Gave up on C4; returning to C3

[Mike.doc]

...I'm feeling something like you explain so clear, Brain.

 

[T.A JONES]

The general arguement that more people are participating in Civ4 so its a strong indicater its the better sequal is a common stance now. Viewer rating, disscussions, and mod releases all favour this defence.
Well Brian Thanks for suming up the truth for me so nicely. I have a feeling so many people agree with what you said.
IMO, Civ4 spawned a new breed of player, less orientated to what Civ3 repreasented, more geared to dumbed down playstation style, its a flashy bells and whistles showcase, that attracted plenty of young-ins with its eye-candy coated lure of earlier Civ strategy with better graphics and modabilty
Now months down the road things don't sit well for those who enjoyed Civ3 to its fullest potential I feel the number who speak up dosn't reflect the real story

if this thread was in the other forum you would have come out unscathed, still many less verbally inclined are quickly shot down with some small exception or irrationality that can be made to fit any uprising. When things get really bad they bring out the company spokesman like some guy who was a big Civ3 modder whos turned Fireaxis promoter cause he got a gig on Civ4, I love when that happens, really, it makes for a good read.

 

[gmaharriet]

You expressed the issues very well, Brain!

Another change that drove me up the wall was the way religion was implemented. When you think about how strongly civs fought for their beliefs over the centuries, it makes no sense to have them all alike in C4, and no better reason to change than to make your allies happy.

I'm not saying they should have added a "my god is better than your god" issue, but surely each religion could favor a particular play-style...one for commercial, one for warmongers, etc., to give you a genuine choice, yet keep it from becoming too personal...sorta like preferring to play Commie in Civ3 without actually wanting to live under that government in RL.

 

[plarq]

I don't like C4 much. Mainly because my computer is a bit out of date, then the game just don't have a "civ" feel. It's like reading books, cartoons and such.

 

[jb1964]

A very good read. Thanks for the input.

 

[Tyranausaurus]

For a person who has been a fan of the series since 2002, and who loved Civ3, PTW and C3C, I would advise anyone who enjoyed the previous games to buy Civ4.

I don't see some of the arguments presented here (although I can get some), but if you didn't get the full Civ4 experience then this goes to probably what you *dreamed* Civ4 would be, or because your computer isn't helping.

As a final note, I love Civ4, and although I liked Civ3 (and still do) I cannot play Civ3 anymore, Just too addicted to Civ4 and all the new additions and tunings! .

Cheers.

 

[gmaharriet]

if you didn't get the full Civ4 experience then this goes to probably what you *dreamed* Civ4 would be, or because your computer isn't helping.

I bought a brand-new super duper computer with a powerful graphics card a couple weeks before Civ4 came out...just so I could play the game I'd excitedly pre-ordered. The game ran fine right from the start with no slow-downs or any graphic problems....and I was bored to tears with the game itself. It's all good, I guess, because C3C runs faster than it did before, but I'll probably never bother with C4 again.

 

[gunkulator]

I think those who dislike Civ4 are mostly those who dislike the playstyle favoured by the game. I'm one who actually likes the settler frenzy. I like having a clear strategic path through the ages. I like to have clear micromanagement rules even when I don't micromanage. I like to find new ways to exploit and push the AI around. If I feel some exploit is abusive I just don't use it.

Mostly agree with this part of your analysis. It is precisely these feature of Civ3 that I am more than happy to say goodbye to. Never having to micromanage another settler pump or play whack-a-mole with pollution is to me a breath of fresh air. The "clear strategic path" boils down to "the same game everytime". I find no joy in finding new exploits. It just points out poor game design or insufficient play testing. To each his own, of course.

Civ4 does indeed have its share of faults, but at least it's a living game and there's some chance of the more annoying ones to be fixed. I really did like Civ3, but I can't play it anymore.

 

[T.A JONES]

Mostly agree with this part of your analysis. It is precisely these feature of Civ3 that I am more than happy to say goodbye to. Never having to micromanage another settler pump or play whack-a-mole with pollution is to me a breath of fresh air.

The "clear strategic path" boils down to "the same game everytime". I find no joy in finding new exploits. It just points out poor game design or insufficient play testing. To each his own, of course.

Civ4 does indeed have its share of faults, but at least it's a living game and there's some chance of the more annoying ones to be fixed. I really did like Civ3, but I can't play it anymore.

