Maybe the problem isn't Civ4 it's Civ in general.

[Varelse]

Yeah, I know what Civ4 needed: Strippers.

I think most of us could agree that there is always enough room to throw a few strippers into the mix.

I'll bring the beer, you bring the strippers. Deal?

 

[Nilrim]

Until then, expecting Civ4 to be anything but "Civ, but better" is whining. Whiny whine whining.

Excuse me but if Civ 4 is not 'better' then Civ then why in in the inferno reaches would I buy Civ 4???????????? If you read his post that is exactly what he was saying, that the game is not better just more of the same. Personally I am am having a lot of fun with Civ 4 but I do see his point, in many regrads both Civ 2 and Civ 3 were more fun to play. I have been playing the Civ games since the first one on a DOS machine and the AI has NEVER gotten smarter, they just add new ways for it to cheat!

So before you flame a poster you might want to actully consider his point of view instead of whining about a whiner. What is worse a whiner or someone who whines about whiners???? Fanboys, no matter what game you play you have them, say ANYTHING bad about their Holy Game and man they will jump all over you. If you think this game is perfect them I am happy for you, but you may want to consider laying off people who have valid complaints.

 

[MamboJoel]

I too have a problem with CIV more than CIV4. The game concepts (cities, commerce, food, production, science, happyness, units/combat) are broken from the start : they fail to simulate the world at any era. They were at the very beginning designed to represent antique one for which a city framework design suited better than any other.
When the game was still simple (like the first and the second maybee) the fact the concepts where broken wasn't too problematic. Now that we've added more and more concepts we keep implementing more and more aberrant features to try tuning the antropy generated by the the successive inaccurate layers that were added from one version to another.

 

[Nestorius]

Well, one thing that got me bored eventually with Civ III was that it was all about military expansion. I can play that kind of game on the lower levels of Civ IV, but now there is the whole new possibility of actually having a viable builder game, where the civ relies on commerce even more than military. There is actually the necessity to have specialized cities, like Commerce, Great People, and Production.

I get frusterated even at Prince level, and sometimes I want to quit because its hard for me, but I remember feeling like that in the beginning on all the other Civ's too. At Prince level I can barely squeak by the space race as long as I have a continent to myself. I basically don't know when or where to engage in Civ IV warfare, which in a way is cool, because I'm learning a whole new game.

 

[Zhahz]

I've been programming for 20 years, but I'm a casual gamer and don't write mods. I get enough of that at work.

Me too - I have never modded a game or created custom content for a game even though I'm an experienced programmer (20+ years here too) and that stuff would be cake compared to my normal grind. Most of the time though, the main reason is that I like things the way they are in whatever game it is.

For ex, I like Civ IV just the way it is. I think a lot of modders have interesting ideas but most of the time it suits their particular vision and overall game balance isn't a consideration. Regardless - I'm just not interested in mods or modding - I just want to play.

Overall I agree with Xavier in spirit (but not quite in animosity!). It seems that some folks have a vision of what a particular game (Civ) should be, and it's not likely to ever fit that vision. So, either play what does exist and enjoy it or find something to do (other than complaining about it on forums).

 

[lysander]

Well, this is the first time I've ever participated in a "civ bashing" thread, but unfortunately I'm going to have to agree with the OP. I do think that Civ IV is a pretty good version of the Civ series, but I think the Civ series has fallen somewhat behind other games. Back when Civ II came out, there truly was nothing even close to it on the market. Yeah, it had some problems (people walking all over your borders, bad AI, etc) but all in all it was a superb game. By now, the Civ series has fixed a lot of its glaring, persistant problems, but I don't feel like it has added any new dimensions to the gameplay for the last couple releases. I still bought Civ 4 and enjoy it, but I find myself enjoying games like RTW and Victoria much more. I've been playing since Civ I so it's sad to say, but it's true.

 

[JackRules]

I don't think Varelse was whinning (well, maybe a little). I think the bottom line, as with any game, sport, author, tv show, etc. is that some will love it , some will hate it, and the vast majority will fall somewhere in between. How many of us have waited impatiently for a movie sequel, only to be disappointed when it finally came out. A lot of folks have enjoyed playing civ over the years and there are many who had great expectations (some unreasonbly so) for this new version and those expectations weren't met, and they feel sad or angry or frustrated. Those with fewer (unreasonable) expectations are more inclined to see this new version as a big improvement over CIII. I myself get frustrated with C4 for a number of reasons, but I enjoy it for what it is...a nice diversion from RL.

Or maybe as someone suggested earlier on in a different thread....maybe some of us are just getting a bit too old?

I think it was me who said this, and I guess I am.

 

[CyberChrist]

@Varelse:
Good post. Well said, well spoken.

Your personal experience with the development of the civ series is not a far cry from what I experienced myself - even if I don't share your view on CTP which I never found to deliver quite the same feel as the 'real' civs.

