IV or V? Or nothing at all?

[TheDanish]

I was fortunate enough to have not paid for my copy of CiV (and no, I didn't pirate it), so I feel no obligation to continue playing.

I have since returned to cIV and am enjoying it even more. I only really started getting into the mechanics of it earlier this year so there's a lot in it for me still. That and I haven't played any of its mods...

So in short, I'll be playing IV until VI comes out

 

[mva5580]

I try to play V, but I just can't stick with it. In my personal opinion, IV was about as perfect as this franchise can get. That doesn't mean a new civ game can't be good, but I cannot imagine IV ever being topped.

I would love to see a new version of alpha centauri more than a new civ.

 

[Metal Bunny]

I see how the majority went back to Civ IV or is thinking about going back to Civ IV.
And yes, I should've entered a sixth option with 'I like both', even though that is quite unlikely.

When I made this poll, I was thinking about going back to Civ IV, because for various reasons, that have been said ad nauseam in the forum.

Right now I have gone back to Civ IV and wow, I am really satisfied with that game.
So, deduct one from the 3rd option and add it to the 1st

 

[bradius caesar]

I'm enjoying 5 quite a bit more than unmodded 4, but there are some really great mods. Though I guess we'll see, it took me quite a long time to get into 4 after 3. There also wasn't an option for having different versions on different computers - laptop only has 4, desktop has 3-5.

But when you really get down to it, Civ2 was still my all time biggest bang for my buck game.

 

[bestbrian]

Since you put this over in the IV forums:

I never bought V, because I don't believe in paying for the privelege of being a beta-tester. I figure I'll wait until at least the first large expansion pack is released and de-bugged before I consider trying V, but, to be honest, I'm not at all happy with the steam-thing, so I still might continue to give it a pass. We'll see how it plays out.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Since you put this over in the IV forums:

I never bought V, because I don't believe in paying for the privelege of being a beta-tester. I figure I'll wait until at least the first large expansion pack is released and de-bugged before I consider trying V, but, to be honest, I'm not at all happy with the steam-thing, so I still might continue to give it a pass. We'll see how it plays out.

Same. I thought of buying CivV when it came out. I didn't care for steam and wasn't sure about 1UPT, so I thought I'd wait. Saw the litany of complains, realized exactly what you figured out before I did (unpaid beta-tester) and decided, hey, IV is still fun. Sure, graphics are nice in V, but if that's all there is I could go to a movie.

I'm still watching, but I'm influenced by Sulla's reaction, among others. If you're thinking of buying it, look at Sulla's detailed review. To state the obvious, don't go by magazine reviews. They're about as genuine as pro wrestling.

The idea of buying V to give it good sales is Catch-22. If it sells well, Firaxis thinks "we're geniuses, our improvements are great!" And game continues to go downhill. If it sells poorly they probably stop the series. Sorry for being a pessimist.

 

[SuperJay]

The idea of buying V to give it good sales is Catch-22. If it sells well, Firaxis thinks "we're geniuses, our improvements are great!" And game continues to go downhill. If it sells poorly they probably stop the series. Sorry for being a pessimist.

I think the idea that you should support a bad product is beyond a catch-22, it's just really dumb consumer behavior. I don't think Firaxis would have ditched the series altogether if Civ 5 didn't sell well, either - it's still their flagship product, and you don't retire a brand like Civilization lightly.

IMO - and I know this is heresy around here, so I'll prepare for stoning - Civ 5 should fail commercially. Obviously it hasn't; it sold fairly well based on the brand alone, not to mention glowing review scores and the legacy of the franchise. I only say this because it alarms me to see so many consumers here seriously believing they can buy a shoddy product and then somehow that product will be made great if only more people spent their money on it. No, no, no no no. If you think it's a bad game - or even if you think it's a mediocre or decent game, but not quite up to par for Civilization, don't buy it. That's the strongest message you can send. We all vote with our wallets. All the forum threads in the world make a fraction of the difference that poor sales would make.

 

[Chronicles]

I don't get this. I play all Civilizations games on and off. And that includes Civ 1, 2 and 3. Not just 4 or 5. Every game has something to it. Just play whats fun for you.

 

[Larsenex]

I am playing 5 with most win options turned off and leaving only domination and culture as the only paths. I also play large maps but eliminate 1/2 of the city states and also delete 3 or 4 AI players. This tends to give a great amount of breathing room and allow for larger armies on both sides when you meet them.

