Civ IV doesn't compare to Civ III

[TrailblazingScot]

I understand what the original poster is getting on at, but I think that is in large part going to be just getting used to things. There is alot of information and whether it is just the resolution I'm using, but it is all very small and pops up in unexpected locations e.g over at the left when what I'm interested in is on the right.

For every game there is a learning curve...it took me a good few minutes to get battleships bombarding - curtailed to just cities in the Desert War mod it appears. Next I'm looking at removing the culture SPLAT on the mini-map which hides the terrain outline.

Before jumping to conclusions give yourself time to get familiar with the new interface, you'll soon be able to not get so distracted by this rather pretty 3D World we're in.

 

[reznap]

I really like civilization and have been playing it since the first civ. I was eagerly awating civ IV and bought it the first day (I upgraded my computer just to play it). Unfortunanetly, however, the game just plain sucks. The interface is HORRIBLE!!! Civ III's interface was so much better. The game is just not fun to play anymore; its hard to see what's going on and hard to play. I really hate Civ IV, and wish they just had improved Civ III. I'm really upset, and I can't believe the reviews of this game have been so high.

makes no sense to me at all.

Did you guys really play the game?

Or did you guys really WANT to enjoy a game differs from CIV3 at all?

This kind of whinning make me hate CIV3 even more: it blinded and is still blinding so many peoples' eyes. They are NOT civ-lovers, they are just CIV3 fans. I bet none of them would ever love SMAC, what a pity.

 

[Ozymandous]

I share some of your feelings about civ IV massemo, but I think you (and me) should not rush to judgment. We are too used to civ III so we want everything in Civ IV to be similar. But you have to try and see with time what civ IV can really do once you get to know it well. You might discover interesting things about it. Gowever at the moment the game needs at least 2 patches, it's full of bugs. For example, I don't know if you have the same problem but the terrain tiles only show food on them, but no coins or hammers, which makes the game almost unplayable.
Also some of the advisors seem useless oe not very well done.
My advice is wait for the patches, that will hopefully also improve the advisors, the interface and the civilopedia. You can still like this game if you are patient. I hope so.

Umm, there's an option/toggle overlay that shows what coins/food/hammers each tile has, also what resources are where.. It' helps to RTFM.

 

[Pvblivs]

Reading is always comprehensive. But reading is expensive in your heads.

Getting used to an iconified interface and learning the icons is like learning shortcuts: Once you have it you simply get it at once. Instead of reading through all the letters again and again you may now stick to playing.

At least this is what any user interface designer will tell you: Once you know a picture you will understand it much quicker than a line of text or a longer word. Simply try it

 

[Pvblivs]

This kind of whinning make me hate CIV3 even more: it blinded and is still blinding so many peoples' eyes. They are NOT civ-lovers, they are just CIV3 fans. I bet none of them would ever love SMAC, what a pity.

I did never really like SMAC. But I am a true addict to every civ sequel.

The reason is simple: It is much more interesting, familiar, fascinating to play around with Caesar, Ghengis Khan etc., simply a great person of our history, to try to rebuild their glory, then to play someone fictional from some distant planet no person can tell it exists.

That doesn't require me to always play the earth map, because we all know this map too well now from the civ sequels

So do not say: If you're civ addict you've got to love SMAC. This way does'nt always work ...

 

[reznap]

At least this is what any user interface designer will tell you: Once you know a picture you will understand it much quicker than a line of text or a longer word. Simply try it

You get the point: Sid always prefer using icons/pics instead of numbers or description, since psychologically it is much eaiser to get players notice and much easier for player to really appreciate the startegic meaning.

SMAC used many newly-designed icons to represent techs/wonders/improvements. They also use meters and slides to show your cities' different output. Why did they bother that? Why didn't they just use plain texts or some random pictures? One designer actaully explained their consideration.

Call to Power used numbers and I never got a clear picture on how my cities were doing. CIV IV used numbers to show city science outputs this time, the result is that I easily lose the track on my cities' science output. It would be much easier for me if I could scan the city & "burn" an output picture in my mind, as I ususally did in SMAC.

 

[Matte979]

Its lights years better than CIV3. Its needs some patches yes but the graphics stunning, a lot of options. Its like its a new game. I understand though that it frustrating as the interface has really changed when using icons. But when I got used to it after 3-4 games now I am really enjoying myself. I was bored playing CIV3. Just one strategy wins in CIV 4 there are endless of ways to approach the game and the modability check out the asset folder and the XMLs in the gameinfo folder.

