Is civ 4 worth it?

[Skibatized]

I played Civ4 once and literally hated it, I just fell in love with civ3, but maybe I didn't give it a chance for me to like it since I gave it away
'
What do you guys think who've played civ4?

 

[Bastian-Bux]

1st of: NEVER, ever play Civ 4 without Blue Marble. NEVER. I don't know what the Firaxis graphix guy was taking when he made the terrain, but ... once you've played with blue marble you won't be able to stand vanilla graphics anymore.

2nd: give the BtS addon a chance. The AI has significantly improved to Civ 4 vanilla.

3rd: Civ 4 is different then Civ 3. Your first impression might be that its simpler. It is, in the same way that chess is simpler then Axis and allies frex.

4th: to experience the full addictiveness of Civ 4, you have to set aims for your self. Civ4 4 has only grown on me, when I decided to become a quattromaster. Try it, maybe you'll love it.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Honestly, by asking this in the Civ 3 forum, what do you expect? T.A Jones will be here quicker than a jackrabbit on a date ready to give you 1001 reasons not to play Civ 4.

As to which one I like better, I have to say Civ 4, being more advanced in terms of abilities and gameplay, is honestly what I prefer. HOWEVER, I currently have a game of Civ 3 going, and haven't actually played BtS in weeks or months.

In terms of modding, there is no contest. Civ 4 is what we all dreamed of, despite the lack of an editor. It may be harder, but it's worth it--you can now literally do anything you want, provide you're willing to get to work and just do it. Scripted events, new gameplay elements, new features... it's all possible.

Trouble is, Civ 4 is demanding, especially with its graphics. If you have a slow computer, yes, you will hate it, because you're not getting the best of what it offers--and some people don't even like that. Civ 3 also has some things that I would just define as "better"--even little cosmetic things, like the palace--which weren't carried over into 4. Anyone who looks carefully at my main mods for Civ 4 will notice a pattern: they all incorporate features from Civ 3 in one way or another.

So to answer your question, as someone who's played Civ 2, 3, and 4, I'd definitely say that each incarnation has improved on the last. Civ 3 got rid of the lame spy cheats; Civ 4 got rid of REX and huge stacks of doom. However, as the French say, "the more things change, the more they stay the same." In Civ 4, more land is still the measure of power; inevitably conquest involves having huge numbers of catapults and artillery; tech beelining and "whoring" is still there. The micromanagement needed to do all these things, however, is significantly reduced.

In the end, I have mixed emotions. Each new Civ game seems to get away from that "epic" feel that was in Civ 2. I have no idea why. But if you don't like 4, no one will blame you.

 

[Civinator]

T.A Jones will be here quicker than a jackrabbit on a date ready to give you 1001 reasons not to play Civ 4.

It seems today he is gracious. But as was said in the last post, the "epic feeling" is missing. In Civ 4 in the end of the game you rule a district with a handful of cities and FIRAXIS will you make believe that this is a big empire. And this small district is filled out by some monstrous soldiers as big as a mountain chain. And sometime somebody is yoodling when he researched a new religion. Additionally now in BTS you get advices like to grow up and sell little dogs, without any more explanations about it.

But as you still have Civ IV, try it again as you are the only one, who can decide if you will like it or not. But most time the first impression of Civ IV for most of the players was the staying impression in the end. Civ IV has a lot of good features in it too. As Gaius Octavius is trying to import some features from Civ 3 to Civ 4 I try to import some features (as far as possible ) from Civ 4 to Civ 3.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

It seems today he is gracious. But as was said in the last post, the "epic feeling" is missing.

Very true. I felt this way with Civ III too to some degree, but it seems more pronounced in IV. The only time it doesn't is when you take over everything as Rome and enter the Middle Ages.

In Civ 4 in the end of the game you rule a district with a handful of cities and FIRAXIS will you make believe that this is a big empire.

Yes, fewer cities is a BIG change. I just played a Civ III game where I used every name in the American city list! That'll almost never happen in IV.

And this small district is filled out by some monstrous soldiers as big as a mountain chain.

They aren't any bigger than in III.

And sometime somebody is yoodling when he researched a new religion.

Must be Ulrich Zwingli.

But seriously, religion is THE feature of Civ IV. I always felt Civ lagged behind Destiny until this came out. Now we just need quantified resources...

Additionally now in BTS you get advices like to grow up and sell little dogs, without any more explanations about it.

But random events are great! And they were in Civ I, too!

