Civilization IV - An Unexpected Game.

[hanskamp]

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.

BTW (without being sarcastic) can you also judge the game positively, although you played it 6 or 7 times?

There were/are 4 versions of this game.
- I was completely addicted to Civ I, I might have played hundreds, and hundreds of Civ I games, but after the 100th game I was as addicted to it, as after the 2nd or 3rd game. The difficulty that I played was Chieftain, Warlord and Prince. King was pretty difficult, but with 2 other civs, I managed to win.
- Civ II was also addictive, but it was a windowed game, running undr Windows 95, 98, but not on NT based OSes. I didn't like those OSes, so I played under OS/2 Warp 3.0. I didn't manage to play it under Windows NT 4.0 and XP. Test Of Time is the best expansion pack that I ever saw (in fact it is not an expansion pack, because you need not install Civ II before. ToT worked under 2000 and XP, but Civ II itself did not). You can chose between Normal (almost the same as Civ II), extended (normal, and science fiction afterwards), fantasy and science fiction (SF from the beginning).
- Civ III is harder to master than Civ I and II, because resources are added. The game is better moddable than I and II. I like the complexity of Civ III. Unfortunately there is no extended and SF mod or expansion pack;
- Civ IV is pretty new for me, but it is even harder. But "harder" is not the same as: more tedious, less playable. The harder the game is, the more complex it is, the more fun it is to play for me. I didn't play it often, but one of the most important features, programmed mods (with Python and XML) is a dream of mine, that came finally true with this version. Now there are many people that are working on mods, to give more even more gaming pleasure.

 

[ajcardall]

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

An army moving from one side of the world to another in "one turn" is realistic...?

 

[hanskamp]

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?

There is already much realism in this game. With each new version, more realism is added to this game. Implementing certain forms of realism, makes the game unplayable. How would you think, the game will be with the above examples installed? I think, I won't like to play Civ anymore, honestly. With one battleship I would attack every city and with a few armors I will conquer each costal city in one turn. No, that wouldn't be my cup of tea.

 

[BubbaYeti]

An army moving from one side of the world to another in "one turn" is realistic...?

It is if the turn is ten years long!!!

(Or one year in modern times)

 

[MDraper]

Dude. You post that you're giving up the game in the game's Fanatics' site? What are you? A troll? Be gone, whelp. We have no time to tarry with the idle meddlings of your droll and useless ramblings. While comical at best, your comments bear nothing but ill-will.

May your shelf be filled by your Attention Deficit Disorder.

 

[MattJek]

It seems there is no pleasing some people. You people that complain about civ4 must have had some astronomical expectations of this game. This game is basically the same base formula used in the other civ games with a few new features and eye candy. Honestly, what else did you expect? From reading some of the posts on this thread some of you want a whole overhaul of the game, basically blowing up the old concepts and starting from scratch. You're asking for a whole new game rather than a sequel. Getting rid of civ style combat, timeline, city square tiles etc. would turn away true Civ Fanatics: those who TRUELY love and appreciate Civ

 

[Mylon]

I wasn't terribly impressed with the game myself. So I went and modded it.

 

[Sorceresss]

Dude. You post that you're giving up the game in the game's Fanatics' site? What are you? A troll? Be gone, whelp. We have no time to tarry with the idle meddlings of your droll and useless ramblings. While comical at best, your comments bear nothing but ill-will. May your shelf be filled by your Attention Deficit Disorder.

I think I'm caught in a bad episode of The Twilight Zone.

 

[RX2000]

From my experiences trying to teach civ to other people, it seems to be a game you either love or you hate.

 

[Fru]

More realism is in not what is needed. If you want realism you should be playing a simulation, not a game. Europa Universalis is a good example and a pretty good game too. I've never gotten to grips with it because I always play as Scotland who seem to be at a bit of a disadvantage; historicaly speaking

Realism and gaming...sim/game, its all been done before. I like games, but if I like a simulation enough I will play GAMES using that sim. We are not re-inventing the wheel with these increasingly complex games we are adding too many spokes.

I know some of you guys have mentioned these things but I can't be bothered to use the quotes.

Personaly I'd like to see a CIV1/2 style game with tactical combat and a little roleplay when it comes to leaders/units etc.


Games that have intrigued me:

Civ1 - back when I was a lad
Civ2 - Solid
Colonization - Rocks!
Master of Magic - Great but if it was any more like civ, I'd still be playing all day every day.

Master of Orion2 (never played 1 but I hear it was good)

Age of Wonders 1 and 2 - Now we are talking! If only they were more like Civ...:/

 

[arien101]

Hi there,

um, first post but I'll get right to it anyway. Reading the posts in this thread I found a lot of people are looking for more realism in Civ 4. Personally, I like Civ 4 exactly for not overly heading in that direcion.

Don't get me wrong: I love realism. I just don't expect it from Civ 4. Someone has already mentioned it in this thread. If you want realism, play a simulation. If you want historic accuracy and the ability to play "what if" games, then you should probably try out Europa Universalis 2 (for the whole middle ages up to imperialism) or Hearts of Iron 2 (for WW2).

Both games have an extreme learning curve, but are very rewarding if you want to toy around with any nation on the planet during those time periods.

That being said I agree that success in Civ 4 is too often determined in the early game stages. Apart from that I prefer it to Civ 3 by a huge margin. Only other similar games I liked better were SMAC and CtP2.

 

[MattJek]

That being said I agree that success in Civ 4 is too often determined in the early game stages.

I agree with you on that but do you think civ 1 - 3 was any different in that regards.

 

[Astax]

This is the most impressive strategy game to come out in what? I don't even remember.... Starcraft I think was the last game to be this impressive (and playable). This is not a sim.