I managed to found at last why Civ 2 is the best

[DaviddesJ]

What was the minimum cost of a PC that could run Civ2 when it came out? Maybe $3000? Which would be $5000 in current dollars?

 

[Kissamies]

Civ 2 is a better game. No debating it. If you dissagree, you probably never even played it.

I disagree, your excellency.

But Civ 4 will surpass it once it reaches it's modding potential. As of right now, Civ 4 just doesn't have the 'Civ' feel. It is less epic. The only thing that can even hold my attention is the Fall from Heaven mod.

Yes, most really good games in this day and age seem to have good moddability. I am most familiar with FPS mods because that's the only genre I play online. I never buy those games for the vanilla bazooka tag, but for mods.

 

[Armorydave]

Aussie Lurker gave an excellent list of reasons why Civ 4 is better than Civ 2. Not only did it serve to rebut the generalities and opinions you have been tossing about but went far beyond in explaining the huge gulf that exists between the two games. Why don't you try re-butting his post point by point instead of whining about the Hitler reference and using it as an excuse to ignore that post?

BTW, I agree he should have ommited the reference. It detracted from his otherwise excellent post. I also understand that you won't do this because you seem to be less interested in arguing facts and more interested in calling people dorks because they don't agree with your opinion.

 

[T.A JONES]

What finally a person who says this delay never happens?. Wait Smid is that you? Your the same guy who gets 20 minutes waiting times in Civ3 remember that argument?. this was all on your 3.8 2gb 7800 "MIDDLE RANGE "pc. what argument were trying to quell with that line?

there are other systems for sale that are better then yours and others worse. There for technically you have a mid range pc

but thats not what I meant when I said What arguement were you trying to quell with that line?Don't you remember? the quotes "crashes once a week" "well below specs" and runs on low detail graphics set up" You implied the guy who said he could run Civ4 faster and with less lag then Civ3 on a 130xl130 map with these specs was right because your 3.8 processor was middle range, and it had no problems running Civ4 so T.A your wrong! thats what I was meant. mybe I got it wrong when i referred to his as average at best, but still it seemed to me like your comments didn't apply, sorry just wanted to explain what I said

Anyway Civ2 is older and Civ4 is newer. there back on topic

 

[Mutineer]

This posts look like to me
"Grass was greener when I was yang."
kind of thinks.

 

[T.A JONES]

Now that you have shown me the error of my ways, maybe you can provide instruction on how this is done?

Honestly, I have looked for this option, and have not been able to find it, throw me a bone. As far as showing enemy moves, it was not an option I had gone looking for, I will look around for it, but if you want to clue me in there as well, I would appreciate it.

In Civ4 you can watch the AI units walk around aimlessly, its a option just like in Civ3(not sure bout 2) If you were wondering why you never see AI vs AI 'war reports', its becuse theyve been blacked out. Thats the part you were missing I bet. Like real war footage being censored from CNN Fireaxis saved you from seeing it.

Yes you will still be able to see units moving aimlessly around ( in a rather annoying follow focus).
I never liked watching units move around and not fight. Those settlers working on foreign soil give you an idea of whats getting devloped But the wars were cool to watch. I would plant my spies around the world and moniter the carnage of the warring Civs. I gained knowledge on how each unit did agaist another, or when should I jump in or save my trade partner. Mybe it was time to finish him off before they did.

Some mods I play have 600+ units in some of them. Sometimes the only time I could see a unit in action was on wars fought far from home. I liked to see how wars close to home were going, to see who my new neighbours could be or how strong my old ones are for repelling them Many peolpe like watching the AI duke it out with other AI civs. Its all part of the game for them. One guy over here told me AI vs AI battle sequences were just eyecandy with no stategic benifit whatsoever,.. so I don't expect you all to agree but I thought this did need explaining. Later

 

[ndferent]

Aussie Lurker gave an excellent list of reasons why Civ 4 is better than Civ 2. Not only did it serve to rebut the generalities and opinions you have been tossing about but went far beyond in explaining the huge gulf that exists between the two games. Why don't you try re-butting his post point by point...

