Civilization IV... No civ.

[Shakesbeer]

I have, as so many others have, been playing Civilization since the original. However this is the first one in the series I definately do not like.

Civilization had the basics of a boardgame. Easy movement, easy interface etc. This was slightly changed in Civilization II - Units could be seen fighting - and changed even more in Civilization III. To be honest I still liked Civilization II more than Civilization III however I played Civilization III since the appearance of Civilization II just didn't cut it anymore.

Having played games like Empire Earth (2) I noticed the RTS style of such games but those games I stopped playing after a few weeks while I continued to play Civilization III and even Civilization II, games which were older but because of the simple overview and the no-nonsense interface I liked more.

Now we are blessed with Civilization IV... The game has a lot of similarities with Empire Earth graphical wise and when looking at the overview. The past Civilizations easy to get into yet extremely complex. Everything could be seen instantly and managing the cities and territory was just a case of clicking the mouse. In Civilization IV you can't easily spot the city radius anymore. You have to watch the units walk, which takes ages, and they aren't easily identifiable anymore. Not unless you play the game for hours, however the game just isn't fun those hours!

I've played the first Civilization without reading a manual, just loading up the game (great intro) starting to play and having fun. It took me some time before I realized you could switch government (about 10 games orso) but I could have fun nonetheless without going to deep into the game. The game was ready to go, with prior knowledge of the game structure or not.

This is written a bit incoherent but I hope you catch my drift. The game should have had the option to play it Civilization style. That was unique to the civilization series now they copied the generic RTS style.

 

[Daze]

I haven't got the game yet so can't say for sure but I'm prety sure you can turn off unit animations and even the multiple figures to denote unit strength. Have a play with it, you'l be able to get it how you want it.

And it's a bit unfair to say you played civ3 because civ2 didn't look good enogh but you don't want fraxis to change the game at all...

 

[zeeter]

I, too, was on the gound floor with Civilization. Not sure how you played without reading the manual first, but oh well. I know you opened it, though (or you wouldn't have gotten past the year 3000 or whatever year it told you to check the manual or it'd shut down).
Anyway, I don't want to sound like a smart-a** here, so forgive me if I do. The game has progressed a great deal over the years. Civ and Civ2 were basically the same game. Civ3 added some new wrinkles, as did Civ4. All of these wrinkles were needed. The Civilization game should, IMHO, at some point reach the stage where it mimics life. To leave out Culture and Religion would be would be a disservice to real life. How can you have a game that is supposed to allow you to control the destiny of your civilization and ignore it's culture? To me, each step in the Civ progression has been for the better. I thoroughly enjoy the new aspects of the game.
As for the interface, I understand people's issues with it. All I can say is that after approximately 30 hours of playing so far the interface has come to be pretty smooth.
I think that a lot of people want this to be Civ2. Not even Civ3, but Civ2. The game has to progress, though. Why would anyone want to buy it if it was just Civ2 in Civ4 clothing?

 

[Truronian]

Try fiddling around with the options, the game has been designed to be playable by people with different abilities and playing styles.

If that doesn't work try popping into the mod forum occasionally as I have heard from other people who don't particularly like this game's angle so maybe a mod will be made to reinstate the early civ's feel but with 4s graphics.

 

[Richosh]

I have, as so many others have, been playing Civilization since the original. However this is the first one in the series I definately do not like.

Civilization had the basics of a boardgame. Easy movement, easy interface etc. This was slightly changed in Civilization II - Units could be seen fighting - and changed even more in Civilization III. To be honest I still liked Civilization II more than Civilization III however I played Civilization III since the appearance of Civilization II just didn't cut it anymore.

Having played games like Empire Earth (2) I noticed the RTS style of such games but those games I stopped playing after a few weeks while I continued to play Civilization III and even Civilization II, games which were older but because of the simple overview and the no-nonsense interface I liked more.

Now we are blessed with Civilization IV... The game has a lot of similarities with Empire Earth graphical wise and when looking at the overview. The past Civilizations easy to get into yet extremely complex. Everything could be seen instantly and managing the cities and territory was just a case of clicking the mouse. In Civilization IV you can't easily spot the city radius anymore. You have to watch the units walk, which takes ages, and they aren't easily identifiable anymore. Not unless you play the game for hours, however the game just isn't fun those hours!

