Sorry but I absolutely HATE Civ 4 !

[HeXeD_3010]

Man there's alot of Old Civ Trolls that troll this forum.

Look people. If you're an "elite" civer, don't ruin the experience for other people just because you feel the need to troll the forums.

 

[CyberChrist]

Sad thing is that the inclusion of 3D graphics (or rather the outrageously high RAM demands the program requires for them) is the main reason some people are still experiencing CTD, slow downs on any decent sized maps with any decent amount of opposing civs and that they had to hardcode the max map size - and amount of possible civs - to be significantly less than what was possible in Civ3.

 

[ak91406]

Man there's alot of Old Civ Trolls that troll this forum.

Look people. If you're an "elite" civer, don't ruin the experience for other people just because you feel the need to troll the forums.

I'll bet your favorite civic is Police State

 

[Kilt]

Well, I am a civ noobie.

I ran the tutorial, played one settler game, came her for a few tactics, glanced over the manual, did a couple warlord games (one the barbs got me, other is unfinished), then completed a noble game (culture win - I am a warmonger though), working on another custom noble game.

Its complexity makes the game interesting. My wife laughs at me because I am so quiet (compared to when I am playing other games), since usually I am glancing over the terrain taking in all the resources and comtemplating which research path would be the most beneficially, or where the key locations for cities might be, ect ect ect.

The tutorial is enough to get you started. One game at settler level gives you a better feel for the game. The manual, ingame advisors, and of course these forums cover most everything you need to know. I suspect someone just started at too hard a level and got his arse roasted.

My only complaint would be the demands on your computer. I am running an athlon 3500+, 1GB ram, 6800 vid card and playing anything bigger than a standard map at low settings is almost unbearable (I don't seem to have any problems playing FPS games like F.E.A.R at reasonable settings). I can't complain about anything visual. The graphics look fine for this type of game.

Kilt.

 

[BirraImperial]

Sad thing is that the inclusion of 3D graphics (or rather the outrageously high RAM demands the program requires for them) is the main reason some people are still experiencing CTD, slow downs on any decent sized maps with any decent amount of opposing civs and that they had to hardcode the max map size - and amount of possible civs - to be significantly less than what was possible in Civ3.

Well, 3d graphics are not the reason why civ4 CTD, if that was the case, then Doom 3, COD2, Half-life 2 and all other games would CTD. The game obviously does not make an efficient use of the system's resources and that is why is so demanding.

 

[oldStatesman]

Well, 3d graphics are not the reason why civ4 CTD, if that was the case, then Doom 3, COD2, Half-life 2 and all other games would CTD. The game obviously does not make an efficient use of the system's resources and that is why is so demanding.

Sorry, but the graphics engine is probably one of the culprits. See the Memory Leak Thread in Bug Reports ...Harkonnen has narrowed down a lot of the resource hogishness to inefficient use of TnL, and inefficient coding of graphic vertexs.

The graphics engine civ 4 uses is different from those other games - and Civ 4 is one of the first major releases to integrate the new Gamebryo Engine, python and C++ together. (Pirates! used the old Gamebryo engine, and was not as 'big' of a game resource wise, so the same issues may not have come up there.) Just because one 3D game works, does not mean another will.

 

[calyth]

I only started out from Civ 3, and IMO the complexity of the civ 4 interface is about hte same as Civ 3.
There are interface quirks in civ 4 that annoyed me to no end though - like the units/buildings/wonders list kept scrolling if there are more than 2 rows of buildings and I need to build something on the 3rd row, then after clicking on it, it automatically scrolls.
And if there was a fold out sheet in Civ 3, it is probably quite comparable too.
I do agree that the shift to 3D was a) unnecessary, b) poorly done (in terms of performance and stability), and c) sucking up way too much GPU power so that it forces a lot of fans to upgrade their computer for it.

 

[vbraun]

You can't like them all.