'kay. i'll volunteer.

well, civ4 may have more options, but i dont think it gives more *viable* options. Aussie, you said there are 256 different possible civic combinations, but does that really matter if most of those combinations suck? for example, if i'm at war i will obviously choose the civics that help my war, like theocracy and vassalage. if a have few happiness resources late game then i will obvious pick hereditary rule, if i'm running alot of specialists i will pick representation. there isnt much of a ''choice'', i could screw myself over by running peaceful civics like pacifism while being at war, but it wouldnt make any sense. in different situations certain civics are obviously better. i think that it is rarely possible to decide ahead of time what civics i will run, i have to adapt them to whatever situation i'm in. i dont think this is much different then earlier versions of civ running monarchy or communism while at war and democracy or republic while at peace. infact, to me it seems to add more uneccesary micro management. i liked the social engineering in SMAC better, all the options gave constant bonuses that wern't situational, making most of them viable options at any time.

you've said that getting certain resources are important for wonders, like stone marble and copper and implied this is a good thing. i dont see how this is a good thing, i think it adds more randomness then strategy. if i start near marble and because of that i build wonders that are sped up by marble, i havnt made the choice to build those wonders, the game has, by giving me a starting location near marble. i dislike having certain resources speed up wonders, it limits my options. if a certain wonder would greatly help the situation i am in, but i dont have the resource to build it quickly, then there is no point in building it, because it is unlikely that i will be able to complete it before someone else with the propper resource does.

you've said that now there are more choices because there are different kinds of tile improvements. again, although i agree that this gives me more choices, i dont see how this gives more *viable* choices, considering that the mechanics of this game have put heavy emphasis on city specialization. if i choose to make a city a commerce city then i will build cottages, if a production city then i will build farms and mines, if a GP city i will build farms. and often there isnt much of a choice in how a city is specialized, it is pre-determined by the terrain. although there are certainly more choices, i think it rarely makes any sense to cottage up what could be a good production city, or to try and turn a plains and hills city into a gp farm. there arn't as many *viable* options as you seem to be suggesting. i think if there was a terraforming ability for workers there would be more options, because then the terrain wouldnt be deciding city specialization for me. there was a terraforming ability in previous verions of civ, but for some reason it hasnt been implemented in this one.

you've said that the many different map scripts have added a different kind of strategy. i agree that this is somehow true, but i feel the need to point out that the maps in civ4 are smaller and have less civs in them. this means that in every game there are less variables, and overall the outcome of a game of civ4 is more predictable then previous versions. especially since it seems to be almost impossible for an AI to win via conquest or domination, because they havnt been programmed that way, as opposed to previous versions of civ where the AIs were more bloodthirsty, and it was possible for one of them to break away from the pack and become a powerful and worthwhile opponent.

you say that civ traits being important is a good thing. i disagree. i think they are too powerful, and unbalanced because some are situational while others arn't. i think that they put too much emphasis on specific strategies. it is obvious that an aggressive civ would be good for war, but if i choose an aggressive civ with the idea that i want to be at war through out the game, and then halfway through i realize that going to war is a very bad idea with the current situation i am in, then suddenly i am at a disadvantage, because one of my traits is then useless. on the other hand, traits like organized and financial give a constant bonus despite the situation. i think a better idea would be the option to choose different traits throughout the game, to adapt to whatever strategy i choose perhaps at a cost of a long period of anarchy, perhaps the possibility of civil war, creating 2 civs with the same name, one with the older traits and one with the newer traits. otherwise, i think a good idea would be making each trait give constant bonuses instead of some being situational and some being constant. i liked the traits in civ3 better then the ones in civ4, because they were less important, while still adding flavor to the game.

