Poll: has civ 4 got better or worse?

[troytheface]

my 2 cents...it got better however it also took it til Civ4 to get where Call to Power was a long time ago (spies, religion, corporations, future scenario, ect.)

I would say Call to Power was the best of all were it not for that god awful AI. Space colonies and water cities were a hit or miss with fans - i liked them - it like kept the game going instead of what i still consider to be Civ's abrubt endings.

That said...Civ has UU's and UB's and some intangible qualities that made even civ3 superior to Call To Power

 

[King Flevance]

Yeah I also liked the black sheep that was CTP also. There really isn't a Civ game I haven't liked. I too liked the underwater cities.

I really like 4 as the best now though. I haven't made it through a full game yet, but I just haven't had too much time recently. I have made it to the medeival age and not beyond yet. I have only looked at that aspect of the game without any experience. Right now I have been spending alot of time trying to get my Civ 4 Vanilla mods up and running in BTS. (Color changes and whatnot) And in my spare time I have went back to playing FfH2. Which they just released the BTS version now which I am starting a new game of today.

As for the AI on 4, I think Blake has done a great job considering that if he had the AI build only a few units, people were mad the AI was conquered easily. If they used unit spam (as any player does in MP) people complained that the AI was too hard. I personally enjoy having the AI play like another player would and understand the importance of unit spam.

If you do not enjoy the unit spam, make sure that Aggressive AI is not checked. Blake says that the default AI is toned down quite a bit. Turning on Agg AI not only has the AI spam units to assume the likelyhood of a rush, but also if they are not rushed, they are more likely to declare due to build up of power.

 

[sinaarrgghh]

Civ 4 is by far the best game of the the series, even with the bugs and issues it has.

Civ 1 was the most addictive of the series, I really really loved that game. None of the others, whether better or not, have gripped me like that game did.

That said, if I went to someones house and offered a game on any one of them I'd pick civ 4!

 

[Quintillus]

I personally find the fewer units in play in CivIV relative to CivIII to be a negative. It makes it much harder to actually make any progress in a war. It does make turns take less time, yes, but with very small numbers of units fighting in a war, it's just less fun.

Perhaps this has changed in BTS, though. I've never seen any CivIV AI seem to even have 58 units, let alone attack with that many. That would be as many as most of the CivIII AI invasions I've seen, too. Though it still pales in comparison to the triple-digit attack the Celts threw at me last week in CivIII (sit back and watch the action then, grab a snack if you're hungry. It's a nice break from managing the empire, provided of course you're confident your city will hold). There's still the issue of units costing too much to get lots of them, though - compared to CivIII units cost more and there are fewer turns in the Normal speed game, while city shield production is fairly close to the same.

Swedishguy also mentioned CivIV has better layout - personally I don't see it as any better than CivIII. The user interface on the main screen is considerably larger, and the placement of buttons is more or less the same. The advisor screens also lack the same consistent quality as in CivIII - the Domestic Advisor screen is better in CivIV, but then you play a 18-civ game and view the Foreign Advisor and see exactly why they limited it to 8 viewable civs at once in CivIII (again, I hear this has been improved in Warlords or BTS). To be fair on this, it wasn't until the Vanilla 1.29 patch that some of the most useful features of the CivIII UI were implemented.

So while from CivIII to CivIV I'd vote "worse", I don't have the long-term experience to really have a valid vote over the series. Therefore I think the wisest choice of action is to abstain from voting.

edit: Haha, not surprised T.A. Jones is one of the four who have thus far voted "worse." The long-timers here I'm sure could've predicted that.

 

[T.A JONES]

Haha, not surprised T.A. Jones is one of the four who have thus far voted "worse." The long-timers here I'm sure could've predicted that.

