Has Civ 4 lost the plot?

[Rusty Edge]

Anyone remember the simplicity and the gameplay of Civs 1 and 2. They seemed to revolve around creating a great empire and expanding, creating railroads etc.

Civ 4 seems to be in a completely different direction and concentrated more on warefare than anything else. The two expansions seem to reflect this.

Anyone else here feel more than a little bored by the new game? The graphics arent any better than Civ 2 in my view they have gone downhill - the roads look terrible. And the whole gameplay just seems really repetitive. The research and city development parts are now just so unimaginative and seem to get in the way of the gameplay. Thats not what Civ was all about!

Lets get back to massive city views, empire building, exciting developments, diplomacy etc and lets get away from the emphasis on warfare. There are so many games that do this better than civ anyway.

And the games themeselves are so labourious - Ive been playing for ages it seems and have yet to ever get past the Muskateers. I get so bored by the game by then I give up.

Maybe Im just burnt out on computer games generallyor maybe the direction of the game is heading is wrong?

Anyone else out there bored of Civ?

Have you tried playing Sid's Railroads? It sounds like that game would be more to your taste.

Other options for this game include "always peace", playing a huge map with fewer than default number of civs, and a shorter game length.

 

[nstutt]

Have you tried playing Sid's Railroads? It sounds like that game would be more to your taste.

Other options for this game include "always peace", playing a huge map with fewer than default number of civs, and a shorter game length.

Uggh no! I hate business games.

NO my main concern is that Civ 2 was the pinnicle of development for Civ and since then the game has got worse and worse and they look for more things to add to the game to justify another release.

Im not bothered about infinite city sprawl etc etc and all these other terms that the major fans of Civ use. I just enjoy my games and like to be entertained when I play. I dont want to be constantly pressing the next turn button like in Civ 4. I dont want to be messing about with civics or the like which mean nothing to me other than another thing to have to think about.

I mean most of my games I choose the first civic that I get. Same with research - whats there to think about you need most of them anyway eventually? Same as buildings. You need them all eventually so why have a choice in which to build.

Theres just no fun in the game anymore. Threres no enough happening. Its boring. Sometimes too many things to do can be the ruin of a game like this.

Nats

 

[Lone Wolf]

Same with research - whats there to think about you need most of them anyway eventually? Same as buildings. You need them all eventually so why have a choice in which to build.

What was different in this department in Civ1, 2 and 3? You can say such thing about all the Civilization games.

I dont want to be constantly pressing the next turn button like in Civ 4.

Do you mean the game runs too slow for you? Try the Quick speed.

I mean most of my games I choose the first civic that I get.

You are wrong - for example, depending on the situation, Representation can be better them Universal Suffrage.

 

[Watiggi]

I think there is a part of the game that's broken: When you become more powerful than the AI, the AI will leave you alone. Although one could argue that this is smart thinking on the AI's behalf, diplomacy just becomes really predictable when this happens. I think smaller civs need to ally up against the super power in the game. I suspect a few of the people who find the game boring may find themselves in this position whereby the AI just leaves you to become more and more powerful. It doesn't feel right.

Other than that though (AI and diplomacy), I think the game is a big improvement over the previous ones.

 

[bds]

Uggh no! I hate business games.

NO my main concern is that Civ 2 was the pinnicle of development for Civ and since then the game has got worse and worse and they look for more things to add to the game to justify another release.

Im not bothered about infinite city sprawl etc etc and all these other terms that the major fans of Civ use. I just enjoy my games and like to be entertained when I play. I dont want to be constantly pressing the next turn button like in Civ 4. I dont want to be messing about with civics or the like which mean nothing to me other than another thing to have to think about.

I mean most of my games I choose the first civic that I get. Same with research - whats there to think about you need most of them anyway eventually? Same as buildings. You need them all eventually so why have a choice in which to build.

Theres just no fun in the game anymore. Threres no enough happening. Its boring. Sometimes too many things to do can be the ruin of a game like this.

Nats

Why not mod the game to be more like civ2 then?
or...
I could do it if you want, but ive never played civ2 so i dont know what most of the differences are so you would have to PM me the specifics on what changes you want made. Ive been wanting to do a mod for a while.

edit:
...and yes i get bored of civ4 too. Mainly due to its warfar orientation.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I think smaller civs need to ally up against the super power in the game.

