CIV IV: a step backwards...

[CIV-RAZOR]

Civilization IV: is a step backwards, i havent played it since pretty much 1wk after launch until tonight. I thought i give it another go...

I was gobsmacked and shocked as a Civilization fan ever since the 1st version with tiles for units, just how bad it actually is, after a near 7hr gaming sessions ive unistalled it and gone back to playing Civ III again...

Civilization III: without a doubt the best Civ game todate, a few things from Civ II were changed for the worse, but since the same things i speak of arent in Civ IV either i dont think im going to be seeing those again.

Civilization II: certain aspects of this game should have been added to all future releases of this series and they havent been and thats just a plain crime even some methods of the game and how it performed have been lost over time.

Civilization: Even this fossil of a title laughs in the face of the latest installement (IV) whilst its no way the best or the second best, its 100% better than the civ IV

IF YOU DONT HAVE CIVILIZATION IV YET !!! you can have mine...

 

[pi-r8]

why? what dont you like?

 

[CIV-RAZOR]

its hard to say this, because i am a 100% civ fan i bloody love the game, i just find civ 4 more of a guide for people to play who want to play earlier titles...

its almost like the developers spent so much time trying to get the game to be better, that they forgot what was good about it, theres just too much stuff in the game

and 3quarters of the new stuff just are a ball ache rather that a pleasure, i mean seriously is anyone here actually playing this game with the intent on spreading your religious crap to every city on the map ?

blah blah blah, the list is endless...

 

[Gooblah]

Civilization IV: is a step backwards, i havent played it since pretty much 1wk after launch until tonight. I thought i give it another go...

I was gobsmacked and shocked as a Civilization fan ever since the 1st version with tiles for units, just how bad it actually is, after a near 7hr gaming sessions ive unistalled it and gone back to playing Civ III again...

Civilization III: without a doubt the best Civ game todate, a few things from Civ II were changed for the worse, but since the same things i speak of arent in Civ IV either i dont think im going to be seeing those again.

Civilization II: certain aspects of this game should have been added to all future releases of this series and they havent been and thats just a plain crime even some methods of the game and how it performed have been lost over time.

Civilization: Even this fossil of a title laughs in the face of the latest installement (IV) whilst its no way the best or the second best, its 100% better than the civ IV

IF YOU DONT HAVE CIVILIZATION IV YET !!! you can have mine...

its hard to say this, because i am a 100% civ fan i bloody love the game, i just find civ 4 more of a guide for people to play who want to play earlier titles...

its almost like the developers spent so much time trying to get the game to be better, that they forgot what was good about it, theres just too much stuff in the game

and 3quarters of the new stuff just are a ball ache rather that a pleasure, i mean seriously is anyone here actually playing this game with the intent on spreading your religious crap to every city on the map ?

blah blah blah, the list is endless...

I'm sorry you believe you wasted your money.

 

[CIV-RAZOR]

well tbh i didnt think of it like that, i suppose by buying it i at least helped support the developers so they can stay in business and maybe that might help em make a new civ - which might be better !!!

i feel more dissapointed with it rather than angry about wasting my money... its the first time ive not like a civ game...

it is a shame... but i honestly believe civilization III was better...


its a bit like ghost recon > the original was the best > it was simple > GRAW too much icing on it...

 

[CIV-RAZOR]

WHILST READING THIS POST - PLEASE KEEP AN OPEN MIND !!!

Civilization development team: Create Civilization...

technology back then wasnt fanastic but the goal was something along the lines of create the ultimate in strategy titles, where the user can create wars and control worlds. based upon the board game it was mission achieved, now release the title and monitor its sucess.

it was successful, very much so it won it won two major awards back in the time it was created and created a fan base and dedicated group of followers.

Civilization development team: Create Civilization II...

After the huge success following the conversion of the board game to the personal computer, the team with moved onto satisty its fans by creating (using newer technology) a squel to its original title.

and it was a blazing title, every change/improvement/additional feature was a success on mind boggling scale. ive played all civilization titles and i can remember being that stupid little boy thinking all my christmas had arrived at once.

no civ fan can deny the changes between the original and civilization II were nothing short of brillance.

Civilization development team: Create Civilization III...

the team start answering the fans, creating a sequel based around core improvements rather than gameplay ones, hence multiplayer was born and mod support became a huge factor in development.

and by this time "call to power" was also on the scene !!!

So multiplayer civilization was born and fans were happy, development slacked off until...

Civilization development team: Create Civization IV...

now the point im trying to make arrives, all major game improvements from the original to this point have been nothing short of major events !!!

but theres no massive differences in the latest version that i can say to myself dam thats amazing, except one 3D graphics, and even this isint that awe-enspiring.

i remember hearing that civIV was going to be a 3D game and at that time couldnt get a screenshot, and i can remember just going to bed wetting myself thinking about the prospect of it, but now its here its really nothing like what i expected

in addition to this anything i liked about previous version of civilization are still for the most part present in IV, however the differences arent enough to warrant the awards that the original title claimed, they just put a load of tosh into it and polished it off

and thats what we got, they cant do anything more to this series and thats why the development team arent in a hurry to supply civilization five

 

[mariogreymist]

I have probably spent about 10 total hours playing civ III....

compare that to hundreds (at least) on civ IV, and thousands (at least) playing civ II.

A matter of taste, my friend. The only thing I liked about 3 were the colonies. In every other way, I find Civ IV (and BtS in particular) to be far superior. Yes, the gameplay can get exceedingly complex, and a conquest victory on a huge map could take weeks to finish. But there are so many different ways to achieve victory (and multiple ways to achieve each condition) that the replayability of civ iv is unmatched.

