Civ2 player returning, start with CiV?

[Jolly Rogerer]

Get Civ 4 complete, it's cheap, sequeled and patched. It's also a great game. Whether or not Civ 5 is a great game, it's expensive in comparison, needs a lot of patching, and has a lot less content being the vanilla version. No need to rush in and pay money in order to be Fireaxis' beta tester imo.

 

[charon2112]

Whether you play V or not, Civ IV is a must buy, especially at today's price. The release of V hasn't stopped me from playing it.

 

[falconne]

the fact is, polls at this point are completely inaccurate. At this point the forums are completely inundated with people that want to complain about Civ V. Any poll that is put up now will reflect that. The data is completely corrupt. People who like the game are, for the most part, staying away from the forum and playing, or hanging out in the strategy forum.

That's your opinion. You did use a poll when you found an old when that supported your argument, but now that all the statistics we have very much disagree you claim they are inaccurate.

Besides, the poll that I used as an example in a different thread was older than the one you used. Everyone can only vote once in a poll, so it doesn't matter how long people who are dissatisfied are around in the forums. Newer votes are simply by people who waited a while before coming to the forums. There should be no difference in composition between the people who were here before to those who arrived more recently, except the latter are likely to have been playing the game longer before voting. Or at least, they had the possibility to play it more - they certainly couldn't have played any less than those who were here right after release.

So the numbers certainly make it sound like, among people who had the chance to play the game for longer, the proportion who are dissatisfied is larger.

 

[charon2112]

As I said, the vast majority of people on these forums at any given time are here to complain about Civ V, so any poll is useless. Everyone that votes is a Civ V detractor. That's just useless data.

It's like going to the Republican National Convention and asking people there..."what's better, being a liberal or a conservative?" What do you think the numbers would show?

That's your opinion. You did use a poll when you found an old when that supported your argument, but now that all the statistics we have very much disagree you claim they are inaccurate.

Besides, the poll that I used as an example in a different thread was older than the one you used. Everyone can only vote once in a poll, so it doesn't matter how long people who are dissatisfied are around in the forums. Newer votes are simply by people who waited a while before coming to the forums. There should be no difference in composition between the people who were here before to those who arrived more recently, except the latter are likely to have been playing the game longer before voting. Or at least, they had the possibility to play it more - they certainly couldn't have played any less than those who were here right after release.

So the numbers certainly make it sound like, among people who had the chance to play the game for longer, the proportion who are dissatisfied is larger.

 

[falconne]

As I said, the vast majority of people on these forums at any given time are here to complain about Civ V, so any poll is useless. Everyone that votes is a Civ V detractor. That's just useless data.

It's like going to the Republican National Convention and asking people there..."what's better, being a liberal or a conservative?" What do you think the numbers would show?

That's a convenient way to dismiss any statistics that go against your opinion. How do you explain the number of people who vote saying they aren't dissatisfied? And the number of them replying to every complaint thread with "Go play Civ 4 instead". Sure there will be people who are annoyed and venting their frustration, but this is a long established fan site, not the 2K forum for Civ 5. It's a representative collection of long term fans and many of them will be here making their opinion known.

 

[MasterDinadan]

That's a convenient way to dismiss any statistics that go against your opinion. How do you explain the number of people who vote saying they aren't dissatisfied? And the number of them replying to every complaint thread with "Go play Civ 4 instead". Sure there will be people who are annoyed and venting their frustration, but this is a long established fan site, not the 2K forum for Civ 5. It's a representative collection of long term fans and many of them will be here making their opinion known.

Your use of the word "statistics" to describe the results of an internet forum poll is insulting to people like me who actually have a background in statistics.
A poll on an internet forum does not constitute a representative sample. It was already explained quite clearly that people who are satisfied with Civ 5 likely spend less time on average, on the forum. Whether you agree with this logic or not, the fact is that a sample has to be selected in a fair in unbiased way. If you post a poll to an internet forum, you obviously cannot select your sample at all because you have no control over who participates.
The fact that internet polls very frequently disagree with actual statistical surveys should make it pretty clear that they are flawed and only useful for amusement purposes.
Quite a lot of the polls are worded in such a way as to lead participants to certain answers, for example.
For instance, one poll asks something like "What feature do you miss the most from Civ 4" and the choices were things like Civics, Religion, etc. One choice was "Nothing. I like Civ 5 the way it is."
I think about 40% of the respondents picked this last choice, and the poster of the poll drew the conclusion that over half of the people polled were unsatisfied with Civ 5. But that's not what the question asked. I am satisfied with Civ 5, and I actually chose the Civics response, because I really enjoyed the system.
However, being satisfied with a product and believing that a product has no flaws are two different things.