 

[Misotu]

I've had a break from Civ for a while but my son gave me Civ V for Christmas. Have played it a lot for the last couple of days ... it's very different.

I'm sorry to say that I think Civ IV takes V by a mile based on what I've seen so far. But I'm intrigued by V and there are a few aspects that I really do like. I'm a builder and am trying to get it to work rewardingly on a very small empire - so far I am puzzled by the difficulties and somehow things seem to be taking a very long time - but I will persevere for a while. It just seems that every way I try to make the thing fly it sort of flaps around a bit and then dives It may be that I just haven't spotted the better strategies yet.

V is intriguing, but it reminds me of Civ III and CtP somehow, both of which I played for a little while then got bored and gave up on. I loved II. I suspect I'll be heading back to IV before too long ...

 

[Balerion]

We need a fresh take on Civ that is not stamped with Sid Meier's conservatism ... we need some radically new concepts to make things fresh and new and exciting. We need a Call to Power 3.

Civ V is too unbalanced and broken to replace Civ IV.

Civ IV is too dated and lacking of all the modern (yet horribly implemented) ideas introduced in Civ V. Plus I've played it to death.

Civ VI is a long ways off and if that useless old fart Meier is still around it'll be even worse than Civ V.

Civ is dead. Elemental was crap.

Maybe I should see if I'll hooked by GalCiv...

This and this.
Especially for Call to Power 3 and the old fart.
I'm sorry.

 

[Krose]

What Civ 5 brought to the world? Me thinks better graphics... nothing more. Face the truth, civ was alraedy developed in full in Civ 3, 4th edition was just impovment in graphixs, and maybe some in playability. They will not make it better any more. Now they just try open it to masses.
If you are civ fanatic you will stick to previous versions. Newcomers will enjoy latest editions.
That's my humble opinion.
I am personally coming back to IV.

 

[LDiCesare]

Face the truth, civ was alraedy developed in full in Civ 3, 4th edition was just impovment in graphixs, and maybe some in playability.

An opinion I disagree wwith. I never enjoyed Civ III, found II vastly better, but Civ IV is vastly better than II and III.

 

[thatguy3444]

What Civ 5 brought to the world? Me thinks better graphics... nothing more. Face the truth, civ was alraedy developed in full in Civ 3, 4th edition was just impovment in graphixs, and maybe some in playability. They will not make it better any more. Now they just try open it to masses.
If you are civ fanatic you will stick to previous versions. Newcomers will enjoy latest editions.
That's my humble opinion.
I am personally coming back to IV.

I also disagree. I found II and IV to both be far superior to III. The AI in III made the game nearly unplayable (a bit like V).

I found V to be a huge disappointment. I have seen it happen in game development before - the people in charge of making the sequel are going to make the game they want to play. In Civ V, the warmongers guided the design, and made a game that appeals to warriors (never mind that the AI and multiplayer are bad enough that it is hard to play even as a war game).

War was always my least favorite part of the Civ games, and now it is the only interesting piece of the game. They had some great ideas for combat, but turned the rest of the game into an afterthought.

 

[Misotu]

@LDiCesare and @thatguy3444: Yes, III was pretty awful but II and IV were terrific. Flawed, yes, but terrific fun and I think IV BTS was without doubt the best balanced, best thought-through iteration of the brand. It was also, and I value this as a follower of around 20 years standing, the most courteous to the player because it had a lot of very tiny details that made life a lot easier. For example, organising saves by save date/time rather than name so that the latest save was obvious; enabling user notes to appear on the map; a reminder function; a clock; units' move orders visible if you click on them; +/- info on diplomatic relations so you have a bit of a clue as to what to do next; having a regenerate map option for those overwhelming tundra moments etc etc

Civ IV made me feel valued as a customer, and seemed to have been designed by people who actually liked to play Civ. And then the Bug mod came along through the HoF and it made playing a joy ... at-a-glance organisation of key information and every decision could be based easily and quickly on actual data if you wanted and could be bothered. No more indecision and wavering between many options - the numbers are there and so the only choice was "best" or (sometimes) "not best but more fun".

