Civ IV doesn't compare to Civ III

[Spyder1]

Troll comes to my mind! I LOVE the game!

Um, no, s/he isn't trolling, they're expressing their own opinion, which doesn't happen to agree with yours. Neither one of you are right or wrong -- you're both entitled to your opinion AND to express it. That's the nature of conversation. If we only heard "this game is AWESOME" or "this game SUCKS", it wouldn't be conversation, nor would it contribute to anything constructive coming out of it.

 

[Mujadaddy]

Spyder1: I *absolutely agree* that SMAC is the best Civ game of all time --- I just can't play it. My reasons are *all* style, no substance ("It hurts my eyes" "I prefer going from no tech-->tech, not some tech-->more tech") ... but it's still how I feel.

I'm getting my feet wet with the game... I'm going to start some multiplay soon with some friends in-town... and I'm really enjoying it, even though they didn't "retain" lots of the things from SMAC that worked.

Re: 13375|o33|< --- When someone has a reason for something and can express themselves coherently, I enjoy discussing issues with them. When someone starts a "d00d, war3z my class-action suit???" thread, it causes me to flame them and get warnings

 

[Spyder1]

Spyder1: I *absolutely agree* that SMAC is the best Civ game of all time --- I just can't play it. My reasons are *all* style, no substance ("It hurts my eyes" "I prefer going from no tech-->tech, not some tech-->more tech") ... but it's still how I feel.

I'm getting my feet wet with the game... I'm going to start some multiplay soon with some friends in-town... and I'm really enjoying it, even though they didn't "retain" lots of the things from SMAC that worked.

Re: 13375|o33|< --- When someone has a reason for something and can express themselves coherently, I enjoy discussing issues with them. When someone starts a "d00d, war3z my class-action suit???" thread, it causes me to flame them and get warnings

Ironically, I was hoping that Civ4 would spawn a sequel to Alpha Centauri that would build on what was great about it. The flaws in SMAC/X are exactly as you say: the tech tree was far too, I don't know, uninolving in terms of the names of the techs; the graphics were too harsh and generic to look at (though that's the look, the deformability of the terrain is still a huge plus to me, as was the spread of terrain features over time -- as in, forests spreading out, etc.).

I wish I could figure out how to put into words exactly what keeps Civ4 from having that "spark" for me. It's one of those "you know it if you feel it" things, I think. I mean, I can list the things that are "misfires" in my opinions, but, and this is the biggest thing i've been talking about, "misfires" aren't things that keep me from playing if the "must play one more turn" addiction is there (and it can and has been there DESPITE the problems, etc, in the past games).

 

[TLHeart]

Gotta love the complaints by the same people in different threads about how bad the game is.

It is a new game, with a new interface, that does have a learning curve.

Personally, I love the game...it has the just one more turn problem, and it runs fine on my celeron with a gforce 5500.

Yes, as all new games, it has a few quirks, and maybe a bug or two, but they will be quickly patched.

If you don't like, don't play it, and don't expect the rest of us to agree with ya.

 

[Spyder1]

Gotta love the complaints by the same people in different threads about how bad the game is.

It is a new game, with a new interface, that does have a learning curve.

Personally, I love the game...it has the just one more turn problem, and it runs fine on my celeron with a gforce 5500.

Yes, as all new games, it has a few quirks, and maybe a bug or two, but they will be quickly patched.

If you don't like, don't play it, and don't expect the rest of us to agree with ya.

I'm curious, where I've ever stated that I expect anyone else to agree with me. Especially since I've very simply and quietly stated that I DON'T expect nor ask that you do so. If you were referring to someone else's post, then I apologize for replying to it; if you were directing it at me, I'd suggest you read the posts for factual content and make comments that apply.

I don't care one way or the other if you agree or disagree, nor within this post (Civ IV dosn't compare to Civ III) have I asked that you do so nor required in any way that you do so. In point of fact, I've gone out of my way to state over and over again the contrary. I've every right to come into these forums and talk about the game and the reasons that I just can't seem to feel the "spark" that is "just one more turn" and to talk out that, but then again, if you'd read, you'd also find me specifically stating that: I hope everyone else enjoys it; I hope that patches/expansions occur that manage to recreate the "one more turn" feeling so I can enjoy it as other people are; I am not regretting my purchase of the game; etc.

The only things that do bother me are: idiots who post "I hate this cus it sucks"; idiots whose posts are just "I like it therefore no one else should hate it or be allowed to talk about the negatives"; and idiots who don't read but make posts that are specifically contrary to what's come before. None of those three types of posters contribute anything constructive.

 

[Willem]

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. Like I'm caught in Katrina or some terrible tornado.

Oh give me a break! This happened in Civ 3 all the time, it's nothing new.

