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

[Jonathan]

If the SDK is well documented, do you really think it will be that complicated to use by todays standards? I think kids today come with a keyboard and mouse, straight out of the womb.

From what I've understood so far, the SDK is intended for skilled C++ programmers who fancy doing brain surgery on the hard core of the program. It may also include some help for less-skilled people wanting to mess with Python and XML, I don't know.

Certainly, if Civ 4 is supposed to be readily modifiable, more documentation is needed at all levels. There doesn't seem to be any relevant documentation supplied with the game.

 

[MeteorPunch]

I agree with Varelses here. The game just feels incomplete, like it was rushed or something. Missing units, missing advisors, removing some fun things. Sure it improved the series overall, but still...it's so close to being great. At the moment I'm pretty hopeful Firaxis will make this a great game through patches and add-ons. Everyone, make sure to contact Firaxis' website, and vote in their poll.

For modding purposes Civ 4 needs a companion program that allows easy editing of .xml values and definitions through a clean interface.

...and less ability to just play the game for the game's sake....you pretty much have to choose a victory condition at the beginning of the game, and that victory condition dictates how you play the game. I've read people saying all you have to do is up the difficulty level but I find that makes things even worse. You are even more of a slave to your victory condition and there is little room for error so you cannot even veer from your chosen path briefly to add a bit of fun to your game.

Why shouldn't this be? You can't assume to meander in all different ways and end up in good position to pursue any outcome. If you want this...lower the difficulty. Civ 4 offers more choices than previous civs, and each one should be towards your victory (I'll agree the victory conditions themselves need reworking).

 

[Breunor]

Varelse,

Thanks for an interesting post. Its interesting because I agree with almost all of your basic points, but I reach a different, indeed the opposite, conclusion!


I think the area where we probably disagree the most is that I don't think the advisors talking about culture and the like to be important. It really adds little to the gaming experience for me.

I do think that the CIV series in indeed a series -- here we agree fully. That is, the CIV engine has key components that make it CIV. If you don't like them, then the game isn't good. A critical one is that build from ancient times. It is a resource management game where youtrade-off the use of different kinds of resources to build things, which can snowball to victory.

However, I also think that CIV IV is by far the best at achieving the objectives that CIV was trying to make. Therefore, if you don't like the IDEA of CIV, CIV IV probably won't be much better than the predecessors. However, if you do, many will find like me that Sid, Soren, and all have made the CIV game better, and I like it a lot more.

Indeed, there are famous wargames where one or two lines of errata have changed them from horrible wastes to great games. They are the same game, but a balancer or point can change anything. CIV IV, for people like me, makes CIV better, but it is simlar to the other CIV's mechanically. However, the changes in the game do change the strategy dramatically.


I also find the vistory conditions the most frustrating part of the game. You civilization is best as an 'idiot savant'. I am building either for war, culture, or science. If I try to balance, its hard to win. I find this unrealistic in most cases (I say most cases because building the Mongols only for conquest does seem accurate).

However, I found a 'work around' -- although it isn't perfect, I find that if I turn off all vicotory conditions except for score, the game balances much better. That is, no culture, no spaceship. No, you hve to get a high all around score, and the game now favors balance much more. Of course, conquest still wins, but it isn't necessary! If you get a chance, try this, I'd be interested to see if this makes the game more enjoyable. It really works for me!

Best wishes,

Bruenor

 

[MattJek]

I agree with Breunor. A time score victory or a UN diplo victory are the only viable ones if you want a balanced game. All the other ones lean towards culture/war/science too much

 

[Jonathan]

I find that if I turn off all vicotory conditions except for score, the game balances much better. That is, no culture, no spaceship. No, you hve to get a high all around score, and the game now favors balance much more. Of course, conquest still wins, but it isn't necessary! If you get a chance, try this, I'd be interested to see if this makes the game more enjoyable. It really works for me!

Interesting suggestion, thanks for that.

I often find I'm well in the lead long before 2050 AD, so that actually finishing the game seems unnecessary except to get properly listed on the high score table. I suppose that means I'm playing at too low a difficulty level (Noble). But have you found this, and how do you handle it?