the fact that you presented many of these new and changed elements in gameplay as positive things without looking at how viable they are and without looking at what would be better, or how previous versions of civ implemented them better, leads me to believe that you are the one looking at this debate through rose-colored glasses.

also, notice how throughout this post i have reffered to everything as my own opinion, and thereby leaving everything easily open for debate? really, anyones post is pretty much their opinion, and it is usually obvious, but it seems it is not see obvious to some people, so maybe you should give this a try. in some of your posts you seem to represent your opinion as a fact through out all of it except in the end where you say that actually it is your opinion. it seems somewhat contradictory, and may confuse some people into believing that you are being arrogant.

at the moment, i prefer alot of elements of previous civ games over the ones which are implemented into this one. i paid 60$ for this game, i even spent 150$ for a new video card. i am desperately trying to like it, but it just seems to me like there are so many things that are just flawed and are a huge step backwards, that there are many things that have been left out. many such things i havnt even mentioned. at the moment i am seriously enjoying playing a game of civ1 more then i am a game of civ4. i have long since lost my CDs for civ2, and after two years of fun i finally burned out on civ3. i was expecting civ4 to be new and refreshing, but after the first month it is boring and predictable, and it doesnt seem right to me. i have an open mind, perhaps i am wrong, and perhaps some of you could politely tell me how i am wrong, and what i am missing. perhaps you can give me a new perspective about some of the things i have mentioned. if you can, i would actually appreciate it, but i think it's more likely we will just have to respectfully agree to disagree, and that i will be playing civ1 until civ5 comes out.

oh, and as far as graphics go, i think all the previous versions of civ are better then civ4. this is a turn based strategy game, i dont see the need for eye candy that detracts from the gameplay, and raises system requirements to astronomical levels. the momentary pause between giving an action and the game reacting is also a huge game killer.

whoa, this is longer then i thought it would be, hehe.

 

[Commander Bello]

I think it does have to do with your computer. Play on a really fast computer, with high-end graphics, and set the right options, and movement is as fast as you want it to be. There was a "next unit" delay problem in the original release, which showed up particularly on huge maps in the late game, but that was fixed in 1.61.

It may be true that the system requirements for good performance in Civ4 are higher than you would like them to be. But it's not true that it's slow regardless of what hardware you have.

(Marking by me)
I don't think it is based on the computer.
I run the game on a decent machine (P4 3.6 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 2 6600 GS gfx cards in SLI-mode, 800 FSB, 533 RAM and so on and so on... ). For sure a machine which should be sufficient to make the game respond in time.

Unfortunately, it just doesn't. Latest after reaching the industrial area, the game becomes SLOW. Units will stop their animation for !/3 of a second, units will end their turn (take a seat and have a coffee) before you can do anything else and so on. Manouvring your ships or unts via numpad becomes a major pain.

Saving and reloading after you have played for appr. 3 hours will help, yet not very much since the lags will reappear.

I understand and have never complained about the inter-turn delays. These are fine and actually show that certain routines have been drastically improved compared with the ones of Civ3. Yet, it is in the player's own turn, when the game becomes slooooow.

Here for sure is quite some room for code optimization.

 

[T.A JONES]

Commander....
I was targeting that quote to, except I was wondering whats more harmful to the overall replayabilty of a legendary stategy game.

It doen't bother me as much waiting a few minutes for a chessmaster to consider his moves, especially when Im playing Civ3 on a much bigger standard then Civ4's huge chess board, its when I get the feeling Im moving on morph or playing with a twitch I start getting truly annoyed. Why did they need graphics like that anyway they did nothing for this game. The globe view runs like a demolition test car. (zoom! zoom!! crash. ) and still they release it?

 

[DaviddesJ]

Latest after reaching the industrial area, the game becomes SLOW.

I haven't seen the problems you describe, but I admit I have rarely played well into the industrial era. But the OP claimed that the problems he was seeing occurred at ALL stages of the game. And I definitely don't see slowness at all stages of the game. So, if he's seeing that, it's because of his computer, not something that is inherent to the game.