 

[dannythefool]

You can probably ignore most of the people comparing V to IV. The main complaints from that crowd are things that weren't in II.

That said, I think your decision depends on how much money you want to spend on a new game. If you haven't played Civ IV before, then the complete edition for $13 or so (according to Amazon) is a very good deal just based on that fact alone.

 

[Sock Bramson]

I'd say get both CIV+BTS and CiV. They are both incredibly enjoyable games for their own reasons.

In CIV's case, there are tons of awesome mods to choose from. My personal favorites are Rhyes and Fall of Civilization (haven't played RR of Europe yet, but I've heard good things), The Sword of Islam (a Middle East-centric version of RFC), Rise of Mankind and A New Dawn (basically and expansion to ROM), and countless other goodies.

CiV, on the other hand, has a great base system that modders have already started to build on; it can only get better from here. The new combat system is one of its main draws, and that's even after you've taken the somewhat lackluster AI into account. (again, that's something that can be patched in the near future, despite what more pessimistic posters may say) Don't let the current hate cloud your opinion of the game before you give it a try. If you like the demo, you'll probably like the full game. I'd personally recommend the True Start Location Earth maps that are floating around (Dale's was first and is great, but others have added their own admirable contributions); that's what really sucked me into CiV. I'm not saying CiV is perfect as-is, but CIV vanilla certainly wasn't when it first came out. However, both were/are still perfectly enjoyable.

Also, don't listen to falconne. There have been several polls on these forums thus far, and at most I've seen a 1/3 percentage of people hating on the newest installment of the series. As other posters have pointed out, most of the people currently trolling the forums are the detractors, while those who enjoy the game are busy playing it.

Basically, don't get sucked into the hype from either side and form your own opinions. Hopefully, you'll love both of the newer Civs as much as you enjoyed numero dos.

 

[SilverKnight]

Try the CiV demo.

This and...

2 posts in 8 years, that effing awesome

...this.

SilverKnight

 

[falconne]

Your use of the word "statistics" to describe the results of an internet forum poll is insulting to people like me who actually have a background in statistics.
A poll on an internet forum does not constitute a representative sample. It was already explained quite clearly that people who are satisfied with Civ 5 likely spend less time on average, on the forum. Whether you agree with this logic or not, the fact is that a sample has to be selected in a fair in unbiased way. If you post a poll to an internet forum, you obviously cannot select your sample at all because you have no control over who participates.
The fact that internet polls very frequently disagree with actual statistical surveys should make it pretty clear that they are flawed and only useful for amusement purposes.
Quite a lot of the polls are worded in such a way as to lead participants to certain answers, for example.
For instance, one poll asks something like "What feature do you miss the most from Civ 4" and the choices were things like Civics, Religion, etc. One choice was "Nothing. I like Civ 5 the way it is."
I think about 40% of the respondents picked this last choice, and the poster of the poll drew the conclusion that over half of the people polled were unsatisfied with Civ 5. But that's not what the question asked. I am satisfied with Civ 5, and I actually chose the Civics response, because I really enjoyed the system.
However, being satisfied with a product and believing that a product has no flaws are two different things.

Ok fine, so there's no way to know what percentage of customers are satisfied with their purchase and are likely to continue buying future version without phoning up a random sample of at least 20% of those who bought it.

It also means those people who keep insisting the majority are satisfied with the game, and that it's only people who aren't that come to the forum to vote are also wrong, as they are making an assumption that validates their opinion. Whenever I've enjoyed any game I've spent plenty of time on the forums discussing it with others - I think the most dedicated fans for a game do spend a lot of time on the forums, whether they like it or not.