I rather fancy stopping the game earlier than 2050 AD. Perhaps this is feasible by some simple changes to one XML file (I think I see how to do it but haven't tried yet). Pity there isn't a simple option to select in the game interface.

 

[Duke Togo]

I agree with Varelses here. The game just feels incomplete, like it was rushed or something. Missing units, missing advisors, removing some fun things.

And yet somehow the games takes up more resources than the other three combined.

 

[Panda]

"Porn Industry"

World Wonder. Give 5 porno tapes for happiness trading.

You really should post that at Firaxis, they are conducting a poll as what to include in the expansion.

 

[DemonDeLuxe]

I think Varelse has some very valid points here. Yes, I do see that quite a few people are happy with CIV4 as it is. I, for one, certainly do not count among those and I daresay that's not because I don't love CIV - just the opposite.

What frustrates me most is that I know that the very company that brought us this eyecandy-ridden, streamlined version has had so ingenious, marvellous ideas in the past, fascinating concepts and a great care for oh-so-loveable details.

I hear them whom some people call "fanboys" shout: "If you don't like it, don't play it - or mod in what you like!". But that's straight near the point. I *do* like the game PRINCIPLE, but I'm disappointed with this edition. As for modding: Modding is fine and I have enjoyed a couple of mods tremendously (my regards go to the makers of DYP and RAR, especially, but to the teams of the MoM and WH mods, as well), but something is plain WRONG if the calls for mods are as loud in the very first weeks after a game has gone gold. Then again, yes, I could mod myself. But although I am a programmer by profession, I hardly feel inclined to learn all the stuff needed to really build a mod. This shouldn't be necessary, really. If it IS necessary, we can hardly talk of a "whole game", can we?

I really like SOME of the changes in CIV4, but i find the game itself lacking "somehow", diffusely.

The previous weekend, I found my girlfriend and me actually playing a decent game of CIV3 (plus RAR mod) and having loads of fun. Before, she looked at CIV4 for a couple of minutes and said: "I don't like it". Explaining what the differences between 3 and 4 are didn't help much - she hates the look, hates the lack of advisors etc., hates the generic wonder movies and, and, and... and I cannot help but agree to quite some of her disapprovals. Since I'm quite aware that I, having a GF that actually likes playing computer games, may count myself amongst a very low lucky number, it was thereby decided: CIV4 only in single player for me alone - if at all. Nothing beats playing CIV with my GF, really

Maybe she'll change her mind as soon as a decent mod comes out - but I guess it will take a while until someone actually manages to build a mod as great as DYP for CIV3 has been. And it's a pity CIV4 isn't that much fun out of the box.

 

[BirraImperial]

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.

Well I've been playing Civ I at work, and I must say its a not nearly as fun as Civ4. The AI is terribly flawed, so as the government types. I'm not saying I didn't like it, but Civ 4 is the best Civ so far. If you were expecting something else, I'm sorry you are dissapointed. I think Civ 4 has flaws like any other thing humans make, but it is by far a really fun game. I'm sure if Firaxis made Civ 4 easier people would be complaining as well, so there is no way Sid can please everyone.

 

[Smidlee]

Well I've been playing Civ I at work, and I must say its a not nearly as fun as Civ4. The AI is terribly flawed, so as the government types. I'm not saying I didn't like it, but Civ 4 is the best Civ so far. If you were expecting something else, I'm sorry you are dissapointed. I think Civ 4 has flaws like any other thing humans make, but it is by far a really fun game. I'm sure if Firaxis made Civ 4 easier people would be complaining as well, so there is no way Sid can please everyone.

That's the same with a fps like FEAR or call of duty 2 . Yes, they are better but to be honest not very revolutionary either. That's can be said of RTS also. Age of Empires 3 is little more than Age of Empires 2 with a majority face-lift.
This is why Firaxis stated they are trying to attact new players to Civ4 and not just the hardcore fans. So obviously after playing civ1,2 and 3 plus AC then GC there not left to do that hasn't been done before and less to excite hardcore fans.

Still I would like for Firaxis to start a new series which combine Civ with Rome TW which would be a little more revolutionary while leave Civ series as just turn-base board game.

