you said in that. First stacks of doom if any thing take less time then civ 5 combat. What "showdown are you refering to? All stacks of doom did stratigicly was mesuring a civ on there science, and or production. One would have no chance if you where a builder to survive a attack by a ai empire that spent the turns u where making wonders with to make units. In civ 5 quality can actualy beat quantity. How is being allowed to put a billion + men in one tile= 2 miles more realalistic than only being allowed to only put 1000 men in one tile? Slower production times is to make it so that one cant acheive this so called existent blanket of doom as quikly. Lastly im almost posititive that over 4 fiths of the people that play civ 5 have never expirienced one, the one fith that had would have wanted to try. I dont understand the whole "omg i hate civ 5 becuase of the blanket doom" thing, when almost no one has had one (if you have had one plz say so in your post). But you beleive what you beleive and i beleive what i beleive and that fine
     
  7. jojorah

    jojorah Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    520
    Okay now we can all agree that civ 5 is glitched

    Okay i realize how that sounds, im a big fan of civ 5, more so than civ 4 *gasp*. what i meant by that is the obvious things that are wrong with civ5, like the combat and ai. Thats all i meant, i also know that if i dont say something bad about civ5 people at this forum would chastize me. Again things that i didnt mention on my list that are better about civ 5 is how much clearer every thing is to understand. I am much more faithfull to civ5 than to civ4, i just like many of the people feel like the wonderful game the is civ 5 should have been released fully patched.

    Read the whole thread i said many positive things about civ 5.
     
  8. Disraeli

    Disraeli Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Messages:
    26
    Okay, first off I edited your post a bit to improve readability.

    Stacks of doom do tend to take less time, but I was referring to the times when huge stacks of doom went up against eachother, which do tend to take quite a bit of time especially if you don't have quick combat enabled, as I don't.

    I disagree with you on your point that stacks of doom don't take tactical or strategical skill and wars are entirely decided by the production and science of the civs involved; although yes, that's a big part of it, there's still a lot of decisions you have to make. For example: I've got 3 cities in the far north, and I'm at war with the Ethiopians in the Southeast, and my stack of doom is currently advancing on them. Suddenly, the Chinese declare war and them and their vassals march their troops into my northern cities. Do I break off my invasion, possibly leaving my previous conquests and even my core cities undefended but hopefully making it in time to reinforce my northern territories, or do I press on with the invasion and hope I can scramble a decent defense force quickly enough to stop them?

    This was a decision I actually had to make, and I chose to continue the invasion. I lost my cities, but took a few more from the Ethiopians. Who knows what would have happened if I had took the other route, but things certainly would have played out far differently. I consider a decision like this pretty equal to the tactical decisions you have to make in Civ 5, although something of this magnitude isn't exactly common, but neither is it a common thing in Civ 5 either.

    And it's true that a Civ focusing on Wonders would be at a disadvantage compared to a Civ focusing on their military, but isn't that true also in Civ 5? Wouldn't the Civ in Civ 5 that builds 3 wonders instead of 10 units also generally lose? If the Civ in Civ 4 can muster a defense quick enough than it certainly has a fighting chance, and tactics are especially necessary when you don't have a big stack and you're playing defensively.

    And yeah, with extremely large stacks it sometimes gets a bit ridiculous, but that happens pretty rarely. However, armies were historically thousands and tens of thousands of men strong, and 1upt just doesn't really reflect that.

    You're right about slower production in that it is intended to alleviate the blanket of doom, but it happens anyway and I heavily dislike the slower production as mentioned here:
    And I pretty clearly said that I have not experienced a blanket of doom, and that it only happens at high levels but it is still a pretty obvious problem with the game, though it doesn't affect me.
     
  9. lucifero

    lucifero Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    19
    Location:
    milky galaxy
    i guess it's the trend these days: release a game before it's completely finished. it's a shame, although i must say i'm enjoying civ5 overall. same happened with a couple of my favorite games, gt5 (clearly incomplete when released, and still not quite complete after several patches) and dragon age origins expansions+crappy sequel II (EA seriously ruined that game, and ruined bioware as a whole; EA for me now is a R.I.P. signal on the game package.. avoid at all costs).

