Civ 5 or Civ 4?

[donkey33]

I apologise if this has been asked. I ran a search but I got so many results and after sifting through ton, couldn't find anything.

Anyway, just got a discount code for a Civ game. I can grab 4 (complete) or 5 for a couple of bucks so just wondering which way I should lean.

I have played both. Civ 4 was definitely enjoyable but I only played Civ 5 when it was released. As in a lot of threads here, it needed some heavy work and after patches and DLC, not sure if it has improved any.

So what would you recommend? I grab 5 or just stick to 4 as I already know that's a great game and will still give me great value for a long time.

Thanks

 

[apocalypse105]

Well If you love the diplomacy part you shouldn't go for civ 5

The main diference between civ 4 and 5 is that in civ 4 diplomacy actually matters and can become a important part in you're startegy.


Olso note that civ 5 is far from perfect it still has some bugs that aren't fixed today but it has been improved a lot!!!

But Personally I thinx civ 4 is more a complete game

 

[donkey33]

Thanks.

I loved the diplomacy from Civ 4 and was a major disappointment when I played Civ 5 when it was released. I felt like the leaders had no personalities but looks like it hasn't improved.

I also liked the religious element which is absent from 5.

I guess it sounds like 4 is the way to keep going. I just wanted to make sure 5 didn't improve a lot of DLC expansions added missing features that were in 4.

 

[General Tso]

In my opinion the major difference between Civ4 and Civ5 is micro management especially late in the game. If you like micro management stick with Civ4, if you don't then play Civ5.

 

[wannabewarlord]

Let's be honest. Civ4 is dated. You probably played it ad absurdum. Why keep playing the same old game over and over? Sure, if it brings you enjoyment, why not, but I doubt that. After a while, you will get the "been there, done that" effect. Revisiting CiV4 after so much time has passed is a drag.

Try soemthing new. Give Civ5 a go. It's different, it's fresh and the "flaws" are at best arguable (as you can see by the millions of threads arguing back and forth).

Even if you end up not liking Civ5 and wishing for Civ4, you can probably get Civ4 for a couple of bucks, so using the voucher on it sounds like a waste.

 

[Deon]

Civ 5 only occupied me for a week, and I still play Civ 4. If you want a game to play for a long time (and with a LOT of great enjoyable mods), go for Civ 4. If you want some casual experience with nice graphics and some new elements (personal opinion, do not rage) which will get old quickly, go for Civ 5.

 

[PhilBowles]

Thanks.

I loved the diplomacy from Civ 4 and was a major disappointment when I played Civ 5 when it was released. I felt like the leaders had no personalities but looks like it hasn't improved.

I also liked the religious element which is absent from 5.

I guess it sounds like 4 is the way to keep going. I just wanted to make sure 5 didn't improve a lot of DLC expansions added missing features that were in 4.

The DLC has only added civs for the most part; the only new content for players of standard civs has been three additional Wonders. Nothing major in the way of new mechanics has been added or is apparently planned (for instance there's still no independent religion mechanic), however I hear from people who started playing Civ V earlier than I did that there have been a lot of general improvements to the game engine with patches (and, um, the re-addition of stone as a resource).

There's actually a thread with links to an entertaining post detailing differences in AI leader personalities; consistent differences do emerge over a number of games, but for the most part they'll all declare war early in the game if you're militarily weak, so you only start to see their individual personalities if you survive this game stage.

 

[Catalonia]

Civ 4 is more complex, but 5 is better in mods, playable, graphics...

 

[kaltorak]

Civ5 graphics, hexes and 1up with civ4 features

 

[apocalypse105]

Thanks.

I loved the diplomacy from Civ 4 and was a major disappointment when I played Civ 5 when it was released. I felt like the leaders had no personalities but looks like it hasn't improved.

I also liked the religious element which is absent from 5.

I guess it sounds like 4 is the way to keep going. I just wanted to make sure 5 didn't improve a lot of DLC expansions added missing features that were in 4.

