1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

If you have Civ4, Why do you keep playing Civ3

Discussion in 'Civ3 - General Discussions' started by Kalimakhus, Feb 20, 2008.

  1. darski

    darski Regent in Training

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,075
    Location:
    Ontario, Can.
    Civ 4 was never playable on my (little) computer so I've never tried it.

    My son did get 4 and he said he liked it and the graphics were great.. when he first got it. Within a very short time he was bored with it and looking to start playing 3 again. 3 was just a better playing game and easier on the computer overall. (He bought a gamer's computer as a treat last year so he had the machine to make 4 work. It worked but boringly so :lol: :rolleyes: )
     
  2. Yui108

    Yui108 Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    2,590
    Location:
    Chicago
    CIV4 is fun. Civ3 is life consuming
     
  3. Aemilius

    Aemilius Guest from Overseas

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    212
    Location:
    Southern Finland
    Civ3 is good:worship: No need to stop playing even if I have and play civ4.
     
  4. Yoda Power

    Yoda Power ✫✫✫✫✫✫✫

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2002
    Messages:
    13,869
    Civ4 just gets boring very quickly. All the games I play seem the same.
     
  5. CommandoBob

    CommandoBob AbstractArt

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    Messages:
    8,231
    Location:
    Too near The Temple of Jerry Jones
    I don't have Civ 4 but I think this sums it up for a lot of people:

    First, to reacquaint you with the Bob Seger tune:
    (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6UJZtCz1-c)

    And second, the re-versed lyrics:

    Just take that darn thing off my disk;
    I'd rather have a bad round of Risk.
    Today's version ain't got the same soul;
    I like that Civ III rock 'n' roll.

    Don't try to tempt me now with eBay;
    Forget the price 'cause I ain't gonna pay.
    In ten clicks I'll be leaving that store;
    I like that Civ III rock 'n' roll.

    I like that Civ III rock 'n' roll!
    This kind of game just soothes my soul.
    I'll play it now and when I'm old;
    I like that Civ III rock 'n' roll!

    Won't play to get the UN vote;
    I'd rather be sailing on that Titanic boat.
    The only sure way to get me to go;
    Start playing Civ III rock 'n' roll!

    Call me a relic, call me what you will;
    Say I'm old fashioned, say I'm over the hill.
    Today's version ain't got the same soul;
    I like that Civ III rock 'n' roll.

    I like that Civ III rock 'n' roll!
    This kind of game just soothes my soul.
    I'll play it now and when I'm old;
    I like that Civ III rock 'n' roll!

    I like that Civ III rock 'n' roll!
    This kind of game just soothes my soul.
    I'll play it now and when I'm old;
    I like that Civ III rock 'n' roll!
     
  6. Quintillus

    Quintillus Archiving Civ3 Content Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    6,595
    Location:
    Ohio
    :lol:!!! Very good, CommandoBob! :goodjob: Quite true, too, I rather would have a bad round of Risk! And the soul is what's missing, the epic, empire-building soul of Civ.
     
  7. D0NIMATRIX

    D0NIMATRIX Full of drivel

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,663
    Location:
    Political incorrectness
    It's a lot harder to make something simple than something complicated. Go Civ3!
     
  8. MariusDarkheart

    MariusDarkheart Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Messages:
    22
    I would of listed my reasons for not playing Civ4 but it seams all my points have been raised. Recently I got a friend who was playing Civ4 to go and buy Civ3, she's hooked! I was starting to get bored of Civ3 and didn't want to play Civ4 again (I do try to play it but.....), then I stumbled across this sight and all these lovely mods!!!
    Long Live Civ3!!!
     
  9. Arbustro

    Arbustro Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    118
    Location:
    Lisboa, Portugal
    this is the big problem
    civ4 is better imo. More complex = more rewarding
    has a "make love not war" concept that adds realism to the game

    but if in civ3 you didn't liked something you used the editor and it took you 5m to get it good
    In civ4 you have to take a degree in modding and get a team of monkeys working for you 24h per day during one month, to make a decent change.

    Most of the things you mentioned about aspects where civ4 is worse, CAN be modded... Unfortunatly we all have lives to live.

    (Civ4 is very demanding for an average pc. Mine has 7 years and looking forward to retirement.)
     
  10. Yui108

    Yui108 Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    2,590
    Location:
    Chicago
    I don't understand how civ4 is more complex ( I thought a big selling point was less micromanagement?)
     
  11. Arbustro

    Arbustro Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    118
    Location:
    Lisboa, Portugal
    there's much more warmongering tactics in civ3
    logic: larger=better and civ4 tries to get away from that
    i believe that's a nice effort

    but: CIV4 is fun. Civ3 is life consuming
    And I agree with you. My point is, mods kept it alive all this time
     
  12. CommandoBob

    CommandoBob AbstractArt

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    Messages:
    8,231
    Location:
    Too near The Temple of Jerry Jones
    Civ 4 was designed around the Multi-Player experience and once they got that part 'right' the Single-Gamer experience was added on. Not quite the company line and not intended to belittle the solo gamer. The focus was to get the Multi-Player right the first time.