I think some who love Civ4 and ‘can’t play Civ3’ are less adapt at micromanaging then others. This will mean some who are less organized will prefer a more auto pilot approach like the one Civ4 has to offer.
The secret to preventing logistic headaches and City production build ups are not to hard to understand once applied a few times. Trust me, their are ways to relieve repetitiveness I learned how to move flanks in the menu options (Continental and City location points on the map = choice a and b for simultaneous troop movement in different directions) and the Production Q window in the City view and The Governor Menu plus options in the Main Menu are for minimizing pop ups regarding production annoucments and decisions of units and buildings

City sleaze, settler pumping whatever they call it, I don't no what they mean. For me a city is just an expanse of territory and another chip on the table in the overall scheme of things. What’s wrong with wanting control over more chips? Is Civ4 way of managing an empire with ten cities so much better? I like seeing my empire expand past the # of citys any of the lower 48 states can compare to.
Civ3 has ways to mange vast stacks of chips. Those who never figured it out are not enjoying the full expierence.

And about exploits, The Ultimate Expliot? A mad rush of units to the capital and beyond still wipes out any Civ in both games. So there you have it, the AI sucks.
It comes down to Civalry, how cheesy one likes to play. You can't stop a cheesy player from finding ways of exploiting any game just for high scores an braggin rights to others of his kind on the Fan Sites who copy it hen complain about it!
You can ignore these guys though. Other players stay away from things that hurt replayabilty and are getting maximum enjoyment out of the game (not max cheese points). That’s what he meant about finding other exploits, finding new ways to win that don’t require driving home the latest cheap tactic over and over

Oh ya on smacking the mole. You got to a be adding some improvmants to battle pollution instead of just cleaning it up all the time. The usual two are good but adding in a sewer or something else kill all the moles at the same time. The same way you get steadly improve the econmy one improvment at a time through researching techs is the same way you get cleaner Ive even seen resoursce specific or Gov reqs improvments used as Pollution killers. like you say it adds some freshness to the game.

The point is, most mod designers have dealt with this old complaint already and in doing so made the game more interesting at the same time.

 

[Little Corporal]

One thing I hate about Civ 4 is the way the AI asks you for "presents" Its basically the threats from Civ 3, but they try to act nice about it and ask for help from you, and it really irks me. Naval combat, one of my favorite parts of Civ 3, also was ruined, and changed from having several unique and interesting classes of warship to just amassing battleships with a token destroyer or two.

 

[fishjie]

this thread reminds me of the thread in the civ2 forum about whats better, civ2 or civ3?

and guess what game they picked?

hint: it wasnt civ3

 

[Padma]

Face it: People in the Civ2 forums like Civ2 better; people in the Civ3 forums like Civ3 better, and people in the Civ4 forums like Civ4 better! How odd is that?

 

[fishjie]

i know, what a crazy coincidence.

Or CONSPIRACY?????????

 

[guare]

hum, thats why i donwload things before buying them!

 

[fishjie]

yeah i'm personally gonna hold off on buying civ4 until the price drops. cause basically, theres no way i can find an unbiased opinion. if i ask in civ4 discussion, hands down they'll love civ4. if i ask in civ3, hands down they'll love civ3. if i ask in civ2, they'll say civ2.

and LOL if i ask civ1 forums, they'll say civ1.

 

[Mirc]

and LOL if i ask civ1 forums, they'll say civ1.

And if you ask in the OT, they will say: "I'm an atheist"

Edit: 3300th post!

 

[Sashie VII]

yeah i'm personally gonna hold off on buying civ4 until the price drops. cause basically, theres no way i can find an unbiased opinion.

IMO, other people's opinion shouldn't really matter. If you like it, buy it. It's too bad if the game doesn't suit other people's tastes As long as it suit yours and you have fun

 

[Newbunkle]

In my opinion, both games have good and bad points...

Civ 4
No Pollution!
No Disorder!
No Settler Rush
Great Opening Music
Leonard Nimoy!

Civ 3
Better Combat (Fun vs Realism)
More Pleasant Interface
More Interesting Dialogue
Better World Editor
No Civics (The Governments are part of the 'flavour' of Civ to me)

I'm absolutely on the fence over which game is better. I find both a little frustrating at times, but for different reasons. I feel both calling me back. Most of the things that put me off are the things that cause the game to drag.

In Civ 3, pollution and disorder are the worst, but you don't experience pollution until the mid-late game. Disorder is there throughout, but can be avoided with forward planning (you will always miss one somewhere though).

In Civ 4, combat gets on my nerves. There are so many situations to take into account, and enemy units can have all sorts of promotions. There is so much to consider that combat begins to drag. Usually its the peaceful era's that drag (micro-managing and hitting "end turn" a lot), and in Civ 3 a war was a good break from that. Not so in Civ 4.

 

[Yamamoto]

cvi4 sucks.

I just love civ3. (period)

I would love if firaxis developed another civ3 expansion!

 

[classical_hero]

Unfortunately does not work on my computer. So right now I am just playing which is still good.