Poll - Civ4 vs. Civ5

[Ataxerxes]

The best poll was a couple of weeks ago in OT for favorite Civ game. That had a lot of discussion and votes.

You really can't get a reasonable poll except in OT. Most of the people in the CivIV subforum have either been disappointed by V or else listened to the reviews and chosen not to buy it (I saved my money).

An example would be polling whether III or IV is better. Post in IV subforum, IV will win. Post in III subforum, III will win. V is so hated I'm not sure it could win it's own subforum.

The basic results of the OT forum was that IV won, followed by III. V was seriously challenged by CivII. V will lose so badly in this subforum the poll will be useless.

 

[Quandary]

Not looking to start, or join, an argument here, but I keep seeing the words real, realistic, and realism thrown around in these debates. Sorry, but there's precious little realism to be found in the Civ games unless you use a realism mod created by someone other than Firaxis, and even then it's only selective reality as perceived by the guy who makes the modifications.

Being religious makes workers construct buildings 25% faster? But only if it's a state religion? A state religion using a civic called Organized Religion? Said civic requiring that you've researched Monotheism even if the religion your people follow is polytheistic?

A lighthouse adds +1 to how much food can be fished?

Only land with a persistent source of fresh water in the ground can be farmed? Because there's no such thing as rain?

I trade with another civ for rice imports, but I don't get extra food for people to eat, I only get +1 health? Huh? I mean rice is food isn't it? And if I have an excellent food producing city I can't take any surplus food from there and export to another city with little food generation?

People get angry because a city is too crowded, so instead of emigrating someplace else they just stop working? And we let them?

War Weariness also lets people stop doing anything? Seriously? "Hey, we're tired of this war so we're going to starve ourselves to death"?

Other civ's culture takes workable tiles away from my cities? How is that? The people in a city can revolt and join another civ because they feel like it, and I can't stop them? Tell that to the U.S. confederate states.

Walls and castles don't work against gunpowder units? How's that? Are they shooting stone penetrating, heat seeking, guided missiles out of their mid 20th century rifles?

A nation beats every other nation in the world because they manage to shoot a spaceship at another galaxy?

The game isn't about realism, it's about strategy. You take what rules you're given, and you work them as best you can to defeat opponents who are (presumably) following (mostly) the same rules that you are.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

And yet when people justifiably call features that impair strategy into question, the first thing people who love the skill equalizers fall back on is "realism", probably because there is no valid gameplay argument.

The kicker is when these guys start talking about overcoming things with skill they have never used themselves.

 

[Revenant]

Until Civ V speeds up gameplay I will probably stick to IV. I've played the first game of IV in about a year tonight and I have to say I'm having far more fun than I ever had with V.

I'm sure it's partly because I know what I'm doing at all times, having played IV so much, and watched TMIT's youtube videos.

It's just so much faster playing a game with IV, even when involved in a war or three.


The 1upt introduced in V is a nice idea, but I really don't think it is best suited to this kind of game.

 

[MrSmith]

just got Civ 5 last week and its safe to say i'm violently repulsed by it. pretty big dissappointment. how is Civ 4 these days? cool new stuff?

 

[Ataxerxes]

just got Civ 5 last week and its safe to say i'm violently repulsed by it. pretty big dissappointment. how is Civ 4 these days? cool new stuff?

Common reaction to 5. I think 4 is still great with all the mods. Nothing much new - unless you don't have BTS yet (get it if you don't have it). Civ 4 is a mature game so there are few upgrades or patches anymore. There are always mods and scenarios being created and RFC has a number of new wrinkles.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

just got Civ 5 last week and its safe to say i'm violently repulsed by it. pretty big dissappointment. how is Civ 4 these days? cool new stuff?

I tried to play a game of Civ 5 after the latest patch came out, like I always do.

It failed after about ten minutes with a blue screen. I can't get my system to blue screen when I'm torture testing it for stability, so what does Civ 5 have that other stability tests don't?

Oh yes! Non functioning code. I just remembered.

Seriously though, it hates my graphics card, according to my BSoD analyzer utility. I still cannot play with the DX11 option. I must play with DX9 graphics, which just don't look as nice. My card is a Radeon 5970, (and it wasn't cheap), and all of the drivers are up to date. I can't believe that the game doesn't support it.

I think I'll wait for Service Pack 72. Maybe the game will run by then.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Sometimes, in life, you just can't play with the DX11 girls, you have to settle for the DX9 girls instead.

They have worse graphics but a much faster response time.

 

[Countmonte8242]

I haven't even played Civ 5 since about a month after it released. I'll have to check it out again sometime soon to see if I find all the patched changes fun, but the fact that I basically haven't even tried in that long shows how small I thought their chances to improve it into a good Civ game were.

I really hadn't played much Civ 4 in the last six months until I started firing it back up a couple weeks ago. It still can be addicting and keep me up late with "JOMT" play. However, the flaw is still there that I don't ever really want to finish a game.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Sometimes, in life, you just can't play with the DX11 girls, you have to settle for the DX9 girls instead.

They have worse graphics but a much faster response time.

Yes, no need to overclock. You wind up getting tired halfway through the evening.

 

[thecaesar]

I entirely agree with the argument that realism is not the point here. The point of a game is to have fun; if the game was realistic, then Sumeria couldn't go to war with the united states with trebuchets and knights, could they?

I think both have good and bad. The 1upt makes it better for strategic play, and also, just to throw this in here, more realistic. NOT because you can only fit one regiment of archers in a thousand mile radius, but because take this, for example:

The enemy has large amounts of melee units. You have a large amount of melee units, and also catapults and archers. You attack with the catapult, and it somehow dies, even with melee units covering. You attack with archers; the same thing. This is realistic???

I think that the 1upt also makes wars more frustrating, though; you can't get fresh troops to the front lines as easily, you can't retreat as easily, and you have cavalry somehow dying when they are attacked (lancers) even though across "thousands of miles" they should be able to see a large army approaching. IDK...

I think they should not be taken as "related" to each other; they are completely separate games, with only the basic theme connecting them. So don't say that you don't like "these changes", look at them separately.

 

[Dr.Null]

I love Civ 4 + BtS.

I look forward to seeing what Civ 5 looks like after two expansions.

 

[AlpsStranger]

And yet when people justifiably call features that impair strategy into question, the first thing people who love the skill equalizers fall back on is "realism", probably because there is no valid gameplay argument.

The kicker is when these guys start talking about overcoming things with skill they have never used themselves.

My feelings on this have been stated many times, and I think I'll take this occasion to agree with you.

Realism is that way --->

It isn't a terrible game, really, but it isn't nearly as enthralling as good old Civ.

Besides, most self-described "realistic" games implement reality in such a clumsy way that the result is often incredibly unrealistic.

 

[Guardian_PL]

Civ 5, wheres the poll?

No more comment is necessary.

 

[obsolete]

5 is being patched and is no longer the steaming turd that it was on release.

Well, in my generation we were taught that a piece of sh!t was still a piece of sh!t no matter how much spice you sprinkled on top of it.

I guess I'm getting too old.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Au contraire


Link to video.

 

[Iranon]

Patches can turn around 'solid concept, sloppy execution' cases. To use a classic Civ clone as an example, Master of Magic was nigh-unplayable when released at a time when internet access wasn't widespread, still quite broken after the last official patch... but it was enough to let it shine.

If a game is held back by bad design decisions, patches probably won't save it. You may get something playable with some work but it won't be elegant; it makes more sense to move on or knock it over and build something better with the pieces (total conversion mod, inspired by whatever it gets right).