    Civ 3 was designed for the Single-Gamer. It's Multi-Player, first launched with Play The World and then heavily revised for Conquests (IIRC) improved from laughable to merely bad. Or maybe just stayed bad; I've never 'done' Multi-Player in Civ3 (Succesion Games don't count).
     
  13. BalthusTraveler

    BalthusTraveler Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    9
    Because it takes up less memory on my ancient computer.
    And it was much cheaper to get (C3C is only as expensive as PS2's "greatest hits" line)
     
  14. turfcat

    turfcat Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    340
    Location:
    Hemmingford, Qc.
    I was impressed with the graphics on civ4 when I first saw them but after a short while you get pretty sick of them.
    Like a lot of people said, their too cartoonish and to be honest, high quality 3d graphics don't really work in a great strategy game. They make everything look too busy and take away from the strategic side of it.

    On the contrary however, I found it interesting how they tried to remove all the micro management by using generally less units and cities. And the idea of adding religion was a plus. After all some of the largest conflicts in civilization were over religion, so it only makes sense to add this to game play.

    I think Firaxis had some good ideas for civ4 but just didn't implement them very well. I think they thought that civ fans wanted civ to be like every other new version of a great game. More 3d and highly detailed graphics.

    But civ isn't like other games. Sometimes simpler is better. I can still spend hours playing civ2 with motionless icons moving around the map. It's not the look that makes the game. It's the game that makes the game.

    My Dad found the same problems with "Railroads" over "Railroad Tycoon"
     
  15. Northen Wolf

    Northen Wolf Young Hunter

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,241
    Location:
    Estonia
    Civ4 could have an option, wethever you want cartoon graphic, or just simple, no super-hyper-3D-cartoon graphic. If I could play civ 4 in normal, civ 3 or perhaps in civ 2 style graphic, it would be hellofa interesting.

    Other thing I don't like is "I was playing Ceasar and met Cleo and Hannibal, we warred alot with Hannibal but were friendly with Cleo." Civilizations look better than leaders :), I understand leaders might have some bonus, but not leaders replacing civilization...

    And units that counter units is not bad, either is promotions idea.
     
  16. Civinator

    Civinator Blue Lion Supporter

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,090
    Gender:
    Male
    yes! :goodjob:
     
  17. Raijer

    Raijer The 736th Beatle

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    1,206
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    IMHO, Civ 4 is ugly when compared to Civ 3. Its design is cluttered and overwhelming to the eye. All the human characters look brittle and harsh. Plain and simple - Civ 4 is an eyesore. I do like many of the ideas (religion), and despise the elimination of others (no colonies - wtf!!). Ultimately, I think it's a good game, but I just hate looking at it. Civ 3's design is much more appealing, streamlined and simple.
     
  18. bob rulz

    bob rulz Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2004
    Messages:
    568
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    I was hugely disappointed by Civ 4.

    Areas where Civ 3 is better:

    Diplomacy

    I will agree that diplomacy has been significantly weakened. Although the variety of diplomatic options has increased, the flexibility in how you can use them and a lot of the fierce diplomacy of III is gone. I just don't think it was very well-implemented. Streamlined in this case meant simplified. I DO, however, like the fact that you can influence the AI against other AIs.

    Military

    Overall waging war was much more fun, more interesting, and overall more satisfying in III. They tried to do too much with the combat system; the promotions are a good idea, but there's just TOO MANY of them! Also, as noted before, the bombardment system makes absolutely no sense at all. I also don't like how you have to have super huge mega-armies to make any progress. The rock-paper-scissors mechanic just feels a little forced. A lot of the fun in waging combat just seems to have been lost. Drawn-out wars of attrition with neighbors are more of a drag than they were in III, when they could still be fun.

    Expansion and the maps

    There's many problems here.

    No more sense of "creating" an empire. The small maps means that maps are filled up quickly. Because there's so much useful terrain and so many different resources, there's hardly a bad place to place a city. Cities create larger footprints, the decision-making process in placing cities is almost eliminated, and simply a lot of that "empire-building" feel has been lost. My favorite part of Civ III is when you're expanding and carving out your own niche in the world, struggling to survive and vigorously competing with neighboring civs. It just doesn't feel "Civ-like" in IV. The crippling handicap on creating large empires doesn't help much either.

    And about the maps themselves; besides the seeming elimination of useless terrain and their small size, they're just so unrealistic and uninteresting. They never form mountain chains, the shapes and geographic features are uninteresting at best, and the patchwork distribution of terrain is totally unrealistic. However, it is nice that there's "tundra hills", "forest hills", "desert hills", etc. It rectified one of my few complaints about the maps in Civ III.

