Civ IV doesn't compare to Civ III

[invoke41]

Someone mentioned turning up the resolution: that works but only until 500 BC
when lots of stuff begins appearing on the screen.

I run a 2.5 GHz with 1 GB of ram, Radeon 800 Pro but it begins to slow down (under 25 FPS). I can even run F.E.A.R. with pretty much everything on yet civ seems to kill it

 

[zeeter]

Try turning down the hardware acceleration in your display adapter's settings.

 

[Genghis Khan II]

I was addicted on the 2nd day and the graphics are great although the contrast is to much for a long time civ3 player. if you have problems with it than DONT PLAY IT. "lets not play it (ignoring the fact its the most addictive game ever) because its a little to much for our eyes and a little to slow."
Sheesh
its not bad its great
If your mad then dont play it

 

[snowmelk]

I think the new graphic is beautiful but unsuitable.

I love to look at all that 3D stuff, but I find it difficult to play the game. I need to zoom out pretty much to get an appropriate strategic view, but then, the whole map looks just something greenish-brownish. I have difficulties to distinguish different terrain types, not to mention the all the same looking units (is it me or is it an enemy?).
Oh, and I don't like the icons, too.
GOOD icons are a nice thing, but those are just cheap and confusing.

Concering gameplay, many things I disliked in Civ3 are improved in Civ4. Examples are forest growing on different terrains, better railroads and bye, bye pollution. But on the other hand, where are units like e.g. the paratrooper, and who came up with this crappy artilery system?

Do I like it better or worse than former Civ games?
I haven't got the "one-more-turn" effect yet, actually my second game is in the middle ages, and I haven't touched it for almost a week now. That's not what I suspected. I am willing to give Civ4 another chance, I just can't motivate me to do it.
so, I Suppose, I don't like it that much.