Civ3 or civ4?

[WaterDragoon]

I was wondering what is everyones impression of civ4 and it's expansions?

Do you think it's the next evolution and continues the series or is it a bust

and thus should i instead get civ conquests.....

Thanks in advance.

 

[Mirc]

I clearly prefer Civ3. Luckily I didn't spend that much on Civ4, I would be angry if I did. Guess what, in this forum everyone will tell you Civ3 is better.

And so do I.

(I can give numerous examples, as I play Civ3 for some years and played enough Civ4 to compare)

 

[WaterDragoon]

So i guess the next question is, what is the gripe? I look at screenshots of civ4 and they seem crisp and more 3d. so graphics seem great. The really leave gameplay. What exactly is so different in Civ4 ?

 

[Decebalus]

PFTTT please don't even get me started in how many ways CIV4 sucks!

Not only do you need a supercomputer to be able to run it, and the patience of a slow moving ICEBERG to put up with all the bugs and crashes and such. But it also changes the gameplay to the extent where it's almost unrecognizable to a CivIII player.

Those who've been loyal fans of the Civ series, especially CivII and CivIII, will find it a totaly new game. Which is fine, I mean those who pick it up for the first time might like it, but it doesn't compare to CivIII.

It is DEFINATELY not the next evolution, it is a totaly new game in my opinion. With not that many new concepts. The religion is probably the one thing I liked about it, and I'd love it if they made a patch to CIVIII to have it to. It's also a much more accelerated style of game. No more weeks spent on one game. Most are very fast I find.

The 3D graphics just get in the way to be honest. Spinning the world around and zooming in and out is useless. You can zoom in and out of CIVIII but honestly how many times do you do that in a game, and if you do the way it's done is more than adequate. Didn't need no fancy 3D engine.

I bought it out of loyalty, gave it a good shot, then uninstalled it, wrapped it up and tucked it away never to be seen again. Waste of the $75CAN I paid for it to be honest.

 

[Mirc]

So i guess the next question is, what is the gripe? I look at screenshots of civ4 and they seem crisp and more 3d. so graphics seem great. The really leave gameplay. What exactly is so different in Civ4 ?

I actually don't like the graphics at all. If you zoom in, the Colloseum is smaller than a house, the Pyramids are the size of a small building, the cows are half inside a building half outside, the Aqueduct goes right through the middle of a mountain, and the unit is 100 bigger than the city. WTH??? Just try to look for zoomed in screenshots if you don't believe me.

 

[psweetman1590]

Water Dragoon, If you want a more honest assesment of which is better.... Well, a civ3 forum ain't the right place to look.

FWIW, I think cIV is okay, I guess. I also hate the graphics. If you've got a good computer (not just a decent one -- a GOOD one), then the lag is bearable as long as you don't play huge maps.... A lot of people complain about bugs and how short the games are, but the latest patches solve those problems; you can choose how short your game is going to be as a starting setting. Marathon speed is actually almost twice as long as a civIII game, for example. Religion and the new way to choose your govenrment is also very cool and provides new layers of strategy, especially to diplomacy (which also is rather improved).

However, I just don't like it. It's....boring. I don't like how wars are fought -- the artillery especially really sucks -- and I don't like the flow of the game. Although there's actually more to do, the whole thing just feels dumbed down, and clumsy. Moving units with the numpad is a chore, as there is a significant lag between pressing the button and having the unit move (and it's impossible to "queue" up movements like this. For example, if I want a unit to move 3 to the east, I hit 6 three times in succession. In civIII, I can hit the keys very quickly - the last stroke being completed before the unit has moved to the second space - and the unit will move all three tiles to where I want him to go. In cIV, if I try to do the same thing, the unit will move one tile, and stop. you have to hit the key, wait for the unit to move, hit the key again, wait, the finally hit the key again.) This REALLY drags down the flow of the game.

To be completely fair, I play it. I'm involved in a democracy game (2, actually) that uses it at other forums. However, when I want to have fun, I play civIII.

 

[Kernal]

Sorry for the triple post, my Internet connection really sucks...

