I feel that this review from amazon.com summarizes most of my feelings about Civ 4.
Okay, it's certainly an improvement to have some kind of explanation about why you don't like the game. I completely disagree with the review though. I know you didn't write it, so this is in no way meant to reflect on you personally, but I think the review is wrong, wrong, wrong.
MY OWN thoughts are these: Whenever I get beat by the AI, I want it to be cuz the AI out-smarted/out-played me, not because it got bonus units and discounted upgrades. So if I were to go into Worldbuilder and give myself extra units, it would be called cheating, but when the AI has extra units, it's called a "higher difficulty level".
You don't *have* to play on higher difficulty levels. If you stick to Noble, the AI has very few bonuses - you can get rid of the unit upgrade discounts by editing the XML (it's extremely easy to do and if you ask people on here nicely, they'll tell you how to do it). But wait, Noble is too easy! Well, that's just because the AI isn't very good (yet). Too bad. AI is very difficult to write - however, people are working on it, and it should be improved in BtS. Modders will improve it further. It does irritate me a little when people complain about the bonuses on Prince and above, however - you know very well that the AI will be given these bonuses if you choose to play on Prince, so if you don't want the bonuses to be there, why play on Prince in the first place? What you really want is for the AI to be smarter - fair enough. But please just say that. Don't complain about the bonuses - with the exception of unit upgrade discounts (easily changed) and some diplomacy unfairness (which is not all that terrible), the playing field is level at Noble level. That's a game with virtually no AI bonuses.
Like I said, the AI will be improved in BtS, and modders are always working on it. You could even try improving it yourself - if there's some particular AI stupidity that annoys you, have a go at correcting it.
Right, from this point onwards, I'm addressing the review, not the stuff you personally wrote...
In my mind, that potential has not been fulfilled, and I hereby advise you to purchase Civ3 Complete instead and forego Civ4 if you haven't chosen so already.
So let's see...you were looking forwards to Civ 4 as an improvement from Civ 3, but since you're bothered about the sale strategy of Civ 4...suddenly Civ 3 is a perfect game? If it was perfect, why did you bother trying Civ 4?
If you have already purchased Civ4, let's send a message to Firaxis Games that they need to do better - let's stop purchasing Civ products until they are actually without so many bugs, that aren't rushed to be released for the holidays,
Stopping purchasing Civ 4 products will not encourage them to fix bugs; it will encourage them to drop the Civ franchise completely, and never fix any remaining bugs. This is probably what you want - since Civ 3 is supposedly perfect - but it's not what most fans of the Civ series want. The rushed release schedule for Civ 4 *is* a valid grievance, but the correct way to respond to that would be not to buy Civ 4 in the first place, having heard the reports that it's buggy. You did the opposite - you ignored the reports about the bugs and bought it anyway, and now that Firaxis have fixed the bugs, you refus to buy the expansion packs that contain the fixes. Smart. Somehow, I don't think Firaxis are going to be able to make any sense of this "message" you're trying to send.
and that don't insult our intelligence by requiring expensive "expansion packs" which merely add content that should already have been included in the original release.
I wouldn't call them expensive. Furthermore, I'm very glad that Civ 4 has been available for us to play since 2005. If they had put all the expansion pack content into the original game, it *still* wouldn't have been released. I'm glad to have had the opportunity to play a *slightly* reduced version for a year and a half. The expansionless gameplay was hugely compelling - much better than my experience with Civ 3 - and Warlords improved it. Not by much, sure, but it was still fantastic value for money - these games are not particularly expensive if you know how to shop well, and it's such a great game that it's easily worth the money. Compare it to an online game with a subscription fee - they're much more expensive, and for me they're nowhere near as fun. Civ 4 is excellent value. Civ 3 may well be cheaper, but for the amount of enjoyment I get, I'm willing to pay the small extra cost and get the best version available. My time spent playing the game is far more valuable than the money I paid for it, and I don't see why I should waste time on Civ 3 when I could be playing Civ 4.
Here is a list of comparative reasons to only own Civ3 and not Civ4 and boycott future Civ titles until something changes for the better:
Until *what* changes for the better? How will we tell? Will you personally let us know when it happens, Mr. Reviewer?
1. There is no map editor in Civ4. Instead, they included a "World Builder" which is so awkward and strange. It is not like Civ3's map editor
That sums it up pretty well. It is not like Civ 3's map editor, therefore to you it is awkward and strange. Shqype has covered this complaint in more detail.
Who needs 3D graphics for a turn-based strategy game?
I agree. The thing is, games don't sell these days unless they're 3d. This is a shame - I much prefer 2d - but I'm afraid we have to expect it. My computer struggles a little with the graphics, but the game is still perfectly playable, and my computer is *old*. I bought it three years ago...secondhand! It's pretty ancient. On the bright side, the graphics do at least look *good*. Like you, I'd be happier if they were simpler and faster, but since we *have* to have 3d in today's market, at least they've done it well.
(but yeah, I agree that 2d is better - why do most of the public not understand that trying to display 3d images on a 2d screen does *not* makes things very easy to see - human vision is 2d stereo, not 3d - if we could see in 3d, that would be x-ray vision...)
Civ4 is not fully 3D; it merely allows a tilting view from ground level to overhead.
But this doesn't matter, because like you said, 3d graphics aren't necessary for a strategy game.
it makes the game extremely difficult to modify.