Its simply put a great game. Just forget everything you knew about CIV3 and re-eductate yourself in the new interface.

The civelopedia could use some text though. Now I just need to find and excuse to get out of work.

31 years old and addicted again.

 

[ToadFaerie]

Sometimes, when chaning my city's production, the only way to pick the production that I want is to scorll my mouse over 8 or 9 different pictures. CIV III had nice drop down menus that really saved a lot of time.

It really only takes a little bit of time to recognize the icons. After 2 days, I find it easier to change production via those icons than it is to select from the list that pop-ups after a city is done with whatever.

 

[Eliezar]

I did never really like SMAC. But I am a true addict to every civ sequel.

The reason is simple: It is much more interesting, familiar, fascinating to play around with Caesar, Ghengis Khan etc., simply a great person of our history, to try to rebuild their glory, then to play someone fictional from some distant planet no person can tell it exists.

That doesn't require me to always play the earth map, because we all know this map too well now from the civ sequels

So do not say: If you're civ addict you've got to love SMAC. This way does'nt always work ...

From my limited exposure to Civ IV so far (1 game) I can safely say that Civ III is the worst game in the series with the original being its only competition (although that's not close). Civ 2, Civ IV, and SMAC are easily the best in gameplay. Although SMAC didn't have the historical feel it did have the best social engineering and unit design options. Really liked that game.

Civ IV seems to play okay so far after 1 full game in noble. It removed a lot of the stupidity from Civ III as far as I can tell.

It pains me to see people saying that Civ III is better than any of the other Civ games though. Its just one of the worst games of any type that I had ever played. Although the pop rush games before they patched it made it bearable for awhile.

 

[reznap]

So do not say: If you're civ addict you've got to love SMAC. This way does'nt always work ...

Maybe you are right, but if you give SMAC a real chance, you will find it's basically the same as CIV series, even without historical feeling. I refered to SMAC simply because some people might dislike its style in comparison with CIV3.

Speaking of history,once thing I want to complain about on CIV4 is: too many Great People are born in the wrong nations. If you watch the replay, you will see too many Chinese names are used by Russian Great People. It's funny and away from history reality or possiblity too much.

 

[skadistic]

I don't see how one can say it's not good. Over all so far I like most of what I've seen. I'm sure that in the near future when I've learned what the hell every little icon means or does I'll love it even more.

 

[Pvblivs]

It pains me to see people saying that Civ III is better than any of the other Civ games though. Its just one of the worst games of any type that I had ever played. Although the pop rush games before they patched it made it bearable for awhile.

I would never say that, I can understand it at least. Early this year C3C came onto me and I spent nights over it I was spending only on Civ2 before.

Civ3 had its failures (as the massive unit stacks, the workers, the complicated corruption handling), but it was addictive too.

I could hardly let my fingers of the rise of rome campaigns before winning them (at regent level) with rome (easy), carthage and greece. I was not be be satisfied.

I liked it a lot: But now I have enough of it and wait until amazon ships a game into my fingers that my Intel 855 GM graphics cannot handle

 

[oldStatesman]

My impression - (at the high risk of getting flamed by the fanbois

Civ4 as a game is great! The game plays well, and there is a lot to do. But...

...it is not quite up to my taste compared to Civ3. I like a lot of units and cities and stuff. That said, they are two different games - and that is a good thing!

I will not stop playing Civ3 ... and I will learn to play Civ4... this is a great thing as both present different challenges. (I hope that when they release the Mac version of Civ3 Conquests in Decmeber they also are able to release a patch that would fix a few of the remaining bugs in C3C - I'd even buy a Mac if they did that! )

Now, as far as graphics, I do not care for the Civ4 graphics for two reasons:

* They are too dark. Looking forward to the terrain mods to change this.

* I do not like the zoom levels - I cannot see the units when zoomed out, and when zoomed in the perspective does not allow me to see enough of the terrain. I would love if someday you were able to do a true 3D Panoramic zoom and customize the camera view to suit your individula taste.

Finally, my biggest dissapointment is the Civlopedia. It just does not seem as deep as those in the past releases. I liked the style in Civ3 - when you researched a tech you could read about it right from that screen - in Civ4 I can not find a link to the details - only Mr. Spock reading a quote. I also hope there is a way to view the Civlopedia without using the icons - I'm sure there is, I just have to learn how.

All that said, overall, the game is strikingly good. The gameplay is way above par - I have not yet played enough to know the aI, but all indications are it is way improved.

