Poll: has civ 4 got better or worse?

Over the 4 versions of civ do you think it's got better worse or stayed the same?


  • Total voters
    148
  • Poll closed .

weregamer

Gandhi of the Mongols
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
252
Location
San Jose, CA
For me, Civ3 was a downturn. I only played it for about 100 hours and found that while they'd fixed a lot of things that I didn't like about Civ2, it just wasn't as fun.

Civ4 has turned the tide, keeping the good things but returning the fun. And Warlords and BtS have just made it better overall. I'm more jazzed about Civ now than I have been since Civ2 first came out.
 

Catharsis

catch u on the flip scythe
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
5,174
Location
Clinging onto underside of forum
Civ I -> Civ IV: the series has got better, but

Civ IV -> Civ IV BtS: the game has stayed roughly the same, getting rid of some bad things (notable bugs, overpowered siege units) but also adding some more (espionage).
 

Enigma256

Warlord
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
282
Civ1 was great, Civ2 was a better version of Civ1 ;)
Civ3 wasn't my cup of tea, i consider it the weakest of the series

Civ4 is just about perfect, it has what Civ1 and Civ2 had to make them great and only took the good changes from Civ3, abandoning the rest.
add terraforming and i have the perfect Civ.
 

Ringan

Varangian
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
102
Location
Pennsylvania, US
Civ 4, for me, is far more replayable than any of its predecessors. There are many more variables to differentiate each game. I say Civ 4 is better because I have spent so much more time playing it.

Note that the poll may be a bit biased since it is posted in the "Civ 4" forum...you can expect to see IV's fanbase here :D
 

Bluetooth

King
Joined
Nov 4, 2002
Messages
379
Location
Sweden
Civ1 was great, Civ2 was a better version of Civ1 ;)
Civ3 wasn't my cup of tea, i consider it the weakest of the series

Civ4 is just about perfect, it has what Civ1 and Civ2 had to make them great and only took the good changes from Civ3, abandoning the rest.
add terraforming and i have the perfect Civ.

I agree with you. The problem is that BTS seems to be a step down. Of course we have to wait for the first patch before the final judgement.
 

Piemaster

Warlord
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
132
Civ IV is a far better game that Civ I, it isn't even close. I think if we went back and played Civ I now, we'd find it pretty weak.

However, at the time it was amazing and totally groundbreaking.
 

Swedishguy

Deity
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
7,257
Location
Eskilstuna, Sweden IQ: N/A
I love Civ4 because it has better graphics, more logical maintenance, WAY better layout, less military units (really, in Civ1-3 all you could was basically building military units.), and just a lot more strategy. That's why I love the Civilization franchise, because of the strategy.

CivII sucks.
 

Soneji

Prince and Great Steward
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
896
Location
Dùn Èideann
Loved Civ1, CivNet, CivII... never played call to power or ever really liked the look of Civ 3. So I jumped from CivII > CivIV... I think the series has improved.

:)
 

G Julius Caesar

Warlord
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
123
Location
North East, England
Over time the Civ series I think has got much better. Many more variables now and so more thinking needed.

I am disappointed with BTS though. I cannot play it as it takes sooooo long to load in my last game. Hoping a patch will sort this out.
 

Enigma256

Warlord
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
282
I agree with you. The problem is that BTS seems to be a step down. Of course we have to wait for the first patch before the final judgement.
I don't agree.

Corporations are great, they are what I wanted religions to be, but what Firaxis couldn't do for obvious reasons.

Espionage has also changed for the better, with some minor AI quirks, but those should be fixed in the upcoming patch.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
4,612
Location
Kansas City, MO
I agree. I rank civ4 vanilla and warlords both on the same level as Civ 3. (Which I like) But BTS has officially made 4 the better game IMO. Each game has a VERY different flavor than the last one now it seems to me.
 

Bluetooth

King
Joined
Nov 4, 2002
Messages
379
Location
Sweden
I don’t agree.

I can live with corporations, I can even live with random events as it’s optional. My biggest problem with BTS is that the “new intelligent AI” seems to build up very, very large stacks. In my latest game Justinian attacked one of my cities with 58 units. It’s absurd, the game only becomes more tedious with stacks like that. He also brought seven cats to soften up my defence, that’s good and indicates a more intelligent AI in the way I would like to see it.

The game before that Shaka attacked one of my cities for about 50 turns and refused a peace agreement. Every second turn he attacked my city with 10 to 15 units. You can imagine how many units he had to build. I ended up with three Warlords, but I don’t like this at all.

In Vanilla and Warlords less units could do the same job – less units, less tedious, more fun.
 

Diamondeye

So Happy I Could Die
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
6,527
Location
Dancing in the Dark
I agree with the two above posters, but I think the biggest drawback is the espionage and the obsession of this that some AIs have! Well, I guess it's just a matter of time before I accept my pretty cities are ruined by spies, poisoning, volcanoes, fires and underground explosions instead of the normal raging horde. - All they do now is pillage what once was my empire >_>
 

mbaker2311

Chieftain
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
30
My order is:

Civ2
Civ4
AlphaC
Civ
Civ3

I liked how in Civ2 I could play a peaceful game or only respond to attack. In Civ4, you have to warmonger, or your civilization will never grow large enough to generate a decent title (the other thing I live for :lol: ) I am more of a peaceful player, build all - or most - of the wonders, assimilate cities :assimilate: and generally help out my neighbors. In Civ4, if you don't go stomp on at least one of your neighbors, you will never have enough cities to produce sufficient beakers to fuel you research. By the time the game ends, you'd be stuck with musketmen and talking about that new fangled university thingy they're building over in Paris. :huh:

Civ3 was unplayable, except as a wargame. Put in 30 or 40 hours, never finished a game.
 
Top Bottom