Civ IV doesn't compare to Civ III

[Runriot]

Doom and Gloom! Doom and Gloom! Repent! The franchise is DEEEAAAD! (wiggles fingers menacingly) oooooh

All you're doing is repeating history. You don't like change. Others before you didn't like change either, when Civ III, the game you love so much, was reviled by a small number of equally vocal Civ II players. The series is still here. The series is improving overall. There will be people in about five years or so lamenting the replacement of Civ IV with Civ V, which will still be the same game. Your rant was proven moot before you even made it. Your post is meaningless.

OMFG! That made me rofl

I for one do not understand how people can keep saying the franchise is moving, or even has moved towards RTS! Its TBS, and there is no dening that. I havent seen one.single.element of RTS in the game.

Constructive cristism is always good, lame whining and bashing is just that: LAME :shakehead

 

[Wlauzon]

Well, to continue my thoughts, and reply to some of the comments since:
My impressions aren't going to change. As I said in my original post, on page 3, I've played through Civ 1, Civ 2, Civ3 and expansions, SMAC/X. For their faults, none of them failed in the first sit-down (much less after three or four long sittings) to inspire the "one-more-turn" feeling.

No, but all of them, especially CIV3 failed BADLY on the 10th or 20th sitdown.

CIV3 was fun - for a while - but it had so many faults and basic bad design and exploits that after you got to know them, playing it was more an exercise in how to work AROUND the game than to play it.

There are things in CIV4 I don't care for - like missing the list of all units - and I think the interface is too "busy". But so far I have seen very little to complain about in actual gameplay problems, unlike previous versions.

There ARE tweaks that really need to be done to make it a "grabber", but those are easy - in fact many have already been posted in the forums here. Some of the other issues I hope they will fix.

But, unlike Civ3, I don't find myself getting more and more frustrated the longer I play.

 

[heartCORE]

take a break. a looong break from civ games. go outside, play some sports, go to a bar, yknow.
thats what i did and im enjoying this game =) (after a month or so of hiatus)

as for a reason? i cant really give any. i mean it just feels...refreshing =)

 

[Phyr_Negator]

Tried a bit and can say that it's already a lot of things that ANNOY LIKE HELL!
1.Deserts - already mentioned, map now looks like some ****ty table after party, not like world terrain.
2. No preserve random seed(maybe wrong, but for the time beings seems so) - already enough to turn some people away. So waiting for patch.
3. After starting new game last setting not remembered.
4. AWFUL save/load menu
5. No mouse menu for production as mentioned.
Damn, that game need a SERIOUS patch, and not even for vidoe issues.

 

[dexters]

The Civ IV interface on release is about twice as user friendly as the original Civ III interface.

Remember the diplomacy screen where instead of having leaderheads we get to choose from a list of names?!

I can sit here and give examples, but please play the game thoroughly before jumping to conclusions.

 

[Charles 22]

WarISgood:

Maybe it's like music. Ever here a song you hated the first time? Then say man that song sucked, only to find that the more you hear it you start liking it and eventually you love the song.

I've been around a pretty good amount of years, and I can't recall EVER seeing that happen to me. I can think of a number of times where I was indifferent about something, particularly some music or literature, and then at a certain time it took on great beauty, but surely not something I hated form the start. I'm not saying it don't ever happen to others AT ALL, but it just hasn't happened to me as far as I know.

I'm not so sure your analogy is very good. In my case I have no idea whether I hate CIV4 or not, as I don't have the game. From what I saw of the screenshots, and now to hear of this seemingly lousy interface, I think I would prefer those areas of CIV3, but then again I can't be too sure until I get the game. I should be picking it up sometime early next week.

Sort of an interesting sidenote: For the past couple of weeks I have been playing a game which I was indifferent about. The game is like four years old! The problem was that it was a game that had a LOT of it's concepts that had to be seriously worked on, and on top of that it's approach to moving units was quite backwards (deliberately). It really confused me for a long time. What's worse is that the last patch the game had was dated 2003! I'm not complaining that it took that long to get it right, but that it's been sitting that long without me playing it. Besides the game being quite difficult to play off the bat, what was the reason it sat for so long? Because the developer considered the last patch a beta. They never did make the patch official after all this time. Well at least I knew by this time they probably never would, especially since the same developer has made another game with more down the line.

Unfortunately, especially with games as complex as the one I spoke about, it's getting more and more where games are pretty much just unplayable from the start. So I find myself not wanting to spoil the really finished product by playing it very much when it's broke. The game I spoke about probably means ten times what it did to me before because of that. Unfortunately the converse is the frustration of buying something and then it being useless for so long. Well, at least if you buy it early you won't have to worry about the difficulty it may take to get a copy later.

