I'm new to the ''Civ'' series. What is the best in all the aspects? Civ4 or Civ5?

[Ninakoru]

I'm a veteran civ player, and Civ 5 on its release was... WTH is this?? Stupid AI, performance issues, game dumbed down... Also was hard for a player witch played all civs to adapt to the new rules. Civilization usually mean improvements without drastic changes.

The AI trying to win like a player and the new combat system where the biggest changes I've see on a civ game. But that was not my problem. The problem was the game feeled like a beta, and compared to the full refined Civ IV with all its expansions, the came was pitiful.

Now the game is much more polished, it feels much more fluid, AI handle their troops a quite better, the religion addition is brilliant, and I love tactical warfare, so the game for me is just as addictive as civ 3 was.

There is still some work to be done to make this game feel like a masterpiece. From my humble opinion:

- Tradition and Rationalism are superior policies. Tradition fits well in most strategies, rationalism is key to keep up tech in higher levels (at least the opener and the 2 left policies). They should balance it a bit better, and reworking/boosting the rest.

- AI combat need still some polish. They sould be able to realise when they have a tactical/numeric advantage and act accordingly, they focus fire too much and they sometimes relocate their army entirely without doing damage, giving you the chance to shut down more units. I understand the combat AI is much much more complicated to program , but there's still much room for improvement.

- They should provide more specialization in cities. You end up making most of the buildings in all cities, and you only prioritize the ones that give more benefit.

- There should be an option to switch the AI perspective of "try to win like a player in a game" to a more classic civilization diplomacy. I never cared to do a defensive pact, only looked to trade at higher rates. Diplomacy is way limited the way it is.

 

[NBAfan]

7.1 in metacritic is a rather mediocre rating by videogame standards... . The problem is not so much the simplification of the game (though that's a problem too), but the removal of the history part in a series based on history. You state correctly that war and combat tactics are the main focus of the game. This in itself is a very questionable change from previous civ versions, since civ has always focused on alternative historical developments with war as only one element among many. But the change would be tolerable if the developers hadn't removed every imaginable kind of realism and historical plausibility from the game.
Civ 4 was modeled around real history and its features represent various developments and occurences in our own history. In Civ 5, in contrast, the features have no connection to history at all and seem to only serve the purpose of being balanced towards eachother to make the different aspects of the game work out. But wether Civ 5 works as a game or not, it certainly cannot be viewed as a game of "Civilization".

What's with this Civ 4 is more realistic stuff? Civ games are not realistic at all.

 

[CrispyCritter]

But wether Civ 5 works as a game or not, it certainly cannot be viewed as a game of "Civilization".

That's a ridiculously strong statement. Can you go into detail as to why you think Civ5 is less a game of "Civilization" than Civ1, Civ2, or Civ3, all of which are acknowledged by everybody as games of "Civilization"?

 

[Dr. D]

What's with this Civ 4 is more realistic stuff? Civ games are not realistic at all.

That's because in Civ 4, the Americans settle Washington in 4000 BC... wait, no, that doesn't work... uh, it's because in Civ 4, you can build the Great Wall of Portugal... wait, still wrong... ooh, I know, it's because in a random event, you can discover all sources of oil on the world map by 3000 BC or so! Bah, still anti-historical rubbish.

Good thing I didn't play Civ 4 or any other Civ game for historical accuracy. It's not meant to be a history simulator... it's meant to be FUN.

 

[kkapalk]

Dr D... too funny And, yes, spot on. It is about enjoyment and entertainment.

 

[The Low King]

Hi, ive played all the civ games and recently started civ 5.
Ive always played the game purely for fun rather than to win, i very rarely played a game to completion, usually quitting once i got too far ahead because i got bored. The main exception being scenarios with specific goals (like Historical victories in RFC). I played it for the empire building (wars included) and the highest difficulty i went was King because i disliked using rushes, set build orders or slavery abuse.