    I've only played a few days civ5 so far, and it is quite glitchy.. one of the worst being i couldn't attack a city of the ottomans, because there was an indian scout glitched inside it... so it wouldnt make me attack it unless i engaged war with indians too. i could only continue using artillery on it.

    I'm not sure how the diplomacies are supposed to work, but i felt some behaviours were kinda akward... for example ghandi that was friendly with me whole game, just suddenly attacked one of my allied city states, and telling me something like ''oops i attacked one of your little friends, what are you gonna do about it?''. then the turn after he made peace with the city state actually, without me interfering at all, and without any actual fighting occuring.

    Overall i like the battle system more in civ5, i was really bored of SODs in civ4. and i prefer having to deal with less units (u need less units in civ5 obviously).

    as for the other changes in policies, can't really say anything much.. i'm enjoying them but maybe that's just cause they're new. perhaps it could be nice if after a given amount of turns you could be allowed to switch one of your policy trees, maybe with some anarchy turns imbetween.
     
  10. Hormagaunt

    Hormagaunt Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    211
    Presumably therefore you've never had any of the following while playing Civ5:

    Crashes to desktop.
    BSoD.
    Huge, as in multi-MB, save files.
    Extremely long load times.
    Extremely long turn times.
    Graphical overlays (when a ghost unit / terrain / village is left on the screen on top of the real terrain).
    Graphical unsets (when part of the land extends into the ocean as a dead flat, squared-cornered tile).
    Invisible terrain.
    Incorrectly marked terrain (mountains you can move through, plains you can't).
    Permanent peace. (As in it's impossible to declare war.)
    Permanent war.
    Failure of the game to acknowledge quest / assistance completion (the "ask for a road" bug).
    Various negative-resource occurrences (you now have -6 Iron).

    If you have ever had any of the above, then your response to the OP is... flawed.
     
  11. Segal

    Segal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    16
    Of the items you mention, I have only seen the Graphic Overlay issue and typically only once per game. Extremely minor item to me.

    I did have huge delays opening diplomatic windows for awhile but I switched from using DirectX 10 to DirectX 9 and all those problems went away. Techinically, the game has performed very soundly for me.
     
  12. TheBlackHole

    TheBlackHole Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2010
    Messages:
    58
    1. Not sure what you're trying to argue, because by this kind of a metric, EVERY semi-major modern PC game is "glitched"... I mean, like, EVERY single one of them.
    2. I, in fact, have had almost none of those issues. The only one I've had is a small amount graphical overlay issues, but that's overall been extremely minor.

    (I'm not saying my experience is supposed to represent anything beyond simply my individual experience, just sayin'...)
     
  13. Hormagaunt

    Hormagaunt Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    211
    The multi-MB save files were endemic at the beginning; I'm surprised you never had them. Assumption would be that you never reloaded a game as doing so was one of the prime culprits of 8-10 MB save files.


    The severity or lack of same for any of the stated problems is not at issue for my response to Revoran; the existence of such is the point. He was, in effect, saying that no, CtD, BSoD, long load times, et al, simply do not exist or are not glitches.

    The problems I stated are all known to exist; commentary regarding them can be found all over the place. Revoran stated categorically that he was disagreeing that Civ5 had glitches. Unless he's qualifying CtDs as "non-glitches" or qualifying invisible rivers as a bug (and therefore also not a glitch), he's talking through his hat.



    I've had:

    Crashes to desktop.
    BSoD.
    Huge, as in multi-MB, save files.
    Extremely long load times.
    Extremely long turn times.
    Graphical overlays (when a ghost unit / terrain / village is left on the screen on top of the real terrain).
    Graphical unsets (when part of the land extends into the ocean as a dead flat, squared-cornered tile).
    Incorrectly marked terrain (mountains you can move through, plains you can't).


    I may also have had some of the more subtle ones but I simply didn't notice.
     
  14. Hormagaunt

    Hormagaunt Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    211
    However, Revoran is saying that none of them exist; not for you, not for him, not for anybody.
     

Share This Page