 

[ombak]

You're right. Civilization 4 is much, much better.

Once the bugs are patched and 99% of the players have experienced the game, Civilization 3 will be mostly forgotten.

 

[Mujadaddy]

Oooo, think how cool SMAC2 based on SMAC+the CIV4 engine COULD be

I wish I could figure out how to put into words exactly what keeps Civ4 from having that "spark" for me. It's one of those "you know it if you feel it" things, I think.

I "get" it, Spyder1... I just have had a fire in my belly for Civ that 3, nor 2, fully sated...

I feel it with 4.

Good luck, mang.

 

[ununcle]

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

3d graphics?,,, Icon based information? Rock paper scissors? I'm sorry,, to acknowlege these as the building blocks of C&C and Age of Empires must be bashing right? K, nevermind.

 

[Spyder1]

Oooo, think how cool SMAC2 based on SMAC+the CIV4 engine COULD be I "get" it, Spyder1... I just have had a fire in my belly for Civ that 3, nor 2, fully sated...

I feel it with 4.

Good luck, mang.

I hope, after patching and expansions, and coming back to it then, that I will also "get it" again. I'm disappointed now, because I've got that same "fire", and I'm "left" to playing the older games we've already mentioned (not that being "left" to SMAC/X or Civ2 or CIv3 is a terrible thing to be)

So, here's hoping for the future of Civ4. Seriously: I'd like nothing more to come back to it and find that spark has actually been created (for me). Of all the games and lines of games I've played, only Civ kept putting out games that, for all their flaws, kept me with the "one more turn" syndrome. I almost feel like I must be ill or something, with Civ4 not creating that syndrome for me. It's... more than passingly strange. Part of me says, no one, not even the Great One, Sid, can oversee the production of games forever without "missing" at some point. Maybe Civ4 is the "miss" for me. (that is SUCH a depressing thought).

Anyway. Not trying to go on and on. Have fun playing, thanks all for the constructive comments. BTW, Rhye's 18-civ Earth map is excellently done, for those who haven't looked at it yet. !

 

[Mujadaddy]

Hey, Master of Orion 2 is teh bombzz0rz ... M003 is teh 5uXXoRzz ... It happens

 

[ununcle]

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.

Would you please provide some more examples so I won't think your nuts? There were leader heads in Civ3, You just couldn't fit all of them in the Foreign relations screen at one time. Big deal.
This interface is easier? Civ3 was streamlined, Civ4 is clutter. In Civ 3, you could in one screen chase info regarding units, tecs, concepts, governments, wonders, UU's, et. It's called a civilopidia. As for the "in game" interface? Right click on a city and you could change production, city name, upgrade units, et. It was all a right click away. The only "Icon cluster fark was the Unit and settler "action" buttons, but that was effective.
This interface is so much more "micro management" like, it's not even close. Trying to find out the best Civic , for the best amount of military units, with the diffiring upgrades, for the particulur size of my empire, in relation to my cities capital distance, with a civilopedia that's as useless as tits on a bull, is about as user freindly as connecting the trade route dots in Civ 2.

 

[zeeter]

Would you please provide some more examples so I won't think your nuts? There were leader heads in Civ3, You just couldn't fit all of them in the Foreign relations screen at one time. Big deal.

That in and of itself was fatally flawed in Civ3. If you couldn't fit all of the leaders onto the foreign relations screen, then you couldn't see who was at war with whomelse unless thos two civs happened to be up at the same time. If you've got sixteen civs in the game that's a lot of head changing to see every single different combination.

This interface is easier? Civ3 was streamlined, Civ4 is clutter. In Civ 3, you could in one screen chase info regarding units, tecs, concepts, governments, wonders, UU's, et. It's called a civilopidia. As for the "in game" interface? Right click on a city and you could change production, city name, upgrade units, et. It was all a right click away. The only "Icon cluster fark was the Unit and settler "action" buttons, but that was effective.

This interface is different. Theres more to do. It can't be the same as it was. Relax - you'll get used to it, just like you did with Civ3.

This interface is so much more "micro management" like, it's not even close. Trying to find out the best Civic , for the best amount of military units, with the diffiring upgrades, for the particulur size of my empire, in relation to my cities capital distance, with a civilopedia that's as useless as tits on a bull, is about as user freindly as connecting the trade route dots in Civ 2.

Wow. All of these things are things that are fun about the new game. Finding the best civic for whatever I'm doing. Not really that difficult once you learn the civics. Differing upgrades - the only problem I have with upgrades is that I don't know how to upgrade all of my units at once unless they're all on the same square. Civilopedia has always been useless.

