Is Civilization 4 best game ever?

[mboettcher]

.yes.

 

[mboettcher]

RPG: Hero Quest (Sierra), Pool of Radiance, Dungeon Siege I (with Mods).

Cant leave out KOTOR

 

[TheMeInTeam]

While I generally agree with TMIT on the flaws of Civ 4, I would suggest that one also remembers that the quality of a game is NOT decided solely by listing it's flaws. In my opinion, Civ 4 has unique qualities that make it a great game, despite it's flaws.

Civ IV is a good game, but when vying for "best ever", games that have similar value in gameplay design but lack said flaws win. While many games are woofers, there are plenty of great games that DON'T flub up "game design 101". These are the games where it is hard to make an objective case that they lose to civ IV. Obviously I wouldn't play this game if I didn't think it was good.

also your line of argument is invalid: weak pc is problem of your side, not the game. the game is great but you can´t play it due to bad pc? well get a better pc then judge it.

As long as the person making the complaint is running "recommended specs" (you know, the requirements firaxis TELLS you to have to play the game), his point is valid. It also makes what I've quoted completely invalid and frankly nonsensical. "can't play it due to bad pc" is NOT a valid argument when "bad pc" falls ABOVE recommended specs. Recommended specs are the settings the designers tell us we should have for the game to run well. None of this blathering from you about machines that have 2x the capacity of recommended specs being "bad PCs"

And the one thing that annoys me in this discussion is the thing about randomness. Yes, there is a game changing random element here, but blindly criticizing Civ 4 for having it is not quite fair. Civ 4 NEEDS randomness. It is an essential part of one of the major positive points it carries, the massive variety and strategic depth

The randomness is not fundamentally bad. Game-breaking (positive or negative) outcomes due to randomness that are independent of player skill *IS* fundamentally bad. I'm talking about horse honkey like "player starts with no strategic resources in MP next to someone who does" and "oh look an AI with 25% land without war on a standard map". These things were not necessary to make the game dynamic. These things add 0 strategy. These types of things add noise and considerably affect the outcome of games, independent of who played it skillfully.

One of the last games I played before a long break was a game on strategy & tips on deity. 9 out of 10 games didn't have anyone declare on the human in the BCs. In my game, Hatty declared at me FROM DISTANCE around 1000 BC. In each of the successful summaries I read, that exact attack would have killed or crippled every person including some of the best people on here. Does the game REALLY need that, people doing better or worse to the point of W or L just on a dice roll...ONE outcome of a dice roll? That's arguably tame, however, compared to the massive land spawn imbalances in the game where there is literally NO skill involved (good players might have walled hatty and still won, with more difficulty).

I also dont understand this randomness rant at all. also its not randomness but statistics of battles.
I think it comes from ppl who do crazy rushes that have low chances of succes, and are annoyed when they fail. well if you take a chance you have to live with it.

otherwise I dont see where this comes at all.

I've clearly demonstrated a randomness argument different from what you're saying twice before this post, and a third time up above. Are you serious? Are you REALLY going to ignore an argument completely MULTIPLE times on the same thread you're accusing people of trolling? Really?!

Warlords 2, Warlords3

Oooooooh, I'm ashamed I forgot these. Both of these were very very impressive games. Come back, SSG! Show firaxis how it's done !

 

[lymond]

If yall are really TBS fans, I highly recommend picking up a copy of "Silent Storm Gold". More tactical in the jagged alliance/xcom mold. Great stuff and cool graphic engine.

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

k thats it..... unsigning from this thread. i hope it dies soon, although it doesnt look like it.

seriosly..... civ4 is not more random then real life.
i thought this is a civ4 fan site. bye. cus. off to play civ4

 

[TheMeInTeam]

k thats it..... unsigning from this thread. i hope it dies soon, although it doesnt look like it.

seriosly..... civ4 is not more random then real life.
i thought this is a civ4 fan site. bye. cus. off to play civ4

Wait. I'm confused.

Where was that legit argument about civ IV being the "best game" ever?

"seriosly", civ4 is a game, and "best games" have balance. It looks like even after take 3, you miss the point. At least this is consistent .

 

[jgroth1978]

if his pc is very weak, this can be bothering.

Very weak PC? I had listed high performance games that do well on my PC. Games with more demanding specs in regard to CPU, RAM, and GPU. They work fine. Civ4 doesn't. Bear in mind that I have a pre-multicore PC, so to be fair to Civ4, I had listed games from the same relative time period.

I don't know what else to say.

 

[Windsor]

If this poll was "best strategy game" I would certainly have voted Civ4. No other strategy game have been more fun for me to play.