I've played the first Civilization without reading a manual, just loading up the game (great intro) starting to play and having fun. It took me some time before I realized you could switch government (about 10 games orso) but I could have fun nonetheless without going to deep into the game. The game was ready to go, with prior knowledge of the game structure or not.

This is written a bit incoherent but I hope you catch my drift. The game should have had the option to play it Civilization style. That was unique to the civilization series now they copied the generic RTS style.

Let me ask you nicely.
How old were you at that time and how old are you now?

I mean, listen to you, this sounds like adult rambling about how good life was when he was a kid.
Things change and so does your point of view.

 

[KymeraTX]

Dont wanna be mean but if you want to play Civ 2 or 3. Go play it.

And i bet you dont play alot of RTS games cause this is nothing like an RTS....

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Listen to what is being said, he's making a reasonable complaint about the interface, units being not easily distinguishable from each other, city radius not easily seen, etc.

Although the speed of movement is probably fixable by turning off animations, the other two are legitimate complaints, making units more realistic makes them less unique.

 

[LogicSequence]

just got one thing to say, tho i've been typing it alot it would seem. Out with the old, in with the new. This isn't a board game, it's a computer game. if you want to play a board game, do so . i don't mean to be rude, but i think saying something like civ2 was like a board game and this isn't, and i don't like it in part b/c of that, is kinda like ordering a cheesburger minus the cheese... it doesn't make sense.

 

[bigcatstar]

I agree with Shakesbeer.
Civ 1 redefined gaming and was the first truly great computer "history" game. It was like a computer version of the old Avalon Hill game.
Civ 2 was mostly a graphical upgrade that was needed for Windows.
Civ 3 was an attempt to remold the franchise without so much Sid. It was the game to defeat the hardcore player, hence the insanely cheating AI and pointless tedium. In the process it destroyed the little thing called fun.
Civ 4 was supposed to be the re-Sidding of the game and the reintroduction of the sense of fun and discovery that made Civs 1 and 2 such successes. Instead Sid and even Jeff seem to have had virtually no interest or input into the game, letting an unknown worshipper design the game instead. This is like expecting to attend a seminar with Einstein, only to discover that a student of one of his students is lecturing. Somehow the whole game comes across as a homage to a great game combined with an attempt to make it acceptable to the RTS generation. In the process both the easy to learn, hard to master chesslike zen of the first Civ and the fast paced excitement of the RTS is turned into a headless brew complex yet shallow gameplay.
If the first Civ was sparkling wine and RTS, at its best, is pure White Lightning, Civ 4 is 3.2 beer.
I'm not sure if Sid cares about gaming anymore, but it is a bit sad to see the onetime King of creativity in computer games reduced to releasing fourth generation hybrids reimagined by notalent designers and trying to recapture his glory days be rereleasing a graphically updated greatest hit like Pirates. Maybe he could take a page from Will Wright or even Peter Molyniux and continue to innovate as they have with games like The Sims, The Movies and Spore.

 

[LogicSequence]

I mean, listen to you, this sounds like adult rambling about how good life was when he was a kid.

that's what alot of people's whinings about civ4 have sounded like to me.

 

[KymeraTX]

If you dont like it dont play it.

 

[Volstag]

There's a lot of nostalgia going on here. There are so many glarring problems in Civ II and Civ III... as you guys well know. I cannot conceive how anyone thinks the UI in Civ III is more streamlined than Civ IV. In Civ III you have to enter sub-menus to get at anything for goodness sake. I honestly believe this is purely a case of familiarity. You know Civ III (or II) inside and out. Civ IV is new and different... it takes some time to get used to (like all prior iterations).

Each new iteration goes through the exact same sequence. 1) Fondly reminisce about prior version. Conveniently forget all its shortcomings. 2) Stamp feet and decry changes in new version. 3) Become accustomed to new changes. If/when Civ V is released, the whole cycle will repeat itself. I wish I could dig up posts from the week following Civ IIIs release.... deja vu all over again.