    Artificial intelligence

    In some areas it is an improvement. They're shrewder diplomats and ultimately at least a little bit smarter in combat. However, for being released 4 years after III the AI doesn't take nearly enough of a leap. My biggest problem is that they aren't nearly aggressive enough, especially towards each other. One of the coolest things about Civ III was watching the AI civs war with each other, something that I never really experienced to any significant extent in Civ IV. I've heard that Beyond the Sword improved the AI considerably, however, but I was never interested enough in buying it to find out.

    Faster workers, slower game

    My workers would quite often have even less to do than in III. Despite the increased worker options, they worked faster and wouldn't have to take an extra move after moving into an unimproved tile to build something there. This means that more could be done with less, but because of smaller maps and faster work times, they stood around a lot more. Left long stretches of the game with literally nothing to do. The less interesting diplomacy, more difficult combat, and lack of AI-on-AI action, overall it felt a lot slower to me.

    The graphics

    As mentioned before, the graphics are just too cluttered and flashy. However, this is a relatively minor complaint.

    More focus on cities, but cities aren't any better

    What I mean by this is that, despite the fact that each city takes on much greater importance, if anything they can't do quite as much as they do in Civ III. It would've been nice if they would've fleshed out city management some more so as to make city management more important. I believe this is important because of the increased focus on cities; you have less cities, and ultimately about as much to DO with them as you did in III. See where I'm coming from?

    They went overboard with culture

    No explanation really needed. Culture is way too powerful for its own good. It should be a mostly passive element that can be dinked around with and improved like in III, but it shouldn't become the forefront gameplay element.

    Things about Civ IV that don't quite work:

    Religion

    The idea of having religion in there is a good idea, but it seems like it was just tacked on. First off, the idea that you can "see" into cities with the same religion is ridiculous. Also, I hate how once a religion becomes established in a city, it's stuck there forever. Religions don't "overpower" other religions naturally; they'll only spread to cities that don't have religions. You can't wage a holy war and purge certain religions from your city, etc. This makes it extremely difficult both for later religions to take hold and for there to be any real change in the status quo of religion throughout the game. However, the cultural, financial, and diplomatic aspect of religion is good.

    Technology tree

    I love the increased accuracy, increased importance of each technology, and the different paths to each technology. I think that's a great idea. However, does it ever seem just TOO open to anybody else?

    Economic system

    Well, I know it's improved. It's just that nobody knows that because you can't tell what the hell is going on with it. Also, advisors are also bloody useless, although the fact that you can see all of the other civs on the foreign advisor screen is a HUGE benefit.

    Leaders instead of civs

    Well, I like that there's different leaders...I'm just not too fond of the fact that leaders essentially replace civs.

    Things I like about Civ IV:

    Great people

    I love great people. They're easily the best new feature in the game.

    Resource system

    I like the variety of resources and the bonuses of each. No more separate "bonus, luxury, and strategic" resources. All can be traded, all can be improved, all provide a variety of different benefits, etc.

    Vassal States

    Awesome. It really should've been in Civ III. That's all I have to say.

    Worker options

    I do like how there's so many different and useful things that workers can do. Mines are more restricted, which is much more realistic, there's cottages, which are a nice touch, and every resource can be improved in some way. Again, though, they never should've made workers work as fast as they did, and they never should've given them an extra movement point.

    Civics

    Not a flawless idea, but I like the flexibility that comes with choosing different government traits. It could've done with a little more control, though, such as a combination of the governments in Civ III with different government traits in Civ IV.

    No corruption, no city rioting

    Although yes, it is replaced with the annoying empire-killing handicap, the fact that corruption itself is gone is one of the few things where I can honestly say "thank god for CIV IV." But one of the VERY few.

    It's the same with city riots. Luckily, they won't fall into civil disorder; discontented citizens just won't work. It makes it much easier to manage a city and ultimately less annoying. Civil disorder was just bad in Civ III.

    Overall, it comes down to this:

    Civ IV sacrificed DEPTH for BREADTH. It does LESS with MORE. It's just so much more simplified and, ultimately, slow to me.
     
  19. againsttheflow

    againsttheflow unpolitically uncorrect

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,985
    Location:
    northern CA
    Interesting assessment, I like the way you put it. I don't have CivIV so I won't contribute but that sounds like what a lot of people have been trying to say.
     
  20. MAS

    MAS Deity

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,080
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I can understand that some people don't like Civ4, and I can even believe you can make hard arguments* against Civ4. But...

    I see a lot of arguments against civ4 I think are factually wrong.

    Civ4 is not "dumbed down" it has more options, more possible strategies one can exploit, more variation in paths to pursue from one game to an other. The developers obviously (to me) gave the game-play a lot of though, and they did a lot of play testing. Where in Civ3 there are a lot more options that I think are probably added more or less as an afterthought, without thinking much about how it would effect the balance.

    I'm not trying to defend Civ4, but I kind of get annoyed by people making arguments that just don't make sense, because they just don't apply to Civ4 at all.


    (*with "hard argument" I mean, things that aren't pure opinion, "I don't like the color pink" is a pure opinion. "it requires to expensive hardware to run acceptable" is an hard argument)
     

Share This Page