Civ3 or Civ4

[IaRo]

Been playing Civ3 for a long time and luuuuv it. Have only recently joined civfanatics but have always read it. I have had Civ4 for some time as well but have never gotten into it. I did the tutorial and I think I started a game or to but went back to Civ3. Just couldn't get into it. My question is this: I wonder if I should try to get into Civ4 or just stick with Civ3. Any input or opinions welcome.

Thanks
IaRo

 

[vmxa]

Given this is a Civ3 forum, I suspect you will get mostly III. I tried IV many times, but it did not grab me. Not a bad game, just not able to hold my interest. Don't ask about V.

 

[IaRo]

Don't ask...Does that mean V is bad or you haven't played it yet? Thanks for the reply.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Don't ask...Does that mean V is bad or you haven't played it yet? Thanks for the reply.

V is generally regarded as terrible. There is a lot of hate for V from people who love III and IV. Even the V forum has more people who dislike it than like it. It's generally considered a step down. The reviews on those who played and abandoned it have kept me from buying it.

I'd give IV a try. It's quite different from III. If you play IV there are some habits from III you have to break. Build fewer, quality cities, space cities out a little more, AI's don't declare at Friendly at half don't at Pleased, corruption is gone, etc. I like both games but they're very different. Don't expect to master IV immediately even if you're good at III. I play both as a break from each other.

 

[marioh]

I tried 4, and it had some things that I like, but overall, it never hooked me like C3C.
Like when I decided to start playing Civ again after being stuck at home during a blizzard, the choice was easily C3C. 4 never even crossed my mind.

 

[EvilConqueror]

Been playing Civ3 for a long time and luuuuv it. Have only recently joined civfanatics but have always read it. I have had Civ4 for some time as well but have never gotten into it. I did the tutorial and I think I started a game or to but went back to Civ3. Just couldn't get into it. My question is this: I wonder if I should try to get into Civ4 or just stick with Civ3. Any input or opinions welcome.

Thanks
IaRo

I felt the same way regarding 4. Just couldn't get into it.

I've been thinking about giving 4 another chance as well but can't be bothered at the moment.

 

[GamezRule]

Keep in mind if you ask this in the civ 4 forum you will get the opposite response, you really need to ask in Off Topic.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Keep in mind if you ask this in the civ 4 forum you will get the opposite response, you really need to ask in Off Topic.

I'm not sure. I agree it sounds reasonable but Civ IV posters outnumber Civ III posters so OT would still love IV. Asking it here tells him about how people who still love III feel about IV. I think a better way to phrase the question would be what CivIII players like/dislike about Civ IV in relation to III.

One of the biggest differences is diplomacy. It matters more in IV. In IV the leaders are more individualistic and you can often "turn off" a threat using diplomacy as a tool. This is both good and bad. You feel diplomacy is more of the game and each game can be very different depending on the neighbor. The bad is that sometimes in IV the AI doesn't feel like a competitor who is trying to win.

Extreme IV example: You share a continent with Isabella. She founds a religion and spreads it to your cities for you. You adopt her religion and play nice. If you want you can pretty much forget about military for a long time. The question (and I'm not being judgemental) is whether you like a game that works that way or not because if she was playing to win she'd kill you. If your power is 1/5 hers, she still won't attack in IV. In III I wouldn't try that.

 

[vorlon_mi]

I'm not sure. I agree it sounds reasonable but Civ IV posters outnumber Civ III posters so OT would still love IV. Asking it here tells him about how people who still love III feel about IV. I think a better way to phrase the question would be what CivIII players like/dislike about Civ IV in relation to III.

One of the biggest differences is diplomacy. It matters more in IV.

Agreed, and with Ataxerxes's other details about diplomacy. Civ IV's tech tree is different, and there are sometimes two paths to get to the same goal. And definitely agree, there will be C3C habits you will need to break to succeed at Civ IV.

There are more resources, and more wonders, leading to lots more decisions about what to build and when. The victory conditions are tweaked, and each tech advance features a brief narration by Leonard Nimoy.