 

[Kaleb]

Well I've been playing Civ I at work, and I must say its a not nearly as fun as Civ4. The AI is terribly flawed, so as the government types. I'm not saying I didn't like it, but Civ 4 is the best Civ so far.

I would agree with that - Civ I was the reason I got myself my first PC (switched from Atari) at age 12 or so and I've been hooked on the series since the demo of Civ I first, playing every version of the game to death since.

I must say that I think Civ IV is the best version yet - yes, there are some flaws but tell me about a game that is perfect?

As much as I enjoyed Civ III I found the game ground to a snail's pace in the industrial-modern era as captruing cities was a very long-drawn out affair and culture-flipping corrpution problems made it very difficult to expand sensibly.

CivIV is has done us all a great favour in both being MORE playable and adding more STRATEGIC options for ways to play.

I always play at Monarch or above and I find at these levels the key to success is maintaining a good balance of strategies. I find keeping this balance harder in Civ IV and the key for me is IT IS MAKING ME *THINK* MORE about what I am doing at every stage of the game.

And for this reason - I just love it!

 

[ellie]

I agree about the CtP stuff. I thought the first one went a bit far actually, since you basically had giant space cruisers that could never leave low-earth orbit due to the limitations of the game, but it still had its charm. CtP2 got it right, IMO. Oh and please, for the love of God, someone implement public works. It's such a huge improvement over this worker nonsense - why the construction industry needs its own units I don't know.

I'm not holding my breath about the workers but hopefully an expansion will add a few future techs and flesh out the progression of military units.

Oh, and paragraphs.

I played CTP and CTP 2, i thought the combined arms was nice personally and hoped for full implementation on CIV IV. The sea colonies: nice touch but too late in the game imho.

Trouble for me with CTP 2 was that the AI was too obviously stupid.

As for origonal post, well ive only tried civ 4 briefly as it crashes my PC however i think CIV 1 to CIV 3 were general improvements each time. But i do understand why you think 'personality' is lost. Anyone remember the advisors on CIV 2?. They werent as good on CIV 3, and the wonder movies dissapeared.

Presentation: I know its debated already, personally i really dont like 3D at all, id rather have had the time spent on graphics spent on game enhancements but hey everyone has their own opinion there

If i can get CIV 4 to run in a stable manner on my PC then maybee it will grow on me.

 

[Steph]

That's why I started to work on SSS instead of switching to CIV.

I have the feeling that CIV is moer "take civ III, redo the painting, sell it as new". Of course, they have more options, more flexibility for modders.

But I still think something is missing. So I will keep doing my never finished mod for CivIII, and in parallel see what I can do with SSS.

Perhaps in some time, when more materials (unit animation, etc) will be around I may explore CIV

But I don't have the time yet to try modding it to my taste.

 

[Nilrim]

Well I've been playing Civ I at work, and I must say its a not nearly as fun as Civ4. The AI is terribly flawed, so as the government types. I'm not saying I didn't like it, but Civ 4 is the best Civ so far. If you were expecting something else, I'm sorry you are dissapointed. I think Civ 4 has flaws like any other thing humans make, but it is by far a really fun game. I'm sure if Firaxis made Civ 4 easier people would be complaining as well, so there is no way Sid can please everyone.

My problem with Civ 4 has NOTHING to do with how hard or easy it is, that is one of the features in the game that does work well, just turn up or down the difficulty level to suite your personal level. I think I have 3 major problems with the game.

1) The simplicity of the AI, especially when dealing with diplomacy. Sometimes it seems like it remembers things you did to it from the beginning of the game, and sometimes it forgets it declared war on you out of the clear blue, makes peace then a few turns later acts like it thinks you are its best bud. Just one example.

2) End game, there is just something I can't put my finger on but it simply is not fun. It's like the last 25% of the game I am just waiting for the victory condition to pop. It just feels like work.

3) For some reason Civ 4 does not pull me in like the other Civs. I know many of you think parts of the game such as building your Palace, Wonder movies, AI images changing with time and advisor animations are just fluff, but for me it is those fine details that were left out of Civ 4 that makes the game lacking, it just does not feel like a personal experience any more.

 

[DemonDeLuxe]

I know many of you think parts of the game such as building your Palace, Wonder movies, AI images changing with time and advisor animations are just fluff, but for me it is those fine details that were left out of Civ 4 that makes the game lacking, it just does not feel like a personal experience any more.