 

[Civinator]

They aren't any bigger than in III.

In my games the soldiers always are much bigger and especially I found no way to hide them in cities as it is comfortabel possible with the Civ 3 menue.

Must be Ulrich Zwingli.

They yoodle all, even the buddhists

But seriously, religion is THE feature of Civ IV. I always felt Civ lagged behind Destiny until this came out. Now we just need quantified resources...

Yes religion, if done well is a very important improvement. But I don´t understand, that this all is done random in Civ 4. In my upcoming C3C-mod, a certain religion is fixed to a special group of civs, where it grows and if you are able to conquer some special holy cities of an other religion, you can get that religion too. Even the christianization of South America can be done with these settings.

But random events are great! And they were in Civ I, too!

Yes, events are the feature I´m missing most in Civ 3. I want back my Civ2 ToT-events. But that event was without any explanation in my BTS game and it sounded somewhat childish.

 

[Jokeslayer]

I think Civ3 looks better. Not in a shiny sort of way, but in the way that I can see what's going on very easily. Civ4 is prettier, certainly, but I still like it less.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Yes religion, if done well is a very important improvement. But I don´t understand, that this all is done random in Civ 4. In my upcoming C3C-mod, a certain religion is fixed to a special group of civs, where it grows and if you are able to conquer some special holy cities of an other religion, you can get that religion too. Even the christianization of South America can be done with these settings.

The reason it is randomized mostly has to do with variety, but there is also a PC shyness behind it (which is why all religions are alike, except in graphics).

Having the Arabs always found Islam or the Romans found Christianity might bother some people (certainly not I, but others don't like it) because it would grant inherent advantages/disadvantages to them depending on when they make it into the game. In BtS this was fixed by adding a favorite religion option, meaning civs will found historically accurate religions when possible if you choose that, but people complain about it, too.

 

[Theryman]

Great!

I plan on buying cIV when it is cheaper.

 

[Skibatized]

All in all.

I think it would be great if some features from civ4 were implemented into civ3 such as the fact you can station your troops in friendly cities (that's all I can come up with since I don't really play civ4 lol)

Thanks for your posts I think I will stick to civ3, I like the though of actually feeling like you have an empire!

 

[PaperBeetle]

They aren't any bigger than in III.

But as the way in which we view the game becomes more elaborate, more realistic, the idiocy of men taller than mountains becomes more apparent. Civ is fundamentally a very complex boardgame, and as such would benefit from a more abstract, iconographic presentation. The pursuit of realism in Civ graphics is both futile and self-defeating.

 

[Civinator]

Having the Arabs always found Islam or the Romans found Christianity might bother some people (certainly not I, but others don't like it) because it would grant inherent advantages/disadvantages to them depending on when they make it into the game. In BtS this was fixed by adding a favorite religion option, meaning civs will found historically accurate religions when possible if you choose that, but people complain about it, too.

I haven´t seen this option in Civ IV yet. The problem with that option is, that there are big temporal differences in Civ IV between founding all these religions, so a civ with the option christianity could have founded the buddism or hinduism yet. It would be better in my eyes, if the founding of one of the current religions is reserved to one civ out of a group of civs with that dominating religion and all the bigger advantages of a religion happen at the same time. If you have lost that race in your group you should still be able to build all relgious buildings of that religious group and only loose the additional bonus, that comes from founding a religion ( in my civ 3 mod, this bonus is that the happiness of a certain religious improvement of that religion is doubled and that you get believers of that religion in each of your cities).

This is the how my era one techtree for C3C works. When the first temples are built, there are some people with a similar view of life, who form groups with a similar religious philosophy and if there are enough of these groups with a similar way of religious thinking, they can form a world religion. On the screene you can´t see the different groups of supporters for a special religious idea. They are given by a special era-none tech that is fixed to a historical group of civs with that special dominating religion in their civ. If there are enough temples in that civ, these supporters can rise up.

 

[T.A JONES]

Honestly, by asking this in the Civ 3 forum, what do you expect? T.A Jones will be here quicker than a jackrabbit on a date ready to give you 1001 reasons not to play Civ 4.

Come again? Ohh I guess I deserved that. Truth be told Preacher Jones has hung up his robe in retirement after convertin many a lost soul in his turmultous jouneys through the troubled 3d lands.

IT was a differnt story then, more to do with BtS not being out yet and Warlords suckin so really incredably bad. Now I even like some of whats got brought to the table. To bad it added more lag riddled epics along the way, otherwise we might have had seen some clear rejoying among the mistreated masses this time.