 

[EdCase]

Sorry, but the graphics engine is probably one of the culprits. See the Memory Leak Thread in Bug Reports ...Harkonnen has narrowed down a lot of the resource hogishness to inefficient use of TnL, and inefficient coding of graphic vertexs.

The graphics engine civ 4 uses is different from those other games - and Civ 4 is one of the first major releases to integrate the new Gamebryo Engine, python and C++ together. (Pirates! used the old Gamebryo engine, and was not as 'big' of a game resource wise, so the same issues may not have come up there.) Just because one 3D game works, does not mean another will.

And the saddest thing is..Gamebryo may produce a "popular" (with developers that is) 3D engine..but its not a pretty or particulary good one.
Yes Civ IV is prettier than 3 and 2 but damn ugly next to contemporary games. (RTS would be its nearest competitor...study Dawn of War sometime, a lot of polys being chucked around in that engine, full,user side, 3D camera control and its good looking too. I have modded for DOW and can safely say it has a damn fine 3D engine easily capable of "doing" Civ IV graphics, prettier,faster and with less overhead.)
The models are boxy ,even with full AA..the texture resolution is low real low.(128x128 is very poor. I'd expect at least 256x256)
Frankly for the amount of onscreen activity...I fail to see how this engine could be taxing for a reasonable system,other than "loose" coding.
I do of course love the game ...but wish Firaxis had gone another route with the 3D engine.

 

[Sirian]

I got Civ 1 when it came out all those years ago. Loved it, played it to death.

Eventually I got Civ 2, never got quite into it like I did Civ 1 but enjoyed it.

Last year I finally came to Civ 3 and really enjoyed it. Played it a lot, used these great forums for advice and info, got Conquests and played for several months. Finally beat it at Deity and then put it down.

Just got Civ 4, and I cannot stand it! The graphics to my eyes are very confusing, the screens non intuitive (something I always liked about Civ was I could pretty much find my way round without having to bury my head in the manual), the whole look and feel of the game just looks tatty. And its SO COMPLEX! I realise that is a natural first impression but I find it totally daunting. They provide a fold out sheet I cant even fit on my desk with so much info I don't know where to start. The Tutorial is a friggin joke, that Sid character just is so corny and badly done and the Tutorial merely glosses over the surface.

I've now spent a few hours trying to come to grips with the game and have basically lost interest. Such an uphill struggle. While I was never a Civ guru or anything I could play the game and usually get to beat it on the highest levels, it somehow inspired me to improve my skills and game playing to progress up the difficulty levels. But Civ 4 just makes me wanna throw the thing at the wall.

Please excuse the vent! I am sure it is very successful and its legions of fans will love it. But I am gonna delete the thing off my hard disk and reload Civ 3 and have some fun.

If you read Sulla's Civ4 walkthrough, it should help you a lot with getting a grip on the game's main elements. Then it shouldn't seem so intimidating or confusing.

Why CFC unstickied the Walkthrough thread, I have no idea. There are new players arriving on a regular basis, so who thinks none of them will need to use the Walkthrough to help them understand the game better? That thread is a lot more helpful to a newbie than most of the ones occupying the front page now.


- Sirian

 

[bshock727]

I think the game is pretty good, but I'm also someone who thinks the 3d graphics are unnecessary. I've always preferred 2d in my strategy games (especially TBS.)

The main problem with Civ IV's graphics is that the game requires an up to date machine to run well. I could understand this if the graphics were on par with the times, but they're not. It's very dated looking and still runs poorly. Huge mistake by Firaxis IMO, because the audience for these types of games typically don't have the latest and greatest hardware and most likely won't upgrade for one game.

I dunno, I'm really torn over the game. On one hand I want to keep playing because it can be addicting and features some solid gameplay, but on the other hand...I just can't deal with the poor performance on my computer which is above the minimum requirements. It's getting to the point where if you dont have above the recommend specs - you shouldn't bother.

