Disappointment number (unknown)
- Thread starter dsilvia
- Start date
I agree Civ 4 has moved away from its roots perhaps its the conservatism in me but Civ 4 is a sad reflection on the games that went before I could offer an constructive criticism of the game but it would hardly be worth the time or effort long live Paradox.
Rexflex said:
Last time I checked, Civilization was a piece of software. So I think the metaphor is valid. Particular the comparison to OS releases. SP2 isn't much different from an expansion pack and a patch. I think it's fair to say everyone will expect Vista will be better off the bat than XP SP2 and if it's not there will be plenty of criticism levelled at Microsoft and anyone who tries to defend shortcomings saying well you should be comparing it to XP Home will be laughed at.
You've got all the heritage of 3 Civ games + expansion packs there is no reason not to use it, unless you want to withold things for the express purpose of saving them for an expansion pack to make more money. Now I understand that underlying all of this is that Firaxis and Take2 are a for profit business, but the fact of the matter remains: a lot of people aren't happy who have played Civ for quite a while and you can just ignore that but generally ignoring people who aren't happy with your product is a surefire way to tank your business.
The thing is I don't fully agree with the OP. I think the game is an improvement. I was just pointing out that people were missing his point
And to his discredit, he hasn't really explicitly stated what functionality he feels is missing, without which I can't really make a comment about whether I think his point is valid. I do think that the PC problems is a major point though that is a huge problem and I'm guessing Firaxis realizes this as well since they seem to be moving a patch out pretty quickly. If the patch fixes the hardware problems then full credit to Firaxis for listening to and reacting to the complaints. If not, I'm guessing they will be losing a number of future sales on both expansion packs and any possible plans they have for a Civ 5 release.
Mythrl said:
No. Metaphors don't work on the basis of the item falling in the same category.
Additionally, the other Civs HAD software releases of their own as well as expansion packs. It is plain from countless other game titles that the idea of a new game in a series is not to just upgrade the previous game but to reuse the same [/idea/] in a new and invigerating fashion.
And that comes back to what the OP's original point [/actually was/] (rather than the tangent that you tried to represent). The OP was of the opinion that Civ IV is not enough like the other Civs (something that is highly disputable).
Enkidu_Warrior said:
Yup, this perfectly sums up my reaction to Civ4. It is a great improvement over Civ3 because it has superb gameplay additions. In gameplay terms, Civ4 rules.
The new eye-candy adds very little, but gobbles up mountains of memory and is (sometimes) actually distracting.
Dairuka
Prince
In comparison to being a troll who spends the majority of his time pouting; I'm rather proud of myself for being a fanboy of a great game.
=)
=)
Zhahz
PC Gamer
0. Mods must be sleeping. Usually a thread that kicks off with an insult to lots of people at once gets some love.
1. Civ IV costs the same amount as almost all other PC games. It's rare that I pay more or less than $50 for a (brand new) new PC game. After a few months or if I catch some kind of wierd sale (Fry's has em sometimes) I might get it for $10 less or so.
2. I think you'd need to indicate what choices are missing, because to me all the important choices are there and in addition you get way more choices over map creation, particularly for some of the more interesting map scripts (and there are way more of those too in general). My only beef is that it doesn't "remember" which profile you play under or settings you choose for any given game startup path - minor issues that I'd imagine will be changed. Maybe there are some game variants that I can't remember from Civ3/C3C missing. But I can tell you that being able to play a game with custom continents, specifying how many continents I want, or playing a specific type of pangea map makes me much more happy than things I don't even remember.
3. Civ IV doesn't take long to load or run on my machine. Civ is a new game. If you have an ancient computer it kinda stands to reason that new games in general aren't going to run that well on it. I see no reason for any game dev to cater to the hardware of 5 years ago. Why should they limit themselves that way? <shrug>
4. Civ IV feels like a great step in the evolution of the series to me. Civ3/C3C had a lot of problems with exploitable AI and limited strategy. Figuring out OCS (optimal city spacing) and executing ICS (infinite city sprawl) every game isn't my cup of tea. There's a fine art to it to be sure, but I don't think that's what the devs had in mind. I enjoyed the heck out of Civ3/C3C - but I think Civ IV is superior.