I don't mean to sound like a smart-a**, but really, if you don't like the game you just should play Civ3. A lot of people don't like the game, and that's fine. It is a lot more different than Civ3 than Civ3 was from Civ2. A lot of people are upset I think because it's much harder to play this game as a war-game. It now has to be played as a "civilization" game.

 

[King Flevance]

I havent been able to get the game to load properly yet so my opinion is not in stone yet.

I have been able to manage a shabby game of hard to decifer graphics. I noticed a big difference in gameplay from the previous 3. Civ 1 2 and 3 all had the same idea behind them, the same blue prints but expanded blueprints as they proceeded. THe basic idea stayed the same but it was expanded upon. From what I have seen so far on 4Sid has rolled the dice and gambled, to mix it up maybe. Maybe to try new flavors on gameplay. Who knows. 4 fell short of my expectations personally. I do not say this because I am having graphic issues like alot of people. This is honestly my opinion on what I have experienced so far. (Not played out of the dark ages yet as my graphics usually wear on me by then)
Even for you all that love CIV 4 over 3 you have to admit their IS a noticeable difference in gameplay to the other 3. It has a new 'feel' its not the long epic saga of history it once was. The maps arent as big on huge that usually got larger going from CIV1-3 have now went back to CIV1 size. I may grow more fond of it later, I am open to that posibility but so far, the only thing I like in 4 over 3 is the cities (namely being able to see structures from world view) and the leveling system on units. if CIV 3 zoomed in to have these cities and you could level your units like on 4. I think that would make a better CIV 4 that the current one. Possibly merge the two terrain styles, the rivers and resources/luxuries on 4 look pretty cool too.

To me it feels they are trying to implement real-time games like 'Majesty' - 'Stronghold' and similar resoucre gathering games like 'Age of Empires'. This I get from the 'Hamlets/Cottages' type element that has been brought in. We never had to construct building to collect resources. I am not saying its not a good idea, nor am I saying its a not a bad idea. I am saying it is a new idea that does change the feel to classic CIV games. I would be mad if CIV 5 went real time over turn based. If you want a real time game, make a new one. If you want to spin an idea off CIV games, then make a new title, but dont morph our game we love.

This is all based off of 2 games I played through the dark ages. So my opinion as said before is unjust but it is how I feel now while we are on this topic. And based off what I have seen so far. Hopefully, I am wrong and CIV 4 is a great addition to the collection I have.

 

[ununcle]

That in and of itself was fatally flawed in Civ3. If you couldn't fit all of the leaders onto the foreign relations screen, then you couldn't see who was at war with whomelse unless thos two civs happened to be up at the same time. If you've got sixteen civs in the game that's a lot of head changing to see every single different combination.<<<

Well, one could simply click on the "D" (for diplomacy) in the bottom right of the screen to list every civ, and what there relations were. Granted there were no leaderheads, but one could decerne if they were at war. That was the beauty of that interface. It was "1" click away. Even with 32 civs.

>>>I don't mean to sound like a smart-a**, but really, if you don't like the game you just should play Civ3. A lot of people don't like the game, and that's fine. It is a lot more different than Civ3 than Civ3 was from Civ2. A lot of people are upset I think because it's much harder to play this game as a war-game. It now has to be played as a "civilization" game.<<

That's what pisses me of the most about the conformist who refuse to accept the flaws. Attack civ 3 if all else fails. . I am more of a builder by the way . So forget about the "Warmonger snipe". It's not about 50 cities Vs 5 for me. Just gameplay. This "could be a great game. But it isn't now.

 

[Zythryn]

Your subject is right on target, there is no comparison, Civ4 blows away Civ3

I think it is a matter learning the new system and personal preference. I have had little time today that was not spent playing and enjoying the new version.

However, just because I disagree doesn't mean I think your opinion isn't correct. Opinions are free after all, and there is no limit to the range of them (someone is always going to disagree).

 

[ununcle]

"Rhye's 18-civ Earth map" is the best civ game to date. Let's play. I'd love to play that. Anyone who's played this game and loves it,,, I'll PBEM. I'll play MP. Dial Ununcle@aol.com.

 

[Charles 22]

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.

So what you're saying is that the shift-U command doesn't work?

 

[zeeter]

As far as upgrading units, yes it is a pain, however since we have so few cities now compared to previous games it's not THAT much of an issue. Besides, upgrades cost so much that it's really tough to do them all at once, anyway.
I don't really think that this is enough to say that the interface stinks.

 

[protista]

If you are having difficulty viewing details, or following map progress, make sure you try using the mouse wheel to zoom in on the selected city. Once this is accomplished, you can view the city and surroundings quite well, and an added bonus is that the terrain feature topography is also accentuated. This adds a fascinating "depth" to the simulation! Your viewing angle, altitude, and perspective change as you continue to zoom in.