My own conclusion (Single Player only) about the game in general.

[Older than Dirt]

OK, so Civ 4 is no Civ 2, but it has got to get a 10 for re-playability unless you are playing some of the silly scenarios. Graphics are admittedly confusing for old people and hurt my eyes. It should get at least a 9 on addictiveness - right up there with Oxycontin.

 

[devilhunterred]

civ iv is quite a good game, but it still has massive room for improvements

sometimes im quite put off by civ iv though with its lack of details in modern warfare and its lack of realism

 

[Aug2006]

I have no suggestions for improvement because this is my first exposure to the Civ series. However, as you said, I can hardly feel immersiveness when playing the game. Afterall, that is what realism that we are looking for in a game of this genre.

Today, turn-based games have changed their packaging as well as the gameplay mechanism. From the 2D Hexagons / Die-rolling approach to Strategy + 3D Action infrastructure. Civ IV seems to be in between, more straight forward, it is neither hard-core nor soft-core.

I just can't get to the addictiveness that many are getting. Either I am not the common players in the street or your guys are having a singular affections to this game!

Thanks very much anyway!

 

[los]

Dude,
Go play Xbox

 

[Volstag]

The biggest drawback of the game is the clumsy technology research process. There are far too many different technologies and some of them are not necessary to get segregated. For instance Brone Working and Iron Working are 2 separated technologies which are required to research at different stages in order to unveal Iron and Copper resources. Can they be put together as one single research technologies?

The techs are seperated in such a way to, theorectically, allow more diversity in your research paths. Civ III forced you to research most (if not all) the techs in a current era before moving to the next -- which resulted in everyone having nearly the same techs. Combining BW and IW would make that tech way too powerful... almost everyone would go for it right off the bat.

And any rational reason why Wonders building should be queued up together with other unit and structure buildings?

In the city management screen, you can filter between buildings / units / wonders. Personally, I haven't had much difficulty seperating Axemen from, say, Angkor Wat. Units are at the top, buildings in the middle, and wonders are at the end.

I would like to be alerted if I am losing my army due to lack of funds. And don't you think a message telling us that War is declared should be promptly displayed?

Hmmmm, there is a blaring horn sounded when someone declares war on you. As for you unit disbands: if you're running negative income, at zero treasury, units are going to be disbanded. While I agree they could be more prominently displayed, this seems like more of a nitpick than an actual complaint.

The game's dimension is no different than other RTS games.

I totally disagree. In most RTSes that I've played, victory is determined purely by military aggrandizement. In Civ IV, it's quite possible to win w/o ever fighting. Another huge component of success in the RTS genre is the ability to micromanage much faster than your opponents.

I'm going to lump some of your quotes together:

I have up to this moment spent nearly 100 hours playing the game.

It gets pretty boring soon.

I am afraid that I will most likely not purchasing the game when its price tag is hanging over $39.99 price point. It just doesn't worth that much money as far as a turn-based games is concerned.

Let me get this straight: you've played for over 100 hours, and you think the game is boring? You've played for over 100 hours and you don't feel like it's worth the purchase price? That's quite a bit better than most games out there (wherein you get, say, 25 hours of gameplay for $49.99). Incidentally, whose copy of the game are you playing anyway?

I guess I don't understand how you don't like the game, but have managed to play for over 100 hours. It doesn't make any sense.

-V

 

[Volstag]

General gamers definitely will be put off by so many different researches which need to be done before they can get some gunpowder to plunder enemies.

What? You can "plunder" enemies with basic melee units. Put it on the fastest game speed, and you can do it lightning quick.

It emphasises heavily on those tech research...

Your comments are really confusing. You don't need to research that many techs to win via axemen blitz.

What do you mean the grandness? Which part of the game? If you could elaborate a little, I will play to see what it is, maybe I have missed out something.

You've played for over 100 hours.... how have you "missed" anything?

In the end, you don't have to like it. Go back to CoG if it isn't your cup of tea.

-V

 

[Volstag]

However, as you said, I can hardly feel immersiveness when playing the game.

Dude, your statements are so confusing. To wit: why did you play for over 100 hours if you weren't immersed in the game?! If I'm not immersed in a game, it won't see 4 hours, let alone 100.

(my apologies to everyone...last time I'm going to bring this up)

-V

 

[Civ4rulesTH]

@OP

You kinda contradict yourself saying there are too many techs and yet there is no depth to the game.

 

[Rathelm]

I have no suggestions for improvement because this is my first exposure to the Civ series. However, as you said, I can hardly feel immersiveness when playing the game. Afterall, that is what realism that we are looking for in a game of this genre.

Today, turn-based games have changed their packaging as well as the gameplay mechanism. From the 2D Hexagons / Die-rolling approach to Strategy + 3D Action infrastructure. Civ IV seems to be in between, more straight forward, it is neither hard-core nor soft-core.

I just can't get to the addictiveness that many are getting. Either I am not the common players in the street or your guys are having a singular affections to this game!

Thanks very much anyway!

No that would be a grognard war game which some of the people here like and others don't. TBS games are becoming few and far between. Personally I think CivIV is as close to perfection that I can dream of. Even the people that complain about the modern era give me a chuckle. It's the end of the game what do you expect when the outcome has been established. Unit wise it is fine. You have the standard RPS chars still.

 

[JavalTigar]

are we still beating this dead horse?

He was a troll who thankfully has left the building.

don't let the door hit you on the way out

 

[Ben E Gas]

I've been playing civ since civ2. I love the civ games. I haven't had the same love for civ4 as I did civ2 tho. But I think that it is because I don't have the hours and hours of playing time as I did back then. I have a family now, so the time I do have is only maybe an hour here and there, so my civ4 experience suffers. But I will continue to buy the civ series until I die. Civ2 was so good, that even with a few stinkers here and there, (cough cough Call to Power cough cough), I'll keep building civs forever.