Is there still people playing civ 4?

[robbyextreme]

I thought SC2 was pretty good? And DotA copy-cats are just what you need if looking for some cruel uber-pro action. How can this being compared to CiV?

I'm not saying they aren't FUN, I'm just saying that most new games are focusing on making them easier to get good at without much practice.

Which is exactly why I compared most new releases to Civ5.

How can game developers make money when the majority of the customers want to not lose constantly and be good without practicing. To me that isn't fun, I want to play games where there are large skill gaps and higher learning curves.

I don't care though, tons of people still play the older versions.

 

[reddishrecue]

Its been awhile since civ 4 came out, but there's people still in the strategy section taking turns still probably, i guess.

 

[damerell]

Hey Firaxis: Give me the name of any other game where a significant number of the base customers switched BACK to a prior version of the product - one that is 5 years older?

Doom vs Doom 3?

 

[Mec AntiKythera]

I don't quite get this argument. The complexity in Civ IV comes from the strategic depth of decision making, not from the complexity of rules or from abstract game design. Especially if you think about Vanilla it's sure no more difficult to get how to play Civ IV than Civ V. Winning Civ IV on settler is no more difficult than winning Civ V. But it's much more difficult to master Civ IV in the higher difficulty levels. So taking strategic complexity and depth of decision making out of the game does not really attract that many new players - but discourages the established fanbase. This whole streamlining issue from my point of view ist just a marketing ploy to camouflage reduced production budget and reduced testing and QA efforts...

Exactly my point, in a way. I guess the point is that it is cheaper to stop after you have the basics done rather than to continue on giving more depth to the game. There may well be diminishing rewards involved. The Jon Shafer article linked above states that Civ5 was a critical and financial success. What then is the incentive to spend more money in development? To please people? To reach a level of quality? Sure, we all would say yes to that, but would a company motivated by profit? That remains to be seen. I sure hope so.

 

[gps]

The Jon Shafer article linked above states that Civ5 was a critical and financial success.

If I were a game designer or producer I also would never admit if a game was not as successful as planned. Image is everything. If they say it was a flop noone will buy it any more...

What then is the incentive to spend more money in development? To please people? To reach a level of quality?

Yes, as silly and incredible as it sounds: actually to reach a level of quality and please people. So they tell their friends they bought a fantastic game. So the friends buy the game as well. And all of them can't wait to buy the expansions and sequels. That's where marketing terms like "trademark", "franchise" and "customer loyalty" come from. No one wants to buy a bug infeste mess - nor it's expansions and sequels...

 

[Mec AntiKythera]

True, but I have not seen any evidence that the developers failed to reach the profit levels that they were wishing for. Besides, if Shafer is willing to admit the game play was sub-par why would he not admit that the financial picture was disappointing as well?

I agree with your desire for these qualities, that goes without saying, but after seeing Civ 5 and knowing that they made a Facebook version (which I haven't seen) it is possible to conclude that the aim now is to reach the masses with simple and shallow products. I am just airing a doubt that has nestled in my mind, I'm not arguing that this definitely is the case.

 

[gps]

True, but I have not seen any evidence that the developers failed to reach the profit levels that they were wishing for.

I've seen them give away Civ V Vanilla more or less for free just before G&K was released. And usually expansions are there to keep customers interested in the main product. It has a strange aftertaste if a company has to give away the base game to get some RoI on the expansion.

Besides, if Shafer is willing to admit the game play was sub-par why would he not admit that the financial picture was disappointing as well?

Well, to be honest I am completely surprised he said anything at all. Usually people like him have disclosure paragraphs in their contracts prohibiting to publicly discuss company internal affairs - especially after leaving the company. So I'd say those rather cautious statements regarding his game design decisions will be the maximum we'll ever hear from him...

 

[aluelkdf]

All the real civ players still play 4. All them over in the CivV forum are newcomers who play for the simplicity.

I probably played over 1,000 hours of Civ IV. I ventured into this part of the forum today for no other reason than curiosity. I have not played Civ IV since Civ V came out. I play Civ V exclusively now.

Civ IV is a great game, don't get me wrong. But I get bored playing the same thing for so long, I like something new and different. And that is why I play Civ V. And there are some aspects of Civ V that I like better than IV.