I'll point out that I preferred civ II for a couple years after iv came out.

 

[CIV-RAZOR]

so true my friend "its a matter of taste" and im sure many will find IV hits the spot !!!

anyway i can still play the earlier versions as those are the ones i enjoy most, but i have to go bed now...

 

[Testiethree]

i had civ 2 when i was like 8, and i honestly cant remebers any of it, so then like 10 yeras later i bought civ 4 and loved it. what are the differences between the 2 games that apparently made civ 2 some much better?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Some prefer the depth of civ IV, and the variance in the best path to take.

One of these days they'll put out a civ where siege isn't > everything in one way or another . I'd grade IV slightly higher than III in regards to siege but both implementations are questionable from a gameplay standpoint. The stack destruction of I and II weren't perfect either though.

They do what they can, and overall civ is great. They all have their quirks though. I truly wish all the controls worked in civ IV, for example.

 

[Countmonte8242]

IV can definitely get too tedious, especially in the latter half of the game. I find myself wanting to quit many more games in the modern era of Civ IV than I ever did in 1 or 2 combined even, and I played the hell out of both. For that reason I'd rate 1 and 2 as better than IV. Never got into Civ 3 too much.

The additions in IV of an expanded civic system and unit upgrades among other things added a lot to the series. The lack of fun as the game gets towards the end however keeps it from being the best Civ of all time for me. There are a lot of other little things I miss from the first couple, but thats the gist my opinion.

 

[killmeplease]

have not played earlier versions since bought CivIV

 

[Pangur Bán]

Civ III was better than Civ IV until BTS. I do miss alot of things from the earlier games. You should definitely be able to build forts in enemy territory, like in Civ II. Eiffel Tower and Leonardo's Workship I miss, though these are overpowered. And I never enjoyed any civ game until BTS like I enjoyed Call to Power II. Slavers, and the ability to demand workers as tribute, as well as the governor and sea cities, are things I remember fondly. The combat system was superior even to BTS. But I'm sorry, the AIs for these games sucked, and you could win games at any level simply by rexing well. BTS is a real challenge still. The AI is still dumb, but not as ridiculously dumb. Civ IV BTS's strength is challenging gameplay, which is what a game needs most of all if it's to last.

 

[Glassfan]

Civ-Razor: I've played Civ II and III and agree with a lot you've said. When I finally moved up to Civ IV vanilla, I too was disapointed. I thought it was pretty lame. For instance, still only 64 units like Civ III (instead of 80 or 90), and many of them just wierd versions of workers or these "great people", or just broken. When I said so on the forums everybody lol. I wondered what they were so worked up about. It turns out everybody else had BTS, which is the real Civ IV - all the improvements. Now I've got BTS and am caught up on my meds and am happy as a clam. Give BTS a shot. you'll like it.

 

[Lone Wolf]

in addition to this anything i liked about previous version of civilization are still for the most part present in IV,

So, is it a step backwards or just not enough new stuff?

 

[Lord Tirian]

I have probably spent about 10 total hours playing civ III....

compare that to hundreds (at least) on civ IV, and thousands (at least) playing civ II.

A matter of taste, my friend. The only thing I liked about 3 were the colonies. In every other way, I find Civ IV (and BtS in particular) to be far superior.

That's my position as well - CivIII was a bore for me. After SMAC, CivIII was just boring. CivIV was the right mix of old elements and innovation to get me interested. But then, it's largely a matter of taste.

Cheers, LT.

 

[CIV-RAZOR]

i was referring to the changes themselfs wolf fella for example there are changes in all civilization games, it just the ones in IV seem to be less towards my style of play...

this is way so many people are saying its a matter of taste, because each different version of civ brought to the table a different method of fighting and winning, etc, etc...

i find whilst playing civ IV that i often just feel this doesnt feel like civilization, the changes that are made just seem so different that it just doesnt feel right. but i never felt this way with the previous ones.

This said theres things i dont like about the others two but they somehow just dont offfend me enough to hate them. i still play civII myself quite often, but i prefer III and its strange how you can miss certain aspects when it suits your style of play.

example: i liked the way in civ II my subs carried cruise missiles, i used this function!!

another great example of what im trying to say about how each particular version played is the manner in which bombers have evolved:

Civilization II: Bombers would consist of two moves a bombing run, and returning home move. if you failed to get your plane home it crashed and you losted it.

Civilization III: Bombers would only consist of one move and changed how it worked.

i prefer the civ III method because it suits my style, (this is still present in IV) but many people including my uncle preffered the civ II method, just as lots will find a few methods in IV better for the way thier style of gaming...

its these changes and others which i feel i have been either replaced with something else or lost entirely that make me dislike civ IV !!!

 

[CIV-RAZOR]

In Civilization IVs Favour - I do love that space mod...

 

[Lord Tirian]

example: i liked the way in civ II my subs carried cruise missiles, i used this function!!

You know... in BtS, some some subs can still carry cruise missiles and even tactical nukes!

Cheers, LT.

 

[CIV-RAZOR]

as i mentioned earlier that ive havent played IV since pretty much launch date but last night i fancied a change so i re-installed IV and was dissapointed beyond the sword LMAO

but i never installed warlords and BTS so im a open minded person and it would be stupid for me to come onto a civ 4 forum and claim my beliefs are right and you lot are all wierdos. this very thread has done two things for me.

1) proved that a lot still feel that earlier versions were better in some respects

2) civ freaks like myself have also still found something good in IV

so im now as we speak installing and patching BTS again, and i will give it another go.. maybe i will see the same things as you guys do !!!

in civ III i always played a downloaded map of the world can you get such a map for IV ????