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

[Aug2006]

On a scale 1 through 10, I would give it a 6/10.
Here are the breakdowns:
Graphics - 9/10
Sound - 8/10
Music - 9/10
Single Player AI - 7/10
Gameplay - 4/10
Replayability - 5/10

The graphics is absolutely out-standing as far as a turn-based game is concerned. Most turn-based games, even the most latest ones are 2D driven. This game stands out in that aspect and the graphics department has definitely done a great job.

The sound is very good, if only the master volume could be increased a little would make the game perfect. The music is the best and most thoughtful. The menu music brings out the concept of the game and is very consistent with the title of the game. Nonetheless, the music in-game is very elegant depending on the civ you are playing. Most western civ are Mozart and Beethoven classical goodies. The only room for improvement is to trigger some battle music when battles are brought to the stage.

I have up to this moment spent nearly 100 hours playing the game. 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? And any rational reason why Wonders building should be queued up together with other unit and structure buildings? The point I am trying to make here is that there are twists which seems rather unwise, and if I may put it plainly, quite stupid. Trivial things like messages are not appropriately classified and the lacks of pop of messages. 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?

The game's dimension is no different than other RTS games. Afterall, players are looking for victory. The game is not "open ended" as some commentator claims that. Somehow I see shadows of "Empire: DOTMW" when I am playing this game. Only that it is a turn-based game and the advantages of a turn-based game are that you can go get a cup of coffee while you are thinking about the next move or you are waiting for the computer AI to calculate the moves. It gets pretty boring soon.

This concludes my feeling about the game. 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. Compared to other turn-based games like Crown of Glory, Civlization IV lacks the depth. The manual might be thick like a bible, whereas the manual of Crown of Glory for instance is less thick but it plays in depth and it worths the money. I also believe that many other turn-based games are also comparable to it.

Any suggestions, counter-ideas and comments are welcomed.

 

[G Julius Caesar]

I don't like to see a thread unresponded to, so I'll give my thoughts.

I think this game is great, as most likely nigh on everyone on this website will do. Yes it has problems, and there are threads on this asking for Firaxis to change things, or what they'd like to see in a patch,etc.

But, although you're welcome to express your opinion obviously, your post reads more like a game review. Most people reading this site already have the game. I suppose some people looking to buy it may take on board what you say.

 

[Jheronimus]

To many techs, units and other things don't bother me, the grandness of civ that's what draws me to this game.

 

[Aug2006]

To many techs, units and other things don't bother me, the grandness of civ that's what draws me to this game.

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. In Rise of Nations for instance, I can get to Gunpowder Era in say 30 minutes. In Crown of Glory, I play with my thoughts and there are "Risk" style of diplomacy which entertains you. The so called diplomacy in Civ IV is "tacky" but it appears slightly naive. The animation is likeable and very funny looking, but too superficial. Upon comparison, you see design poises the game infrastructure which finally makes the game not even in terms of gameplay structure. It emphasises heavily on those tech research, eye-candy graphics and animation. It overlooks many details which when summed up, should perfect the game.

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.

 

[blaugh]

This game probably has the most replayability of any game ever made. Ever.

 

[Masquerouge]

The graphics is absolutely out-standing as far as a turn-based game is concerned. Most turn-based games, even the most latest ones are 2D driven. This game stands out in that aspect and the graphics department has definitely done a great job.

While nice graphics are, well, nice, they're not that essential to turn-based RTS. Ditto for sound.

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

You said it's clumsy, you did not explain why.
But my understanding for the "great" number of technologies is that it allows different people to go through different research paths according to different strategies. You might want bronze working because you need to chop some wood, and then decide to skip iron working because either you have no jungle or don't need the associated unit.
Grouping these two technologies would reduce the fine-tuning you can do on your research: basically everybody would research it.

And any rational reason why Wonders building should be queued up together with other unit and structure buildings? The point I am trying to make here is that there are twists which seems rather unwise, and if I may put it plainly, quite stupid.

Again, you said you did not like it but you did not explain why.
Since the entire concept of Civ is based on cities producing one thing at a time, I don't see why Wonders should be excluded. Right now there is a very interesting choice to make when you're building a wonder: is the benefit that the wonder will bring me worth the umpteenth number of turns it will take me to build it? You can easily produce 10 units instead of that wonder, or 3-4 buildings... If Wonders were not queued up, then it would be a no-brainer: produce it, since it will not slow down your other productions. You'd have nothing to loose.

Trivial things like messages are not appropriately classified and the lacks of pop of messages. 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?