By the way, I've been playing Civ since the release of CIV III. So I'm hardly a "newcomer". But I don't play Civ III anymore either. Just Civ V. And when Civ VI comes out, I will probably stop playing V, just like I stopped playing IV and III.

 

[Funky]

Civ IV is a great game, don't get me wrong. But I get bored playing the same thing for so long, I like something new and different. And that is why I play Civ V. And there are some aspects of Civ V that I like better than IV.

By the way, I've been playing Civ since the release of CIV III. So I'm hardly a "newcomer". But I don't play Civ III anymore either. Just Civ V. And when Civ VI comes out, I will probably stop playing V, just like I stopped playing IV and III.

Interesting. I for one go by which game is better rather than by which is newer. Very often in franchises, "newer" and "better" go hand in hand. Since in this case the newer game is absolutetly horrendous compared to its prequel, the decision which version to play is very easy.

 

[Kjotleik]

Interesting. I for one go by which game is better rather than by which is newer.

I agree 100% with this. However, do remember that "better" is a subjective term. Different people have different opinions on this.

And this is also the reason I still play games like Civ IV BTS 3.19, UFO: Enemy Unknown, Wing Commander: Privateer and Championship Manager EoS 94.

I have now almost given up on new releases... If they don't release a version of Civ V that doesn't require an online account to play thumbsdown: Steam) I will NEVER try it. Maybe it is good - maybe bad - I will never know... The same I suspect is the case with the new XCOM Enemy Unknown from Firaxis. Steam account to play? No Way?

Sorry for the off-topic rant, but some things just make me crazy...



Yours Sincerely

Kjotleik of Norway

 

[AdamCrock]

Oh my ! I din't realized someone still plays UFO: Enemy Unknown ^^ Waaay cool Kjotleik of Norway ^^ Maybe You know how to get past that bug in Cydonia. The game just crash if I enter underground there and also I got those numerous graphics glitchees when Im in the Alien Base ;( But this is Civ 4 forum so PM me please if You got the answers thanks ^^ - also Im using Dosbox for it btw. It's good to see that someone appreciates good classics ^^

I also think that Steam is ....bad, very .... bad. (what if someone buys a videogame and don't have online access ? - It's like developers saying "srew You gamers we just want Your money, not Your satisfaction! So unless You cough up additional bucks for the patches and DLC's You'll be screwed forever!"

Yeah that sums it up why newer is not always better. I do agree that Civ 5 has has pretty shine to it and all that graphical mumbo-jumbo going on , but all that glitters is not gold, so yeah I'll stick to Good 'ol Civ 4 ^^

 

[Antilogic]

To answer the OP: I do on occasion. Along with the classic UFO games, Master of Orion, and right now the Super Nintendo version of Ogre Battle.

 

[aluelkdf]

I think that Civ IV definitely has more depth than V. I think that with V, they made it a little bit superficial to attract a larger audience. Basically, trying to attract new people who have never played Civ before. But the superficial design may be a turn off to die hard Civ fans. (But after the Gods and Kins expansion, it added a lot more depth and improved the game tremendously compared to what vanilla was.)

There are aspects of Civ V that I like better than IV. For example, I like the fact that there are hexes instead of tiles. It feels more natural than perfect square tiles. And I think borders expand in a more natural way. I also like the combat system of V better. I know many people don't like the 1 unit per hex, but I personally like it better. Once it a while it gets annoying, but overall I think it makes combat more interesting and strategic. The graphics are also better, simply becasue it's a newer game and designed for more powerful computers.

Overall, I'm happy with Civ V. Civ IV is also a great game, and III is a great game too (I can't speak for Civ I or Civ II, I never played them). I think that every series of civ is good in it's own way. Civ V and Civ IV are different games, that's for sure, but they are both Civ, and I think they are both good.

The one series of Civ that I did not like at all was Civ Revolution (the video game version). Civ Revolution was so superficial/simple/watered down, it barely scratched the surface of what a Civ game should be.

But anyway, I think that people should play whatever they enjoy the most. That's really the most important thing. But if you tried V when it first came out and haven't played since, I think it's worth giving another try, the game has improved a lot from what it was originally. Of course, it will always have that Civ V feel no matter what.

