Civilization IV - An Unexpected Game.

[Xiphias]

Sorry If this should be somewhere else, I didn't see any thread or forum for player reviews and comments though.

I bought Civ IV a few weeks ago and I've played six or seven games of it and now I'm ready to stick it on the shelf and get on with playing other games. It's a decent enough game but I've got other new games to play.

I wouldn't normally post a topic for such a game but I was expecting so much more from this game. The reviews said it was addictive, the players said it was addictive, the name and description said it was huge.

I suppose I was expecting something much more grand, I was expecting a simulation of a Civilisation rather than a traditional strategy game using human history for inspiration.

I won't post what I felt was wrong individual bits in Civ4 since I'm generally not a great fan of this style of strategy games so changes I would want would probably end up changing the style of Civ4. I'd love to see a game that is big enough to give you the feel of really building a civilisation through Six Thousand Years of history though.

 

[The Fjonis]

If you've only played six or seven games, you are in no position to judge the game. Believe me, you are only scratching the surface at this point; this game is so extensive and complex that it takes much longer than that to get to know the game and experience its potential.

Come back when you've played 100 games, and then we can discuss whether the game is good or not.

 

[MattJek]

Judging from your post Im guessing you havent played any of the previous civ games. When I started playing civ1 10 or 12 years ago, it certainly took me more than 6 or 7 games ( more like several weeks or months) to fully understand the whole complexity of the game ( and Ive been hooked ever since). I know that the CIV style of game is not for everyone and it does take a new player substantial playing time to fully understand and appreciate the game. Even after this though, some people still find that CIV is not their cup of tea.

 

[Drakan]

Yeah, I'm unimpressed too.

But I guess you need to play more to be unbiassed. I mean civ players are still posting strategy articles of Civilization III that came out four years ago or more. Each new article helps to enlighten aspects which might have been until then obscure or not fully disclosed (math formulas etc..).

Every player that posts a strategy helps to clear the overall picture which is every new iteration of Civilization. This is a complex game that is very demanding and requires a whole lot of patience and dedication to master the higher levels of gameplay.

I've played 15 C4 games already and still like Civ III better. I guess I need more time to appreciate the nuances of Civ IV.

 

[theorykid]

I think the original point is being missed slightly: i agree that civ4 is a fantastic, wildly addictive game. my girlfriend has forgotten what i look like.

However, Xiphias, you have extremely high expections, which is not bad at all. A game that would capture the entire course of human history could be played only once, really...otherwise, it would diverge. of course, one could play the same game over and over, but that's no fun.

And so a game that looks at alternate possibilities, with many abstractions, is a close thing that could be replayable, and be called a game, rather than a simulation.

I agree, sometimes really interesting bits are lost in those abstractions. But they have to be made at some point, or it's not a game.

If you could have a 'simulation of civization', what would it look like? What do you find lacking, besides grandness? ( i find the game quite captivating in terms of grandness myself, but that's just my opinion).

 

[Xiphias]

It's not that Civ4 isn't complicated, it's just that it's a lot less than I expected. I was expecting to build a civilisation, define or discover it's culture, attitudes and capabilities, possibly play 'what if?' with real history. Find out what would have happened had Sergei Korolev worked on the german V-rockets instead of von braun for example.

I was expecting to carve my cities into stone rather than plonk them down ready made somewhere, to organise my armies rather than just clicking on the enemy, to fight from hedge to hedge in the bocage or strongpoint to strongpoint across mighty deserts.

Something like a combination of medieval: total war and sim city with equally in depth technology and great person systems.

Unrealistic expectations? Perhaps, but civ4 isn't even a simpler version of that. It feels like a strategy game like age of empires rather than something like sim city. I feel the objective of winning, the lack of historical detail despite using historical cultures (detail as in information about the wonders your building and the technology your researching), the individual military units and the automatically agressive enemies all contribute to this feeling.

 

[Eagle_Seven]

Ah, I see. You were expecting the game of all games, the single program that can merge every single known genre into one solid package.

Unfortunately, no such creature exists. The developers of Civ II even considered micromanaged combat like in Rome: Total War....... but it ran to slow. Civ sacrifices micromanagment for streamlined gameplay. Imagine if every one of my 15 cities had a sim-city style management and every battle was rome: total war in scope. A simple border dispute would take hours, and raising taxes to build that grainery would take days.

I can understand your expectations, but do you want to take all of history to re-play all of history? With that in mind, come back to Civ IV in a month, and you'll play a totally different game.

Remember, Civ I was originally inspired by Civilization the board game.

 

[Eagle_Seven]

Ah, I see. You were expecting the game of all games, the single program that can merge every single known genre into one solid package.

Unfortunately, no such creature exists. The developers of Civ II even considered micromanaged combat like in Rome: Total War....... but it ran to slow. Civ sacrifices micromanagment for streamlined gameplay. Imagine if every one of my 15 cities had a sim-city style management and every battle was rome: total war in scope. A simple border dispute would take hours, and raising taxes to build that grainery would take days.

