I might actually not buy CivIV

[Janos]

Rome: TW has good diplomacy? Ha! It's appalling. Medieval's diplomacy was much better. In Rome you will make an alliance and it will count for sweet nothing. It's good, but in the end they have geared an engine for massive 10,000 man battles - it's completely different to Civ, because Civ is traditional Turn-based Strategy, whereas Rome is in the Total War genre, which combines TBS with RTS.

 

[Own]

I would like to keep playing civ3, but the SG's and gotms will be less popular so I'm gonna get civ4. It probably will be better. I bet that civ4 will be the last civ.

 

[eaglefox]

anyone suggesting civ 3 diplomacy as good hasn't played the game. alliances don't really matter in civ 3 either. you can have a 'trusted' and 'faithful' ally in one turn, and in the next that very ally is trying to kill you. so don't tell me civ 3 diplomacy is good. rome total war is based in a time when alliances were made and broken easily. there weren't any real alliances as such anyways. every empire had to fend off for itself. so for that time the game is quite true. and i loved the 3-D battles. you could blockade a port with a fleet by just clicking the blockade button. you don't have to keep ships on every sea square around the city and use up all your ships in the process. and i like the idea of having to send diplomats to talk to other civs which takes some time as it really should for the guy to get there. in civ3 apparently we have telephones in the bronze age, and you can talk to anyone anytime you want. plus there diplomatic screens had many more options.

 

[Himalia]

Im having my doubts about the game but come the day its in the shops im sure they will soon go.

 

[Janos]

I'm not - diplomacy in Civ 3 is awful... but so is diplomacy in Rome. What i'm hoping is that Civ IV has sensible diplomacy for once, which i think it will have. Rome's is similarly not a good example of good diplomacy.

 

[JavalTigar]

The only game I have ever played that I feel is just as addicting and has the depth of Civ is Knights of Honor. It was just released in the US last month but I have had it since Febuary when it was released in Europe. Scaled down version of MTW and good empire building. Is real-time with pause, made for some fast play. I lost many hours of sleep to it. Only a few other games can say that: Masters of Orion 2, SMAC & Civ 1-3 of course.

When I heard they were making cIV, I was ready to place my order then. Its all about product loyalty. Sid hasn't flopped yet & from everything I have seen so far, it WILL NOT be cIV!

 

[eaglefox]

I'm not - diplomacy in Civ 3 is awful... but so is diplomacy in Rome. What i'm hoping is that Civ IV has sensible diplomacy for once, which i think it will have. Rome's is similarly not a good example of good diplomacy.

yes its not everything one hopes for. but if you think of diplomacy in civ 3 in the bronze age and early medieval age, RTW diplomacy is somewhat better. yes the trade system sucks, that could be because i couldn't figure it out in the short amount of tme that I played the game. I am not even suggesting that RTW on the whole is better than Civ 3, because i switched back to civ 3 soon after. Nevertheless, Civ 4 needs to have some major improvements in these areas, which unfortunately, if they are there, the developers haven't mentioned.

 

[Janos]

Actually, Rome Trade is easy as hell i find. Send diplomats to every nation and offer trade rights, build docks/roads/markets and their upgrades and you are rich. Not very in-depth, but yeah... i didn't like previous Civ titles diplomacy either, and i'm sure Firaxis have looked into the issue... and if not then i'll just play multiplayer like this game is being geared towards.

 

[AlfMaster]

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! YOU CAN'T BE SAYING THAT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

*curls up into fetal position in the corner*

(remember, fetal position solves everything)

 

[eaglefox]

civ 4 won't flop that's for sure - just because of the shear amount of people waiting to buy it before even reading the reviews. well i will be waiting for your reviews i guess i had enough playtime on civ 3 even though i bought it last december - with the two expansions in it. so i am going to do the same for civ 4.

 

[Joeb WK]

I some what doubt It will match the total pwnage that is Civ2.

