Is Civ 5 better than Civ 4 or the other way around?

[Civilizations]

Is Civilization V better than Civilizations IV?

This has been a commonly disputed subject between Civilizations fans. Very commonly disputed. Here I am going to put down my opinion, then also see yours by making a poll. This is my thought on the matter...

I am in favor of the new game engine Civ 5 has, and think that having hexagonal tiles instead of square makes the game much more deep strategically. Also, not allowing stacking makes warring with other nations or city states much more realistic and strategic. I like how managing is so much easier in Civ 5. Managing is as simple as glancing at the bar up at the top.

Of course, Civ 5 is not perfect. Some people like Civ 4 more than Civ 5, and some people like Civ 5 more than Civ 4. I find Civ 5 more appealing than Civ 4 because of the strategical depth and easy management. I also like the graphics more. It is just what type of gamer you are: a simulator management player, or strategy maniac. Its up to you what to like. Give both of these game a chance!

To round this all of, Civ 5 is more for the person who loves board games, and with a love for strategy (ever LOVED risk? than you would love this!) and Civ 4 is for the person who has enjoyed simulator management games. Pls. state your opinion! Take part in my poll!

 

[Civilizations]

HEY GUYS to find poll look up: Civ 5 vs. Civ 4 poll okay?

 

[Teutorian]

I never played Civilization IV. The last Civ I played before V was Civ Revolutions and I really just don't think I could go back to stacked military units after the Civ system, even though it masked more how crappy the AI is.

I've thought about checking it out. Maybe I will!

 

[JesusOnEez]

Now that I'm finally enjoying CiV after the last patch I find that what I'd really really like is CiV pretty much as is with something more akin to CIV city management, but then I like micromanaging and that's not needed so much in CiV and a realise it's not everyone's cup of tea. Although I like the graphics more in CiV (hell, they should be better, it's a newer game after all) I miss the animations for tiles being worked, but again, it doesn't matter quite so much which tiles are being worked so meh.

 

[Civilizations]

Hey guys... somebody suscribed! I am honored! Thank you very much.

 

[apocalypse105]

Well diplomacy is wack in civ 5 and way better in civ 4

Doesn't mean its better just different game... Its not a civilization game anymore so i wouldn't make a comparison

 

[Mozzington]

Is Civilization V better than Civilizations IV?

No. No it's not.

 

[Drago Askani]

Well diplomacy is wack in civ 5 and way better in civ 4

Doesn't mean its better just different game... Its not a civilization game anymore so i wouldn't make a comparison

except civ 4 didn't have much diplomacy it was all about religious persecution. (not claiming either one as better, just pointing out what we all already know.)

 

[binhthuy71]

I don't know if "better" is the appropriate word. You're comparing a game that's fairly new, in Civ terms, with one that's had years of patches and for which there are mods that address many of the game's perceived shortcomings as well as extending gameplay in any number of directions. Civ V, is at the beginning of that process and it shows.

There's also the comfort factor. Early adopters have been playing Civ IV for close to six years. They know what works and what doesn't. They've settled in at whatever level that AI advantages don't make the game too tedious to play. Civ V dumped some major elements of IV and added new elements with the result that many of the tried-and-true strategies of Civ IV have no place in Civ V. Some heartburn is bound to ensue.

Civ V isn't better, or worse, than IV. It's different. I've played Civ since 1991 and, personally, I enjoy playing V. It's a matter of personal preference and as Caesar might say, "De gustibus non est disputandum" (In matters of taste there must be no dispute).

 

[Dirichlet]

except civ 4 didn't have much diplomacy it was all about religious persecution. (not claiming either one as better, just pointing out what we all already know.)

No, it wasn't. There were leaders for whom the religion modifier often ranged from -2 to +2. Which you could easily work around. Not to mention that in C4 choosing your religion was also partly a diplomatic choice.

 

[Sonereal]

No, it wasn't. There were leaders for whom the religion modifier often ranged from -2 to +2. Which you could easily work around. Not to mention that in C4 choosing your religion was also partly a diplomatic choice.

It was a complete diplomatic choice. You either founded your own and spammed missionaries or join a club. I abused this to no end.