Civ IV isn't perfect, but there are far fewer ways to cheese the AI (especially via diplomacy), AIs are generally better behaved (particularly in diplomacy) your decisions have way more impact in general, and many aspects of the game are significantly improved, IMO.
The civcs system is superior to limited govt choices, religion is a nice twist, unit promotions give you a huge amount of options and make you value unit preservation more, leader traits are better than previous civ traits, graphics (opinion) are vastly superior, health and happiness systems crush corruption system, map generation is vastly improved, there are several different and legitimate ways to kick off your empire (chop build, various "first unit builds", going for religion or not, early rush (not immediate but you can still fight very early), terrain improvements are better (and railroads aren't ridiculous anymore), and more.
I like the way siege works. It's a hassle, but to me it represents the cost of siege. You need to bring a ton of it for a prolonged battle if your're going to burn it up doing collateral damage or you need to replenish as you go - either way you have to compensate for the mass destruction and ease of slaughter that collateral damage gives you.
1. Civ IV costs the same amount as almost all other PC games. It's rare that I pay more or less than $50 for a (brand new) new PC game. After a few months or if I catch some kind of wierd sale (Fry's has em sometimes) I might get it for $10 less or so.
2. I think you'd need to indicate what choices are missing, because to me all the important choices are there and in addition you get way more choices over map creation, particularly for some of the more interesting map scripts (and there are way more of those too in general). My only beef is that it doesn't "remember" which profile you play under or settings you choose for any given game startup path - minor issues that I'd imagine will be changed. Maybe there are some game variants that I can't remember from Civ3/C3C missing. But I can tell you that being able to play a game with custom continents, specifying how many continents I want, or playing a specific type of pangea map makes me much more happy than things I don't even remember.
3. Civ IV doesn't take long to load or run on my machine. Civ is a new game. If you have an ancient computer it kinda stands to reason that new games in general aren't going to run that well on it. I see no reason for any game dev to cater to the hardware of 5 years ago. Why should they limit themselves that way? <shrug>
4. Civ IV feels like a great step in the evolution of the series to me. Civ3/C3C had a lot of problems with exploitable AI and limited strategy. Figuring out OCS (optimal city spacing) and executing ICS (infinite city sprawl) every game isn't my cup of tea. There's a fine art to it to be sure, but I don't think that's what the devs had in mind. I enjoyed the heck out of Civ3/C3C - but I think Civ IV is superior.
Civ IV isn't perfect, but there are far fewer ways to cheese the AI (especially via diplomacy), AIs are generally better behaved (particularly in diplomacy) your decisions have way more impact in general, and many aspects of the game are significantly improved, IMO.
The civcs system is superior to limited govt choices, religion is a nice twist, unit promotions give you a huge amount of options and make you value unit preservation more, leader traits are better than previous civ traits, graphics (opinion) are vastly superior, health and happiness systems crush corruption system, map generation is vastly improved, there are several different and legitimate ways to kick off your empire (chop build, various "first unit builds", going for religion or not, early rush (not immediate but you can still fight very early), terrain improvements are better (and railroads aren't ridiculous anymore), and more.
I like the way siege works. It's a hassle, but to me it represents the cost of siege. You need to bring a ton of it for a prolonged battle if your're going to burn it up doing collateral damage or you need to replenish as you go - either way you have to compensate for the mass destruction and ease of slaughter that collateral damage gives you.
cheesejoff
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 16, 2005
- Messages
- 50
http://www.play.com - Civ 4, £18 ($24)
It does not take 3 times the computing power to run. It's a turn based game, you don't need a high end PC to play it.
It does not take 3 times the computing power to run. It's a turn based game, you don't need a high end PC to play it.
howmanymegs
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2005
- Messages
- 20
Mate!
You guys need to chill out.
It's OK to criticise the game. Just like its OK to criticise Bush (I'm not American by the way) or Nike's sweat shops. Criticism leads to positive change so let it happen!