 

[armchairknight]

You are quite wrong, AL said pretty much exactly what I was feeling by the time I got to that post, and if he hadn't posted it, I would have.



I never said your attitude was strange, I said it was obnoxious and grating, I live in the US, I find nothing strange about that kind of attitude, I see it every day. You are entitled to your opinion, and I don't have a problem with you sticking to your guns. It is the fact that you insult others and then can't seem to take it without calling in the mods, that I have a problem with.



I didn't call you anything, I just made an observation about your attitude in this thread. If you are worried about name calling, perhaps you should check your own back yard first, and apologize to all those people who you referred to as "Civ Dorks" (anyone who does not agree with you in this thread).

Accountability. It's not just for others anymore.

Why is this such a contentious thread? I mean this whole thread boils down to personal taste. No Civ game was broken or bad; all four of them were critical and commercial successes. There are no bad choices here. Only bad arguments. Just kidding. If someone chooses to play a Civ X game, that's a good thing, regardless of the value of X. Why should it matter? In my humble opinion, it shouldn't. Can't we all just get along?

 

[Commander Bello]

I think the OP stated certain points which exemplify the frustration at least a countable minority seems to have with Civ4.

Granted, many features have been added. Granted, Civ4 is more complex than Civ1, Civ2 and Civ3.

But, hey, it was released in 2005, wasn't it? It was released after 15 years of experience with this genre. So, what did you expect? I for my person am not surprised that there are more features in Civ4 than there have been in the previous releases.

What I am surprised about, though, is how many things have been left out.

We have been promised a game with less micromanagement, for instance. Is this true? I don't think so.
If I want to play on bigger maps than standard size, I have to zoom out. Then, I have to be cautious not to zoom out too much, since then I am in the clouds and don't see my units anymore.
Depending on which nation I am playing, it is almost impossible to see my borders in forests and jungles (try the Germans' grey, for instance).
Ahhh... talking about jungles. I have quite a decent €500.00 LCD, and still have some problems identifying the terrain below jungles. Is it plains, grass or hills?
Similar it is with cottages, hamlets, villages and towns. What is a hamlet, and what is a village? Where are my watermills?
And why do I have to check all the time, if one of my 25+ cities has grown? But I get 5 notifications that a great "whatever" has been born in Wsudlegedborough.
Why does the game engine make a engineer of my new citizen, although all automization has been turned off?
Why don't I have the chance to tell a unit "Go to city XYZ?". Why can't I locate city XYZ on the map?
Why do even destroyers and battleships try to follow the coast line, if I send them to another continent?
Why do units following a "goto" command don't stop, if they spot Barbarians?
Why isn't there a chance to declare "I will NOT participate in any war?", but I have to take the diplomatic hit and to answer the question "Won't you join us in our fight against the evil ABC at the other end of the world?"

Civ1 was a revolutionary game. Civ2 was a fun game. Both had flaws, no doubt about it.
Civ3 tried to offer new elements, like armies, GMLs, borders and ressources.

Civ4 has given us religions, civics, GPs and a lot of tile improvements.
Yet, it hasn't done the right step, as far as I see it.
The religions are all the same. GPs can only be created in 2 or 3 cities, realistically. Most of the theoratically possible civic combinations come true only in the late game. Calendar has become a key tech, if you have bananas, coffee, dyes, and what not in your area.

To be honest, I miss the balancing and finetuning of Civ4.

 

[Robi D]

Naokaukodem,

You have mentioned a number of times that the fundamentals are missing in civ 4, without actually once mentioning what these fundamentals are.

 

[ThERat]

ndferent, excellent post that I can wholeheartedly support and agree with.

Also, as Bello pointed out, Civ does have quite a few flaws. Maybe the Civ4 hype was simply too hyper and set us in the wrong mode. We all expected the uber-game.

