Played Civ I to Civ 4-Some thoughts.

[klausmann]

I've played Civ since Sid released the first one. Here are some thoughts.

This game is for thinkers, and will never appeal to kids who want first person shooters or high beautiful graphics! Stop trying to make it into something it is not. I played the original civ long after games with much better graphics had come out. Even more so for Civ II. This game is about the thought and planning required...not beautiful graphics. The battle sequences on Civ 4, for example, are totally unnecessary, and are even juvenille.

It should be all about the gameplay, rather than the graphics.

Graphicswise, I liked the movies on Civ II far better. I liked the city view on Civ III far better than Civ 4. IMHO, they could have used it and animated it like the simcity games if you wanted more graphic stuff.

It is redundant and unnecessary to have one unit represented by two or three characters, icons, on the screen. Even military planners represent units containing hundreds or thousands of men, with ONE figure on a map. More is again just juvenile.

All the extra, and unnecessary graphic "stuff" is diluting the game into something that crashes often, has a multitude of graphics problems, and just grossly detracts from Civ 4 gameplay. The genius and real beauty of Civ I was that it was a small program, yet infinitely replayable. It was a real amazing wonder! You could enjoy it the first time you sat down, and without a big manual. But the more you played it, the more complex and enjoyable it got! (And you could play it on any computer and without new graphics cards.)

I feel that Civ 4 is losing some (much?) of what made Civ great and won it legions of dedicated, and addicted, followers. And sadly, it is unnecessary.

Just my opinions. Moderators, if this is posted in the wrong place, please be so kind as to move it to a more appropriate area.

Thanks,


Klausmann

 

[Khaim]

I agree entirely. The one thing I like graphics-wise is the city view from the main screen, and the "lite" city screen. Everything else I turned off.

 

[Jakt]

I couldn't agree more. I have been a fan of CIV I, II, III, SMAC, and all the expansions that go with them over the years. I have followed along as a lurker at civfanatics.com for years. This post reads like a petition that I just had to sign. CIV IV has so much potential, but the delivery has been a huge disappointment to me. Crashes and bugs and glitches are what we have to put up with, when the CIV franchise is 13 years old? It should have gotten better, not worse with age. I still love the concept, and the promise, but this product is almost shameful. Don't take this criticism as a condemnation, but as an opportunity to fix some flaws. You all know what those flaws are by now...

 

[slothman]

Yep I also concur.
I thought I saw one person for a worker at one point but now there are two.
I also like that you can zoom in and especially the flying camera mode though.
I do think that there is too much "stuff" and it makes it harder to play.
Now yes civ1 had primitive graphics as compared to now but I think they just added all the complex stuff because they can.
Possibly to attract more mainstream people.
At least the editing cancels it out.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Preach it!

 

[DementedAvenger]

I can understand being upset about the gameplay (although I would disagree), but it seems a little silly to me to be upset at graphic advancements which are entirely optional. It wasn't the lack of graphics that won over legions of fans, it was the fact that fancy graphics weren't necessary.

 

[bloodlust]

... that they other fans out there, with the same opinion.

Tip to Firaxis: Make another sequel of Civ3 (C3Bless ?) and put all new gameplay stuff like Religion, Health and Hills as Terrain Add-On in it: I will pay for it!

 

[kb2tvl]

I want to echo what others have said. Would you buy a car that does not work when purchased at the dealership? My copy of civ 4 did not work until I downloaded the patch. I still get crashes but much of that seems related to the graphics.

There are some very positive aspects to this game relative to past generations. I liked tutorial and the initial experience(after suffering downloading a 20 meg patch over dial up).

I like many of the other changes that rebalance this game.

I do not care for the animation after the first game and some aspects of the help is not as detailed as I would like. Items such as power plants stack and what civ traits do.

The most disappointing aspect to this game are the crashes. I must admit this is not as bad as Kohan 2 but it is close.

What I do not understand is why firxas did not make a RTS civ game. This would have attracted the younger crowd and these flashy graphics would have been more appreciated. After all, is that not where the play by turn multiplayer headed?

 

[MetHimPikeHoses]

I mostly agree. I don't think the graphics stuff is bad, but when gameplay suffers to make space for graphics then something is wrong.

The 3 units idea is totally unnecessary: who wants to watch 3 units battle every time in a game with a large war going on? Single-unit representation wasn't broken at all-- why fix?

I do like the city view in Civ4... being able to see the city on the map differentiated from other cities is a nice touch.

I don't think Civ4 is shameful, and I have enjoyed it. I could certainly do without almost all of the glitz though, and my CeleryD processor could too.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm the kind of guy who thinks that graphics are very secondary.

But I disagree with anyone who says they put graphics before gameplay.