Personally, Civ 4 is seriously stressing out my 9 month old speccy computer and I'm annoyed about it. Its a valid concern.
And we all want our favourite games to be great. I can't wait until HOMM5. The more discussion the better.
Bring it on.
Meg
You guys need to chill out.
It's OK to criticise the game. Just like its OK to criticise Bush (I'm not American by the way) or Nike's sweat shops. Criticism leads to positive change so let it happen!
Personally, Civ 4 is seriously stressing out my 9 month old speccy computer and I'm annoyed about it. Its a valid concern.
And we all want our favourite games to be great. I can't wait until HOMM5. The more discussion the better.
Bring it on.
Meg
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
cheesejoff said:
True for minimal maps with a minimum of opponents. Period.
i have been disapointedby the initial Civ4, and i can make a whole list of stuff that is wrong.
But i guess, in all there wisdom, perhaps this is why they put in the moddability (altough i miss the more simpler modding stuff in map editor
) all downside and stuff making the game boring can be modded out, changed or rebuild. Its only a matter of time before someone completely looks over the entire combat system and changes it radically.
But i guess, in all there wisdom, perhaps this is why they put in the moddability (altough i miss the more simpler modding stuff in map editor
) all downside and stuff making the game boring can be modded out, changed or rebuild. Its only a matter of time before someone completely looks over the entire combat system and changes it radically.
DemonDeLuxe
Warlord
I guess the real problem is that CIV players belong to two opposed factions: The ones who like the concept but always thought the graphics were lacking - and the others who liked their nice, slow game that had "depth instead of eyecandy" and fully enjoyed the fact that CIV could be played easily even on older laptops. There is no common ground for these two factions, with the one possible exception to make that whole 3D toys-r-us optional.
DemonDeLuxe said:
speak for yourself. im in the faction of "i enjoyed civilization since the first one but now enjoying the fact that they updated graphics and gameplay in new and exciting ways and still kept the core gameplay intact." and nobody else is allowed into my faction
Jecrell
Ruled: Civ3 - Civ5
Criticism is great, but just shouting things that are entirely debatable as undeniable fact and anyone who denies it can suck my (blank) is ignorant and hateful.howmanymegs said:
Hentooth
Lord & Master
- Yawn -
I got through about half that thread and got bored with the posturing and silly remarks.
Could the people running the site set up a new area where the silly children can go to argue about whatever it is they are moaning about. (By children, I mean mentally, not phyiscally brfore I get abuse thrown at me too!)
As Meg said, discussions lead to improvements, but only if they are done in a sensible manner.
PLEASE - Just face the fact that some people like it and some don't. Both have their reasons and I'm sure most of them are valid.
GET OVER IT!!!
I got through about half that thread and got bored with the posturing and silly remarks.
Could the people running the site set up a new area where the silly children can go to argue about whatever it is they are moaning about. (By children, I mean mentally, not phyiscally brfore I get abuse thrown at me too!)
As Meg said, discussions lead to improvements, but only if they are done in a sensible manner.
PLEASE - Just face the fact that some people like it and some don't. Both have their reasons and I'm sure most of them are valid.
GET OVER IT!!!
Abaddon
Deity
RoboPig said:
I second that
Mazruk
Warlord
Civ 4 is just about the cheapest (new) game I've bought in the last 10 years (adjusted for inflation).
Dont blame the developer for your choice of an expensive retailer...
Civ 4 has all the options I want and a lot I havent tried yet. If you dont think there are enough options, how about listing them? Given the moddability of the game, its likely that your missing options are easily added.
Given the size of the code, Civ4 loads quickly on my 3 year old machine. I havent had problems running it although I did spend time BEFORE getting it to ensure my machine was running correctly (as it happens it wasnt so required some work - when cIV arrived, it worked first time out of the box because of my efforts beforehand).
I love the changes to the series: promotions, religion, civics, better politics - all
for me.
If my opinions make me mentally incompetent, then I am much happier to be mentally incompetent than your kind of mentally competent.