Anyway, what I was going to say is Civ 4 runs really slowly on my computer because the videogame industry cares so much about graphics. I don't need 3D animations that zoom in on every battle. Sure it's cool to watch the first time, but by the 73892434625th time it gets old. So I prefer Civ 3.

 

[ThERat]

mistake to check the Civ3 forum

Maybe you should ask the same in the Civ4 forum to be fair. The fanbois will surely tell you that CIV is so much better.

I have played both extensively and found C3C (read Civ3 conquests) to be far superior than CIV in terms of fun and longlasting interest. True, C3C has some serious flaws and weaknesses (such as some bugs that never got removed, the unrest and pollution model, overpowered strategies). But, CIV simply doesn't give you en epic feel. It's more eye candy.

It somehow misses out some things that always made civilization fun. Honestly, I think the idea of expanding and conquering the whole world is something, a lot of people (including myself) simply enjoy. Yes, to penalize expansion may sound logical and to nerf armies might make sense, but it simply takes the fun away from the game.

Well, my list could go on and on.

If you are a true builder that gets anal about taking over the AI culturally or launch a SS sucessfully, go for CIV.
If you are a warmonger at heart, go for C3C.

 

[vmxa]

I am not really able to speak authoritively on IV as I only played a few weeks. I did play it 10-14 hr a day during that period though.

I though it was better, but near the end of that period, I found I just did not want to play anymore. A teamate from Poly asked me to join the new GS team for IV, so I got the 1.61 patch and joined, but I found I did not care about it any more.

I am participating, but not with any real input. I could not really say what it was. I think the fact hat you have too many valid paths to take is one of the problems for me.

 

[Mirc]

I saw everybody posted about how good the new government system is. Am I the only one not to like the Civics? I'd prefer 15 governments to choose from, rather than 5 options for each civic...

 

[Kool Keith]

I've been dying to get the new CIV but my computer won't support it. Part of what I dislike about C3C is the length of the games. I find that once I get to a certain point in dominance, the game is all but over and I would prefer to not have to play an extra five hours of tedious warmongerig to end the game. But that is just me. And even still, I simply cannot get enough of this game.

I suspect that as long as the turn-based approach is still in place--where every turn is important--then I will most likely enjoy Civ 4. If each turn is dumbed down then I probably would not enjoy the game.

 

[Decebalus]

I see a lot of people tell you to go ask the CIV4 forum for advice. I dissagree. You came to the right place if you really want a true answer. Everyone who's played CIV3 and lower will definately have tried CIV4 out of curiosity. But I highly doubt first time CIV4 players tried CIV3.

So here you'll get an honest assesment, whereas on the other forum you'll probably get a "wow that's really cool" from some 11 year old first timers that are just impressed by graphics.

I don't mean to sound old, but what happened to games that were fun. I find everything nowdays has to be as 3D as possible, as complicated as possible, and with as much eye candy as possible, but gameplay dumbed down to the point of not fun.

So read on, this is where the real opinions come out.

 

[Mirc]

^ I agree!

 

[MAS]

Ignoring any bugs, and the need for high end computers, witch are obvious flaws... The game itself:

Civ4 Doesn't "suck" as some people put it. Firaxis mad Civ4 a different game than Civ3. While it still clearly is a member of the Civilization series, they didn't made "Civ3 version 2." And that is a good thing!

The problem is, that some people just don't like Civ4, just like some people don't like Doom or don't like Age of Empires, etc.
This is especially true for people who where expecting it to be "Civ3 version 2."

While I currently play Civ3 more than Civ4, I like both games for what they are.

 

[Decebalus]

It is clearly NOT a memeber of the Civillization series. I have nothing against it, like I said for someone picking it up the first time it is a decent enough game, and fun in it's own way. But it does not belong in this series.

CIVII was clearly CIVI version 2, CIVIII was clearly CIVII version 2.

Similarly if you look at any other series:
- Age of Kings was clearly Age of Empires version 2
- DOOM 2 was clearly DOOM 1 version 2, DOOM 3 was clearly DOOM 2 version 2
- Caesar 2 was clearly Caesar 1 version 2, Caesar 3 was clearly Caesar 2 version 2, Caesar 4 was clearly Caesar 3 version 2

I could go on forever. That's what makes a series a series. Similarity and familiarity in gameplay experience.