I'm not really a wargamer and certainly not a fan of clicky-RTSes with a dull peon-based economy and a annoying UI like StarCraft2 either. That doesn't leave much left and none of them is as good as Civ4.

 

[Iranon]

@ TMIT: The only game-breaking thing in SP Civ4 that I consider truly problematic is the religious victory, precisely because it's too reliable.
Huge AIs, unequal strategic resources and the like knock me out of my comfort zone. Even if I lose and can't see what I could have done better, I often had some fun in the process and the rare wins from 'impossible' positions are the sweetest.



Most games these days want the human player to win. They may not be easy as such, but they will give you a chance to earn your victory: If you play on settings you're normally comfortable with and show the expected degree of competence, you will win.
A legitimate choice, but not unquestionably the best one... in fact, I'm not very fond of it myself.

Some games don't care whether you win or lose. In Nethack it's possible to die before taking a turn, similar surprises can happen after you invested weeks into a game, and to add injury to insult it eats your save when you die.
The resulting unease combined with the many ways you can prepare for the worst is essential to its atmosphere, and it's worth noting that good players (not me!) can win the vast majority of games.

Still others want you to lose. Some are throwbacks to a harsher time or exercises in slapstick/masochism: Things like Bastet and I Wanna Be The Guy are fun because they play with conventions and feel ludicrously unfair. The former also follows the good old arcade tradition of having no ending - you just hang on for as long as possible. Early adventures often included an ending, but countless ways to render them unwinnable.
Some otherwise modern and benevolent games include optional levels/scenarios that gleefully try to make you lose in cheap ways.

Most commercial games these days are benevolent because of the default business model: Games are no longer designed to make you put coins into an arcade machine, they're designed to make you buy them. Frustrating new players is bad for business, as is encouraging long-time players to keep honing their skills in a game they will never finish.
Even when the business model isn't relevant, the legacy will affect player expectations: up to the early nineties the majority of adventure players wanted cheap acts of bastardry 'so you can't just use everything on everything until it's over'.

 

[guderian]

This has been somewhat helpful to me, as a longtime player of Civ2 and Civ3. I have not played
Civ4 or 5 yet, but I am not happy with 3, because of the game automatically ending at 2050a.d.
Downloading Editor patches did not work on my version 1.07f of Civ 3, so now I'm starting to
look at maybe buying Civ4. Question: does Civ4 automatically end at a certain point, or do you
have the option to extend the game or edit the length at the setup? Thanks.

 

[xenex]

Civ 4 gamewise stops at 2050 at which point someone wins Time Victory , you can however turn it off in custom game mode.

But keep in mind that doing so only removes the force end game at 2050, the game still kind of ends at 2050, because after that point (actually its before 2050 but still) nothing more is added to the game, you won't get futuristic units and there are no new techs.The last tech is future tech which adds +1 health and +1 happy to all your cities, after you learn that tech, you can continue learning it indefinitely for the +1h/+1h each time you tech it.

 

[Fluroscent]

One of the last games I played before a long break was a game on strategy & tips on deity. 9 out of 10 games didn't have anyone declare on the human in the BCs. In my game, Hatty declared at me FROM DISTANCE around 1000 BC. In each of the successful summaries I read, that exact attack would have killed or crippled every person including some of the best people on here. Does the game REALLY need that, people doing better or worse to the point of W or L just on a dice roll...ONE outcome of a dice roll? That's arguably tame, however, compared to the massive land spawn imbalances in the game where there is literally NO skill involved (good players might have walled hatty and still won, with more difficulty).

One might say that if that particular game was played by one person rolling a random map, the problem would not be there at all. So you lose that game if you get DOW'ed early. So you could have won if it didn't happen. What does it matter?

We chose to set up comparison games like that, play the same start and so on to learn and compete. Variance makes everyone lose some games that we "could" win, as shown by other similarly skilled players. But I really do not see the randomness being so pervasive that the results become anywhere near meaningless. Again, XOTM for reference. The best played games win the awards the majority of the time, at least that is my firm belief.

The only game-breaking thing in SP Civ4 that I consider truly problematic is the religious victory, precisely because it's too reliable.
Huge AIs, unequal strategic resources and the like knock me out of my comfort zone. Even if I lose and can't see what I could have done better, I often had some fun in the process and the rare wins from 'impossible' positions are the sweetest.

Agree 100%.

Civ IV is a good game, but when vying for "best ever", games that have similar value in gameplay design but lack said flaws win.

Agreed, but my point was that Civ 4 is uniquely good in some respects, not merely similarly good design. Meaning I think it has a depth of quality in some respects that are superior to any other TBS game. I think it is the best TBS game at the moment, since I appreciate the higher degree of strategic depth in civ 4 more than I hate it's flaws. But that is of course entirely subjective.

