Should i get C3C or C4C?

[Gamemaster77]

They macro-manage!

 

[Argetnyx]

What the AIs do is equivalent to if you put 'manage citizens' and 'manage production' onat the same time in every city.

 

[MGS]

I dont want to have an unfair advantage that I cant change. When Civ4 was created, the makers just wanted to try to gain a new group of people to play the game. I dont think that the aim was to get Civ3 players to hop on board but to attract new players to the series.

 

[katipunero]

For me:

civ 4 has religions, corporations, better espionage system, a lot of unique units and buildings, un resolutions, apostolic palace, a ton of promotion options, great people, a balanced combat system, wonders you can actually see on your cities--and wonders that actually are worth building, a cool city screen, smarter automation, easier unit cycling and management, kick ass music, modding friendly xml, a lot of civics options, solid gameplay (no game breaking abuses), great graphics and animations, a plethora of random events, a nice and helpful user interface (even better with the BUG mod), bombers and stealth planes no longer base on carriers (as in real life), a killer globe view of the world, a non-linear tech tree (you can now skip techs and still enter a new era), built in music player, offers a variety of strategic and tactical options and more...

civ 3 has the nostalgia factor having played it for four years in college, simple graphics that is not so heavy on the computer, an abusable infinite city sprawl tactic, leaders that change dresses according to eras, stacks of doom, the breaking border agreement/ROP abuse for quick attacks, armies (modern armor armies ftw) and animated and funny advisors.

your call.

 

[tom2050]

'Civ4 modding friendly xml' might be taking it a bit too far. XML is hardly modding friendly to the overly vast majority of Civilization players. There's probably a fair share of Civ players who don't even know what XML is. If Take2/2K included a Civ4 editor, it would be fair to say that is Modding Friendly.

'Civ4 great graphics and animations' also is a being a bit generous. When Civ4 came out, it's 3d graphics were far under par compared to the standard at that time. I would say (objectively) that Civ4's 3d graphics are not that much better than Civ3's 2d.

'Civ3 stacks of doom' - stacks of doom have been used throughout history in battle. Perhaps not to the Civ3 extent, but D-Day was a stack of doom in itself.

'Civ3 leaders that change dresses according to eras' - nothing wrong with someone changing clothes every one/two thousand years.

Both games have their advantages and disadvantages. Civ4 was a step up in many ways, but I feel Civ4 lost the 'addictive one more turn' feel that 3 had.

Tom

 

[CKS]

I think katipunero was listing good things about each game.

 

[Argetnyx]

Thank you Tom. I've been talking about that in the civ ideas and suggestions section (unfortunately in the civ4 section). I agree with you totally on the editing and playing perspectives. Editing Civ3 is both easy and fun, civ4 I have not even figured out yet. Playing civ4 is like what all the civ4 players describe Civ3 as: boring and tedious. Civ3, however, is almost always exciting and there are always new things happening (unless I play it too much at a time).

 

[katipunero]

i still play both you know. but lately, i play more civ 4. games last shorter than in civ 3. I can play 2-3 in a day, unlike in civ 3, maybe just around 1 or 2.

 

[Argetnyx]

But that's the fun of a civ3 game, you can take your time and plan your actions. In civ4, it's all at once and in your face. Micromanaging is rampant in civ4.

 

[MGS]

I love the long games in Civ3. I'll quit playing a game if I have to play the same game over and over again. Short games get boring very quickly.

 

[Argetnyx]

Exactly, that's what makes Civ3 so addicting. If I ever get bored with it ,which is not often, I just play a game with shorter playing times. When I get bored of them, which is very often, I usually go back to Civ3.

 

[katipunero]

i just love try out all the leaders and civs is why. i know it's a lot fun to play your favorite leader/civ from 8am to 8am the next day. god knows how many times i've had that happened in civ 3. but see, with faster games i can try out new tactics and strategies. in civ 4, it never gets boring. right now i'm trying a corporation + espionage exclusive strat to win a space race victory. sounds cool huh?

 

[Argetnyx]

Perhaps... I still enjoy the long games much more.

 

[katipunero]

try marathon on civ4. iirc, that's about 1500 turns of play. i think the max in 3 is just about a thousand. i'm not trying to proselytize anyone in playing civ4. i think both games are great. i guess i'm just saying that civ4 is more than just decent. after all, it's the 2nd greatest game of all time (and of the series) according to ign.com. and for good reason.

 

[Argetnyx]

Riight..... Civ3 is still more realistic than civ4. I get annoyed when something can't do something that it can in real life. Or the other way around. When have you ever heard of a spearman taking down a helicopter? You can in civ4.

 

[MGS]

It rarely happens in civ3 but when it does, bam, boom, crunch!

 

[Argetnyx]

Not very often at all!

 

[MGS]

I don't know if my keyboard, monitor, mouse, ect. could take much if it happened more than once a month.

 

[Argetnyx]

I have a laptop, so I might mysteriously find it across the room if it happened that often.

 

[artbell]

Should I by Civ 3 complete or Civ 4 complete ?

The answer is Yes.