I think comparing them is a bit difficult to be honest, they are very different games. Civ 4, with all its expansions and mods, covered everything you could do with the mechanics it had, Civ 5 had to be different (and i suspect the next few games will be more similar).

Combat: I find the Civ 5 combat system much more interesting than the civ 4 massive stacks of troops. It is a bit weird because of the scale but i think it really adds a new tactical level to the game. That said, the combat AI is a bit weak at the moment and it makes it a bit too easy to defend against large attacks.

I think that the level of empire building to war is the same in both games. On the one had Civ 5 has much more of a wargame feel to it because of the way combat works, use of your army is much more important than size. A good comparison would be the difference between combat is the Total war and Europa Universalis games. On the other hand battles and seiges take much longer, you can no longer steamroll enemy cities as easily, and armies use up more space/money.

Economy: Pretty much my only gripe with civ 4 was the level of micromanagement in its economics. I found cottage spam weird and a bit dull sometimes, yet it was needed to match the AI. Specialist economies were more interesting yet still required very specific Techs/civics to make work.
Civ 5 simplified it a great deal.

Diplomacy: i think both systems were good. I miss some of the options they had in Civ 4, but i also like many of the options they added in Civ 5. I did however find the Civ 4 system a bit mathmatical (ie, too much of a numbers game), quite a common trend in the game.

Technology: Civ 4 tech tree was a bit more interesting and developed (possibly because of the expansion adding more), but i think it was too easy to beeline certain techs and many options were a bit too good (Bronze working, Monarchy) compared to others.

Social Policies/Civics: I liked the Civ 4 options but they were a bit to Arbitary in their benifits (and unrealistic), my favorite system was probably the versions in the RFC mods where different combinations of civics had effects. The options were also unbalanced, Slavery was too good.
I find the Civ 5 system more interesting but i think that they should develop the system more and add more options to choose from.

Religions/Espionage: I much prefer the Civ 5 religion system, much more interesting than the 'more gold' religion in Civ 4 (same for corperations).

Other Stuff: The changes to happyness and resources are interesting, they make the game different. I dont think any are better or worse than the others. Culture flipping and random events were fun, but so is having finite resources and global happyness.


Overall: I think Civ 5 is a slightly better game, but Civ 4 is still good and i will go back to it when i fancy a change.

 

[eternalblue]

7.1 in metacritic is a rather mediocre rating by videogame standards... . but the removal of the history part in a series based on history. You state correctly that war and combat tactics are the main focus of the game. This in itself is a very questionable change from previous civ versions, since civ has always focused on alternative historical developments with war as only one element among many. But the change would be tolerable if the developers hadn't removed every imaginable kind of realism and historical plausibility from the game.
Civ 4 was modeled around real history and its features represent various developments and occurences in our own history. In Civ 5, in contrast, the features have no connection to history at all and seem to only serve the purpose of being balanced towards eachother to make the different aspects of the game work out. But wether Civ 5 works as a game or not, it certainly cannot be viewed as a game of "Civilization".

I think you dramatize to much the part of civ5 is not on the standard of civ4... the historical acuracy that you talk it doesn't exist, I can't se a civ game with the historical acuracy that you talk... In civ4 is the same u can build the great wall with the netherland people and u can expand your city in asia , it depends how computer can generate the map... so u need to argue what is historical in civ4... sencond what makes civ4 very realist? It's the same int this aspect , and I am not speking the micromanagement... If u want realism the realism is more close in civ5 combat than in civ4 stacks of doom... yes the AI I think is a little bit enchanced in civ4 but just a little... And third... u are wrong, civ5 is a civilization game and do it very good the job, just is removing what it makes it a little ugly in civ4... and are a lot more people that playing civ5 not just the civ veterans... and brave new world I think will add a lot of fun stuff , can't wait...