As is any cross-genre comparison really (subjective that is). I don't have a preference between TBS and RTS games, and I rate the Blizzard RTS games higher than Civ 4 because they give me similar depth of experience, but Civ 4 has more flaws. But if you just don't like a genre, who is to say you are wrong?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

@ TMIT: The only game-breaking thing in SP Civ4 that I consider truly problematic is the religious victory, precisely because it's too reliable.
Huge AIs, unequal strategic resources and the like knock me out of my comfort zone. Even if I lose and can't see what I could have done better, I often had some fun in the process and the rare wins from 'impossible' positions are the sweetest.

I also agree 100%. As a one player game, and not something played in some sort of competitive league, it doesn't have to be "fair" it just has to be "fun". Changing the game so that every Civ always starts with an equal potential share of land, and equal or fair distribution of resources, might well be the best way of making a fair strategy game where good players can use the same old techniques and come out on top, but it's also very limiting. One of the best things about the game, and one of the things that makes it so replayable, is the sheer variety of "stories" that can unfold. If, once in a while, the random map generates some deeply unfair position, or I start with all the hostile AIs around me, or I get a really horrible random event... then so what? If I lose it doesn't mean I don't get to pay my bills that week and go hungry, I can just have fun trying to win and then have another game.
You can't objectively say things like this make the game "broken". As what is basically a toy to entertain ourselves with, things like this can actually add to the fun. It's all a matter of perspective.

 

[guderian]

Civ 4 gamewise stops at 2050 at which point someone wins Time Victory , you can however turn it off in custom game mode.

But keep in mind that doing so only removes the force end game at 2050, the game still kind of ends at 2050, because after that point (actually its before 2050 but still) nothing more is added to the game, you won't get futuristic units and there are no new techs.The last tech is future tech which adds +1 health and +1 happy to all your cities, after you learn that tech, you can continue learning it indefinitely for the +1h/+1h each time you tech it.

Thank you Xenex. You answered my primary concern. In Civ3, I tended to go for
a Cultural Victory, but it was more difficult to achieve a Military Victory in the same
time span ( I prefer to play a huge map with at least 8 opponents ). I prefer to
exterminate all the AI Civs, so I will go for Civ4.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Thank you Xenex. You answered my primary concern. In Civ3, I tended to go for
a Cultural Victory, but it was more difficult to achieve a Military Victory in the same
time span ( I prefer to play a huge map with at least 8 opponents ). I prefer to
exterminate all the AI Civs, so I will go for Civ4.

There is a way to go more futuristic after 2050. Go for custom scenario - next war and turn off the time victory. Next war extends the tech tree to a future era with some more advanced units and technologies. The scenario itself didn't interest me, but the custom game with the advanced techs can be interesting. Domed cities, Biological Warfare and a few more advanced military units. I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for or not.

 

[r_rolo1]

If yall are really TBS fans, I highly recommend picking up a copy of "Silent Storm Gold". More tactical in the jagged alliance/xcom mold. Great stuff and cool graphic engine.

Yup, Silent Storm is a very nice game and has a interesting blend of TB and RT elements. I would definitely recommend a try.

@ TMIT: The only game-breaking thing in SP Civ4 that I consider truly problematic is the religious victory, precisely because it's too reliable.
Huge AIs, unequal strategic resources and the like knock me out of my comfort zone. Even if I lose and can't see what I could have done better, I often had some fun in the process and the rare wins from 'impossible' positions are the sweetest.

Well, with all due respect, I'm more on TMIT side of the fence . I do not care much for a little of randomness, but civ IV handles randomness in a way that easily can create cascades of good/bad stuff. Even the weakest of events can derail a game completely, for a example ( say the hunter event, that by itself is almost a null event ( 8F ? Bah ), but that has a annoying tendency of hitting a lot. 2 or 3 or those in the first 40 turns of game can make a bigger diference than the AP ). This kind of events can clearly create stuff that cascades out of the confort zone... but that happens not that frequently, i must reckon ( that does not make stuff ok , though )

That is quite diferent of the AP. AP is simply a unbalanced wonder that was never fixed ( the fact that AI is stupid as brick in using it does not help either ). IMHO the game would be better without it.

Most games these days want the human player to win. They may not be easy as such, but they will give you a chance to earn your victory: If you play on settings you're normally comfortable with and show the expected degree of competence, you will win.
A legitimate choice, but not unquestionably the best one... in fact, I'm not very fond of it myself.

Some games don't care whether you win or lose. In Nethack it's possible to die before taking a turn, similar surprises can happen after you invested weeks into a game, and to add injury to insult it eats your save when you die.
The resulting unease combined with the many ways you can prepare for the worst is essential to its atmosphere, and it's worth noting that good players (not me!) can win the vast majority of games.