Anyway, just a few thoughts.

 

[Spyder1]

I'm about to faint, the usual chorus of "if you don't like it, you must be a hater" garbage didn't happen. Color me impressed.

I had issues with Civ 2 when it was released, and Civ3 when it was released, and SMAC/X on release -- but they all had the "spark", which I cannot define, that made me want to keep playing DESPITE anything I saw as drawbacks, things done wrong, etc. That simply isn't happening with Civ4 for me, and I can't tell you why. I still have Civ2 and Civ3 on my hard drive and will play both at different times, and so is SMAC/X. They're different games, but each one makes me "want to play one more turn".

For whatever reason, the "spark" isn't here with Civ4. Don't know why. I'm one of the few, I guess, who had zero troubles installing and launching the game. No troubles at all. Game runs fine. Doesn't crash. No blackscreen issues. (that would be BETTER than Civ3 out of the box, which was a pain in the royal kiester sometimes to get running until the patches started flowing). What I get with Civ4 is something totally new to any Civ game (including SMAC/X): I simply don't have the compulsion to keep playing. An hour with Civ4 makes me want to... find another game. Go log into SMAC/X for a while. Play Civ2. I've never, flatly NEVER, had a reaction to a Civ game, to any of them, like this. Just this one.

Again, this isn't an I-hate-civ posting. I love Civ games, and have been there from the beginning with Sid. I just can't find the allure, the pull, the "magic" of all the other Civ games, in this one.

And that makes me very, very sad.

 

[Aeon221]

Considering how much was wrong with C3C, I'm confused how anyone could NOT like Civ4. The burden of proof has been wrongly shifted here; he should have to show that C3C was the better game.

If he manages that, I will personally EAT A BUG!

 

[werttrew]

I thought Civ 2 was two steps forward, one step back from Civ 1.
I thought Civ 3 was two steps forward, one step back from Civ 2.
I think Civ 4 is...well, you can finish the equation.

Although there are lost elements I'll miss (I think the simple, less "busy" interface is a big one), the sum total is an improvement. The fact that I don't have to micromanage my workers, or check on foreign civs every turn, or have to desperately spread as fast as possible in the first 100 turns...all bonus.

 

[Johnny Tsunami]

I bet they had the same type of complaints when they came out w/ 2 ply tiolet paper...

Poeple complaining b/c of change, and not giving it a chance, then there is the bandwagon hoppers, but most of all I love the people who don't have the game but feel free to comment that it doesn't live up to their expetations...

I enjoy the game -- read the manual, took my time to understand each turn -- hell I even noticed the footprints some units leave behind when they move -- talk about detail...and I came to the understanding that --

It is another game-- it is not civ 3 w/ improved graphics but a whole new frigg'n game...

Aloha

 

[Mujadaddy]

Spyder1: Sorry you don't enjoy it.

Thanks for not being a whiner, like some other people. Your posts are articulate and informative, if somewhat subjective (but, hey, it *is* your opinion )

 

[Milan's Warrior]

Also, every time the turn ends the game sends me back and forth all over the world -- it makes me dizzy and a little sea sick.

That for me was a serious problem already in Civ3. Thanks for posting that. I don't own Civ4 yet and was planning to wait anyway. Now I will keep my eyes open to see in anybody else think that "scrolling is worse in Civ4 than Civ3.

 

[omgpix]

It's not an issue of the interface being "hard to learn", if anything it's so simple a 2yr old could do it. There is a huge difference between that and being intuitive like Civ III.

One of the first things I noticed, I hit industrial the era;

" omg! omg! omg! time to conquer!! " ( favourite era of expansion )

so I go to the military advisor in an attempt to upgrade all out of date units ... I can't. I have to go around my cities manually upgrading my old units. What the frick?

I don't understand why the interface seems to have taken a giant leap backwards in terms of functionality and organization.

The other gameplay improvements are enough to keep me playing Civ IV instead of Civ III. But I'm relectant to sing praises about it.

 

[Shylock]

Ive been playing since Civ 2, I think the interface in Civ 4 is the best.

Its all comes down to preference. Some like Budweiser, some like Sam Adams, some call both American piss beer. There is no progress to made in getting into
an argument over a matter of opinion.

 

[Spyder1]

Spyder1: Sorry you don't enjoy it.

Thanks for not being a whiner, like some other people. Your posts are articulate and informative, if somewhat subjective (but, hey, it *is* your opinion )

Thank you for the comments. I'm not trying to keep my opinions out of it, since whatever that "magic" is that compels people to play "one more turn" is (to me) entirely subjective.