 

[eternalblue]

7.1 in metacritic is a rather mediocre rating by videogame standards... . ".

ok and another question for u and the last one... why the hell u are arguing that the metacritic score is 7.1? u are just can't see u need glasses or u are wrong informed... for your information the total of metacritic for this game is: 9.0 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and all the reviewers praise this game for the good change, and the addiction and all that stuff that add... so let's see: GAMESPOT: 9.0 , IGN 9.0 , giant bomb 100 !!!! GAME INFORMER 9.8 !!! DISTRUCTOID 9.5 ... GAME TRAILERS 9.4 , PC GAMER 9.3 !!!! these are the best game critics websites and I have seen all the reviews... the expansion gods and kings the same with more fresh air... so... if a game is so bad like u say, why all the critics give praise to this game to a good change and all the people love it except for few civ3 or civ4 fans.... ???

 

[eternalblue]

That's because in Civ 4, the Americans settle Washington in 4000 BC... wait, no, that doesn't work... uh, it's because in Civ 4, you can build the Great Wall of Portugal... wait, still wrong... ooh, I know, it's because in a random event, you can discover all sources of oil on the world map by 3000 BC or so! Bah, still anti-historical rubbish.

Good thing I didn't play Civ 4 or any other Civ game for historical accuracy. It's not meant to be a history simulator... it's meant to be FUN.

Dr.D .. let me shake your hands... all civ is addiction, fun , and let's grow some empire , and kick ass barbarians, discovering , defending, attacking, and... ONE MORE TURN !!!!

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

Civilization V with the upcoming Brave New World expansion pack, coupled with the previous Gods & Kings expansion and available DLC, will be the epitome of the civilization series to date.

Just saying. I'll be proven right on July 9th I'm sure.

 

[Ghpstage]

...why the hell u are arguing that the metacritic score is 7.1? u are just can't see u need glasses or u are wrong informed... for your information the total of metacritic for this game is: 9.0 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and all the reviewers praise this game for the good change, and the addiction and all that stuff that add...

Your looking at what metacritic itself said while Funky is looking at the user review score. Proper 'reviewers' are notoriously unreliable, basically they say whats good, praise the mediocre and either ignore major failings or pretend that they are 'good', and maybe tag on a little criticism to look like they were balanced.
Wheras user reviewers are given by the people who actually play them, and while you do get some mad ones the overraters and underraters normally more or less cancel out, and you often get some good info on the good and bad in the game in comments.

I would say 7ish is a believable score for civ 5 in its current state.

 

[eternalblue]

Your looking at what metacritic itself said while Funky is looking at the user review score. Proper 'reviewers' are notoriously unreliable, basically they say whats good, praise the mediocre and either ignore major failings or pretend that they are 'good', and maybe tag on a little criticism to look like they were balanced.
Wheras user reviewers are given by the people who actually play them, and while you do get some mad ones the overraters and underraters normally more or less cancel out, and you often get some good info on the good and bad in the game in comments.

I would say 7ish is a believable score for civ 5 in its current state.

I didn't agree with you... users reviewers can be just kids who can tell that is awsome or great or don't like the core of the game... or just people who just say: I don't like it because: I don't like it !!! and I give it a 5. and another give it a 9 and the overal score can be 7 ... so what's the point? the profesional reviewers from gamespot or IGN they know very good and balancing the way when a review is in course and actualy they can't make a review without playing the entire game , that's the policy... is not just I play it and is awsome all the time... they are a bunch of games with low score... and casual reviewers they are different and are people that give it a 3 and people that give a 10 , and just very few with a point of thruth.... and ok let's tell that a critic is wrong... but the rest of them... their wrong all of them???? a reviewer that I like very much... is Angry Joe a good reviewer... look his review with civ5... he never played the civ franchise and when he played civ5 for first time , he played it 16 hours straight... or the others...I didn't see a bad review about this game, and it was selling like GAME OF THE YEAR EDITION content... so.... that can tell something... it's a good game.. and another thing... I have seen more of the next culture,trade,tourism, diplomacy, war content of the next expansion and like dark_jedi06 said... wait until 9th july... and civ5 with both expansions will be the legend of the series will kick the old dated civ4 in the nuts in all the ways !!!