Now to me Civ4 is like watching another promosing mod brew over here, in epicenter of true strategy gaming.
Its got lots that still needs work but in the end it might be worth my time for something new, a lil differant to try until we get a more improved Civ3 in the way of CIv5 or a source code /hacked/released form of CIv3 ULTRA. I just finished using Vassels and a Maintence system that for the 1st time acted as Science Rate sinkers when mismanaged, and I was playing Civ3. (Thanks embyodead and Yoda. Ive learnt for next time. Lucky I still manged to pull off a cultural KO in the 2nd last turn!)

For now Ive put together the ulmate civving XPeience still not possable on the 4grounds. Its all about large land masses steeped in deep exciting conflicts. Its great to watch all the deathmarches brewing from many numerous civs all clamouring for power at the same time. Watch em as they bring in fat stacks of authority in a bid for all out carnage on true to life scales.
Sure, Its fun! Cuz you know in CIv3 one will get the job done!. One will not walk away when its done. Its not all about pertaking in lil pillage partys.

oh and did I say with no downtime? Ya Todays rig has shined new life on CIv3

The disintrest garnered from the lategame micro effect is fini now . Its all no pause action these days. You can follow your plans without forgetin what they were by the end of the interturn
Now the endturn show is all about appreciating how great AI vs AI camera work flows-- For thats only what dictates how long you wait now, its how many battles you decide to take. (survey/Analize/ observe)
With a game that puts in you so deep in the drivers seat you want to watch every lil thing and never miss a beat, Civ3 delivers. Its unique veiw of the world lets you see all that relates to you somehow. You don't knowhow these things add depth until you actually get to see them in a postive way (not as another bloody ten minute bathroom break )


I hear BTS kept the 18civ limit and still lags at around midgame. They never capped it at 31 when this time theres potential for 34! OK this to me suggests a dismal sign designers want you to see Civ4 was meant to be played 'minime' mode, like travel sized Civving or something.

Not my thing, but good for the arcade types we see filling in the void(actually a nice transition sequal to bridge over to the console market, Im wonderin if that was ever planned? )

Awesome! a good ol sized rant of yesteryear! (Sorry for lenght, please no rebuttles, just statin my opinions )

 

[johnnyjal]

IV has more capabilities so it will be worth it eventually.
I have both but have not played IV yet (still in the box)

I'm still having fun trying all the mod/scn that I always wanted to try in III.
And new ones are still being created/updated so my conversion to IV
is delayed.........................

 

[Dishpan_Hans]

I've only played it a little bit years some time back.

I didn't like the graphics compared to Civ 3. Somehow the leaders are even more cartoony than Civ 3.

I dislike the risk factor for ships was removed. That was part of the challenge. Do you risk a galley in the sea to find new land? in Civ4 you can't even move them in deep water.

Of course the computer's galleys never sank.

I think the religion stuff added very little, but I like the different land development options.

I'd give Civ 4 another look if I had a computer capable of running it. I've never quite mastered Civ 3 at even moderate difficult anyway.

 

[Bastian-Bux]

Well graphics and civ 4 ... install Blue Marble and it gets a much less cartoonish style. Heck, look at FfH2, and you can see just HOW adaptable Civ 4 is, both in content as well as in style.

 

[El Justo]

i have to say that from a modder's point of view, i was terribly disappointed w/ civ4. now, i know of the so-called limitless ceiling it has regarding customization etc. however, there are some pretty severe limitations in place which preclude even the most dedicated civ modders from constructing a decent scenario for civ4 and that's the lack of an editor. i found it puzzling that one was never included in any of the civ4 games. therefore, this detriment alone has absolutely crippled civ4 scenario development. sure there's that so-called limitless ceiling. but the fact remains that there are no good scenarios for civ4. and that's got to tell you something. look at the civ3 scenarios forum and you'll find a dozen or more very nicely made scenarios w/ great support, feedback, and even further development.

another catostrophic flaw of civ4 in terms of scenario creation is the inability to use larger maps. this is, imho, the death blow to civ4 and C&C - the appearance of an editor not withstanding.

of course, i may be a bit biased b/c i have a very strong preference for civ3. however, i like to consider myself as open-minded and i even fiddled w/ civ4 some. my opinions on it weren't all that good and quite frankly, i think the developers really dropped the ball on this last installment (civ4). i mean, they deviated too far from the TBS backbone of the franchise and shifted it to more of a RTS format which was another big letdown.

anyhow - if one is partial to the vanilla aspects of civ like epic games and unaltered games then civ4 may be right up your alley due to its relative simplicity. however, for those who like depth and a certain attention to detail, i'm afraid civ4 is a gargantuan letdown.