We got all those promises of many options, less annoying MM, great graphics, much better AI etc etc.
Unfortunately, even the initial period of exploring and discovering new things was really disturbed by big technical issues. Yes, the patches have improved these quite a bit, but by that time, the honeymoon period was over and all the rosy things were that rosy.

Aussie, you do have to admit that the great variety of choices isn't all that great. The AI give you NO variety, because you know how each of them will behave, there will hardly ever be a runaway Civ since they are too passive. Each game will flow pretty similar with the AI moving about to get the space ship. Talking about variety here...No conquest/domination/culture or Un for the AI, thats 1/5...

On higher levels, the way to win is predetermined. Since the diplomacy has been completely nerfed into AI favor, you almost HAVE to attack them in order to win.

Religion is bland. I, in fact love the free religion civic, so I don't need to bother about the rep hits in the game. If you say, this is realistic, you are right, but since religions are generic, this has nothing to do with history anyway.

Warfare has been a major disappointement for me so far. The laggy unit's response adds to that. I loved the Civ3 excitement of seeing your units redline while fighting giving you cold sweat when the last units you have to attack went red... Now we get a ? and have no clue what is going on...Heck, you can't even tell what is going on with your units when a large stack attacks until after the whole stack attack is over. In modern times you get bombed, tiles get pillaged and you have no clue what is happening. You are well into the next turn, when the messages come in and tell you about some past event you can't follow anyway. This is clearly rushed...

The graphics are completely unnecessary and distracting. I do not need a globe view that I never use since I can't see anything. I don't get excited to see the world as a pseudoglobe. I would rather be able to have a clear and unobstructed view of the important things. I have had troubles clicking on units hidden behind an elephant and it took me quite some time, zoom in to max to be able to actually activate that unit.
Did you all not get annoyed, when you need to fortify a unit 2 times after waking it up? Or when you draft a unit and the turn won't end because that unit is active, but you wouldn't know that? These are details that could have been avoided, if the emphasis wouldn't have been jumping fish in the sea...

But, I think to talk about Civ2 and glorifying it, is also not really totally right. Civ1/2/3 all had their nice points and also flaws. It is just that we all were too hyped for Civ4 and then got to play a game that is, well, alright. Nothing outstanding, but ok. Unfortunately, for quite a portion of civfanatics, that's not enough

 

[Naokaukodem]

You are quite wrong, AL said pretty much exactly what I was feeling by the time I got to that post, and if he hadn't posted it, I would have.

Let's admit it... then I would say 1. you are to much of a sensitive guy or, I have my theory about that, that 2. you simply can't figure what I mean by Civ Dorks. They are just players that I believe take the game in direction which is not mine, I don't intend to insult them, that's just my opinion and I take the risks to worry people that feel aimed by this. The fact is that 3. you may feel as so, the poll I made about it as I explained above showed that some people did not take it good and called me monkey (no offense, I was just giving them the stick to beat me in the poll with this special answer ), maybe you were one of these persons.
I would just ask you here to have the wider spirit as possible. I know, this can't be acquired in one day!

Robi D, the fundamentals I mentionned are all packed together in the first post, and maybe the "snappyness" is one of them as well (I'm reinstalling the game to check if people saying the game is snappy are right or not).
I called them fundamentals to refere to this particular feeling of Civ (2) I had playing it, not to refere to what is needed to do a good game, although I think that this feeling should be/is a fundamental of the entire Civ series. ("what makes it so good")
I hope to have answered your question.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