Sometimes, yes. However, as the super power is often the human player, there will be numerous complains about the anti-human bias of the game. I agree that AI civs should go to war when it will be profitable for them more often.

 

[Lone Wolf]

...and yes i get bored of civ4 too. Mainly due to its warfar orientation.

I think Civ4 has less warfare orientation then its predecessors...

 

[bds]

I think Civ4 has less warfare orientation then its predecessors...

Maybe, i wouldnt know. However i dislike getting attacked by civs that i was freindly with when im going for cultural victories... they need a option to force ai players react only according to their diplomacy status with you.

 

[dylnuge]

Anyone remember the simplicity and the gameplay of Civs 1 and 2. They seemed to revolve around creating a great empire and expanding, creating railroads etc.

Civ 4 seems to be in a completely different direction and concentrated more on warefare than anything else. The two expansions seem to reflect this.

Anyone else here feel more than a little bored by the new game? The graphics arent any better than Civ 2 in my view they have gone downhill - the roads look terrible. And the whole gameplay just seems really repetitive. The research and city development parts are now just so unimaginative and seem to get in the way of the gameplay. Thats not what Civ was all about!

Lets get back to massive city views, empire building, exciting developments, diplomacy etc and lets get away from the emphasis on warfare. There are so many games that do this better than civ anyway.

And the games themeselves are so labourious - Ive been playing for ages it seems and have yet to ever get past the Muskateers. I get so bored by the game by then I give up.

Maybe Im just burnt out on computer games generallyor maybe the direction of the game is heading is wrong?

Anyone else out there bored of Civ?

...
The graphics are spectacular, and if you honestly say you think CivII looked better, you have not really played CivII. For crying out loud, the game is in 3D now. And based on warfare? Culture victory? Time Victory? Diplomatic Victory? All of these were added in CivIII, II and the original only had Space and Conquest. Which made the game completly warfare based, unless you tried for space. And yes, the game was more about "expanding" your empire back then. Since there were no national borders, you needed to use ICS to win. And now in CivIV, ICS is dead, encouraging good city placement. Plus, the game is about warfare. Sorry, but you can't win the game with no units. Not even a space victory. Other Civs see you as a tech threat, and it won't be long before they wipe you out. So be careful what you say. (Also, laborous? Micromanagemt has been all but killed, and the game is always 450 turns. Are you sure you didn't click Marathon?).

 

[Stolen Rutters]

I prefer CivIV over the earlier games for the exact same reason many people hate it. It is actually a more complex and rich game than any of the predecessors. There is no single best way to win every time. You actually have a choice in how to play, and it's partially guided from what map you are given. There is a lot to this game and that's the way I like it.

Isolated start? Units aren't always the best build once you have your barbarian problem licked. You want to optimize your research and commerce so you can keep up to the enemy once you meet them, or you can concentrate on religions to give yourself a culture victory option. Crowded start? Make friends and enemies. You choose which way to go. Bribe the AI into war with eachother, take them out yourself, whatever.

You can go the whole game without a war if you play the diplomacy right. Remember that war is just a tool to help you win.

The character you play actually has a real impact on what style of play will benefit you most. You like the bigger empire? Play an organized or financial leader to help pay for it. Want to war alot? Play aggressive leader for the extra promotion bonus.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Maybe, i wouldnt know. However i dislike getting attacked by civs that i was freindly with when im going for cultural victories... they need a option to force ai players react only according to their diplomacy status with you.

If Firaxis would have done this, they would got many dissatified voices like: "The AI is sooo dumb, they even didn't stop me from a culture victory, when they could!!! I am uninstalling that screwed up game!!!"

Placing this as an option is OK, but it is really had to please everyone...

 

[NikNak]

I don't even know what these complaints are about. You must have some pretty terrible artistic taste if you think Civ II looks better than Civ IV. I'd say 99% of people that have seen Civ IV thinks it looks great. At the very least every review I've seen regarding this game applauds the graphic style and upgrade to 3D.

As far as the warmongering complaint, you may need to readjust your play style. I've only been in 3 or 4 unplanned wars since I started playing Civ IV, whereas it used to happen all the time in previous games.