The only thing we can say for sure is, this forum is a meeting place for a lot of long term Civ fans who come here regularly, even without a new version of Civ being around and a significant number here are dissatisfied. The main complaint is lack of complexity (I know there are plenty of folk who don't read any of the walls of text and just use the line "Oh they just wanted Civ 4.5", but for those who do read, they can tell it boils down to lack of interesting things to do and challenge). If Firaxis note this and do something about it in future expansions, then great. If not, many of us will not continue buying future versions (at least, not until they get "fixed" with mods and have reduced to bargain prices). It would remain to be seen whether the loss of those sales effect their development funding at all. If it doesn't, well so be it, the free market will have spoken and those of us who don't like the direction Civ has taken will have lost.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I second the suggestion to try out the Civ 5 demo, before you decide.

Does civ4 have a demo? If so, you could try that as well.

The civ5 demo actually gives you a pretty good idea of what the gameplay is like.

 

[kuukkeli]

That's woefully inaccurate. The fact is, most people here like it. It's just the detractors are much louder.

Oh yes. Polls don't mean anything because all the people who like the game are either playing or reluctant to even open so negative threads. The only exception to this are the polls (no matter how many voters or lack of recent activity) that show positive results for Civ5 - these polls obviously tell the truth and lack all flaws of the polls with wrong results

It's like conspiracies - if there's evidence they're obviously true and if there's no evidence it just proves the secrecy behind the conspiracy.

 

[Thedrin]

Probably the worst time to be coming back to the series after such a long time away from it.

CivV has the potential to be really good, but it isn't finished yet. The core gameplay is much different from CivII, but it should be very quick to pick up.

CivIV BtS is a finished game with the advantage of 2 expansion packs that added a lot of features. The core game is very similar to CivII, but adds lots of features to it. My own opinion is that these features make the game a lot more complex without offering a great deal more depth. It can be fun to explore but best strategy with some features isn't too hard to figure out.

If you specifically are feeling nostalgic for CivII, and going back to CivII isn't an option - great game - I'd say CivIV BtS, though maybe play with a lot of stuff like espionage, vassal states and random events switched off. Personally I probably won't be playing this game again but that's because CivV has introduced some ideas that I'll really miss if I go back to CivIV.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Yep, really the best answer for the OP should be to, ideally, play both.

The only caveat being that civ5 would be better tried in at least a couple of months time once the bugs are sorted out, because at least a few of the bugs at the moment are seriously game-breaking.

 

[MasterDinadan]

@Falconne,
I agree that there people just as bad on both sides. I've seen users who feel positively about Civ 5 have a very hostile reaction to players who suggest that Civ 5 is flawed. I feel that there is more than one way to be right. People who like Civ 4 have legitimate reasons for liking it, and people who like Civ 5 have their reasons as well. It's just a difference in values.

I don't mean to suggest that we should assume the general reception of Civ 5 is positive just because of lack of evidence to the alternative. Most of the people I've talked to like a lot, and while that certainly is not statistically significant, it's good enough for me in my personal life.

As for the other assumptions, I don't think anyone suggested that Civ 5 fans don't come to the forums. It was suggested that they come to the forums less often in general, presumably because more of their computer time is likely spent playing Civ 5. It's a reasonable suggestion, but it may or may not be true.

What is far more likely is that the wording of the threads may lead to biased responses. For instance, an actual poll on the forums says "Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumb down?" The phrasing of this clearly leads to a biased response, as people who agree will likely click on the thread, and people who don't agree will likely just avoid it altogether. People who try to post a positive comment in that thread will usually be attacked by others who disagree with their view. They will feel alienated and leave the thread, and that's one more opinion that may go "unnoticed."

The thread title has a lot to do with the kind of people that get involved in it. If you open a thread that portrays Civ 5 in a positive light, you will attract more users who feel positive about Civ 5. The same applies for negative threads. People travel in packs =)

 

[falconne]

@Falconne,
I agree that there people just as bad on both sides. I've seen users who feel positively about Civ 5 have a very hostile reaction to players who suggest that Civ 5 is flawed. I feel that there is more than one way to be right. People who like Civ 4 have legitimate reasons for liking it, and people who like Civ 5 have their reasons as well. It's just a difference in values.