It makes the *graphics* difficult to modify. Boohoo. Anyway, the issue is the same as above - these days, people want 3d, and most creative computer users are learning to manipulate 3d structures. It's just the modern world.
For Civ3, there are well over 1,000 things you can either download or make yourself and put right into the game.
That's because Civ 3 has been around for longer. Firaxis have put a very strong emphasis on moddability in Civ 4. Plus, Civ 4 is a better game in the first place. In the long run, I think we'll see a better Civ 4 culture.
You don't have to know XTML or Python programming languages as you would in Civ4. Civ4 requires advanced education (like a graphics design or computer science degree) to simply alter things like governments, units, buildings, and game rules.
There is no such thing as "XTML". If you mean XML, then it's so simple that a ten year old child could easily edit it. Sure, the data may be complicated, but that's because it's a complicated game. The XML file structure itself does not add any significant complexity whatsoever. It pretty much just means you put some angle brackets around things - okay, maybe an average player couldn't create an XML file from scratch, but you don't need to do that - you just need to edit the existing files, and that is really, really easy. At least, it's as easy as it can be for such a complicated game with so many rules and variables. Also, XML is *not* programming language. It's not even a scripting language. It's just a way to layout some data.
Python is widely used as a scripting language. I don't have any experience with it myself, but I gather it's reasonably easy to use, as programming languages go. This is why Firaxis chose it. It's not an especially efficient way to do things, but they wanted the game to be easily moddable. Python is supposed to be there to make it easy. It's a worthwhile skill to learn - other games and applications use it in a similar way (to allow users to add fucntionality themselves), and this trend will probably continue. I need to learn it myself.
Waiting for others to design them (like the amateur online community or the professional expansion packs) isn't so fun anymore.
You seem to be saying that it used to be fun to wait for other people to make stuff for Civ 3. I think that's just your bad grammar though. I presume what you meant was that Civ 3 was more fun because you could mod it yourself. If you weren't so scared of angle brackets, you could easily mod Civ 4, too...
Expanding content for more money? This was a problem with Civ3, as well - its first expansion pack was a total waste of money because everything was later put on the second expansion pack.
Gosh, so when they released the second expansion pack, suddenly the countless hours of fun you'd had with the first expansion pack - which you had already decided was worth the moeny when you bought it - were snatched from your memory. Yeah, you didn't get anything out of the first expansion pack. It was a total waste of money. Just think, even though it had enough in it that you were willing to buy it, you could have not bought it and missed out on it all for months and months, and then saved a few measly dollars later. In fact, you could do this with all the expansion packs - wait till they release the next *game* before buying the final expansion pack for the previous game. Yeah, saving a few dozen dollars is definitely worth waiting a few years and then playing the second-latest game while everyone else enjoys the new one.
Or they could *not* put the old expansion content into the new expansions. It sounds like this is what you want. That'll be great for a multiplayer game - it'll be virtually impossible to find players with the same combination of expansion packs as you, unless you buy them all. Tell me, if (for example) Beyond The Sword *didn't* contain all the Warlords content, what exactly would Warlords owners *gain*, apart from incompatibility with a large number of potential multiplayer partners?
Firaxis don't charge a fortune for Civ. You seem to think they should have built BtS into it from the start; if they'd tried that, not only would Civ 4 *still* not have been released, they'd probably never have been given clearence to make it in the first place. They need to have a stream of income in order to be able to develop the game. They couldn't have done BtS unless they'd already successfully sold Civ 4 and Warlords.
Play Civ3 Complete until Civ5 comes out if you have to. Maybe Civ will be less of a cheap shot then.
If everyone had followed this advice and not bought Civ 4, that would have been the end of Civ. There would never be a Civ 5.
Purchasing Civ3 Complete right now (1) will cost you less than half of Civ4
And we're talking megabucks here, folks. Literally pennies per hour of entertainment. I think most people here will agree that the game is extremely addictive (because it's just so good)...surely that's worth the tiny cost per hour? It's a lot cheaper than heroin, and not as bad for you!
Civ3 has the very same level of addictive game play as any other Civilization title.
I can't give much of an argument against this; I can't stand Civ 3, but obviously many other people love it.
If you have already dropped the cash for Civ4, simply do not support Civ4 any longer. In fact, uninstall it and put it in your drawer as a sad chapter of shameless marketing.
Yeah, that'll tell 'em! Firaxis will pick it up on their worldwide "games-that-have-been-put-back-into-drawers scanner" and regret that you're not playing a game you already paid them for.
But it's not quite perfect, so you mustn't play it, or any other game that's not completely perfect. Also, even if you're willing to play a less-than-perfect game just because it's fun, you mustn't play *this* one, no matter how fun it is - it's been contaminated by marketing and the profit motive. You must never buy any games that have been released in order to generate a profit. Just because they're fun, doesn't mean you'll enjoy them!
without an easy, efficient, and overwhelmingly powerful customizing interface (like an awesome map editor that allows FULL customization)
So, you want all modding to be done via a map editor? That sounds quite limiting to me. The Civ 4 modding framework is a lot more widely scoped and versatile.
we are simply asking for "re-tread" products.
In my view, the number one reason to buy Civ 4 instead of Civ 3 is that Firaxis have genuinely tried very hard to improve the game, and have succeeded spectacularly. They approached the idea ina very sensible way, taking out the bits that weren't fun, refining the bits that were, and adding some excellent new concepts.
(note: this post was written between 8 and 9:30 am after a sleepless night; apologies for any incoherence or excess venom...)
at this.
Modest, I know.