You know, I hear a lot about this evil "randomness" in Civ4 which apparently removes strategy. Well, get over it, randomness is a feature of ALL games and-might I add-was a much bigger part of Civ2 than Civ4. Yes some of the choices are 'situational', but even accounting for situations you still have more choices than you EVER had in Civ2. For example, I have often had trouble choosing between Pacifism or Organised Religion. Why? Because its difficult to choose between getting bonus production or bonus Great People. Additionally, choosing between State Property or Free Market can be difficult, as can the choice between Universal Sufferage and Representation. Now, I am NOT going to say that Civics are perfect-they can be improved IMO-but they are a HELL of a lot better than those straitjacket government types in Civ2 and Civ3.
Also, although resources can HELP you to get a Wonder, they are not the be-all and end-all. For starters, you can always get them in trade if you practice decent diplomacy skills. Even without the resource, though, you can get the Wonders anyway via a good use of specialists and forest-chopping.
Also, I would very much disagree that terrain improvements are situational. Sure there are some tied directly to resources, but again I often find myself having tough choices between different terrain improvement types. Certainly more choices than simply build a mine or build a farm-as was the case in Civ2 and Civ3.
Also, I can assure you that I have been placed at great risk of being conquered by AI civs, and have in fact had to give up games because I have lost my best cities to concerted attacks. They DO attack more intelligently than in Civ2-or Civ3 for that matter.
I also hear about massive MM and lagginess. Well, sorry, but that is NOT my personal experience. For starters, unlike in Civ2 and 3, you DON'T need to build 6,000 cities in order to have a reasonable chance of victory, so that means you have to manage far fewer cities. If that is too much, then you can automate to the nth degree (and, I have noticed, the AI actually LISTENS to my suggestions re automation). Also, with the build queue-as in civ3-you can 'set and forget' the bulk of your cities, unlike in Civ2 where you had to go and check on your cities every 4-5 turns.
In many ways, in spite of all the extra choices this game DOES offer-as I have shown-the degree of randomness is actually probably less than in previous iterations. Why? Well because there are more things you-the player-can do to boost your chances of success. As I said above, you want a better chance of building a Wonder-well seek out the resources for them and/or specialise your cities for extra hammers-and cut a few forests for good measure. Want a better chance of victory in combat? Well choose the right civics, build a barracks and select promotions which you think will be best for your upcoming battles.
As for the hatred of Leader Traits, well that is a matter of personal preference. IMO, without them the civs become totally bland and generic, which is what I hated so much about the Civs in Civ2.
However, at the end of the day-and I speak for a large section of the Australian online community here-I can honestly say that IMO this is a GREAT GAME. It is not a BRILLIANT game, however, and can do with improvement-but it is still the most fun Civ experience I have had since Civ1 first hit the scene. Now, if you don't like it, I would suggest this has less to do with the GAME itself, and more to do with the kind of game experience you personally are after. If it doesn't meet your expectations, then by all means play a game which is more your cup of tea.

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Beetlebug]

Hmmmm,,,,,,,,

In 5 pages of rants what has really been decided is that CIV 4 is NOT the absolutely most perfectly fabulously wonderful game they thought it would be and are so irreconcilably crushed so that their life is now not worth living, but before they commit Hari Kari (please consult Tokagawa for technique) they must inflict as much shrieking, wailing, whining, sniveling and gnashing of teeth etc., on others to make them feel the same way they do.

Others have respectfully, for the most part, have disagreed running the gamut from total infatuation to presenting problems with their hardware.

Honestly Naokaukodem, I thought you made some good points about Civ II, but your endless snivelling, and railing against others who disagree with you is borrrrrrrrring. YOu like Civ II fine - go play it

 

[armchairknight]