Not sure if it's sloppy/lazy programming or the games are being rushed out, but there is no reason for such awful performance when the visuals aren't much better than games that came out 2-3 years ago.

 

[Creosote]

Oh I wasn't jumping in the deep end and trying to win a game at a high difficulty level - I started at the lowest level!
It isn't just the stupid 3D graphics that I don't like, the whole feel of all the info screens and Civilopedia just looks jaded and tacky, with no clarity of the info its presenting. Fire up Civ3 and see the crispness of the displays, they look like a quality presentation whereas in Civ4 they look like a couple of kids designed the interfaces.

As to the complexity, of course part of that is my unfamiliarity with the game, but there just seems so much stuff that I personally found it daunting, and also in some ways a contradiction to the kiddie graphics.

Ive been back and tried again and I just detest it. Then went and loaded up Civ3 which I havent played for months and what a breath of relief! Its not just that I am more familiar with Civ3, it just looks SO much better and the information is presented in a more pleasant and focused manner.

Maybe if I spent a couple of weeks with Civ4 I would get used to it and that is the usual solution, just I know the graphics will always bug me and frankly I just don't like the game. I'm off to play Civ3 !!

 

[Ex-Cop]

Dont like dont play. Dont whine

 

[Magian]

3D graphics are 'must have' for a game released 2005... I don't see the point of this conversation, really. You like them or not - that's a matter of personal taste.

Since I'm a Civ1 veteran too I would like to see in Civ4:

1. Short movies for the events: build a new city, build a new city building, city capture, city is revolting, city is celebrating. (Yes, I know they get boring after awhile but they make a nice atmosphere and you feel that something important happend. It was real fun to watch your victorious armies marching on the streets of the captured city)

2. The palace building from Civ1. (It touches my sick ego)

3. The bunch of advisors smiling or frowning behind the leader in diplomacy screen.

Nice touch from the designers of Civ4 is the movie 'In the begining the Earth was without form and void' which is back.

I think that Civ3 is worse than Civ4.

 

[King Flevance]

I think the game is very simplified other than the new terrain improvement options. I can see where this MAY get frustrating to start out with. I had my own problems adjusting to the barbarians and unit promotions. I have since gotten the hang of it though and enjoy this game.

The graphics..... eh. I have seen better graphics on games from years ago. I have issues concerning my graphics that may make my opinion bias honestly. I have polygon holes that show up and such that I can spot as issues concerning my graphics, rather than the 'programmed' graphics. The interface is still bland to me with no textures that arent generic. It looks like 'Windows XP' on the interface, and I dont like the default look of XP. I think the interface needs the panel to look like wood or something, add some textures for some decent looks. Stone pillars to use as seperators, something, anything. They gave us blue boxes and bubble buttons.

I know this is very minor problems to say the least. I noticed they fixed some of the advisors in 1.09 which was great. However, they DID decide they wanted to implement time and resources on these graphics and I dont see where it all went personally. It all seems very ...bland. There is no 'style' to the interface/civ you are playing. Its has a big fat 'default' appeal to it and nothing special in flavor.

 

[sangriablues]

I like civ 3 better too. In fact, I sold civ 4 to a friend bought the world of warcraft instead.

 

[Psyringe]

Fire up Civ3 and see the crispness of the displays, they look like a quality presentation whereas in Civ4 they look like a couple of kids designed the interfaces.

I can say a number of things about the Civ3 display, but crisp? Do you really think that the odd green pixel sprawl that was supposed to represent trees looks crisp? The numbers in the domestic advisor screen of Civ3 are so small, and waste so much space, would you really call that crisp? Wouldn't you expect that on a crisp display, you can discern important resources without having to scrutinize the map? Have you ever played Civ3 in 1600x1200? Either the screens are so small that you can barely read them, or (when you stretch them) they are so blurred that it really isn't funny.