Yes and I thought the Q was asking me if Civ4 had ripened or rot over its Xpak course. lol OK.... so its force of habit !lol
I know , always he same, voting against the grain. Like his gramical disasters, impossable to refrain

BUt Of course 'BtW' or BTS is evolution of strategy in the glossy 3d world but compare it to Civ3 syntized and its an entirly seperate entity, One much devalued when put on true a civving scale.
Sure, I can go on with how one derives this conclusion but chances are youve all gone to heywire from the patch to reason with such devine logic

Today is happy day for all civers! 4ums get the patch and Civ3ers? Well Stay tuned, my next Civ3 vid hits youtube this wkend!! . Oh If you missed the last one here it is! (pure smoothness she rolls )


Hey Quintz where ya going, Forgot, I need that mega Earth Map you made for the epic played from your sig. I hope it plays alright on my rig ( turns out she wasn't a dualcore so frig, we'll have to see If runs fast as the others ..ya I no 450$ for a mono what a greedy pig, I probably got ripped! )

but anyway kidin aside, wanted to say thanks for the useful map and pertaining info that flowed from your posts durin your time spent touring the epicenter of mega civving. Keep me up to date on how 'MEGA' works out over here . Otherwize... We'll miss you man

 

[darkedone02]

I was new to the Civ series, till I started playing other civ games. My first game will be Civ 3: Complete that I have downloaded the trail that allow me to play for 3 hours long. I kinda dislike it due to the way that the AI like to host so many cities, and I have 3.

I have tried the game out once more by downloading the Civ 4 demo, and played as Ghandi, and tried it about 4 times. The game is slow and I'm usually more interested in Real-time Strategy cause it's fast paced as well. However I am willing to try this game out, so my parants have purchased this game for chrismas. After I have played it, and searched for mods. The game turned out to be more interesting, however the one thing I hated is that my computer tends to slow down around after medieval, and I kinda hate that. My turn get slower, everything seem a little sluggish, I can't seem to give hardly any promotions on my units faster and accidentally hit the explore button and waste movement points cause of that lag moment.

I have my likes and dislikes, but it seems that I know pay more attention to my dislikes because I need to improve my computer to play other games with better performance and quality, and to be able to have more freedom in a fast paced game. sometimes I wish that the civilization makers make a new genre that is a FPS, RTS, and a RPG all together into one game. I will call it Civilization: Rise of Heroes.

 

[bru]

I voted for "better", although I am finding that the latter game is getting so involved that the play starts to bog down. As from Civ through to Civ4, I have enjoyed the exploration and early development than the later industrialized time periods.

 

[Maceman]

Better! The introduction of culture, health and unit promotions were huge improvements.

 

[TM Moot]

I voted with the majority.

I will admit to being a HUGE Civ2 fan, wasted years of my youth with that one.

Civ3 never had the same hold on me, not sure why, just didn't warm to it.

I was slightly disappointed with Civ4 (perhaps expectations were too high!), but I think the extra core content from Warlords and BtS has created a great game.

I guess the prove is in the pudding, will I still be hooked in a year's time

 

[Bill Odie]

Well all, thank you for voting in my poll, although we've still got several months before it closes the general opinion seems to be, better, though what about those 3 who voted 'stayed the same' would those people mind posting their views? 'cos I think thats the one thing we haven't had yet

 

[HUSch]

Many have the same opinion like me.
C3 was down, but C4 is better than the predecessors.

But the patch-policy of Firaxis take my fun away. It's horrible, if you play like me a lot of longtime Pbems.

 

[Enigma256]

the patch policy is quite bad, but there are modders who will patch the game, and it isn't as bad as with EA or Sony

 

[Wenla]

IMHO Civ II (and Alpha Centauri) are the best turn based strategy games so far ( I don't play much any other game types, so I have been playing a lot of these type games). That tells also my opinion about Civ versions after that.

I can't play Civ II any more, but AC I play every now and then.

Wenla

 

[Swedishguy]

I can't believe people are still playing that old game... play something newer, like Populous: The Beginning!

(OK, that was unfair. )

 

[TheRisen1]

Much better. I said in another thread re: the BTS patch bugs, Civ 4, despite its many mechanical flaws, is hands down the most innovative game in the series. I'll take the bugs, and be grateful that Firaxis is willing to take some chances and strike out in new directions with the game.

 

[Drakken]

CIV will not be perfect until they use a hex grid system. It is the single biggest flaw in the game.

Otherwise the game is very sound for most types of strategy used to win. I think it is getting better all the time with balancing.

 

[oscarjunk25]

I think Civ 4 is better! i just liked it a lot more


David!

 

[gdgrimm]

I rate CivIV Warlords the best of the series.

I don't have BtS, and from what I can tell, I may never purchase it, since it doesn't appear that the Corp and Esp additions are done the way I'd enjoy them.

And I never got into CivIII, even though I tried to (i.e. played about 100+ hours of it).