I can understand your expectations, but do you want to take all of history to re-play all of history? With that in mind, come back to Civ IV in a month, and you'll play a totally different game.

Remember, Civ I was originally inspired by Civilization the board game.

 

[R3dKnight]

Play the World Map scenario as Mongolians and take over Europe & Asia (Did that, was fun nuking Europe)
Or maybe make Japs the ruler of whole Asia. (Did that. got tired. Stopped to space race)

It's a long epic game for me lol. and it defines what if too. Having China eliminated even before they get to axemen with chariots was a rush. Conquering India before they develop bronze working with Keshiks then charging at Cyrus empire while he's still fiddling with War Chariots...THEN mount a naval campaign to land on japan. ^^ opened the flood gates in Egypt and finally settling it all in Europe. Ofcourse the German managed to run to America with one colony. Settled it all with one nuclear strike and 2 transports full of tanks.

 

[Instant_Cereal]

If you've only played six or seven games, you are in no position to judge the game. Believe me, you are only scratching the surface at this point; this game is so extensive and complex that it takes much longer than that to get to know the game and experience its potential.

Come back when you've played 100 games, and then we can discuss whether the game is good or not.

Actually, he has every right to judge. 6 - 7 games may not be a lot to you, but to others it is; 'cause I imagine 6 - 7 games is enough time to formulate a solid opinion.

However, that's beside the point. I happen to agree with him to an extent. I started playing Civ1 when I was practically knee-high and have played every adaptation and new rendition since then. In all honestly, at least to me, the game has not really evolved much. I yearn for what the OP desires as well and I think it's coming soon (probably Civ5). Maybe not as grand and in-depth as he describes -- a SimCity and Total War hybrid just screams micromanage nightmare, unless a truly ingenious formula is concocted. It's just a matter of creating a new formula, the technology, and the will to take a risk. Right now the Civ games, especially the most recent, are beginning to feel and look more like today's RTS games or a strategy game in desperate need of a revolution to overthrow an old government that best suited older times and technology. It's anyones' guess if 'Sid' wants to abandon the current formula and try a new one. Perhaps a new formula isn't necessary, maybe it just needs to be reinvented; though some would likely argue: Why reinvent the wheel?

 

[screwtype]

Actually, he has every right to judge. 6 - 7 games may not be a lot to you, but to others it is; 'cause I imagine 6 - 7 games is enough time to formulate a solid opinion.

Well, yeah. If a game doesn't do it for you after six or seven goes then there's something missing.

However, that's beside the point. I happen to agree with him to an extent. I started playing Civ1 when I was practically knee-high and have played every adaptation and new rendition since then. In all honestly, at least to me, the game has not really evolved much. I yearn for what the OP desires as well and I think it's coming soon (probably Civ5). Maybe not as grand and in-depth as he describes -- a SimCity and Total War hybrid just screams micromanage nightmare, unless a truly ingenious formula is concocted. It's just a matter of creating a new formula, the technology, and the will to take a risk. Right now the Civ games, especially the most recent, are beginning to feel and look more like today's RTS games or a strategy game in desperate need of a revolution to overthrow an old government that best suited older times and technology. It's anyones' guess if 'Sid' wants to abandon the current formula and try a new one. Perhaps a new formula isn't necessary, maybe it just needs to be reinvented; though some would likely argue: Why reinvent the wheel?

I very much agree. Civ4 is a slick new graphics engine slapped over a very dated concept. And it shows. The legacy features are so old by now, you can practically hear them creaking at the seams.

They really need to start afresh and rethink what a game covering the whole of history could be on modern technology. Above all I think they need to focus on realism. Civ4 is not just a beer-n-pretzel game, it is the mother of beer-n-pretzel games. As some other guy said, the game mechanics are incredibly cheesy. I mean, armies that take 100 years to build? Wars that last 700 years? Ships that take 100 years to sail around the globe? Battles fought one unit at a time? An economy based on city tiles? A single resource tile providing all of a Civ's needs?

The whole thing needs to be rethought, made more realistic, more flexible and more fun. I think, for example, that your Civ's technical progress should be a function of its geographical location and player actions, not simply reliant on a bunch of research cards available to anyone. If you live near the sea, you learn shipping skills. If you fight wars, you get military advances. And so on.

Yeah, there is certainly a market opportunity there for someone to create a history game with a genuinely authentic feel AND better gameplay. But I doubt it will come from Firaxis. They are milking their franchise now, just like the folks doing Age of Empires. We need a new generation of developers to come up with fresh ideas, these hoary old concepts just don't cut it anymore.

 

[CyberChrist]

@Xiphias:
Before you shelf this game you might want to check out the Creation and Customization section on this forum and download some world maps and mods - or even better yet get involved with making a mod yourself that makes CIV a game more like the one you were expecting

 

[vinstafresh]

Maybe I am stubborn and maybe I'm 'trapped inside the box', but would a realistic civ-game be a realistic thing to want? I think Civ as it is, is already a very complex game in a seemingly simple context. Like someone said before, it will be a micromanagement hell and really, what would be the benefit of all this for the developer? The developers need to have a complete grasp of history, embed all that in one single game and present all this information in a friendly fashion to hardcore and casual gamers alike? And bugfree? Software development as we know it cannot deal with this by a longshot. So much research would get into this. Besides, developer HAVE to decide the path a player is going to take or else Einstein could discover America and Elvis the printing press, which would be the same as the pyramids in Berlin, hence an 'unrealistic' game.