After Civ2:TOT I was very disappointed by Civ3 despite the many new (and admitedly good) additions - mainly due to the missing scripting and multiple maps capabilities(still missing those maps in CIV). Although I did return for some MP action when PTW was released it wasn't until C3C that I started to feel good about Civ3 (but still annoyed by the missing stuff and the many unresolved bugs).

With CIV I am feeling a similar sensation as I did with vanilla Civ3, plenty of new and excellent additions, but they removed parts I am finding myself sorely missing - and without really understanding why they didn't include these parts (advisors, decent civilopedia, proper editor, quite a few modding options and more).

The biggest disappointment with CIV (for me) so far has been the discovery that a lot more of the available modding options are severely restricted/hardcoded than I was expecting(based on the hype about 'almost everything is modable'). This is especially true about the XML where you can only change the values they contain and not the structure of the data itself(at least not in any way I have been able to make work) which of course makes me wonder why there IS no editor to change these values as the data structure itself seems locked.

Having said all that then I still have great hopes and expectations for the future of CIV as it is (despite the shortcommings and annoying omissions) without doubt the most modable civ version yet. I only hope that Firaxis take heed of the concerns voiced by some of us 'oldtimers' and engineer upcoming patches/expansions to include some of the 'missing' stuff.

 

[schekker]

It is a shame that in threats like these where people put such well thought out feelings in their posting there are always some fanboys who just can't handle any criticy at all

One of the attractions of Civ is that there are so many ways to play it. Any new version of the game is going to make changes in the balance between these ways, making it more enjoyable for some and less enjoyable for others.

Personally I love to build big empires, build all the wonders and totally crush my enemies. I enjoy nice wonder movies, adviser movies telling me how great I'm doing and other eye candy rewards. I've never modded and although I've bought about every extension I believe I've never actually played any of the scenarios.
The original civ2 was perfectly suited for my playing style, despite all its shortcomings.

What they lost a bit in Civ4 for me is that fun factor. That just messing around while still beating the AI. Civ4 has become more like other games which you can only play to win, instead of play to have a good time.

I don't know whether it is still the case, but in the past these type of games were also called 'god-like' games, and with civ4 I don't feel like 'god' any more!

That doesn't mean I'm a whiner, and it doesn't mean Civ4 is a bad game. I still have far too less sleep for my own good playing this game. And it seems there is actually a strategy (the Catherine cottage spam one), which more or less suits my playing style. I just need a few more turns to get it under control

 

[Jack Naples]

I more or less agree with the Johnny Vegas lookalike [Varelse]. Years back I would happily play Colonization for hours on end, but I guess I just want things to be easier these days.

Civ is like a *massive* game of chess, and, like all turn-based games, it is input intensive. True, the burden has lessened as the game has evolved, but the player is still required to make hundreds and hundreds of minor decisions. That's the main reason why I can't motivate myself. I haven't finished a game yet. The game's exciting at the start, but this decision-making and interrelation gets more and more onerous as you go on. It just reminds me too much of work

But give me some more spare time and I'm sure I'll have another go...

 

[Smidlee]

"stop expecting games to be something they're not supposed to be"

That's kind of part of what I am saying. Civ1, Civ2, Civ3 and now Civ4 are essentially the same game. .

I know what you are saying as I feel the same with FPS. I remember the excitement I had with the first Medal of Honor especially the sound effects. (then with multiplayer BF1942) But even though shooter have got better yet they are still basicly the same gameplay; Medal of honor, Call of Duty; Doom series; Fear; Socom; Bond 007; etc. I got to say I don't get as excited over shooters like I once did. Yet I still like fps and Civ games .Looking forward to play GC2 also.
For me I enjoyed Civ4 a lot more than civ3 before Conquests.

 

[SES-Eugene]

The AI cheats less in Civ 4, compared to Civ 2. The best example is all the AI civs no longer "band together to contain your aggression" when you are the leading civ.

But I miss the advisor movies in Civ2 though hehe.

 

[Kaleb]

I think the very building blocks of the whole civ series (the food, shields, commerce, %science rate, gold etc) are both a blessing and a curse. It has provided a great building block for the rest of the game's features which have gotten progressively more complex going through the series but then it also causes a limitation on what you can actually do in the the game.

I think this is the kind of thing that Veralse (lol @ Jonny Vegas comment btw ) is getting at.

what I would really love to see introduced in the Civ series is the ability to choose your level of complexity.

Being able to pick what victory conditions you want to allow, whether to have nasty barbarians etc, is all well and good, but I want to be able to choose how complicated a game I want.

The problem that Firaxis have is that they are producing a game for mass-market and therefore it needs to be readily accessible for the proverbial "casual gamer". This puts a limit on how advanced game concepts can get as they still need to be playable

Wherease people like myself, and I'm sure many others on these forums would be quite happy to compromise a little on the accessibility front for a little more complexity (and therefore STRATEGIC play options!). but Firaxis can't do this for fear of losing 'casual gamers' behind.

