Question about Reception

[AnonymousSpeed]

I don't know if this is the best place to put this thread, heck, I don't even know if it's the right one, but I figured I'd ask it here since it is the one I assume is the most active and, well, I guess that just seemed comfortable to be.

When Civilization V came out a lot of people loved it, but a lot of other people also really disliked it. When Civilization VI came out, more or less the same thing happened. In the latter case, I've noticed a small minority of the people who didn't like it saying it was a downgrade from Civilization V or that they preferred that game more, but I noticed that among people who disliked Civilization V, a the majority of them advocated for Civilization IV and its mechanics instead. This isn't to say people who dislike VI don't think that it has the same relation to IV, just that it isn't as explicit from what I've gathered.

Even though Civilization IV was my first Civilization game, I was quite young when I started playing it and so was the internet. As such, I never saw what the Civilization community thought of it on launch. Now, this thread isn't meant to invoke discussions about the quality of any of these games, it's just to sate my curiosity.

What did Civ fans think of Civilization IV when it first came out? Did people think it was a step down from Civilization III in any way? I don't assume so, since IV doesn't seem to make the sort of radical and intrinsic changes V and VI did (which isn't to say it didn't make changes, of course) and I haven't heard anyone say that III is still the best Civilization game, but I'd still like to know if there was anyone who did express that opinion.

Again, the internet wasn't quite as prominent as it is now back when Civilization IV came out, so I don't know if there even where any such responses to notice, but if there were and someone noticed them, what were they?

 

[Browd]

This thread should answer your question: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/initial-civfan-reactions-to-civ-4.602405/

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

This thread should answer your question: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/initial-civfan-reactions-to-civ-4.602405/

Oh, it did. And it was more amusing than I thought it would be. Thanks for showing that to me.

 

[Pietato]

Well 3 was the weakest installment, while 4 was quite strong at release.

5 was incredibly one-dimensonal and limited at release, so people were always going to compare it negatively to 4.

As for 6, it is much, MUCH better than 5 was at release, though it is still flawed.

Moral of the story - Firaxis releases unfinished games.

 

[Siptah]

Well 3 was the weakest installment, while 4 was quite strong at release.

4 was indeed terrible at release. Not just the game itself, but also technically. So many people were not even able to play it. At least that got better in 5 and 6.

I never understood why 3 is seen as so weak. I started with 1 (very young and didn't play well), loved 2, spend an incredible amount of time in 3, because I loved it even more. Didn't care much for 4, it was the first time I thought that it's not good any more. This changed later with the expansions. Was late on 5, started with BNW and loved it.

 

[LuckyAC]

4 was indeed terrible at release. Not just the game itself, but also technically. So many people were not even able to play it. At least that got better in 5 and 6.

I never understood why 3 is seen as so weak. I started with 1 (very young and didn't play well), loved 2, spend an incredible amount of time in 3, because I loved it even more. Didn't care much for 4, it was the first time I thought that it's not good any more. This changed later with the expansions. Was late on 5, started with BNW and loved it.

3 had a very punishing corruption mechanism that led to very artificial playstyles. Still, it was a decent game - 5 was the one installment that I thought had very few redeeming qualities (and I think the reception definitely agreed with that). As far as I remember, people loved 4 when it came out, although obviously you can find some people to complain about anything (and some people to like anything, including Civ 5!).

 

[gfeier]

Just shows the variety of opinions. I thought V was the best by far. I've been playing since the original Civ and, of all the games, I still feel Civ II was the best in its day. It was far ahead of anything else out there at the time.