Is Civ4 better than Civ3? Maybe. Maybe not. To me it is like comparing apples to oranges. Both are entirely different games - and I like them both.

 

[PennHead]

You can count me as another who likes Civ4 better so far.

Why? I love what religion added. I love that it's no longer just irrigate/mine and railroad every space. I love the new government system. I love a more flexible tech tree. The Great People add a lot to my strategies. I feel like culture is more refined as a game concept than in Civ3. I feel like resources also have been greatly improved. I like the changes made to wonders. Time will tell, but they feel more balanced so far. I like the promotion system for units. I love that having a smaller number of well-developed cities, is rewarded instead of a vast sprawl of mediocre ones.

There are changes I am not as crazy about, but overall, I am just thrilled with Civ4.

Let me tell you a little story. When Civ3 released, I actually did have a very negative response to it. After a short time, I put it down, upset that they had ruined "my" game. Quite some time later, I gave it another try, and I realized something. My disappointment was mostly because it was so different than my beloved Civ2. I tried to look at it for what it was, instead of this notion of what I thought it should have been. I learned the new game, I adapted, and ended up loving it. I've tried to approach Civ4 the same way. It's a new game, and a new experience. I'm trying to go into it with no prejudgements or prejudices, and experience it for what it is. Yes, it's part of a franchise and comparisons are inevitable. However, I'm looking at it with as open a mind as I can, and am absolutely delighted at what I've found.

That's not to say that everyone who doesn't like it is close minded; naturally no game can please everyone and some will legitimately dislike it. But in this case, the complaints seem mostly superficial. Over a few games, icons will start to become familiar, and we'll be better able to recognize what's going on on our screens. And of course, those with technical problems are understandably frustrated. I sincerenly hope those problems get fixed for you.

I just hope that not many people will set Civ4 aside at this time that we're just starting to adapt to this new wrinkle on our favorite series.

 

[Pvblivs]

Maybe you are right, but if you give SMAC a real chance, you will find it's basically the same as CIV series, even without historical feeling. I refered to SMAC simply because some people might dislike its style in comparison with CIV3.

I played it but it was not the same. It is not that I like strategy games because of their proper interface or nice graphics. That is the bonus nice to have. The key for me is the atmosphere. That can be from a great story (LOTR for example) or from the greatest story ever written. Our history

So I do agree with you when you complain about a chinese great prophet rise in America. It's a pity Units speak their language of origin, leaders look like and sound(track) like their nation, but great people pop up regardless of their historic origin.

I believe it to be a compromise: Wherefrom should the Firaxis team know how could five aztec great artists could be named to complete their work in Tenochtitlan?

A pity, as I said ...

 

[Ksim3000]

Actually, to me, Civ IV seems like it has "suffered" the same fate as any newly released games nowadays and that is simply the "better graphics, less gameplay" trend. Although I am in Britain and it is not released yet, I will say from what I have seen that despite the fancy graphics, it really looks......not that "fun". Ages are not divided seperately and finishing a Civ game in one or two hours? That is what many have said. Also, another annoying issue that the Civ leaders. In Civ I and Civ III, it was really good since you could see leaders advancing through time. Now, despite the technologies, they just......."stay the same". To me........it just dosen't feel right, about to go Nuclear with Genghis Kahn, who still has aload of huts behind him and wearing tribal clothing. It takes away........"the element", I guess. I think the only thing that looks interesting is the scenarios, nothing else.

 

[JZ Temple]

After a couple of days with the game, I'm very happy with the new interface, features, etc. The manual is very good; give it a thorough read and you'll find a lot of your questions answered. Be sure to read the designer notes ("Afterwords") by Soren Johnson, it's an excellent way to understand some of the design decisions.

Sadly the Civilopedia still seems pretty sucky after two days of fooling with it. The good news is that the manual has a decent appendix and other tables that have much of the information you are likely to need. The bad part about that is that there is no index to the manual (or to the Civilopedia, either)...

So essential do I consider an Index to be to every book, that I proposed to bring a Bill into Parliament to deprive an author who publishes a book without an Index of the privilege of copyright; and, moreover, to subject him, for his offence, to a pecuniary penalty.
— Baron Campbell (Scottish lawyer and politician; Lord Chancellor, 1859), Lives of the Chief Justices, Preface to Vol III

 

[Spyder1]

Have played Sid's games since the 1980s. Civ1, Civ2, Civ3, SMAC/X. Every last one of these had the "gotta play one more turn" feeling in the first few minutes. Every last one of these didn't require, for me, any period of "adjustment" -- I wanted to play and had the deep, late-night, ohmygod-it's-9am-already thing going.

