How lucky we are

[k_mac]

Since i've started playing pc games i have followed four series of games. Civ, Fallout, Settlers and Warcraft. I found Warcraft 3 to be nothing special. The new Fallout is a big developer secret but if the forums are much to go by its going to be a completely different game to its predecessors. Settlers fans really got screwed by that new Heritage of Kings crap.
That leaves only the new Civ. After playing it for just over two months (I should really get some sleep) I think i can safely say that this is by far the best game sequel I have ever played. We really lucked out here. The developers obviously listened to everything we had to say. They kept everything that was good in the game and kept all us long term players happy. They also brought in some new things to draw in some new players and i think it worked.
Long story short, I just want to thank all involved in making this game for keeping the Civ name true to its roots and for making a great game.

 

[Ogrelord]

Warcraft 3 not special? It's the most balanced RTS game out there only comparable to Starcraft. Blizzard has it good. Too bad they didn't buy Firaxis, because you know Blizzard will make patches for Civ 4 even years after its release.

 

[The Camel]

Warcraft 3 not special? It's the most balanced RTS game out there only comparable to Starcraft. Blizzard has it good. Too bad they didn't buy Firaxis, because you know Blizzard will make patches for Civ 4 even years after its release.

it may perhaps be "ballanced" but it is a major click-fest to see who can click on the right building/unit at the right time faster. i lost all joy in it fast because i like to "strategize" not just race everyone else to just develop faster. I like the campaign mode tho.

 

[Reg Pither]

I was very disappointed with Warcraft III. They changed the whole focus of the first two games and made it too small a scale. Got it for a present, played it for about a week then uninstalled it.

The Civ series, on the other hand, just keeps getting better and better.

 

[Undertaker798]

I think that "Heritage of Kings crap" was quite good, games change all the time, if people didn't like it there would be no sequels (I might have spelt that wrong, as always.)

This civ is best so far btw.
( I do miss the pudgy settlers men!! )

 

[King Jason]

Actually, with all due respect to the company, the finer (smaller) points of this game seem pretty half-assed.

Example being the civilpedia, maybe not quite half-assed, but poorly done.

Also all of the Advisors are horrible and useless, the statistics page is a bit jumbled. Not to mention, of all graph choices the civ series could have made, they picked a tricky one. A bar graph would have been just as easy to program, and for simpletons, is one of the easiest to read and understand.

eh, just stuff like that. I personally love the game, but there are points when I sigh and think that something could have been implemented so much better. Some aspects just seem like they either got zero attention, or were rushed.

 

[Brighteye]

The advisors and civilopaedia are a bit difficult, but what's the problem with a line graph? How can you show change in y axis over time for lots of civs with a bar chart?

 

[King Jason]

Valid point. It's probably the way it's displayed if they were simply lines rather that filling in the entire graph with color it'd be easier to take a look at the fluctuations of power between countries.

Or it could be I'm reading it/looking at it the wrong way.

 

[k_mac]

Actually, with all due respect to the company, the finer (smaller) points of this game seem pretty half-assed.

Example being the civilpedia, maybe not quite half-assed, but poorly done.

Also all of the Advisors are horrible and useless, the statistics page is a bit jumbled. Not to mention, of all graph choices the civ series could have made, they picked a tricky one. A bar graph would have been just as easy to program, and for simpletons, is one of the easiest to read and understand.QUOTE]

Of course no game can be perfect but what i'm saying is that they stayed true to the civ format that we love. I would agree that certain things like the advisors menus could do with improving but i'm sure these can easily be changed with the first expansion pack. Whereas in games like "Settlers:Heritage of Kings" the game was so fundamentally different from it's predecessors that it hasn't even been accepted as a sequel by fans of the series. They've pretty much abandoned it for older games. No amount of patching can fix that. Now look at Civ4. How many fans of the series are without a copy of it? I wouldn't say there are many (system requirements aside). I just think we are very lucky to still have something good to play and love.