I am still trying with Civ V and I really want to like the game because I've loved Civ for years and this latest version has a few features that I really, really like. But I am very frustrated by what seems to be an astonishing lack of balance. I read here that this game is aimed at "casual" players. All I can say is that both II and IV are very nice games for the casual player. Choose a lower difficulty level, a civ you like and never mind the starting position, you will have fun. I am still trying to have fun with V - have now dropped the level down to SETTLER but no, I'm still not having fun. It just doesn't sing, somehow. Everything feels horribly unconnected, all my builds take forever while the techs whizz by and *everything* is based on gold. I used to be able to build an empire based on opportunity cost - so mistakes weren't too horrible and good choices were pretty good Now, even the good choices are incredibly expensive long term so that most buildings aren't worth building because of the horrible maintenance and I feel like I have to be a maths wizard to balance maintenance against return. I can't even build a speculative road in anticipation of a future conquest because the maintenance cost will cripple me ... and anyway if I haven't actually planned my happiness from the start conquering an empire isn't really an option either. Slash and burn is an option ... always just slash and burn, leave a wasteland and destroy everything in your path.

But I'm an empire builder, not a Hooligan ...

I feel like I'm just perpetually choosing between bad options. All the time I'm thinking how I minimise the unhappiness penalty and how I can get enough gold to support a paltry few units for a conquest, or how to choose the very, very few social policies I will get if my empire grows beyond 5 cities, or how to get my gold up if I keep my empire below 3 cities and have no trade routes but still would like a small army ... In Civ IV I was always looking to grab a benefit or choose a path that would yield excitement and rich rewards but in Civ V my options just seem to dwindle and dwindle with every choice I make and I accept that this is probably my bad play but still, I just don't get those moments ... The worst thing is that I haven't lost a game yet, but winning somehow doesn't feel like a win should do with Civ - esp. with Cultural, it feels like Time victories get in Civ IV towards the end - endless end-turning and nothing much to do.

What a shame. Getting very, very disappointed

 

[clif9710]

For me, IV had too many "yes buts" so that I'd end up frustrated and confused. I mean that there were so many factors involved that even when I thought I had a good plan, something else I was doing could counteract it because of an effect that I'd overlooked. The devil was in the details.

V is a pleasure because it's more straightforward, goals can be kept in mind, the connection between resources and the different outputs are direct. I find I have a much clearer idea of what I need to do in any situation. I'm not going to the info screens constantly to figure out why something is going wrong. City states are a huge plus, giving me a toehold in distant lands that I can leverage to my advantage. To put it simply - I now feel like I know what I am doing instead of being buried in detail. A quick look at the demographics screen instantly tells me my strengths and weaknesses.

 

[tylor]

Err, how is it possible mess up seriously in Civ 5? If you are low on money, you build money buildings. If low on happiness, you build happiness buildings, etc. Unlike in Civ 4, where a couple of cities too much before you get right technologies can easily grind you research to a halt.

 

[Aristos]

One of the things I did not like about Civ IV was its complexity, and very frustrating to play. I played it a lot and lost mainly at Noble level. I had difficulty working out whether a city should be orientated towards food/science/gold or production and having to work this out precisely was hard, though production cities were more obvious. Now I see this info is given automatically when you click on the city screen. now the game is easier to understand. There appears to be less emphasis on Specialization.

Despite the poor AI, dodgy diplomacy and crashing on DX10/11 I will stick to Civ V, as I think it will get even better and more so with good mods. You cannot really go backwards and stay stuck in the past. I also think the complainers appear more often in the forum, more than those who like the game. The latest patch has improved things, though I do not like the long build times.

This post explains sooooo much... funny that the author does not even realize how much his post explains.

 

[Shoes]

Well you guys can say w/e you want, but in the end Civ IV (especcialy BTS) has better AI, more options, balanced build and reserch times, your army doesnt get stuck in a narrow pass, has health, has religion, etc. All Civ V has is the noob AI, super-speed reserch compared to build times, city-states whose quests are always the same (kill this, kill that -.-), 1 upt which makes big armys totaly useless ,hexes and not much else. It's the most simplified Civ ever. Any not ******ed 4 year old can win Civ V by conquest on highest difficulty... Any player who likes the stuff Civ is about will stay with Civ IV

 

[Cueball]

I haven't played either game in a couple of months. If I do feel like playing one again, I'm sure it will be Civ IV.