 

[LlamaCat]

I don't understand what was so great about Civ 2 - I played that game and it was ok. Lots of people make it out to be the Mecca of video games and I have never heard a real concrete reason why.
Anyway I can understand some of his gripes about Civ IV, mainly the fact that the tech tree really isn't that strategic, although many players like to claim it is. The fact is, you need 95% of the techs to advance to the end of the tech tree. The only real strategy is, what order do you research? But to me the real strategy would be to have a truly diversified tree that lets you wander down different paths without having to "back-fill." So I see where he's coming from on these kinds of points.

Now, for the complaints that Civ IV graphics are not as good... you have to be smoking crack. That's just nuts to even pretend to be serious about stuff like that.

 

[civvver]

I don't understand what was so great about Civ 2 - I played that game and it was ok. Lots of people make it out to be the Mecca of video games and I have never heard a real concrete reason why.
Anyway I can understand some of his gripes about Civ IV, mainly the fact that the tech tree really isn't that strategic, although many players like to claim it is. The fact is, you need 95% of the techs to advance to the end of the tech tree. The only real strategy is, what order do you research? But to me the real strategy would be to have a truly diversified tree that lets you wander down different paths without having to "back-fill." So I see where he's coming from on these kinds of points.

Now, for the complaints that Civ IV graphics are not as good... you have to be smoking crack. That's just nuts to even pretend to be serious about stuff like that.

Well you have to remember people rate games with the "era" and context in mind. Like when those game magazines put out top 100 lists and say something like, "zelda ocarina of time had amazing graphics" they mean for the time it came out and compared to games around it. There's also a bit of nostalgia that makes people hold games like civ2 in such high regard.

I'm one of those people. I actually downloaded freeciv and civevo (I think that's the name) which are freeware clones of civ2, but I didn't even begin playing them because the graphics were so lame. Civ4 really does have a lot more to offer than civ2, but there was still something very fun and unique about civ2 that I don't think civ4 could ever quite capture, even though it is a better game.

I think the op is just daunted by civ4s complexity. Civ2 was pretty straightforward. And that's ok, civ4 isn't for everyone.

 

[zarakand]

I'll agree that Civ 4 can get boring after a while. At the moment, I can't get myself to finish a game anymore it seems like work on Monarch, and way too easy on Prince.

But on the other side, its the best multi-player game out there that I play regularly.

 

[JavalTigar]

if Civ4 is boring then you are playing on too low a level. using the same leaders, not adapting to the situation. Try randomizing settings and you'll see the challenge.

@ the OP: I think you a romancing the past. The AI in 1, 2 & 3 were backstabbing creeps. I fought more wars in the any one game of each of the older versions than in all the Civ 4 games. Being a peaceful builder is sooo much easier now.

 

[Horizons]

Remember in Civ3 how you could completely ignore another nation's boundaries? How you could get an army right next to an enemy capital and declare war the next turn without your troops being booted out? I am SO glad that I don't play Civ3 any more.

 

[zarakand]

Remember in Civ3 how you could completely ignore another nation's boundaries? How you could get an army right next to an enemy capital and declare war the next turn without your troops being booted out? I am SO glad that I don't play Civ3 any more.

I miss that so much! It makes sense that you can't do ROP assaults anymore, but that was so much fun esp the diplomatic penalties.

 

[T.A JONES]

i think civ has completely gone in the wrong direction the game should be about expansion and having a huge empire of 15+ cities like the good old days of civ 2 and having a great diplomatic system not having 5 or 6 cities and complicated armys to micromanage

Im with you but thats sound like Civ3 Conquests to. The two few cities is a common complaint from both prefered players, but I hear Civ2 choices players don't like CIv3 and Vise versa, so I guess the argrement on what constatutes good civving ends there.

 

[JujuLautre]

Im not bothered about infinite city sprawl etc etc and all these other terms that the major fans of Civ use. I just enjoy my games and like to be entertained when I play.

Actually, perhaps you are not concerned with such things, but Firaxis is. They can definitly not create a game which will please everyone, but I think their hope is to create a game that pleases the most people.

Actually, if you like CivII so much, you can still play it. Everyone plays his way, with the same game, or with different games.