Now that I mention it, I wonder what will be in the first Civ4 expansion. Besides a few extra civs of course. Is there a thread for discussing the expansion I wonder.

 

[shadow2k]

Valid point. It's probably the way it's displayed if they were simply lines rather that filling in the entire graph with color it'd be easier to take a look at the fluctuations of power between countries.

Or it could be I'm reading it/looking at it the wrong way.

Did you patch your game at all? The graph was changed from the original, based on a MOD created by one of the members here.

 

[Frostyboy]

Just wait for Heroes of Might and Magiv V

But Civ4 rocks by all means

 

[Kerrang]

Warcraft 3 is an awesome game, I still play it (Tower Defense rocks!), and we actually took a break from Counter Strike: Source at the New Years Eve LAN party I attended to get in a few games of Warcraft 3. I have to agree with most of the other points made in the OP, though, and would also like to add MOO3 to the list of new versions of games that really wrecked the franchise.

Civ4 has been a great update to the series so far, but it does appear to have been rushed a bit. Unfortunately, that seems to be the norm for PC games these days.

 

[mtu]

it may perhaps be "ballanced" but it is a major click-fest to see who can click on the right building/unit at the right time faster. i lost all joy in it fast because i like to "strategize" not just race everyone else to just develop faster. I like the campaign mode tho.

I think that a die-hard TBS fan can say this about any RTS game, so it's nothing special about Warcraft III.

Come to htink of it though, it isb/b] - because Warcraft III doesn't feature random maps. All you get is maps you already know, so the first 10 minutes of your game can be ritualized and your strategy will never change and be flexible.

 

[Sirian]

Balancing random maps is tough. (Speaking from experience!)


- Sirian

 

[Willem]

it may perhaps be "ballanced" but it is a major click-fest to see who can click on the right building/unit at the right time faster. i lost all joy in it fast because i like to "strategize" not just race everyone else to just develop faster. I like the campaign mode tho.

I agree with you there. I gave up on the skirmish games against the AI since the only thing I could do was try and build like it and just be first at everything. It didn't leave you any room for choices or options.

 

[Willem]

Valid point. It's probably the way it's displayed if they were simply lines rather that filling in the entire graph with color it'd be easier to take a look at the fluctuations of power between countries.

Or it could be I'm reading it/looking at it the wrong way.

I have no problem with it. You need to have to the colours in order to diffferentiate the different civs in the game. I find it quite easy to do that as is.

You do have patch 1.52 don't you? Some changes were made then. Somehow I get the impression we're talking about different graphs. Changes were made in the Civilopedia too.

 

[Canadian Bacon]

I enjoyed Warcraft III's single player campaigns thoroughly. However, I really suck at any sort of random map/multiplayer.

 

[Armorydave]

Just wait for Heroes of Might and Magiv V

I stopped playing HoMM afer 3. I loved 3 but did not enjoy 4 at all (looking at it on my shelf right now).

 

[vonGazza]

Heroes 4 was an unmitigated disaster. It was released with the poorest (often non-existant) AI I've seen in 20 years of computer gaming. What really jarred was that the AI in the previous Heroes games was often pretty ruthless. Heroes 5 looks uninspiring, the 3d graphics on the battlefield which are supposed to be its big selling point seem completely lame. I dread to think about the AI/Strategy/Music/Campaigns which were the big selling point up until 4, but have probably been shoved even further on to the back seat for this one.

IMO Civ4 is a good game now it has been patched so that many of us can run it. But it isn't perfect, and parts of it were obviously rushed. Still, it's money well spent

 

[NikNak]

Ugh. I'm playing the beta for HoMM V right now. "Bad" doesn't really cover it. I'm hoping things really change before the final release, but I'm not holding my breath. I've played enough beta games to know that most things are set in stone by the time of the beta. Oh, well. Back to Civ IV!