I for one would love a more realistic and complicated political, economic and social model included in the game. But this would require a degree of complexity that might put off many people. With some sound planning such features can be added using the basic building blocks of Civ but done in such a way that a 'casual player' could just tick a box to NOT play with such features included.

I also loved the public works feature of CtPII and would love the option to choose whether to play with this version instead of workers. I'm sure it could be done. rather than ditching workers altogether you can choose whether you want to have them or public works.

rather than Civ being 'broken' I thinks it very nature is it's greatest strength, as it provides a platform that can be modded, adjusted and tweaked to do almost anything - tell me of a similar game that has such flexibility at it's core?

 

[Colonel Kraken]

Great OP, Varelse. I think you've really nailed the main issues here. You're right. We really do enjoy Civ IV, but it could have been so much more. Even beyond that, what good is almost infinite modibility if you need a Computer Science degree to do it?!!!!

To me, that is THE most frustrating thing out of this whole experience. Civ 3 was borderline modable for me. I did lots of modding in Civ 3 and I could understand most of it. Now, Civ IV is simply beyond me and I certainly don't want to have to learn XML (not too hard) or Python ( ) to add a tech, change the Civics or simply add a new Specialist!

So, yes, you're right on, Varelse!

 

[azzaman333]

To me, it seems as if Civ4 has lost some of the interesting aspects of Civ3. In Civ 3, i could keep interested in the game until the end, but in Civ 4 i feel like i just coast though the game until modern times, when everyone attacks each other for no reason. In Civ3, if you stuffed up aiming for domination or conquest, you could still recover and win in space, but if you screw up a conquest or domination in Civ 4, your ecomomy is f****d for the rest of the game. In Civ 3, you could cultural win and build an army, but in 4, you cant afford culture if you want to survive an attack. Civ 3 was much more captivating than Civ 4. I just hopw that Civ 4 improves with the expansion pack when its released.

 

[Colonel Kraken]

I too have a problem with CIV more than CIV4. The game concepts (cities, commerce, food, production, science, happyness, units/combat) are broken from the start : they fail to simulate the world at any era. They were at the very beginning designed to represent antique one for which a city framework design suited better than any other.
When the game was still simple (like the first and the second maybee) the fact the concepts where broken wasn't too problematic. Now that we've added more and more concepts we keep implementing more and more aberrant features to try tuning the antropy generated by the the successive inaccurate layers that were added from one version to another.

I think this is another very important point. The city based concept was great for Civ and Civ II. By Civ III, the producers should have started rethinking exactly how to implement the myriad features. Now that we have Civ IV . . . well, let's just say that I was expecting something a bit more revolutionary. Yeah, the product is WAY more refined than Civ I, but so what? Let's get some new thinking into the equation!

 

[CVDon]

There is nothing wrong with "City" based growth. You get to name your cities. I name mine "Virginia", "South Carolina", "California". So you have one large city in the middle and a bunch of smaller villages and towns growing around it.

"Oh ... Look!! There are viniards in the California cultural boundary. Must be Napa!!" Hmmmmmm ... me thirsty!

Edit to add: I must admit I do tend to lose interest once gun powder is invented. Next thing you know you are using stealth bombers to level somebody else's viniards.

 

[BirraImperial]

"Porn Industry"

World Wonder. Give 5 porno tapes for happiness trading.

LOL, and probably -1 health and +1 happy faces

I think if you get bored of Civ 4, there is something really wrong with you. I don't think a lot of people have managed to beat the game on the highest difficulty, at least not very often. Until then, there is no way you can get bored with this game.

 

[ACEofHeart]

I ageed with most of the intial poster's views...
Graphics aside, there is really nothing that new or innovative about CIV4... My feeling is that it's just more friendly to the casual gamer now .. and I believe thats what they intended.. ( called more Sales!! )
And if Civ addicts think its THAT great ,why is it then can't wait to start modding and changing it right away with all their changes...
The game wasn't even out for a week when I saw numerous changes posted on the creation board..

 

[Duke Togo]

I think if you get bored of Civ 4, there is something really wrong with you. I don't think a lot of people have managed to beat the game on the highest difficulty, at least not very often. Until then, there is no way you can get bored with this game.

I think there is something really wrong with you and some of the other posters in this thread for talking down to those expressing their frustrations and concerns about something they enjoy very much.

I should remind you that what you have said is only your opinion, not fact (though you clearly state it as if it is).

I've been playing Civilization since Civ DOS, and I am bored with Civ IV. I have taken to just playing the Earth map, setting personal goals for my empire and just trying to enjoy the game. For me, beating Civ IV is a tedious venture that requires a single-minded strategy that does not allow you to fully explore being a civilization. Its alot like playing Civ III on the higher difficulty levels; you stick to canned strategies skipping over chunks of game content focusing on a single victory condition.

I still play Civ IV, obviously, but its simply not grabbed me like the earlier games did.