For me, the biggest difference was Great People. They took the idea of Military Great Leaders and Scientific Great Leaders and expanded on it. You can build several different kinds of great people, and use them (along with the specialist citizens in the cities) in new ways. In keeping with Sid's philosophy of giving you interesting choices, the Civ IV great people have a lot of them. Indeed, some of the leading Civ IV strategy players have developed a whole empire-wide economy based on the use of great people and specialists, vs. the more common terrain improvements to improve your empire.

 

[Bowsling]

One of the reasons I've stuck with CivIII, is although I hate to say it, technical issues. I only got a computer that can play IV in 2007, and since then there have been numerous technical things, like DirectX problems, etc. All the while CivIII still works.

But each has its upsides and its downsides. In CivIV, I hate warfare. It's just about building a bunch of siege weapons, and then replenishing them constantly. In fact, in my current CivIV game, I successfully annexed two civs before I could even build catapults, and I haven't captured a city since.

 

[Ataxerxes]

One of the reasons I've stuck with CivIII, is although I hate to say it, technical issues. I only got a computer that can play IV in 2007, and since then there have been numerous technical things, like DirectX problems, etc. All the while CivIII still works.

But each has its upsides and its downsides. In CivIV, I hate warfare. It's just about building a bunch of siege weapons, and then replenishing them constantly. In fact, in my current CivIV game, I successfully annexed two civs before I could even build catapults, and I haven't captured a city since.

Some of my CivIV games go like that. Early rush and then no real wars until Cannons, Rifles. Renaissance wars often aren't worth it in IV.

Your other point should be emphasized. If your computer is older, CivIV can take longer because of the load on your computer. Playing huge maps in the late game, the interturn can take a while in CivIV. So if your computer is older and you like huge maps, that's a point against CivIV. A ridiculous thing I miss is the city view screen. It's stupid, I know, but I like looking at the city.

 

[Civinator]

For me, the biggest difference was Great People. They took the idea of Military Great Leaders and Scientific Great Leaders and expanded on it.

Sorry, but the great people were an idea of Civ 3 (not only based on MGLs and SGLs). For example here is a great artist coming with C3C:

 

[GamezRule]

What is a Great Artist?

 

[Hasdrubal Barca]

Civ 4 is a bit childish to me, Civ 3 is the real stuff intelectually speaking, Civ5 actually looks better then Civ4, but i still haven´t tried it out much so can´t say anything on that matter.

 

[ThERat]

After that piece of junk called Civ 5, I appreciate Civ 4 more. Not that I am actually playing it (maybe every now and then). Civ 4 BTS is too complex in my mind and has some really annoying features such as corporations and espionage (Shafers idea).
However, civ 4 does really give you a lot of choices to play the game in different style.

Civ 3 is surely having less choices. However, the game simply plays great and really engages you with that one more turn feeling.
Civ 4 also can do that, it's a matter of taste.

Forget Civ 5, it has nothing much to offer in the long run. A horrible game basically.

 

[Civinator]

What is a Great Artist?

Here you can read even more about it:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7243001&postcount=9

The great artist in C3C -using the sacrifice option - can produce the same amount of culture points as it does in the later Civ 4: 4000.

In CCM this cultural output was "dimmed down" to hit the limit for a cultural victory not too early.

 

[scratchthepitch]

I like Civ3 better than 4. 4 always seemed like a kid's game and more of a builder game like the Sims.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

I like both 3 and 4. They are very different - there is much more of an optimal path to Civ III, where IV, it's harder to say what the optimal way to do things is.

That said, war is often more fun in III, since there are more units and less need for seige to make it possible to take cities.

 

[Ataxerxes]

I like Civ3 better than 4. 4 always seemed like a kid's game and more of a builder game like the Sims.

Don't know about "kid's game" but you're right, IV is more of a builders game. With easier resource trading I don't go to war as much in IV. In III I often feel compelled to go to war to get luxuries. I remember several IV games where I didn't go to war or only went to war once. In CivIII I'm at war a lot.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Civ 3 is more organized, easy to understand and more fun to play, Civ 4 does seem childish with it's infamous "cultural defense bonus"