 

[JanusTalaiini]

Civilization V with the upcoming Brave New World expansion pack, coupled with the previous Gods & Kings expansion and available DLC, will be the epitome of the civilization series to date.

Just saying. I'll be proven right on July 9th I'm sure.

That'd be nice, but I'm not too hopeful of that outcome. Besides the issues previously mentioned, 5 just isn't as modmaker-friendly (even considering the addition of steam workshop) as 4 was, and the mods for 4 were what really pushed it above and beyond (revolutions spawning new civilizations, barbarian cities spawning and eventually growing into full civilizations, complex and distinct religions, etc.). Now, the folks modding 5 have done well with the tools they've been given, but Firaxis has been far less generous with releasing code this time around. Without good mod support, I just don't see 5 surpassing 4 (for me), even with full expansions.

That said, I certainly hope you're right and I'm wrong, as I'll take a blockbuster expansion pack over being right any day. I'm just doubtful BNW will be able to fill all the gaps 5 has for me currently.

 

[PhilBowles]

That's because in Civ 4, the Americans settle Washington in 4000 BC... wait, no, that doesn't work... uh, it's because in Civ 4, you can build the Great Wall of Portugal... wait, still wrong... ooh, I know, it's because in a random event, you can discover all sources of oil on the world map by 3000 BC or so! Bah, still anti-historical rubbish.

Those are just ridiculous cynical examples you're cherry-picking and you know it.

How can you possibly deny the historical accuracy of a game in which devoting 10% of a city's population to working in an iron mine slightly reduces the number of centuries it takes to build a single aqueduct? Or one in which the best way to keep your population healthy is to build a city in the middle of a forest? Or one in which you can only discover the wheel because someone in your civilisation thought "I have a great idea - let's research how to make wheels!"

 

[PhilBowles]

Your looking at what metacritic itself said while Funky is looking at the user review score. Proper 'reviewers' are notoriously unreliable, basically they say whats good, praise the mediocre and either ignore major failings or pretend that they are 'good', and maybe tag on a little criticism to look like they were balanced.
Wheras user reviewers are given by the people who actually play them, and while you do get some mad ones the overraters and underraters normally more or less cancel out, and you often get some good info on the good and bad in the game in comments.

I would say 7ish is a believable score for civ 5 in its current state.

Metacritic is even less reliable, since it's much harder to trace the reasons a particular score has been given and whether or not that relates to gameplay, and there's no control on content. I've read that immediately following the Diablo III release, the site was spammed with several thousand reviews slamming the game because of problems with server connectivity on release. Whatever your opinion of the game, it's misleading to equate scores based on a server issue at the developers' end with issues with the product's gameplay quality, as the two are not related. You can disagree with a professional reviewer all you like, but you can at least trace what they have claimed and present reasons why their arguments are flawed.

and the mods for 4 were what really pushed it above and beyond (revolutions spawning new civilizations, barbarian cities spawning and eventually growing into full civilizations,

You mean that what made Civ IV great were mods that re-added stuff from Civ I & 2 to the game?

 

[Drakarska]

I didn't agree with you... users reviewers can be just kids who can tell that is awsome or great or don't like the core of the game... or just people who just say: I don't like it because: I don't like it !!! and I give it a 5. and another give it a 9 and the overal score can be 7 ... so what's the point? the profesional reviewers from gamespot or IGN they know very good and balancing the way when a review is in course and actualy they can't make a review without playing the entire game , that's the policy... is not just I play it and is awsome all the time... they are a bunch of games with low score... and casual reviewers they are different and are people that give it a 3 and people that give a 10 , and just very few with a point of thruth.... and ok let's tell that a critic is wrong... but the rest of them... their wrong all of them???? a reviewer that I like very much... is Angry Joe a good reviewer... look his review with civ5... he never played the civ franchise and when he played civ5 for first time , he played it 16 hours straight... or the others...I didn't see a bad review about this game, and it was selling like GAME OF THE YEAR EDITION content... so.... that can tell something... it's a good game.. and another thing... I have seen more of the next culture,trade,tourism, diplomacy, war content of the next expansion and like dark_jedi06 said... wait until 9th july... and civ5 with both expansions will be the legend of the series will kick the old dated civ4 in the nuts in all the ways !!!