 

[Himalia]

It will do great thats for sure simply due to the populaity of Civ III. I doubt they will rest on this simply beacause its a buisness at the end of the day if CIv IV is crumby thet will have real problems convincing people that CIV V will be great.

 

[Civrules]

I think I'm completely over Civilization.....

Also I'm not liking the look of CivIV so that's another reason I ain't buyin'.

Reason three: I'm broke.

You say you are completely over Civilization, but yet you have a frowning smilie? That tells me that you are not completely over it, and would very much like to play the new game.

Hopefully in the next few months your mind will change.

I think you are actually trying to convince yourself not to buy it since you are broke. Don't do that.

 

[shady milkman]

In other words, you follow the herd and play what you are told to play?

Good.

All the cool people will play CIV4. And I suggest you do too.

You're twisting my words. I'm just saying that I'm only going to buy it if I can be assured beforehand that it's going to be worth the 50 or so dollars it will probably cost. I'm not just going to rush out and buy it right away because it's a Civ game.

 

[warpstorm]

I bet that civ4 will be the last civ.

Since Take2 was willing to pay $23,000,000 to be allowed to take over the franchise (this price doesn't factor in the development costs, just the cost to be allowed to take over as the owner), I doubt it. That kind of investment will likely take more than one installment to pay off. I think they are thinking long term.

 

[andrewlt]

The emphasis of Civ is very different from the emphasis of the Total War series. The Total War series is basically a TBS + RTS combined. I liked Medieval and Shogun but Rome is quite a disappointment considering the new engine and higher profile of the series. It's too much dumbed down, ahistorical and button mashing RTS like. There are too many historical inaccuracies compared to Medieval and Shogun and the Egyptian faction, in particular, is a complete joke and made the worse with them being one of the most powerful factions in the game.

Battles are too fast, cavalry charges are too powerful and phalanxes are a complete letdown compared to their power during that time, even though they were in decay. They removed the tactical depth and replaced it with button mashing. The TBS portion of Rome is actually a lot better than Shogun and Medieval but the RTS portion is a lot worse, which defeats the transition to 3d graphics.

I hope Civ doesn't go the path of the Total War series. The first 2 games held a lot of promise but the last one is such a disappointment. Hopefully, they remove the tedious micromanagement but add in a lot of strategic choices. Twitch games are a dime a dozen and everything doesn't have to be a twitch game.

 

[Darwin420]

I don't get why people feel the need to post that they "aren't going to buy this game" on a forum for fans of the game... like anyone cares.

But still, good luck finding a better and more emersing strategy game - you'll be hard pressed to find one anytime soon that will overcome Civ IV.

Because people inevitably respond. . .

Civ in any incarnation is a good game of civ. Each has had their merits, and each has had things that made me . Take the good with the bad, coz there is NO OTHER game like Civ out there.

 

[warpstorm]

I hope Civ doesn't go the path of the Total War series. The first 2 games held a lot of promise but the last one is such a disappointment.

...and I hear rumors that the next one in the TW series will do away with the turn-based portion.

 

[Volstag]

Personally, I try not to make too many assumptions about a game until I've actually, you know, played the game. Apparently, I'm in the minority.

As for RTW vs. Civ: Sure, there's certain things that RTW does better than Civ, but when it comes to the "whole enchilada", Civ is still King. The AI in RTW is probably the worst of the entire series. As a result, I find the game relatively easy (though still fun to play). Civ, at least, presents me with new challenges and difficult situations each time I play a game. Heck, I've even lost (or retired) from Civ games because I knew I wouldn't be able to win. That's yet to happen to me in RTW.

-V

 

[henry k c]

I am also very dissapointed in civ 4. Amazingly, the graphics look WORSE than the graphics of civ 3. I played a rome total war demo, and was very impressed. It's combat system was 100 times better. I'm probably still gonna buy civ 4, but I will wait for someone to review it before I piss 50 bucks.