I don't mean to suggest that we should assume the general reception of Civ 5 is positive just because of lack of evidence to the alternative. Most of the people I've talked to like a lot, and while that certainly is not statistically significant, it's good enough for me in my personal life.

As for the other assumptions, I don't think anyone suggested that Civ 5 fans don't come to the forums. It was suggested that they come to the forums less often in general, presumably because more of their computer time is likely spent playing Civ 5. It's a reasonable suggestion, but it may or may not be true.

What is far more likely is that the wording of the threads may lead to biased responses. For instance, an actual poll on the forums says "Who else agrees that Civ 5 has been dumb down?" The phrasing of this clearly leads to a biased response, as people who agree will likely click on the thread, and people who don't agree will likely just avoid it altogether. People who try to post a positive comment in that thread will usually be attacked by others who disagree with their view. They will feel alienated and leave the thread, and that's one more opinion that may go "unnoticed."

The thread title has a lot to do with the kind of people that get involved in it. If you open a thread that portrays Civ 5 in a positive light, you will attract more users who feel positive about Civ 5. The same applies for negative threads. People travel in packs =)

I don't think it's so much the title of the post but how strongly people feel about the game, one way or another, that will cause them to go an vote on the polls, regardless of which way the title's biased. I think that's why the extreme options tend to get the most votes - people near the middle often aren't bothered enough to vote.

So maybe they can be seen more as a petition than a poll.

 

[boshar]

I prefer Civ V. I played Civ I a lot, played a bit of Civ II. I bought Civ III and Civ IV (BtS) but I never got into them. Civ V is a reboot of the genre. Its closer to Civ I then Civ IV.

Civ III and IV added lots of stuf that may have made playing more interesting for the hard core crowd but I was always overwhelmed with the many options and choices. Civ V has less choices so I can concenrate more on interacting with the AI players and developing my empire. To each his own but for me Civ V is the beter game.

 

[MasterDinadan]

I don't think it's so much the title of the post but how strongly people feel about the game, one way or another, that will cause them to go an vote on the polls, regardless of which way the title's biased. I think that's why the extreme options tend to get the most votes - people near the middle often aren't bothered enough to vote.

So maybe they can be seen more as a petition than a poll.

It's a pretty strongly established concept in surveying techniques that the way a question is worded can have a significant impact on the distribution of responses, even when the samples being surveyed are taken from the same population.
When you present a survey without even doing any sampling, the effect is magnified, because many people who disagree with the assertion will just not participate.
The thread title "What do you think of Civ 5?" is likely to get a lot more positive responses than "Do you think Civ 5 is a disappointment?" A lot of people with positive attitudes towards Civ 5 will refrain from posting in the latter thread just because they wish to avoid confrontation. Seeing how heated a lot of dicussions become, I don't really blame them.

 

[falconne]

It's a pretty strongly established concept in surveying techniques that the way a question is worded can have a significant impact on the distribution of responses, even when the samples being surveyed are taken from the same population.
When you present a survey without even doing any sampling, the effect is magnified, because many people who disagree with the assertion will just not participate.
The thread title "What do you think of Civ 5?" is likely to get a lot more positive responses than "Do you think Civ 5 is a disappointment?" A lot of people with positive attitudes towards Civ 5 will refrain from posting in the latter thread just because they wish to avoid confrontation. Seeing how heated a lot of dicussions become, I don't really blame them.

Posting maybe, but voting itself... that's just an anonymous click.

The only way to test your theory would be to see if a poll titled "Do you think Civ V is more complex than Civ IV?" and see if the reverse occurs.

 

[Thedrin]

Posting maybe, but voting itself... that's just an anonymous click.

The only way to test your theory would be to see if a poll titled "Do you think Civ V is more complex than Civ IV?" and see if the reverse occurs.

Bad question choice, as some people will view complexity as a good thing and some will view it as a bad thing. E.g. One person might equate complexity with strategic depth whereas another may view complexity as something distinct and less desireable than strategic depth (I include myself in the latter - complexity arises from lots of options but does not necessarily lead to strategic depth).