I wanted to play Civ4 and have the same feeling. It doesn't exist, not for me (to all those juveniles out there who can't seem to realise that different people like different things - I'm not saying you have to agree, or even see things the same way, so don't reply with idiotic comments along those lines).

I've played several games now, but instead of "I gotta play" it's more "i gotta play because I desperately want this Civ to hook me like the past games, including SMAC/X". Not doing it for me. I'm hoping to reach some magical epiphany, where it all changes and I'm hooked -- but it's not happening as it did with the others.

Dislikes: the "info popup" that occurs when you need to choose a new tech sometimes just decides arbitrarily not to work (I roll to it, and instead of showing me data off to the left of the list, I get nothing).

The Civilopedia is a disaster.
The "feel" of the game on Epic or Normal is like an over-directed movie and doesn't create a "I feel like the builder of the world" emotion from me. Again, never had these issues in any of the prior Civ games nor SMAC/X. Just this one.

I don't like the oversized units -- about 1/3 smaller would be more "natural feeling".

They punted on religion, incorporating it as a factor (that's a good thing) but then making all religions effectively the same thing (um, it's insulting to say that Islam and Buddhism and Taoism and Judaism are all the same and have the same effects). Call it the "we-don't-want-to-offend-anyone" factor, but my reply to that is: grow up. It wouldn't take much effort to create a "difference", a unique factor, for each religion and thereby provide an actual incentive to "choose" between them. Buddhism should require the pacifist civic choice, for instance. Etc. I hate it when the PC (politically correct) mentality dominates a design choice.

On the OP's comparison: Civ3 Conquests still had the "gotta play one more time" spark in it in the first sitting (just like Civ3, Civ2, Civ1, SMAC/X). This doesn't, so I would have to agree with the basic point.

By the way, the incorporation of the "civics" choices for defining your "government", an excellent "lift" from SMAC/X, is the best thing they put into the Civ series. Religion and the values to having it/spreading it is also an excellent addition, even though it was done generically.

Oh, well. It was unusual for any series to stay as fresh and compelling over several games. I'm not put off by this, since they spawned Civ 2, Civ 3 plus expansions, SMAC/X, without losing the spark. No one hits perfect each time. Though Sid has the longest successful design track-record out there. (heck, I even liked his take on Magic: The Gathering.)

 

[BrianTheDog]

I think its a fun game overall, and like the 3D. However I agree that some aspects of Civ 3 are better, like the Civlopedia and some icons.
Also, I don't think that anyone has mentioned the loss of many units and Civs from C3C. No more Cruisers, AEGIS Cruisers, Nuke Subs, Cruise Missiles, Radar Artilery, paratroopers, etc. It seems as though they've eliminated some of the detail from the combat in the later game in favor of all of the new units in the beginning of the game (Maceman, Crossbowman, Axeman, etc). I like these new additions but would prefer having the old ones as well.
Also, many of the civs are gone, particularly the Vikings and Celts whom I enjoyed playing with.
I wonder if their will be an expansion with more features like conquests for Civ 3?
On the other hand, I love the civics, new techs, combat (although I have not experienced much so far) specialists, wonders, leaders, resources, religions and especially the computer AI for diplomacy. Also the United Nations resolutions are pretty cool too. This game will own my life for some time.

 

[reznap]

I played it but it was not the same. It is not that I like strategy games because of their proper interface or nice graphics. That is the bonus nice to have. The key for me is the atmosphere. That can be from a great story (LOTR for example) or from the greatest story ever written. Our history

I never like SMAC's graphics (it's too hard to get used to, thus turned many people away), though the interface is quite informational.

I like SMAC since that game just created so much value for the gamer, and it's highly polished almost to perfect(in her period). Every wonder movie in that game is worth to watch again & again, and many quotes are inspiring. Above all they have to create all those things, even names and "atmosphere" from scratch. I don't think there will be another game coming out with so much value and consideration inside (though I think Guild Wars also more than worths my money).

Also, the AIs there are more personalized (provably better than CIV4's). In my last game (days ago), my "Pact Brother" (alliance), a weaker AI not in the war and could not afford a war, kindly sent me 3 newest missiles (in 2 turns)to help me fight a hard war! That's exactly what a "Pact Brother" should and the unit choice were just the best it could offer.