Well, there are messages telling you units are disbanded, and the leader of the civ that's declaring war on you will tell it to you himself, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about. Maybe you'd want to check your settings.

The game's dimension is no different than other RTS games. Afterall, players are looking for victory. The game is not "open ended" as some commentator claims that. Somehow I see shadows of "Empire: DOTMW" when I am playing this game. Only that it is a turn-based game and the advantages of a turn-based game are that you can go get a cup of coffee while you are thinking about the next move or you are waiting for the computer AI to calculate the moves. It gets pretty boring soon.

So you don't like Turn-based games? And what gets pretty boring? And I'm familiar with a lot of games having 6 different victory conditions, especially not any RTS, where the goal is pretty much to destroy your opponent.

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.

I think sales figures would tend to show the opposite.

 

[eriadoc]

The sound is very good, if only the master volume could be increased a little would make the game perfect.

The volume can be adjusted via your Windows Sound Control, your speaker/headset volume, or inside the XML. I can't recall the exact spot in which XML file, but if you do a Search on the Bug forum, you'll find it.

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

I'm not sure what you mean when you say clumsy. I think the majority of gamers will say that a variety of different technologies adds to the texture of the game. I am not sure what you are trying to say by the phrase "some of them are not necessary to get segregated". However, historically speaking, bronze was worked in an extensive manner long before iron was. Since this is a game that at least tries to maintain an historical pretext, I think this is completely appropriate.

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

Again, you've not entirely made yourself clear, but the way I understand it, you're questioning the prerequisites for certain wonders? It makes all the sense in the world, to me at least, that you would have a library built before attempting the Great Library. Similarly, having a lighthouse built before you try the Great Lighthouse is completely logical.

The point I am trying to make here is that there are twists which seems rather unwise, and if I may put it plainly, quite stupid.

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific? My assumptions of your intended point may not be accurate, so I'd hate to jump to any conclusions, but from what I've seen so far, nothing you've pointed out is stupid in the game.

Trivial things like messages are not appropriately classified and the lacks of pop of messages. 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?

Perhaps you should check your settings. When I am losing units due to a lack of funds, not only do I get a text message, I get a really annoying alert sound. I didn't configure my game to do so - it was the default. It really is a rather jarring sound. Likewise, if war is declared (on anyone), there's a text message as well as a trumpeting sound. Again, this is the default. As well, there is the chat log, which is easily accessed and is conveniently divided by tabs for general chat, combat text, and multiplayer chat.

The game's dimension is no different than other RTS games. Afterall, players are looking for victory. The game is not "open ended" as some commentator claims that. Somehow I see shadows of "Empire: DOTMW" when I am playing this game. Only that it is a turn-based game and the advantages of a turn-based game are that you can go get a cup of coffee while you are thinking about the next move or you are waiting for the computer AI to calculate the moves. It gets pretty boring soon.

It gets boring to you pretty soon. Perhaps that is a personal deficiency that should not be shared en masse on a message board. I've never played the game you reference, so I'll make no comment regarding that, but this is a turn-based game, it plays like one, and the ability to step away, and ponder your next decision is one of the main boons to turn-based play. Let me guess, you either don't play chess or you are one of those people that has to play with a timer. Careful planning and use of insightful thought process only appeals to certain gamers. If you are predisposed to dislike turn-based games, then you are hardly qualified to write an objective review. Similarly, I would have very little to say positively about Quake or Half Life. That is clearly not a problem with Quake or Half Life, as the numbers bear out its popularity. Stick to your niche, if you will.

This concludes my feeling about the game. 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. Compared to other turn-based games like Crown of Glory, Civlization IV lacks the depth. The manual might be thick like a bible, whereas the manual of Crown of Glory for instance is less thick but it plays in depth and it worths the money. I also believe that many other turn-based games are also comparable to it.

Any suggestions, counter-ideas and comments are welcomed.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and speaking with your pocketbook is a great idea. I will only add one thing - if you've formed your opinion out of ignorance, then you're missing out on a good game. I have tried pointing out some of the things about which you seemed unclear. If you find my points to be less than helpful, feel free to disregard. Cheers.

 

[Kieran]

I don't agree, I think it deserves 9/10 on gameplay and replayability.

I just think you don't like this type of game

 

[Bongo-Bongo]

One thing I dont understand is how you can give the game a replayability of 5/10, yet claim to have played nearly 100 hours worth. That doesn't make sense to me . Were you playing the game this much so you could review it properly or did you just want to get your moneys worth or is there another reason?