In the end, it's a perfectly abusable diplomacy system versus a diplomacy system that abuses you.

 

[binhthuy71]

It was a complete diplomatic choice. You either founded your own and spammed missionaries or join a club. I abused this to no end.

In the end, it's a perfectly abusable diplomacy system versus a diplomacy system that abuses you.

"You have been wise in your choice of religions." Right. I was wise enough to spam your brains out with missionaries early in the game. And, by the way, thanks for the gold and the intel.

 

[spider1]

As a few have mentioned, it's a matter of personal taste. I loved and played Civ IV for years, and now all I play is V, I haven't even looked back to IV. Now this does not mean I love V so much I don't see it's faults, because it does have them. Many in fact, but for me it just doesn't matter. There is enough balance now that V is good enough for my Civ fix, I don't have to go back to any previous versions to get that.

 

[Falk]

except civ 4 didn't have much diplomacy it was all about religious persecution.

I don't get why this obviously false meme is so persistent. Now that the Civ5 bashing has died down and many critics actually enjoy the game, I think people could stop making up unplausible rationalizations for why Civ5 is better.
Religion was merely one factor in Civ4's diplomacy. There were many other things that influenced diplo. For instance, I often played completely without a religion in order to not annoy any neighbours and then switched to Free Religion when it became available. Infact, some AIs (e.g. Mansa Musa) didn't care a lot about religion either.

I now quite like Civ5 and I do see potential for it to be better than Civ4. However, they need to publish more content to give the game more depth. They did a great job fixing things and balancing a lot and managed to bring decent depth into the game now, but it's still rather simple and doesn't offer too many strategies.
If they improve on this (maybe with the new wonders that apparently come out with the new DLC?) Civ5 can easily catch up with Civ4 and if they then manage to give us more options in later eras it will surpass Civ4 (because that is the one thing where Civ4 fell short).

Another thing I hated about Civ5 on release was the complete lack of immersion for me. I find that all the patches fixed that quite well - something I hadn't thought possible. However, here's also much room for improvement: make diplomacy meaningful and City-States more "lively". They still aren't much more than trade-money-for-food/culture/units-buttons.

 

[Morningcalm]

I love Civ IV's depth, but its graphics are dated, the games take too long, and it runs into the problem of having too much to manage sometimes. Also its UI sucks.

But Civ V has stripped away so much strategy, and added some extra tedium in the form of units that MUST have orders before the turn is over.....in addition, there is end turn lag, weird graphical glitches that destroy the atmosphere, and an inane, unreasonable AI, not to mention lacking diplomacy.

In sum: Civ IV is hardly perfect, but is at least 8 times the game Civ V is, pretty graphics be damned.

 

[Fabiano79]

Ask me again in one year time, when CiV will have at least one expasinon (I hope).

Right now, Civ IV BTS is way better them CiV.

CiV has a lot of potential, maybe with the proper time to fix the diplomatic madness and the others problems (tech tree too short, eras expiring too fast, no micromanagement, dumb combat AI..), the game can become a classic.

 

[Babri]

CiV is less deep than CIV & have fewer features & micromanagement. It also don't have as much mods as cIV. However the military aspect is 10x better than cIV. Also the introduction of UA is great & UU are much more interesting than bland cIV UUs. Different civs feel more unique. Another + point is the graphics. Overall CiV is much better in my opinion but it requires more depth & modibility.

 

[Sonereal]

CiV is less deep than CIV & have fewer features & micromanagement. It also don't have as much mods as cIV. However the military aspect is 10x better than cIV. Also the introduction of UA is great & UU are much more interesting than bland cIV UUs. Different civs feel more unique. Another + point is the graphics. Overall CiV is much better in my opinion but it requires more depth & modibility.

If the game ends up as moddable as CivIV though, I think the fewer features/micromanagement thing will balance itself out.

 

[Furycrab]

Old dead horse... Even all the arguments are old, filled with one liners and memes. We don't need more discussion on this, we need these to either die or get deleted. I think most of us can agree on this. If you do, please don't quote me, just let this die.

 

[corrin]

I prefer Civ V. I hated stacks of doom and corporations.
I wish the diplomacy in Civ V worked better and the AI needs work.