CIV IV, though not a bad game, is different enough to not belong as part of the series I think. And as seems to be the overal concensus, not just on this but other forums, CIV IV is a bust when looked at from a CIV players point of view. Mas, you're probably one of very very very few I've heard that likes both.

 

[Whomp]

I play both but in different ways so I'd ask how will you play the game?
Will you play by email, single player against the AI or in a multi player game?

I don't play any civ4 as a single player vs. AI nor in succession games anymore. It's simply not fun imo. As ThERat said some of us just like to pound on the AI and civ4 makes it very difficult to do. In c3c , there's a certain thrill to making multiple tech trades to catch up or making a dramatic comeback. It's simply not possible in civ4. Some may say this a good thing but not me. The two most exciting games I've been in were deity games (one was a 5cc space race) where we dug out of a hole and won. The current SGOTM has been a blast so far and may go down as my favorite all time.

Where I prefer civ4 is it's capability to run a 18 person game through pitboss. Very cool feature and games against the human opponent are always interesting.

 

[psweetman1590]

Decebalus: I know many people who like both civ3 and cIV.

If Mr. Dragoon only asks a civ3 forum for advice, it is rather obvious that he will only get negative or lukewarm responses about cIV. While this might be accurate D) that's not the whole picture. Although I agree that the crowd who likes cIV is younger than those who prefer civ3, making a generalization like what you have is not accurate when one looks at the big picture. Like I said, I know many people who liked both games, and many who think cIV is better. And no, they're not 11 years old.

Honestly, civ3 fans can be almost as closeminded as cIV fans sometimes....

 

[MAS]

Similarly if you look at any other series:
- Age of Kings was clearly Age of Empires version 2
- DOOM 2 was clearly DOOM 1 version 2, DOOM 3 was clearly DOOM 2 version 2
- Caesar 2 was clearly Caesar 1 version 2, Caesar 3 was clearly Caesar 2 version 2, Caesar 4 was clearly Caesar 3 version 2

But I disagree here, AoK is quite different from AoE. Its not just a graphical update, there are many things in AoK that work differently than AoE. For example, AoK has much more early defenses, and more powerful defenses throughout the game. Rushing an other player early is no longer a good option.

DOOM is not a good example, it is an FPS, and all FPS play the same; you shoot at everything that move.

I never played Caesar so I can't comment on it.

I can talk about SimCity, SC3 and SC4 are also very different, there are many things that you must do different in SC4 to build a succesful city. For example, in SC3 you could start with zoning medium density zones right away to quickly make a relatively large city with a good income. In SC4 light zones at the start actually earn you more, as the price will go up over time, you can change it to higher densities at later times.

An other example is Diablo, Diablo 2 plays much more like an arcade game with its huge amounts of enemies that can be battled at the same time. The fact that the game is also much larger and it takes longer to get to the end also makes it a completely different experience. Not to mention the completely different skill sets for each character, while in Diablo each character had the same spellbook, but only different abilities to maximize the use of bows/melee/spells.

I feel the differences between Civ3 and Civ4 fall in line with it. It would have been worse if they made Civ3 version 2, then we could have complained that the game industry never invents something new and is just milking old concepts with fancier graphics.

Really, there can be only so many variations of Tetris before they start to look like Yet an other Tetris clone. (YAOTC)

 

[Decebalus]

I feel the differences between Civ3 and Civ4 fall in line with it. It would have been worse if they made Civ3 version 2, then we could have complained that the game industry never invents something new and is just milking old concepts with fancier graphics.

Well I definately have a complaint about the gaming industry milking old concepts with fancier graphics. That's probably topic for a different thread. Never the less, I'd still like to see a CIV III version 2.

 

[sercer88]

When I first got cIV, I really liked it. I think that was mainly because I hadn't played Civ3 enough to get involved in it. Eventually, I began playing both cIV, and Civ3, and I began to like Civ3 much more. The easiest way to explain it is that the new concepts and things like that were great for a change, but I couldn't really find myself playing it over and over, like I can for Civ3.
Now the only time I play Civ4 is when I play Rhye's world map 18 civs game, as that's the only one I find interesting in Civ4 anymore.