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

[poncratias]

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?

this.

this.


this.

 

[Gorey]

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.

I dont quite agree with this.

A sequel SHOULD be an improvement on its predecsesor.. not try to be a different game. You kniow, keep what works, improve the things that don't, add more things than you take away.

If it's trying to be different, they should spawn off an entirely new franchise (.ie Colonization). People around here would accept the "difference" alot easier.


Note: I'm not saying it's not worthy of being Civilization... but it sure feels like it wants to be a different game.

 

[dannythefool]

A sequel SHOULD be an improvement on its predecsesor.. not try to be a different game. You kniow, keep what works, improve the things that don't, add more things than you take away.

Are you sure you have played all previous titles I'm quite happy we're not stuck with Civ 1. I'm also quite happy that I haven't paid EUR 55 again for the same game that I bought five years ago...

 

[irizar]

"Sid Meier's Civilization V sucks hour after hour..."
Gamespot

 

[Venereus]

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.

First af all, city placement and tile improvement recommendations from the game are very much alive and well in Civ V. That's your "best place to put Y" right there. Why did you bring that up? That's not a spelled out little detail, is a tip for those who want them, because you can turn it on and off in the options.

Now, there's no option to turn on displaying how long it takes for a unit to heal. It's just not there. And it's no a little detail, it's information that allows me to make better decisions. Since you don't seem to realize this, I'll give you a simple example, I'll "spell it out for you".

Let's say an Archer of mine just captured a barb camp east of my empire, and took damage. Suddenly, Monty declares war and comes from the north. I decide to split my forces. One army will ride out and meet Monty's army in the north, and another army will go west and take a shot at his cities. Now, what do I do with my damaged archer in the east? Do I take him north without healing it for extra ranged power against Monty's invasion? Do I get him into friendly territory before healing him, so that it takes less time? Do I heal him where he stands? If I leave him there to heal, will he heal in time to get back to defend the empire? Will he take a long time to heal, putting him at risk against a random barb attack out in the wilderness? This kind of decision would be a lot easier to make if I knew how long it will take him to heal.

I'm not asking for the game to hand hold me through it, I'm just asking for basic info I used to have, that I still need in this new game, and that was taken away for no reason.

 

[Shackel]

Bug Reports with a couple "Just Bugs Me" compared to a lot of "Gameplay is awful" with a couple Performance/Bug Reports.

 

[PawelS]

What does "WHARRGARBBBL" stand for?

 

[Brawndo]

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

Completely legit complaint, IMO. I must be the only person who misses the Civ 3 A/D/M stats. In Civ 4, one strength value meant catapults could defeat chariots and axemen in the field (which makes zero sense), because they required sufficient strength in order to be effective siege units.

Civ 5 alleviates this problem somewhat with separate strength and ranged attack stats, but I still think it is all overly simplified.

 

[YohanLeafheart]

A sequel SHOULD be an improvement on its predecsesor.. not try to be a different game. You kniow, keep what works, improve the things that don't, add more things than you take away.

I completely disagree with this premise, it is what RPG makers do with games like Final Fantasy, so after the second or third you realize you are playing the same game with improved graphics. A sequel should always depart in some things from the main game, keeping enough around so we know it is a sequel, but have so many different things in it that it feels fresh and a new game. Otherwise, you are better of releasing an expansion to the current series game, than a new installment.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

What does "WHARRGARBBBL" stand for?

It's onomatopoeia; the sound made by small minded people who disagree with you when they try to respond to your immaculately logical destruction of their world view.

 

[hclass]

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" - WTH, 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 , WTH???

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.

Your list + those from other complaining messages... make me feel damn lucky that I haven't bought the game.

 

[Crezth]

I dont quite agree with this.

A sequel SHOULD be an improvement on its predecsesor.. not try to be a different game. You kniow, keep what works, improve the things that don't, add more things than you take away.

If it's trying to be different, they should spawn off an entirely new franchise (.ie Colonization). People around here would accept the "difference" alot easier.


Note: I'm not saying it's not worthy of being Civilization... but it sure feels like it wants to be a different game.

Good sequels often take a formula that works, adapt it in a new and engaging way, and repackage it so that it's still fun and interesting.

If you look closely you will see that is exactly what happened here, and with Civ IV, and with Civ III, and with Civ II.