Civ4 way better than Civ5 WHARRGARBBBL (A look at Civ3 vs Civ4 complaints)

[TLF]

How many of you think that Civ4 improved as much as it did because people complained about it's initial state?

It's criticism that helps things improve.

At least constructive criticism.

Sometimes even the mean criticism helps improve things.

People that blindly accepts things don't help improve anything.

 

[r_rolo1]

I do remember one poster comparing civ IV to a computer virus back in the days So far no one said that of civ V

 

[Lord Tirian]

I do remember one poster comparing civ IV to a computer virus back in the days So far no one said that of civ V

I think CiV is an insidious, memetic brain virus, though...

Cheers, LT.

 

[r_rolo1]

He was talking of the effects that the game had on his comp ( pre 1.61 patch, that fixed almost all of the issues with the graphic related CTD )

 

[TLF]

I think CiV is an insidious, memetic brain virus, though...

Cheers, LT.

All versions of Civ are.

 

[bernlin2000]

"Civ 4 works for me, but I'm still angry!"
My favorite quote . It's true though! Civ IV (full expansions) is a much stronger game, just for the sheer amount of time and effort that was put into every little aspect. The useless advisers quote is likely true, since there weren't ANY advisers in CivIV (unless you call window pop-ups advisers). Thanks for the quotes, I think it shows that even great games (which CiV still is) take time to sink in. The easy modability of the game will be key to its longevity

 

[Venereus]

I haven't played the full game, but I deeply resent the streamlining of the UI from what I seen so far and the concealement of intel that was easily reachable from it in civ IV ( no , not ( only ) the diplo Stuff like the hp of a unit, the time needed to heal or the tech progress "bar" inside the city screen ( without it it is far less organic to feel the diference that a change of MM ( hiring specs mainly ) has in the tech pace ). that IMHO is a valid complaint and some of those quoted by the OP about civ IV also are in that sector ( like the uberlags, the choppy MP or the lions of doom )

This! I really missed those little things in the demo, because I needed them to play efficiently. New players won't even notice it, and they probably wouldn't even use them if they had them. Still, this shouldn't happen. Like Jon Shafer said about the BUG Mod being considered during development, it can be really useful, but also very intimidating for new players. I get that, I can sympathize with the little noobs , I do want them to get into this awesome game, but is it really that hard to give an old civ veteran his quirks?

I'm used to those details, I like them, and I'm getting old. Don't take away my memories, it's hard to learn a new game!

I think they didn't really grasp the difference between accesible info, intimidating info display, and ******ed lack of info. Did the designers really think it was an improvement to remove those things? Do the really believe it makes the game more accesible? Really? Did they playtested with monkeys? (No pun at Zimbu intended).

Who wouldn't want to know how many turns it'll take for a unit to heal? Who would run away in fear because the game tells you? And clearly, this isn't some development oversight, this is a conscious game design decision. WTF?

 

[ilikepies]

It can all be summed up in one simple phrase:

"I'm scared of change"

I hope everyone who hates Civ 5 and loves Civ 4 goes back and plays Civ 4. I hope they are happy playing it, I truly do. As for me, I'll be playing Civ 5.

Make that 2 words: "I'm scared."

I love Civ 5. Better in every way.

 

[CivCube]

Wow, I actually remember those threads like yesterday.

I love how there's a backlash against the backlash within a day of release. We're becoming efficient!

 

[aukrest]

Right on, thank you for this.

I remember people railing against Civ III mightily because it wasn't Civ II as well. Of course, Civ III was easily the worst of the series, IMO.

The technical problems people had with Civ IV upon first release were apparently fairly bad. People seem to forget all that stuff, or they came on board once everything was patched and with the expansions so they don't remember how it was to start.

Civ IV was the worst in the series, at least in my opinion. I played it for about a month and sold it.

 

[YohanLeafheart]

Civ IV (full expansions) is a much stronger game, just for the sheer amount of time and effort that was put into every little aspect.

This is what most people forget. What they remember as cIV is after two big expansions, the last one a monster that changed a whole lot of great things. The game had two a lot of revisions that besides fixing bugs changes things for balance. So, yes, cIV with 2 exapnsions is a more robust game than ciV, but compare vanilla and your should be SOD.

 

[Crezth]

The Settler unit ruined the series.

 

[Venereus]

This is what most people forget. What they remember as cIV is after two big expansions, the last one a monster that changed a whole lot of great things. The game had two a lot of revisions that besides fixing bugs changes things for balance. So, yes, cIV with 2 exapnsions is a more robust game than ciV, but compare vanilla and your should be SOD.

Why is it only valid to compare Civ V vanilla to Civ IV vanilla? The fact that they share the "vanilla" surname doesn't make them equal. Did Firaxis magically forgot 5 years of improvements to Civ IV?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That there aren't nearly as many technical problems with V as there were with IV?

We won't know for sure until later, but given that IV STILL has GLARING technical issues that will NEVER be fixed, V doesn't need to do much.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Let's make a list of all the non-technical complaints against Civ4 when it was first released.

1. Now founding a city may immediately decrease your income because of that "maintenance system" - WTF, how stupid is that???

2. Dumbed down combat system, only 1 value, no attack/defence more - what are we, console kiddies???

3. The Civic system is so messy and dumbed down - now you can pick the best stuff like in a cafeteria, instead of taking both the bad and the good with the complex, but accessible Government system in Civ3. Why, Firaxis, why???

4. Animals killing units , WTF???

5. No Portuguese, Byzantines, Iroquois etc. Why??? Why remove civs???

Continue on, please.

Note: I don't think that all criticisms against Civ5 is invalid, but it's fun.

 

[Yakka2]

Who wouldn't want to know how many turns it'll take for a unit to heal? Who would run away in fear because the game tells you? And clearly, this isn't some development oversight, this is a conscious game design decision. WTF?

I do.

Not everyone wants every little detail spelled out. How long X takes, best place to put Y etc. etc.

You want to hold on to your memories? Then play Civ IV.

 

[Gorey]

People that blindly accepts things don't help improve anything.

Aint that the truth.

 

[AFACI]

This is the greatest thread ever. It should be a sticky!

Why is it only valid to compare Civ V vanilla to Civ IV vanilla? The fact that they share the "vanilla" surname doesn't make them equal. Did Firaxis magically forgot 5 years of improvements to Civ IV?

Civ V is not an "improvement" on Civ IV. It's a different game made with a slightly different angle. Otherwise it would just be an expansion pack.

 

[r_rolo1]

We won't know for sure until later, but given that IV STILL has GLARING technical issues that will NEVER be fixed, V doesn't need to do much.

He's alive

The worst is that you can replace IV for III and still have a true sentence

 

[AlexandrosV]

Nice Idea! I agree, i'm posting just because i can't play cV just now, i wouldn't be posting if i could play!