Old timers: did the release of Civ 4 bring such rage?

[Markstar]

Yes, it did. That is why after pre-ordering the Tin Special Edition of Civ3 and getting somewhat disappointed, then buying the normal Edition of Civ4 and getting disappointed, I did not purchase Civ5 right away and looked at it through other sources first (demo, friends).

My conclusion: I'm not buying it.

 

[Roland Ehnström]

It was way worse after Civ 4 was released. And after Civ 3 was released...

 

[digitalcraft]

Civ 4 had some rage because it was very buggy. When I first got it, all the terrain was just completely black. Had to wait for a patch before it was playable. However, the game itself was really good and a huge upgrade over the previous. It just had errors.

Civ 5 doesn't have near the errors, people just don't like the game itself.

 

[mmmfloorpie]

I'm not sure which game you're talking about, but corruption was never present in Civ4 (actually the whole point of the revised maintenance system was to replace the heavily criticized corruption mechanic of Civ3). Cities built far away from the capital weren't useless in Civ4 because you could develop them normally as long as your other cities produced enough gold to pay the maintenance, whereas cities built far away from the capital in Civ3 were completely useless because the corruption mechanic limited them to one shield and one trade, you had to buy every single building for them but there wasn't even a point in doing that because what's the point in paying maintenance for a building that provides a 50% bonus to a production of one trade. I'm also pretty sure that you could group units by shift-clicking on them since day one, although I'm not entirely sure on that one since moving single units around never was a problem for me.

When the game shipped, "maintanence" or corruption as I called it (you still lose money/production no matter what you called it) was super high. When the game was patched later it was brought down to somewhat reasonable levels.

 

[zurichuk]

I have played Civilization since its first release, back in the early 90's. Being disabled I've been able to play 1000's of games one after another for years.

My opinion is that Civ III is the best version so far. I only played Civ IV about a dozen times before just returning to III. I loaded up the Civ 5 last night and dinked around in the Tutorials to see whats new. It may be the old dual core processor I'm running (about a 60% load), but the Advisors were very slow to pop up. Though they seemed helpful they were so far behind were I was clicking they seemed a bother. Still a lot of grey information areas in the Civilopedia but looks pretty good so far and the addition of the Forums should help the information gap quite a bit. From what I've seen on the forums I really don't feel a need to go buy a book.

Thanks All

Almost 9 years to post your first post.

Incidentally I agree on Civ 3, I've kept Civ 3 installed and active throughout the Civ 4 era and probably only ever finished a handful of Civ 4 games. Even then I didn't take to Civ 3 until the expansions which matured it.

Conversely I thought the expansions to Civ 4 made it worse, not better.

However I'm liking the look of Civ 5, been through the demo 5 times already.

All in my opinion, I will add.