 

[screwtype]

Maybe I am stubborn and maybe I'm 'trapped inside the box', but would a realistic civ-game be a realistic thing to want? I think Civ as it is, is already a very complex game in a seemingly simple context. Like someone said before, it will be a micromanagement hell and really, what would be the benefit of all this for the developer? The developers need to have a complete grasp of history, embed all that in one single game and present all this information in a friendly fashion to hardcore and casual gamers alike? And bugfree? Software development as we know it cannot deal with this by a longshot. So much research would get into this. Besides, developer HAVE to decide the path a player is going to take or else Einstein could discover America and Elvis the printing press, which would be the same as the pyramids in Berlin, hence an 'unrealistic' game.

Realism doesn't have to equate to complexity. Since shelving Civ4 last week, I've gone back to playing my old favourite strategy game, Imperialism II. It's a FAR more realistic game and it's also FAR easier to play. There's much less micromanagement in Imp II.

For example, instead of having a whole bunch of cities all with their own separate labour, building and military queues, you have ONE master screen apiece in Imp II for your civ-wide labour, military and naval needs. Instead of having to move your armies incrementally tile by tile, you can move your entire army from one side of the world to another in a single turn if you like. Instead of having perhaps dozens of worker units to manage, you can get by with a tiny handful of them in Imp II.

Everything about Civ is just incredibly clumsy. I never cease to be amazed at how popular the game is, I think it's just a legacy thing basically, that the original Civ came along at the right time and created a fan base. But as a piece of design, it stinks, and the stink is getting worse the older the game gets.

 

[R3dKnight]

i seriously dunno what kind of games would that be when u simply start with nothing. grab wood. wait a couple of turns to turn it to tools to farm. then maybe found some 'shiny rocks' u call bronze then try to chop wood to even start production in cities. how would u emulate literature? religion,your army won against all odds, and you told your men it's god's will? guiding men in trenches? waiting for the cows to breed to feed the people? waiting for a couple of villagers to train archery to get your first archers? that'll make the game so clumsy imo. cause it over-complicates issues.

Civ is based on a board game. -_- it has limits.

 

[R3dKnight]

Realism doesn't have to equate to complexity. Since shelving Civ4 last week, I've gone back to playing my old favourite strategy game, Imperialism II. It's a FAR more realistic game and it's also FAR easier to play. There's much less micromanagement in Imp II.

For example, instead of having a whole bunch of cities all with their own separate labour, building and military queues, you have ONE master screen apiece in Imp II for your civ-wide labour, military and naval needs. Instead of having to move your armies incrementally tile by tile, you can move your entire army from one side of the world to another in a single turn if you like. Instead of having perhaps dozens of worker units to manage, you can get by with a tiny handful of them in Imp II.

Everything about Civ is just incredibly clumsy. I never cease to be amazed at how popular the game is, I think it's just a legacy thing basically, that the original Civ came along at the right time and created a fan base. But as a piece of design, it stinks, and the stink is getting worse the older the game gets.

lol. if u want something small , play small map. where everything is so close to each other.

having a clumsy empire just means u overexpanded and must deal with the headaches it gives you. I accept that problem i encounter often when i play conquest style, rather than whenever u cap city in the world it'll auto-manage itself into a 20 pop culture rock capable of churning out modern armour in 2 turns.

civ scope is just too big to be made non-clumsy like the way u wanted. i simply accepted it's a game design to make managing a huge empire a headache. if push comes to shove, i'll automate workers. and convert my frontier & mid cities to war machine producers while the ones at the back turned into fuel for my economy by focusing on commerce.

 

[Sorceresss]

Civ4 is a slick new graphics engine slapped over a very dated concept. And it shows. The legacy features are so old by now, you can practically hear them creaking at the seams. They really need to start afresh and rethink what a game covering the whole of history could be on modern technology. Above all I think they need to focus on realism. [...]
The whole thing needs to be rethought, made more realistic [...]

Some aspects could be more "realistic".

For example, it is incredible that Humanity has to research Hunting in 4000 BC ! Buddhism as the very first "religion" to be discovered, about 3000 years before the historical birth of the Buddha ?!

 

[Oggums]

Some aspects could be more "realistic".

For example, it is incredible that Humanity has to research Hunting in 4000 BC ! Buddhism as the very first "religion" to be discovered, about 3000 years before the historical birth of the Buddha ?!

It's a strategy game!

Just learn the rules and play. Read a book if you want accurate history.

 

[MeteorPunch]

I have to agree. It's 2005 already and this game plays not so much different than Civ 3 with a facelift.

 

[Sorceresss]

Just learn the rules and play. Read a book if you want accurate history.

[Edited out]

No need to [be so critical of] those of us who wish to improve the chronostrategic dimension of the game.