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 .
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

:)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 >_>
 
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