You know, I hear a lot about this evil "randomness" in Civ4 which apparently removes strategy. Well, get over it, randomness is a feature of ALL games and-might I add-was a much bigger part of Civ2 than Civ4. Yes some of the choices are 'situational', but even accounting for situations you still have more choices than you EVER had in Civ2. For example, I have often had trouble choosing between Pacifism or Organised Religion. Why? Because its difficult to choose between getting bonus production or bonus Great People. Additionally, choosing between State Property or Free Market can be difficult, as can the choice between Universal Sufferage and Representation. Now, I am NOT going to say that Civics are perfect-they can be improved IMO-but they are a HELL of a lot better than those straitjacket government types in Civ2 and Civ3.
Also, although resources can HELP you to get a Wonder, they are not the be-all and end-all. For starters, you can always get them in trade if you practice decent diplomacy skills. Even without the resource, though, you can get the Wonders anyway via a good use of specialists and forest-chopping.
Also, I would very much disagree that terrain improvements are situational. Sure there are some tied directly to resources, but again I often find myself having tough choices between different terrain improvement types. Certainly more choices than simply build a mine or build a farm-as was the case in Civ2 and Civ3.
Also, I can assure you that I have been placed at great risk of being conquered by AI civs, and have in fact had to give up games because I have lost my best cities to concerted attacks. They DO attack more intelligently than in Civ2-or Civ3 for that matter.
I also hear about massive MM and lagginess. Well, sorry, but that is NOT my personal experience. For starters, unlike in Civ2 and 3, you DON'T need to build 6,000 cities in order to have a reasonable chance of victory, so that means you have to manage far fewer cities. If that is too much, then you can automate to the nth degree (and, I have noticed, the AI actually LISTENS to my suggestions re automation). Also, with the build queue-as in civ3-you can 'set and forget' the bulk of your cities, unlike in Civ2 where you had to go and check on your cities every 4-5 turns.
In many ways, in spite of all the extra choices this game DOES offer-as I have shown-the degree of randomness is actually probably less than in previous iterations. Why? Well because there are more things you-the player-can do to boost your chances of success. As I said above, you want a better chance of building a Wonder-well seek out the resources for them and/or specialise your cities for extra hammers-and cut a few forests for good measure. Want a better chance of victory in combat? Well choose the right civics, build a barracks and select promotions which you think will be best for your upcoming battles.
As for the hatred of Leader Traits, well that is a matter of personal preference. IMO, without them the civs become totally bland and generic, which is what I hated so much about the Civs in Civ2.
However, at the end of the day-and I speak for a large section of the Australian online community here-I can honestly say that IMO this is a GREAT GAME. It is not a BRILLIANT game, however, and can do with improvement-but it is still the most fun Civ experience I have had since Civ1 first hit the scene. Now, if you don't like it, I would suggest this has less to do with the GAME itself, and more to do with the kind of game experience you personally are after. If it doesn't meet your expectations, then by all means play a game which is more your cup of tea.

Aussie_Lurker.

And a hearty, yeah! What he said!

If I had to rate the Civ games by my love for them it would go Civ IV, Civ I, Civ II, and finally Civ III Complete. But that's just me. This thread is about those who rate the series a little differently but since it's in the Civ IV forum, I feel that I'm ok to put in my two cents. I feel that I've a more flexible, responsive, deeper, and -yes- prettier strategy game in Civ IV than I've ever had in this series. I love Civ IV! Now back to the regularly scheduled program....

 

[acidsatyr]

i mean seriously, civ2 is quite different then civ 4. But in all honesty, when you compare all advantages and disadvantages of both games, clearly civ4 is a better game overall. That's the whole point.

 

[Superkrest]

never mind all the technical arguments...for me its just feel...many have said it already and i whole heartedly agree...civ4 for just feels like a game..i have a very hard time devoloping a dorky imersion into a game..the world feels small..cheesebally and not like a world...does it mean its not a great game..no..not at all..but for it takes away what made civ, civ. for me, from civ 1 and 2 and to some part 3..it was easy to get lost in your game..imagination would run wild and you could honestly feel like you were running a massive and progressive empire.. in civ 4..the game play is just that ..game play..i find that this feeling has been lost by adding so much more to the game..like i said..do i hate civ4 ..no...do i like earlier civs better..no...do i perfer playing earlier civ games..heck yes..why..its all the feeling of running a civ and a world.

thats why many of you have not seen me on this board in sometime..i was soo excited about the game..when it arrived..i felt...cived out.i find it harder to excited about the game then those past...if you need me ..ill be on the civ3 and 2 boards..lol