Well diplomacy didn't improve a lot AI still act the same as before. but In bugs and balance issues yes its deffinitly improved


Olso AI is still terrible at combat but it did improve a little

One thing that bugs me at civ 5 the AI doesn't know how to win. I had a AI build the UN and I had all the city states under my control what was he thinxing?
He allready build the apolla programm and 2 space ship part but instead going through satelites and future era he goes through UN.

Even if the AI is in the future era he doesn't seam to build the apollo programme

 

[LegionSteve]

I have both 4 and 5 and I still play both. If I had to choose just one, I would choose 4, partly because of the terrible combat AI in 5, and partly because of the huge number of awesome mods.

Civ 5 has some good mods already, like VEM (if you do get 5, be sure to check this out) but they can't be as good as the Civ 4 mods without the dll code.

When the dll code is eventually released, and modders have had time to work their magic, we may have Civ 5 mods doing the kind of things they did with 4, but that will take a long time.

 

[qec]

If it were me I'd go for Civ 5, But I'm pretty much a fanboy for this game so I'm pretty biased. I played both 4 and 5 and just enjoy the 1UpT much much more then stacks.

Seems like if you want the most content though then go for the complete edition of 4 because that has a ton more scenarios, mechanics and other things that 5 just doesn't have. Also you get the Colonization game, which I've only played a handful of times and never beat, but is pretty fun to play.

Also, as stated above by wannabewarlord, you may be able to get Civ4 complete for a good deal so it may make sense to look at getting the best bang for you buck. If you want both.

 

[Derpy Hooves]

One unit per tile is pretty much the only reason to get CiV, pretty much everything else is done better in CIV.
Ofcourse 1upt is a pretty major one though.
If you thought the game was a mess when you initially played it,it still is, main things done woth patches is making it crash less and "balancing" or to be more exact nerfing, and specifically those units the ai was terrible with.
So good luck if you like armadas or non-UU horse armies.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

CIV is better now, but CiV already has a number of features to recommend itself over its predecessor, and will likely receive an expansion or two. A fairly safe bet, given its enduring popularity(since it became both playable and enjoyable) and the status of the franchise itself.
You missed the boat on some great sales though...

 

[J-man]

I like the hex grid in Civ 5 nut 1upt (or the way it is implemented) makes moving armies over the tedious.

I have to say that Civ 4 btS is one of the best games I've ever played.

 

[UWHabs]

I took about 6 months off from both over the summer, but got back into them in November. I've played a few games of each since then, and they both have their redeeming points.

4 is more complex, and really makes you think. But 5 definitely has some better graphics, and after playing 5 and seeing hexes, 1upt, and ranged combat, it's tough to go back to the old way that things were done in civ4. Even smaller things like UA instead of the old traits system just makes 5 have more flavour to it. Of course, they also did a few things worse, so while the civs in 5 have more flavour, they also have less, in that it was nice seeing the religious nutjob Isabella start next to you in 4 - you knew how they were going to play.

5 has definitely improved from what it started out as, but it definitely needs an expansion to reach the depth that 4 gave us.

 

[Bechhold]

If you want diplomacy: Civ IV

Varied ways of playing the game: Civ IV

Multiple paths to victory: Civ IV

Different styles of play from the AI: Civ IV

Like 1 unit per tile: Civ V

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

ultimately you arent gonna go "wrong" with either one. they both still have active communities and their strengths/weaknesses. if you have a computer that might have difficulty with heavy graphics, go with 4, but thats a pragmatic answer not a gameplay preference answer.

 

[Akka]

Civ5 is worth it ONLY if you absolutely wants to have 1upt.
If you aren't single-minded about this feature, it's vastly inferior to Civ4 in every single way.

 

[wannabewarlord]

Civ5 is worth it ONLY if you absolutely wants to have 1upt.
If you aren't single-minded about this feature, it's vastly inferior to Civ4 in every single way.

That's like your opinion, man. (this is a quote, no raging please )