Dont blame the developer for your choice of an expensive retailer...
Civ 4 has all the options I want and a lot I havent tried yet. If you dont think there are enough options, how about listing them? Given the moddability of the game, its likely that your missing options are easily added.
Given the size of the code, Civ4 loads quickly on my 3 year old machine. I havent had problems running it although I did spend time BEFORE getting it to ensure my machine was running correctly (as it happens it wasnt so required some work - when cIV arrived, it worked first time out of the box because of my efforts beforehand).
I love the changes to the series: promotions, religion, civics, better politics - all
for me.If my opinions make me mentally incompetent, then I am much happier to be mentally incompetent than your kind of mentally competent.
MrCynical
Deity
1) Of course Civ 4 costs more, any brand new game will cost more than a game that's been out for about 4 years.
2)I've generally found Civ 4 has more and better balanced options than Civ 3. It has more civs (than the original Civ 3, it doesn't make sense to include expansions in this comparison), two extra traits and new options such as religions and civics. Maps are now much more customisable so I really don't understand this complaint.
3)While Civ 4 may be rather laggy, it does not take even twice as long to load as Civ 3, let alone 100 times.
4)I'm running both games on the same computer. Civ4 is slightly laggy, but I can play any size of map I like at an acceptable speed. I could not play Civ 3 huge maps on this computer without it taking 10 minutes to end the turn. Civ 4 has improved a lot in this aspect.
Now onto your "agree with me or you're a moron!!1!!!1!" comments. Yes I would consider myself a Civ fan, but that only means I have high expectations, not that I'll accept anything. Play the world I recognise as garbage, along with several of the endless stream of Civ 2 spin offs. Civ 4 does have some bugs, but it is perfectly playable for many people and has better gameplay than the previous Civ incarnations. I do not have a 'blind eye', nor am I mentally incompetant as you imply. Just accept some people have different views than you, and I at least have justified my reasons.
The game needs some patching it's true, but so did Civ 3 and it's expansion packs, and Firaxis will do this. I would have been amazed if Civ 4 shipped in a perfect condition.
2)I've generally found Civ 4 has more and better balanced options than Civ 3. It has more civs (than the original Civ 3, it doesn't make sense to include expansions in this comparison), two extra traits and new options such as religions and civics. Maps are now much more customisable so I really don't understand this complaint.
3)While Civ 4 may be rather laggy, it does not take even twice as long to load as Civ 3, let alone 100 times.
4)I'm running both games on the same computer. Civ4 is slightly laggy, but I can play any size of map I like at an acceptable speed. I could not play Civ 3 huge maps on this computer without it taking 10 minutes to end the turn. Civ 4 has improved a lot in this aspect.
Now onto your "agree with me or you're a moron!!1!!!1!" comments. Yes I would consider myself a Civ fan, but that only means I have high expectations, not that I'll accept anything. Play the world I recognise as garbage, along with several of the endless stream of Civ 2 spin offs. Civ 4 does have some bugs, but it is perfectly playable for many people and has better gameplay than the previous Civ incarnations. I do not have a 'blind eye', nor am I mentally incompetant as you imply. Just accept some people have different views than you, and I at least have justified my reasons.
The game needs some patching it's true, but so did Civ 3 and it's expansion packs, and Firaxis will do this. I would have been amazed if Civ 4 shipped in a perfect condition.
silver 2039
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Messages
- 16,208
@Thread Starter
1. All new games will cost more than older ones
2. Civ 4 has far better options than Civ 3. Quantity oes not substitue for quality
3.Get a better computer
4.See number 3
My major complaint against Civ is the expansions. I hate when they do those bloody things and pile add ons claiming it is far better. That is why I wait for a while before buying Civ 4.
1. All new games will cost more than older ones
2. Civ 4 has far better options than Civ 3. Quantity oes not substitue for quality
3.Get a better computer
4.See number 3
My major complaint against Civ is the expansions. I hate when they do those bloody things and pile add ons claiming it is far better. That is why I wait for a while before buying Civ 4.