 

[damerell]

I also think that Steam is ....bad, very .... bad. (what if someone buys a videogame and don't have online access ?

Since you need it once for initial validation, not permanently, in this day and age you might as well ask "what if someone buys a videogame and doesn't have any electricity".

Steam has its problems but do try to stick to the ones that actually exist.

 

[vincentz]

Since you need it once for initial validation, not permanently, in this day and age you might as well ask "what if someone buys a videogame and doesn't have any electricity".

Steam has its problems but do try to stick to the ones that actually exist.

for you, living in UK and possible in a big city, yes its not a problem.
But for others its a big problem. F.ex with updates

In "ancient times" you could download patches to a flashdrive or CD and then install it on your computer when u got home, but now you have to use the computer you have the games installed on to connect to the net. In western world, not so big a problem, but for others its a huge problem.
In some cases, like the above, it actually ENCOURAGES piracy, coz u dont have the problem with internet access.
Especially taken into consideration that most software companies makes a 0-day patch on several hundreds megs, needed to be installed just to make game playable.

 

[gps]

what if someone buys a videogame and don't have online access ?

"what if someone buys a videogame and doesn't have any electricity".

Steam has its problems but do try to stick to the ones that actually exist.

Exactly, and the main problem I see here is you're actually not buying anything from Steam - or at least no video game. All you're buying is the licence to use a videogame that Steam provides under very narrow conditions and regulations - which btw. can be revoked or changed anytime the company wants to revoke or change them. So basically you're paying the full purchase price for a very one-sided and limited lend-and-lease-agreement. If that's OK for you, then so be it. For me it's definitely not...

 

[Pangaea]

All you're buying is the licence to use a videogame that Steam provides under very narrow conditions and regulations

It's kind of sadly hilarious that this term has really flown. You buy a product, but you don't own it. What??!

Completely bonkers. Then again, this is why I don't buy new games (sorry, licence to get screwed) any more. No DownLoadable Crap to contend with either, nor public beta testing for full priced products.

And that steaming turd? Don't own a single thing on it, and never will.

 

[Windsor]

. In western world, not so big a problem, but for others its a huge problem.

Well it's a tradeoff. Steam offers a better service for the majority of buyers who has a decent connection at the cost of those who doesn't have it.

It's just like all the other requirements needed to play. You can't keep making games for old 3dfx cards. At some point we need to stop complaining about "requires internet connection".

 

[gps]

At some point we need to stop complaining about "requires internet connection".

No we don't need to stop complaining. We don't need to accept anything the the game industry tries to sell us - especially if it is mandatory internet connections with no (single player) gameplay reason or feature or benefit other than to spy on us, check our hard- and software and sedate the producers piracy paranoia. This is an unconvenience that's not god-given fate, it's also not a justified and justifyable punishment for software pirates. It's the finger that the gaming industry constantly gives to the honest people that actually pay their wages. And the only people that are to blame for the situation are people like you who are willingly accepting it. All it would have needed to prevent this situation was a radical boycot for two or three of the first games that tried this nonsense and let them rot on the shelves, and the thing would have been through and no company in the world would have tried it a second time. But no, we HAVE to accept it and stop complaining...

 

[Funky]

No we don't need to stop complaining. We don't need to accept anything the the game industry tries to sell us - especially if it is mandatory internet connections with no (single player) gameplay reason or feature or benefit other than to spy on us, check our hard- and software and sedate the producers piracy paranoia. This is an unconvenience that's not god-given fate, it's also not a justified and justifyable punishment for software pirates. It's the finger that the gaming industry constantly gives to the honest people that actually pay their wages. And the only people that are to blame for the situation are people like you who are willingly accepting it. All it would have needed to prevent this situation was a radical boycot for two or three of the first games that tried this nonsense and let them rot on the shelves, and the thing would have been through and no company in the world would have tried it a second time. But no, we HAVE to accept it and stop complaining...

Very well said, gps. I am personally not a dedicated enemy of steam and actually have bought several games over it. But it does have a sour aftertaste and I totally understand the objections against it. If I could choose, I would definitely avoid it. Unfortunately, at this point it has become so large and natural (as seen i.e. in the comments of many users of this forum) that there is hardly anything to do to stop it.