Still others want you to lose. Some are throwbacks to a harsher time or exercises in slapstick/masochism: Things like Bastet and I Wanna Be The Guy are fun because they play with conventions and feel ludicrously unfair. The former also follows the good old arcade tradition of having no ending - you just hang on for as long as possible. Early adventures often included an ending, but countless ways to render them unwinnable.
Some otherwise modern and benevolent games include optional levels/scenarios that gleefully try to make you lose in cheap ways.

Most commercial games these days are benevolent because of the default business model: Games are no longer designed to make you put coins into an arcade machine, they're designed to make you buy them. Frustrating new players is bad for business, as is encouraging long-time players to keep honing their skills in a game they will never finish.
Even when the business model isn't relevant, the legacy will affect player expectations: up to the early nineties the majority of adventure players wanted cheap acts of bastardry 'so you can't just use everything on everything until it's over'.

Me smells a disgruntled Civ V buyer

The worst thing about the current game design philo is that it means that strategy games must die as a mainstream genre. It is impossible IMHO to make a strategy game while assuming that the target consumer is a dumb brick with a attention span of 30 seconds ( remember Sid rant about how his case gamer thinked that he should win all 3:1 odds battle because "3 is such a large number and 1 is such a small one" ( note, I'm not saying that Sid agrees with this evaluation, but that he thinks that the games should be done with this kind of players in mind ). It strikes me as absurd as you can make a strategy game while thinking that the average buyer is like that ... unless you want to sell something that gives ( or atleast tries to give ) some kind of reward every 30 seconds of play. How to fit that in a genre that is known by it's necessity of long term planning ... beats me

 

[guderian]

There is a way to go more futuristic after 2050. Go for custom scenario - next war and turn off the time victory. Next war extends the tech tree to a future era with some more advanced units and technologies. The scenario itself didn't interest me, but the custom game with the advanced techs can be interesting. Domed cities, Biological Warfare and a few more advanced military units. I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for or not.

Thank you very much. The future tech per se doesn't have much interest for me;
conquering every enemy civ ( particularly if they all gang up on me ) does.
I just ordered the complete Civ4 series from Amazon.

 

[ikillu64]

I really liked Civ 4, but my favorite game ever is Battlefield 2.

 

[moscaverde]

Civ 4 because it is the one that most entertain me. Some good contenders though, like SMAC or Sim City 4.

 

[Iranon]

Well, with all due respect, I'm more on TMIT side of the fence . I do not care much for a little of randomness, but civ IV handles randomness in a way that easily can create cascades of good/bad stuff.

I wasn't aware I'm due any respect... and certainly didn't mean to imply that my preferences are the only valid ones. Just that games don't HAVE to be 'fair' from player-centric point of view and that such a desire is often less about fairness than feeling entitled to win. In an 8-person board game we wouldn't expect to win every time, it's worth examining whether (and, if applicable, why) we do in a computer game against 7 AIs players.
Until Emperor, arguably Immortal, almost every game is winnable even if the RNG hates you. And if you consider Deity: Allow the AIs to make sane rush decisions and you'll have far more unwinnable games than any 'more random than usual' event causes.

Me smells a disgruntled Civ V buyer

I'm not sure I've been gruntled since kindergarten. I had the good sense not to buy Civ5 though: disliked the business model, what I read about gameplay made me wary, playing it elsewhere showed it to be worse than expected.
I'm disgruntled not because I wasted good money but because I can't find anything worth buying.

The worst thing about the current game design philo is that it means that strategy games must die as a mainstream genre. It is impossible IMHO to make a strategy game while assuming that the target consumer is a dumb brick with a attention span of 30 seconds ( remember Sid rant about how his case gamer thinked that he should win all 3:1 odds battle because "3 is such a large number and 1 is such a small one" ( note, I'm not saying that Sid agrees with this evaluation, but that he thinks that the games should be done with this kind of players in mind ). It strikes me as absurd as you can make a strategy game while thinking that the average buyer is like that ... unless you want to sell something that gives ( or atleast tries to give ) some kind of reward every 30 seconds of play. How to fit that in a genre that is known by it's necessity of long term planning ... beats me

Yes, I found that lecture appalling, Civ4 already shows a lack of faith in the players - when the designers had to make a choice between apparent simplicity and elegance in the mechanics, the designers chose apparent and often misleading simplicity.
Interestingly, Civ5 went away from short-term optimisation (the overall pacing could be an accidental consequence of trying to make 1upt work, but persistent social policies are a deliberate change) so I don't think expected attention span of the players is to blame.