CIV IV Demo in latest PC GAMER

[MarcAntiny]

For those poor souls that do not yet have the game or the demo of the game, PC Gamers January edition contains the good stuff. So those of you with a dial-up(for shame) can now get your hands on a sample of the best game you've never played.

 

[MarcAntiny]

Also contained in the pages is a $10 EB Games mail-in gift voucher when you purchase Civ IV for PC. Thought you'd all like to know.

 

[scienide09]

Hmm, does the demo come with a disclaimer that the edition of the full game currently available in stores is buggy?

 

[MarcAntiny]

Hmm, does the demo come with a disclaimer that the edition of the full game currently available in stores is buggy?

Nope, but the review inside does mention bugs and some issues showing that the game needed some more polish. However, game runs great on my setup, no complaints here, videos could be better but everything else is perfect.

 

[homeyg]

What score did PC Gamer give it? January edition already? I just got the December one with the AoEIII demo in it today...

 

[King Flevance]

Hey where is my $10 voucher I want some of my money back.

 

[MarcAntiny]

Got a 94%, Only two pages on review... definately could have filled a bunch more. I get my PC gamer pretty quick in the mail!!! The Vede is the new editor and chief... LMAO!!! Basically, a must own for Strategy gamers they say!!!

 

[homeyg]

Got a 94%, Only two pages on review... definately could have filled a bunch more. I get my PC gamer pretty quick in the mail!!! The Vede is the new editor and chief... LMAO!!! Basically, a must own for Strategy gamers they say!!!

Man they shoulda given it a 99% just so it could be their highest score ever (above Alpha Centauri and Half Life 2)...

 

[MarcAntiny]

That would've been nice... but I think because the bar is continuously getting set higher, it's much more difficult to score that well... If the game doesn't have bleeding edge graphics, or perfect sound, and flawless performance it'll take a hit... which Civ, unfortunately has... maybe a review after the bugs are all fixed would be higher... the price you pay when you ship a bit prematurely...

 

[homeyg]

the price you pay when you ship a bit prematurely...

I wish they hadn't have done that... I would've waited 100 years for a perfect Civ game...

 

[Sub]

This was a weird issue... They changed around the whole magazine, new editor and all that. I also got it in the mail like 10 days after I got my last one.

 

[MarcAntiny]

I usually get my issues a solid month ahead of the Date on the Magazine... Yeah, they changed the whole format, which Computer Gaming World did not too long ago. I actually don't like CGW new format. PC Gamers isn't too bad now, as long as they don't screw up their reviews and maintain a good product I'll be happy. It is a pain though when you get a magazine that says January but doesn't contain any games from December and sometimes even November due to the lead time. You would think in todays technological world they could get the reviews in last minute with no problem and have them on the shelf relatively quickly, but what do I know... Yeah, I guess if they had take longer to put out CIV it would have been nice, you know, all polished and stuff, but I actually had no problems playing it out of the box but some of the bugs/exploits did change the gameplay for me... I kinda miss taking all the AI's cities in peace settlement... LOL...

 

[MarcAntiny]

Computer Gaming World gave it 4.5 stars too... Jan edition... Also, on the disk it comes with a new map. So it says, I can't seem to locate my disc... think I already lost it... doh... so whoever get's theirs, uploaded that map would ya...

 

[jeremiahrounds]

I hated half-life 2! That game sooooo didnt deserve a 99%. And im a 3d shooter gamer. The replay value on that game is a joke and putting in such ridicolous self-replacing squad deserves a -10% rating for being an embarrassment. Its a "we didnt care to try" feature. Never in the history of gaming has there been a game that got by on so much hype.

Civ4 is a more modern game then alpha centauri but it deserves to be placed lower then alpha centauri imo. I believe advancing the genre should count for something and civ4 is a pale shadow in the way of innovation compared to alpha centauri.

I personally would have given civ4 a 89% for being entertaining while being a decent value but there is nothing particularly earth shattering about its treatment of the genre. Also a major detraction from its rating is that if you just put a sandbox around the modern era and ask yourself "could the modern era stand alone as its own gameplay" the answer is generally no with the occasional stand out situation or scenario. Overall the late game play is flat and needed to be more inventive. In total civ4 is a polished and refined look at turn based civilization games, but it didnt advance the state of the art.