True. I think I have never valued SMAC as much as I do today - because of those details (they were there in CIV2 and, to a certain extent, CIV3 as well, but SMAC had by far the most atmosphere).

With CIV4, everything feels totally generic. This is not the fault of one single thing, but a result of many factors, not the tiniest among them the sterile, generic interface. Other details include the lack of a real city view, true wonder movies, advisors, pop heads (I *loved* it how you, in CIV3, could see what origins a pop head had), leader personalities (everybody who thinks those leaders in CIV4 have personality never has bartered with Mwabudike Morgan or Sister Miriam Godwinson!)...

I am sure I am not the only one who sometimes doesn't play CIV to win, but to enjoy building a "working" empire. And that joy, I somehow can't find in CIV4.

 

[Huszar]

I am sure I am not the only one who sometimes doesn't play CIV to win, but to enjoy building a "working" empire. And that joy, I somehow can't find in CIV4.

It seems to me that in many ways civ became similar to an RTS game, in which a single thing counts: to win. I think it was Sirian who clearly stated here that "he is dazzled as why people who are are bored don't move to the next difficulty" ? Well, I can't speak for others, but winning a game is not the primary reason I play civ. I too enjoy building an EMPIRE. Having the biggest, richest, most cultured empire in the world is more of a sattisfaction for me than actually winning the game, and I don't get this satisfaction in civ4. There is absolutely no satisfaction and joy in civ4 for having the most "civilized" empire in the world. The game doesn't offer any rewards for this.

The game is well balanced, you can choose many ways to achieve victory, but everything is geared toward this goal: winning the game. Sadly, civ became more of a strategical game and less of an empire building and even less of a God game.

 

[Kolyana]

I got bored with Civ IV about 2-3 days ago for the first time ... I fire it up now, stare at the map and quit out. :uhoh: I'm going to give it a break for a couple of weeks and see how I feel in the new year.

 

[Zombie69]

I guess I'm the exact opposite. I've played every Civ since DOS, and never wanted to mod Civ. Did not like Call to Power. They did a fantastic job improving the gameplay with this version, especially with minimizing some of the tedious micromanagment, and it has kept me up all night. When I play Civ, I want to play Civ, not some whacky, lord of the ninja space hamster rings mod.

Same here (about DOS, Call to Power and modding).

 

[Zombie69]

Sadly, civ became more of a strategical game and less of an empire building and even less of a God game.

This must be why for me this is the best game in the series. I love strategy, and couldn't care less for sims or RPGs. A good game is a game that forces me to think, period.

 

[DemonDeLuxe]

It seems to me that in many ways civ became similar to an RTS game, in which a single thing counts: to win. I think it was Sirian who clearly stated here that "he is dazzled as why people who are are bored don't move to the next difficulty" ? Well, I can't speak for others, but winning a game is not the primary reason I play civ. I too enjoy building an EMPIRE. Having the biggest, richest, most cultured empire in the world is more of a sattisfaction for me than actually winning the game, and I don't get this satisfaction in civ4. There is absolutely no satisfaction and joy in civ4 for having the most "civilized" empire in the world. The game doesn't offer any rewards for this.

The game is well balanced, you can choose many ways to achieve victory, but everything is geared toward this goal: winning the game. Sadly, civ became more of a strategical game and less of an empire building and even less of a God game.

I couldn't agree more. I really love playing CIV "the Sim City way": Build an empire, give cities fancy names, let a guard march up in front of the capital, have a "valley of slaves" in which I store conquered workers... you name it. I love certain city patterns and armies built in divisions and batallions. And as icing on the cake, I want some sleazy advisor telling me how great a leader I am

Edit: It's not that I don't like a real challenge once in a while - I very well remember my pride when I first beat CIV3 on "deity" and that one time (was it CIV2 or 3?) when I ended up deep into the negative score because it was higher than the coders deemed possible (overflow...). But more often than not, I play to RELAX, and when I play CIV with my girlfriend, the game is all about good cooperation, swearing over those stupid AI and praise of those cute, tiny chinese citizens (CIV3), anyway