And again, I'm not panning Civ4. I hope tons of people find it fun and compelling and feel compelled to "play one more turn". I'm saddened that, for the first time since Civ1, through Civ2, Civ3, SMAC/X, and others, I'm not "feeling" that compulsion. To be honest, I come away with an almost opposite feeling: like it's just not... fun. Not compelling. Doesn't suck me in. The others did, despite their flaws; this one doesn't. Again, that's entirely MY problem, and I'm by no means trying to impose that on anyone else. I just wish that, whatever "spark" or "magic" existed in literally every other version of Civ (stated that way to include SMAC/X) for me, existed in this one. I rushed right out and bought Civ4. Why? It wasn't because I was expecting a "perfect" product that didn't have problems (which is ironic, again, because I didn't have any technical issues at all, on either my laptop or my home PC). Nor was I expecting to like everything in the game (there's still several things I didn't like about Civ3, and at least one or two things about SMAC/X, too). That's not the point. The point is and remains, despite their flaws, despite the problems, the others captured that magic feeling of "one more turn". And, for me, Civ4 just doesn't. It makes me want to play something else that does have that compulsion.

Feel free to psycho-analyze to your heart's content, folks. I'm not going to bash anyone else's opinion or make a comment that says my opinion is the only one's that right (getting a few too many of those in these forums and elsewhere). Just commenting on my own perspective and my own sadness about "what could have been". I do still hold out hope -- never give up on optimism -- that some collection of patches and expansions may create in Civ4 that "spark" that I just can't find or feel right now.

Normally, I'd be pissed if a game I bought turned out to be "less compelling" than I'd hoped. Not doing that with Civ4. I'm unhappy that it doesnt have that "spark", but I refuse to abandon hope that, at some point, after expansions and patches, the game will "become" what I'd like to see and will develop that "spark".

Now, don't get me started on World of Warcraft. There I'm just pissed. No "hope" to it. (for the record, I"m a turn-based strategy fanatic and roleplayer -- not "game that pretends to be an RPG", but both pen-and-paper RPG and PC/online RPG; and pen-and-paper strategy gaming too.)

 

[Mujadaddy]

Its all comes down to preference. Some like Budweiser, some like Sam Adams, some call both American piss beer. There is no progress to made in getting into
an argument over a matter of opinion.

But that's not a matter of opinion, Shylock -- both of those ARE American piss beer

 

[Mujadaddy]

Spyder1: For what it's worth, I feel the same way about SMAC that you do about Civ4--I just can't get into it

...too much of a CivI purist, I suppose

 

[Wolfar]

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.

Troll comes to my mind! I LOVE the game!

 

[RoboPig]

For example the tech tree -- I think if you were to compare them side by side you'd think CIV III was the more advanced copy.

I agree that the tech tree isnt as good as Civ3 but the rest of the game is fine (except for the bugs! i hate bugs!)

 

[Spyder1]

Spyder1: For what it's worth, I feel the same way about SMAC that you do about Civ4--I just can't get into it

...too much of a CivI purist, I suppose

You know, again from my personal perspective, I was flabbergasted at the response to SMAC/X. I thought so much of it was brilliant -- particularly the deformable terrain (awesome addition that STILL hasn't translated into the Civ world yet); the government-civic aspect (which with Civ4 HAS made it into the Civ side and deservedly so). The ability to modify and create new units as part of technology advancement (in-game) was also great AND appropriate to the setting. It would be like, instead of giving us a horse archer, we'd developed archery and created our unit that applied that technology and put in "on horses" to create the horse archer ourselves. THAT offered up an enormous and endless variation on unit-creation and put it in-game. But I'm going on. I'm thrilled that Civ4 imported some of these ideas (as I said, especially the government-civic part instead of "flat' government types).

I do wish the mountains in Civ4 weren't quite so... exaggerated. Given how technology and training has led to mountaineer units in the military going back centuries, it's sort of silly to call them "impassable" for all of time. They also look a bit... overblown. But that's hardly a game-breaker -- just an observation. Also, I preferred the world-builder in Civ3 -- a standalone product that didn't require you to actually start a game just to use it. But like I said -- not a game-breaker. The gameplay's the thing, and for me, for whatever reason, it's just not 'sparking'. (God that sounds terrible -- don't know how else to put it).

Eh. Like I said: hopefully, at least for me, there will be expansions/patches that manage to put the "spark" into Civ4. I'd like to see that happen. I'm open to playing again once these things come down the pipe, to see if they do "create" that "spark".

Also: appreciate the conversational back-and-forth. This is the way I'd like forums to be, instead of the usual l33t-speaking juvenile-delinquent hate-spewing crap that dominates far too many forums.