Your certainly entitled to your opinion on what you believe, but as for me, I'll take user reviews any day. The users are the ones who put the time and effort to play the game all the way through, not some critic who spends a few hours and then blesses something as "awesome" just to appease the publisher. Speaking of critics, the only critic who had the sheer balls to call civ v what it actually was at launch ( a POS), was Tom Chic at 1up. It's actually pleasant to see an indie tell the truth instead of kow towing to a major publisher. As for your comment that kids are the user reviewers; perhaps you should check out the demographic for the avg age of a civ player, you may be surprised.

 

[JanusTalaiini]

You mean that what made Civ IV great were mods that re-added stuff from Civ I & 2 to the game?

In this respect, yes. Revolutions/Civil Wars were a great dynamic that made the game more organic, and it's a far better game with them present, in my opinion.

Obviously, they aren't the sole factor, but are examples of aspects I really wish 5 had. It would add a component to empire management that I find to be really lacking (though I recognize not everyone loves it as much as I do).

 

[PhilBowles]

In this respect, yes. Revolutions/Civil Wars were a great dynamic that made the game more organic, and it's a far better game with them present, in my opinion.

Obviously, they aren't the sole factor, but are examples of aspects I really wish 5 had. It would add a component to empire management that I find to be really lacking (though I recognize not everyone loves it as much as I do).

Oh I don't disagree that those elements should have stayed in the series (I loved new civs emerging from a civil war), I just think it's a fairly sad comment of Civ IV that the people who praise it so often do so (a) because of mods rather than the base game (which may be why my experience of it is somewhat divergent from others, as I play without mods), and (b) because of mods adding features from earlier games that were deliberately excluded from Civ IV. The latter seems akin to arguing that a religion mod to pre-G&K Civ V would have fixed that game, therefore vanilla Civ V was a great game.

I found that Civ IV's micromanagement tended to detract from the sense of "empire management" since everything was done at city- rather than empire-scale.

 

[robincox]

I started playing Sid Meiers Civilization way back in 1991 on my Amiga 500 and I think that Civ 5 is the best in the series so far. It has a lot of improvements compared to Civ 4, especially with the battle system. I hated the stacks of doom that just showed up on your doorstep all of a sudden, to wipe out your civ in civ 4, in civ 5 that won't happen. Also I love Gods and Kings with it's religion system.

 

[eternalblue]

Those are just ridiculous cynical examples you're cherry-picking and you know it.

How can you possibly deny the historical accuracy of a game in which devoting 10% of a city's population to working in an iron mine slightly reduces the number of centuries it takes to build a single aqueduct? Or one in which the best way to keep your population healthy is to build a city in the middle of a forest? Or one in which you can only discover the wheel because someone in your civilisation thought "I have a great idea - let's research how to make wheels!"

what is historical in population can produce iron mine with 10%, or aqueduct and build the city in the middle of the forest??? we talking about history like every civilization with his own history... not the empire building... is very different... dr d. it saying that in civ games is not a path of civilization like it was... they are just things from history that can have every civilization like exemple the spanish are communists, can have the great wall in south america and his religion is bouddism... and this thing in history is belong to china... so is not historical accurate... the game just have ''historical tools'' that is very different from accuracy... and u don't make the history just u reinvent it with your prefered civilization, so u don't live the past like others said... don't give embarrasing comments like this...