In my opinion, the interface of Civ3 had more atmosphere. The transparent blue of the Civ4 interface looks a little bland and sterile to me. I also think that some parts of the interface need a usability update (Civilopedia, advisor screens, right click menus). But I don't let the negative aspects fool me into being blind to the positive ones, like the mouse-over infos in the city screen, the breakdown of diplomacy factors, the screen that handily lists tech trade possibilities, and so on.

Maybe if I spent a couple of weeks with Civ4 I would get used to it and that is the usual solution, just I know the graphics will always bug me and frankly I just don't like the game. I'm off to play Civ3 !!

I think you're prematurely giving up on a great game because you're somewhat trapped in a very negative first impression. Which is a little sad if I think about the fun you could have with the game. But of course, it's your opinion, and you're entitled to it ... I'm glad you do have a game which you like to play though.

 

[Nigel Stutt]

Oh I wasn't jumping in the deep end and trying to win a game at a high difficulty level - I started at the lowest level!
It isn't just the stupid 3D graphics that I don't like, the whole feel of all the info screens and Civilopedia just looks jaded and tacky, with no clarity of the info its presenting. Fire up Civ3 and see the crispness of the displays, they look like a quality presentation whereas in Civ4 they look like a couple of kids designed the interfaces.

As to the complexity, of course part of that is my unfamiliarity with the game, but there just seems so much stuff that I personally found it daunting, and also in some ways a contradiction to the kiddie graphics.

Ive been back and tried again and I just detest it. Then went and loaded up Civ3 which I havent played for months and what a breath of relief! Its not just that I am more familiar with Civ3, it just looks SO much better and the information is presented in a more pleasant and focused manner.

Maybe if I spent a couple of weeks with Civ4 I would get used to it and that is the usual solution, just I know the graphics will always bug me and frankly I just don't like the game. I'm off to play Civ3 !!

Each to their own I guess. I bought Civ 3 and got bored of it really quickly - too much like the previous versions which I played to death. But I really like Civ4.

As for the complexity - you are joking surely!? I hadnt played a Civ game in years before I got Civ 4 and started playing it immediately without the manual or tutorial and had practically everything reasonably figured out half way through the first game (basics anyway). I have found the game to be very intuitive, nice to look at, interesting to play, challenging and great fun. In fact I like it more than any game I have bought since probably Call of Duty a few years ago.

 

[EvilFuzzyDoom]

Ive been back and tried again and I just detest it. Then went and loaded up Civ3 which I havent played for months and what a breath of relief! Its not just that I am more familiar with Civ3, it just looks SO much better and the information is presented in a more pleasant and focused manner.

Maybe if I spent a couple of weeks with Civ4 I would get used to it and that is the usual solution, just I know the graphics will always bug me and frankly I just don't like the game. I'm off to play Civ3 !!

At least you can run cIV! I agree that the advisor screens are fairly trashy in the new version- they remind me a lot of the ones from Civ2: ToT ie. BLANDORAMA! It all reeks of XPitis (looks like a kiddy console )

The big diff which I found a joy is the way resources and tech progression are handled. I tried going back to Civ3 (CTD...) but I'd already adapted to the r-click system and I'll be damned if I'm going to go through the same... tech... sequence... over... and over... again...

I really prefer Civ4 over the older 3 just 'cause it's all new and shiny. Even if it does have technical issues up the wazoo (and it does!), it's a solid game gameplay-wise. Everything except the civilopedia is good-good-good. And the technical issues. And my failure to comprehend how catapults work now. And did I mention the technical issues? I'm going to go beat them over the head with a blunt stick now. (The issues, not the catapults).

 

[BirraImperial]

I think Civ 4 rocks, evern with its technical issues and all. It's a more simplified approach to its predecessors,eliminating annoying corruption and pollution, among other concepts that really bogged Civ 3. I know some of you don't like it, but again, there is no game that everyone likes, so I respect your opinions.