 

[MeteorPunch]

If you dont like it dont play it.

We're still in the early phase of the game release where the developer will be listening and can either fix things with patches or eventually with Civ 5. Speak your mind people.

 

[Stuie]

To the opening post.... go into the options menu and see what's available. Complaining about units taking too long to walk around can be fixed by shutting off unit animations - or click and drag your units and they move faster. I'm sure you'll find other ways to address your complaints as well. Such as... turn the tile grid on (Ctrl-T) and city radius is easily identifiable.

 

[Shakesbeer]

Someone mentioned Civilization II and III (obviously I aswell) had issues aswell. Why not take Civilization III as a base - on a new engine ofcourse - fix the issues and then add some more detail (like with culture -> religion). I have no problem with new resources, I am glad there are some more!, nor the units etc.

I am not asking for a remake of Civilization III however I do expect a Civilization game. A game that stays connected to what makes civilization unique. Instead they made it to resemble other games. I mentioned Empire Earth, from what I remember from that game (I only played it for a few weeks) Civilization IV went that way far too much. The makes apparantly want to appeal to more people. Fine by me but I think they a shooting themselves in their feet. Since what game can you mention that looks like Civilization II or Civilization III? There probably will be some games but I can't mention them. While I do feel that a game like Empire Earth II looks like Civilization IV. Civilization IV definately has swung towards RTS style play. So it became just like other game - in other words it's loosing it's uniqueness.

In reply to some others... new doesn't always equal better. I can't name any recent games (sequels) that are better than the originals in terms of gameplay. Graphical they all look better but the most also require the newest PC's while gameplay wise the most just got worse. They often add things that are just unnecessary. Going back to civilization IV, what use does the Globe have? None if you ask me, that little feature just increases the minimum specs.

Do the moving horses add anything to the game? Reminds me of the sheep in Empire Earth2. Completely useless feature. Same counts for the 'barbarian' lions.

Don't get me wrong by the way and read the title again. The game is rather good, although I won't play it, but it isn't civilization. They could have given it a new name, remove the name Sid Meier and noone would have known this would be the sequel of Civilization III.

Edit: (just read this in another thread)
Radio guy asks: Why is it that the games under the Sid Meier titles tend to remain popular?
Jason answers: ...Sid understands that it's gameplay that's important, it's not graphics, it's not flash.

Yeah right.

 

[MirvShag]

I've played all civs and call to power's. Civ IV is the best civ ever hands down.

 

[Shakesbeer]

Edit didn't work for my previous comment so I replied instead but then.... edit worked again. Now I don't seem to be able to remove this.

 

[Asterix909]

I honestly cannot believe people are comparing a civ game with empire earth...
EE is not a freaking strategy game... although it is in the 'real time strategy' genre, there is little strategy to it.
The civilization games are real strategy games, and lets not forget, they are turn based... They are in NO WAY to be compared with an rts like EE... completely different genre, completely different game.

 

[UniKorn]

I don't understand why people are whining about better graphics. I mean what's the point in having a game that looks 10 years old? Is it so hard to believe that when you make a game you can have good graphics and good gameplay?
Plus I don't think that CIV4 looks anything like a RTS game. I have played many different RTS games (AoE, EE, C&C) and I just can't see that many similarities. Just because the game has better graphics and streamlined interface doesn't make it a RTS game.

 

[Volstag]

Why not take Civilization III as a base - on a new engine ofcourse - fix the issues and then add some more detail (like with culture -> religion).

You're totally entitled to hate the game, but I really can't follow your thought process. What were the primary problems in Civ III? Let's see: ICS (gone), micromanagement (greatly reduced), more territory = more power (greatly reduced), largely static tech tree (gone), poor AI (reduced). What issues from Civ III are still in Civ IV?

I am not asking for a remake of Civilization III however I do expect a Civilization game. A game that stays connected to what makes civilization unique. Instead they made it to resemble other games.

Define for me what makes the series unique to you. How is Civ IV different in this regard compared to Civ III? Almost all the core mechanics are still present. Explain to me, specifically, how Civ IV is more like Empire Earth than Civ III.