Moo2 is still king for being the only game where variety of experiences increased as everyone got high in the tech tree instead of decreased as they do in civ4. Im specifically thinking of the fact that late battles with competitive civs were all different because every civ emphasised a different kind of tech in their ships.

 

[Sorceresss]

Moo2 is still king for being the only game where variety of experiences increased as everyone got high in the tech tree instead of decreased as they do in civ4.

I MoO 2 a lot. Please explain : I do not understand what you mean.

 

[jeremiahrounds]

When you fight a war against an AI in moo2 its possible to have the right tech but the wrong ships.

The classic example was shields. Shields took a flat rate off the damage a ship took. Against spammy weapons where you got hit by a 100 of a weapon that did 10 damage each a 10 strength shield would result in 0 damage taken. However if you faced a super weapon ship with one weapon that did 1000 damage shields would result in 990 damage taken. Since a 10 strength shield took up a major portion of the ships power you had a ship that was incredible against spammy tactics and worthless against single gun behemoths. On the other hand the weapon system of a single gun behemoth was worthless against a horde of little weapon systems because one shot == 1 ship dead is a waste of time when there is a 100 ships.

There was no perfect army. It was rock scissors paper the more "modern" the game got. Many choices many of which were very dangerous against specific types of other choices but were very weak against still other choices. The result was some of your ships were alot more powerful against some of your enemies. And that translated to interesting decisions and interesting battles (and why oh why did they take away ship level combat control in moo3!)

Compare this to civ4. The largest point of interest in premodern wars in civ4 is the tech rate nuance. However as everyone caps out at modern tech the nuance then has to shift to the game play itself. And there is none! Its vanila across all empires. No particular distinction. And so we look to the mechanics of modern combat and we find a game that has made them as simple as they could--literaly. I cant imagine a simplier take on modern war then the one presented in civ4. The combat gameplay of the modern era itself avoids complication to the point of fault.

So thats what i mean.

 

[ceiph]

I hated half-life 2! That game sooooo didnt deserve a 99%.

i dont wanna flame but man u are a joke if u didnt like hl2,

 

[jeremiahrounds]

I think civ4 could benefit from alpha centauri like units once it hits modern era to create nuance in the modern era. I think perhaps they ought to reduce base strength then let you "build promotions" to unit types (the entire type of unit gets a common set of "promotions" when it is discovered not individual unit builds).

Refitting should require something like reresearching the related tech. The result is civs that have different looking units.

It would also help if interesting stuff like "fast" which is a "commando-light" was available (use of enemy roads but not rails). Stuff like "inexpensive" (decreased cost/decreased str). "Reinforced" (increased cost/increased str). (this is an old trade off in armor) Maybe even refinement via research the same tech over and over. Something to shake up the pawn pushing simplicity of modern war in this game.

 

[jeremiahrounds]

i dont wanna flame but man u are a joke if u didnt like hl2,

I wouldnt say that. I list the things that annoy me about it halfway down this thread. Im qutsemnie. http://www.thesafehouse.org/forums/showthread.php?p=254151 . I start off nice but get meaner as i go =)
-------------------------------------
I sum up my objection with this:

"Ideally a 3dshooter in 2005 would be set up to actually provide some interest in replays by trying new tactics or something. But apparently that is still beyond the genre. NM overhead games like close combat provided it a decade ago~

Anyway i stand by my statements that half life 2 was horribly overrated in popular review. At best it was an interactive movie. I guess to some people thats the best game ever..."

-----------------------------------------------------

But i stand by this quote too! Its a good definition of unfun discovered while playing halflife2:

"I swear to you if i had thought the game was all that airfoil i would have just turned it off and never played it again. That btw is the definition of unfun~ I own it. Refuse to do it~"

 

[Warspite2]

Man they shoulda given it a 99% just so it could be their highest score ever (above Alpha Centauri and Half Life 2)...

Alpha Centauri got a perfect 100% from PC Gamer. That was the highest rated game ever from that mag. I think CIV4 should have been awarded a 100% as well.