 

[slothman]

What I do not understand is why firxas did not make a RTS civ game.
This would have attracted the younger crowd and these flashy graphics would have been more appreciated.
After all, is that not where the play by turn multiplayer headed?

Because that isn't civ.
I wouldn't buy it if it isn't turn based.
That is one of the few things that would prevent me completely.
Others too probably.
Plus there are a million of those already.
How many non-real time games are there?

 

[Shqype]

I completely disagree. While the strategy element is what made Civ what it is today (I loved Civ 2 and agree about it being non-taxing on any computer and playable everywhere), the graphics only improve the game. They are not completely necessary , and Civ is still a good game without the graphics boost it recieved , but all the graphics have done is add realism and "eye candy." The game looks good because of the graphics.

DementedAvenger did well to prove to you that you can still have have a return to the previous Civ style by checking the appropriate boxes. Those choices were given for reasons that you people can appreciate , thus use them to your advantage.

 

[Superdepor]

Seems like I'm not the only Civ veteran who is missing the "good old" graphics from the older Civ versions. All I wanted was a simple graphics that would give a good general view of the map and made it easy to spot resources etc.
With the new CIV4 3D-graphics when you zoom closer it's easier to spot resources and other small object on the map, but you'll have hardly any general impression of the map. When you zoom away you'll get the better general view, but then the smaller object on the map are almost impossible to spot.
I've tried different zoom and graphics levels but nothing seem to work for me. I want the good old graphics back!

 

[SwedishChef]

This post has raised many issues.

I'm sure we all agree that "Crashing is bad." At the same time, we have little choice but to suffer the business reality that a company is going to feel the need to ship before the holidays. (I have been fortunate, with only stuttering video and sound, with some infrequent crashes before the patch. The patch ended all video and sound issues, and crashes for me are now less frequent.) I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a new patch before Christmas in order to prevent too much post-Christmas, "My game won't run!" angst.

As long as improved graphics don't impair playability (and I think they do here, as several people have pointed out), then they're fine. It may well be that the historical lack of graphics prowess was one of the things that contributed to the problems we face now. Given the power of many available 3-D engines, it seems virtually certain Civ4 could perform much better than it does, even given the level of detail it displays. But I don't think they have the best-designed graphics engine - or perhaps more accurately, that they're not using theirs in the most efficient manner possible.

I guess I don't understand the complaint about multi-units or graphic battles being "juvenile." Are we not "real men" unless we use a little rectangle with an X through an oval in it to represent mechanized infantry? Sure, the multi-unit graphics are unnecessary (and, as mentioned, deactivateable), but I like pretty games! The market likes pretty games. From board games to computer games, beauty can ADD to the enjoyment of the gameplay experience. (Not sure I'd call Civ4 "beautiful" exactly, but I'm sure you get my point.)

But as I said, I concede completely the point that graphics should never impede playability, as they do a bit here. It should be easier to see resources (though I think flagging them is a good work-around), and the recommended system requirements and sluggish gameplay are hard to forgive.

One thing I'd REALLY like to see come back is the "city radius" map grid. In some patch to Civ2 the map grid would show white on the squares a city could work. This made it Soooooo much easier to see what spaces left on your continent my have room for a city, and where overlap would be with any given city placement.

I still remember seeing CivI on a color Mac for the first time, after first having played it only on a black and white map. Wow!

 

[klausmann]

Well, I am glad that one or two people agree with me.

Some additional comments. First off, I will always hold Sid in high regard for inventing Civ in the first place. And I certainly understand wholeheartedly why the company felt they had to get it out before Christmas.

What I am REALLY disappointed in is that Sid (essentially) sold me a game that won't work on my computer. (I have a 2.53 speed CPU with 512 mem, but only 68 mem on my video card. I posted this under the video problem thread.) And the program runs terribly. Then crashes or the screen goes black. This is, to me, akin to having my own brother sell me a car that he knows doesn't run. (I have to assume that they knew about these problems.)

As someone said, I too love pretty games. But don't let the gameplay suffer because of cutesy graphics. (And the little animated battles are cutesy and unnecessary.) People who are only into first person shooters will never love this game. Civ is about planning and thinking and scheming. Please don't alienate all us long-time fans just to appeal to people who will never like it. (I too would NEVER have bought this game if it was RTS.) I guess I expected a higher standard from Sid and from Civ (than a game that was impossible to really play I my machine...which is not antiquated.) That is all I'm saying. I see this game getting a little away from what made the franchise great.

Best wishes of the season to all. (How about a mod with killer guerilla Santas...with a stealth mode sleigh yet? Smart-bombing reindeer? Exploding present-bombs? ............... Just kidding. Really!)

All the best,

Klausmann