I think this is a subject I will always disagree with you on, as for me, Civ IV has reintroduced its addictiveness that was sadly lost in CivIII

 

[automator]

The graphics is absolutely out-standing as far as a turn-based game is concerned.

Agreed. Ocassionally I still zoom in real close on a mine or a unit group. Watching Infantrymen sneeze and itch themselves is pretty nifty. And besides the odd glitch of "floating" selected units and a slight need for more distinction between some of the resources (e.g. corn/wheat, silk/sugar), the graphics do a very nice job of giving the relevant information at a glance.

Sound - 8/10

I don't care about the music -- I turn the sound down -- but this seems fair.

Besides that stuff, I think this guy just doesn't like the game. His critique of too much technology is something he doesn't like, but that others really enjoy. I like that I can ignore techs. In some games I go for Iron right away, like if I have a map that doesn't put me in proximity to bronze, I'll check for Iron. If I'm coastal, I do the boat-related techs sooner than if I start out landlocked, only doing optics when I have a good port.

It's the dismissal of the open-endedness that seems most wrong-headed. Yes, the object is to win. That's the object of every game (with the odd exception of the Sims games: Sims, SimCity, SimTower, etc.), but with Civ4, you can be a war pig, or just sit back and defend yourself as you develop a network of supporters to vote you into a diplomatic win. Or maybe you're an artist who wants nothing more than cultural domination, or a scientist who rushes forward into building a spaceship.

The playability is too dismissed. I've played games where I really pay attention to my citizens; working them or turning them into specialists in the perfect ratio to accomplish a specific goal, and I've also just run on autopilot, building whatever the computer recommends every time. As for re-playability, it's through the roof. I figure I've logged about 8 hours a week since the game release ... so, roughly 300 hours of game time? It's all in building skill -- I started out getting frustrated at warlord, and I'm now a somewhat competent player at Prince level.

And $40 is nothing when it's worked out to a dime an hour so far, and I'll probably play another 500 hours before putting the game away.

 

[JavalTigar]

This quote sums up the original post just fine

"what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

 

[Kieran]

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?

If anything I would increase the number of techs, and have techs than can be researched within techs. I love the research part of the game.

Copper working and the Iron Age represent very different stages in mankinds history and the game is right to separate these techs.

You want to simplify the game and that indicates to me that you don't like games where some micromanagement may be required.

You have played it for 100 hours and haven't purchased the game yet?

 

[Aug2006]

Any more feed back, preferably some more supportive ones.

 

[JavalTigar]

Why the heck do you want feedback on your conclusion/opinion? Are you wanting us to change your mind? You have made your position pretty clear. You believe the gameplay and replay values of the game are lacking in comparison to some other game, you openly compare it to a RTS & you have no concept of the term 'open ended'. You are new to the forums and to Civ in general from the lack of info on your bio. Did you miss the name on the site? Civ FANATICS Forums!!! You just joined and are trash talking the game we all love.

Why the heck would you take the time to join a discussion about a game you obviously didn't enjoy? Conclusion: You are a Troll. I stand by my original post.

And for the record if you didn't want negative statements then you need to re-word this statement:

Any suggestions, counter-ideas and comments are welcomed.

It says ANY

 

[bfordyce]

Any more feed back, preferably some more supportive ones.

Don't expect people to agree with a negative review of Civ on a Civ message board. Try to go to another board, this is the wrong audience to put down the game.

 

[bitplayer]

Don't expect people to agree with a negative review of Civ on a Civ message board. Try to go to another board, this is the wrong audience to put down the game.

Indeed. I lub the game so much I sighned up for this board.

 

[ACEofHeart]

Even if you gave it a score of 1 in every other catagory, not to give it high mark in "replayability" is absurd.. No two games ever play exactly out the same ,, you have a Hall of Fame and Scenarios and Online etc....

 

[Wodan]

Even if you gave it a score of 1 in every other catagory, not to give it high mark in "replayability" is absurd.. No two games ever play exactly out the same ,, you have a Hall of Fame and Scenarios and Online etc....

I think by "replayability" he means "how much I desire to play this some again".

Whereas obviously you (and I agree with you) would go with a definition such as "degree to which successive gameplay is distinctive and different".

Wodan

 

[Grey Fox]

@Aug2006:

You should look at the Mod community and then rethink your replayability score.
(I suggest taking a look at Fall From Heaven if only one mod...)

 

[eriadoc]

Click on Start > Control Panel > Add/Remove Programs. Find Civ4 in the list of installed programs and choose Remove.

Go to upper right corner of this forum and click the Log Out link.

There. All better for everyone. Win win.