 

[Bastian-Bux]

editor: you know that an editor would impose restrictions? Using the editor you could only edit what the editor allows. Yes, it would make editing for the less savy easier. But honestly: you want an editor? Code one. There are several trunks of editors out there. Most are still vanilla Civ 4, so useless for the new addons. Coding an editor costs time and money. I'm happy Firaxis uses that time and money on other places.

large map: now here you've found a serious flaw. Lets assume that the 584 sign limit on leader names is a bug of BtS 3.03 and will be gone with the next patch. You the remaining MAFs are a trouble. Though as far as I know all MAFs are a result of a design error, and thus not easily to "repair". Still: Firaxis managed to clean up some of the early MAFs in BtS. Lets hope and see if they can repair the late game MAFs as well, shall we? And don't forget to tell the developers in chats and such: "when do you FINALLY fix those fricking MAFs?"

simplicity: ups, did you play Civ 4? I mean like play, not just test it out and throw it in the corner? Yes, vanilla Civ 4 comes around much more simple then Civ 3 right out of the box. BUT: try playing BtS, which added quite some difficulty (including spionage and better AI). Also, try playing competitionly, like trying to beat the HOF tables. You'll be surprised how complex it becomes.

Civ 4 is less complex ... but in the same way that Chess is less complex as Axis and Allies. Civ 4 allows, and in higher difficulties / HOF games requires, you to think ahead. Nope, this doesn't count as simplicity. Its just a different kind of complexity.

 

[Elephantium]

1st of: NEVER, ever play Civ 4 without Blue Marble. NEVER. I don't know what the Firaxis graphix guy was taking when he made the terrain, but ... once you've played with blue marble you won't be able to stand vanilla graphics anymore.

2nd: give the BtS addon a chance. The AI has significantly improved to Civ 4 vanilla.

3rd: Civ 4 is different then Civ 3. Your first impression might be that its simpler. It is, in the same way that chess is simpler then Axis and allies frex.

4th: to experience the full addictiveness of Civ 4, you have to set aims for your self. Civ4 4 has only grown on me, when I decided to become a quattromaster. Try it, maybe you'll love it.

Pardon the threadjack, but WTH is "frex" supposed to mean?

 

[El Justo]

editor: you know that an editor would impose restrictions? Using the editor you could only edit what the editor allows. Yes, it would make editing for the less savy easier. But honestly: you want an editor? Code one. There are several trunks of editors out there. Most are still vanilla Civ 4, so useless for the new addons. Coding an editor costs time and money. I'm happy Firaxis uses that time and money on other places.

large map: now here you've found a serious flaw. Lets assume that the 584 sign limit on leader names is a bug of BtS 3.03 and will be gone with the next patch. You the remaining MAFs are a trouble. Though as far as I know all MAFs are a result of a design error, and thus not easily to "repair". Still: Firaxis managed to clean up some of the early MAFs in BtS. Lets hope and see if they can repair the late game MAFs as well, shall we? And don't forget to tell the developers in chats and such: "when do you FINALLY fix those fricking MAFs?"

simplicity: ups, did you play Civ 4? I mean like play, not just test it out and throw it in the corner? Yes, vanilla Civ 4 comes around much more simple then Civ 3 right out of the box. BUT: try playing BtS, which added quite some difficulty (including spionage and better AI). Also, try playing competitionly, like trying to beat the HOF tables. You'll be surprised how complex it becomes.

Civ 4 is less complex ... but in the same way that Chess is less complex as Axis and Allies. Civ 4 allows, and in higher difficulties / HOF games requires, you to think ahead. Nope, this doesn't count as simplicity. Its just a different kind of complexity.

of course i know that an editor can impose limitations. you do know that the time spent modding civ4 w/out an editor against that of civ3 is, like, x15 in terms of time spent.

you do know that an editor is the quintessential utility tool, don't you?

i don't have the time or energy to create an aditor. the programmers should have done that for us - or an industrious chap on the boards here. i'm afraid i'm too busy.

the large map thing is an absolute killer and the programmers absolutely dropped the ball on this one. talk about limitations...

dumbed down, streamlined, more simplistic - you can dress up a pig but it ain't like it's gonna be the prom queen.