Was Civ4 a success gameplaywise compared to earlier installments?

[Mojotronica]

Yes. It was released too early of course -- it always is. But the pay-off came in 2007 with Beyond the Sword, which is a truly fantastic game. I can't think of much that could be done to improve it, game-play wise. I wish it were as easy to Mod as Civ II, but the complexity of the graphics has made that something that requires a high degree of technical skill. Otherwise I think just about every aspect of it is an improvement over previous versions.

 

[Pluvo241]

To @pulva I'll say re-read. The lil mocka- a-thon your hot on I can properly unwind but one's debate that centers on the ol fanbois, "my games purrfect. To bad about yours!" stalemate, just ain't that fun to deflate.
The rest I can rebuttal with images seeing you have a hard time with words. Anyone can see what I summerized was laid out quite clear. 'Real' huge maps are the impossable. When do I state "tiny" or, hows "empire feel' translate to anything near?

To each their own, I guess. Images might indeed help, here. I wasn’t trying to rile you. I was genuinely having difficulty reading your post in particular. You like to converse in a much more casual style than I am used to. I meant no offense. I think I did offend you and I believe you mean to offend me. Sorry T.A.

What? Wait a minute you slowdown chum. Slow down on the grammmer elitist tip or least show me were I tripped with these Typos?
OH a comma misplaced, a slight run on ? I mean Comon! Show me the mistakes!

I’m a “grammmer elitist” because I’m having a hard time reading what you write? Sorry, sir. I should never have mentioned it. Maybe then you wouldn’t be purposely mangling Pluvo and taking runs at me. In any case, I am sorry. I’ll try and leave your posts alone in the future.

But to answer what I can: I don’t think my Civ is better for you than your Civ is for me or that my Civ is better for me than your Civ is for you. Not at all. I was merely trying to encourage you to try Civ IV again. I love the game. You might too, now that it’s patched and enhanced with Beyond the Sword. I was trying to ease your mind about the mods too. They’re working just fine.

Beyond the Sword improves the gameplay significantly and is certainly worth trying in my opinion.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I would say No. Only one thing is guilty: cottages. It's not obvious how you have to build them so early, and that's what bugged me in most of my games until a recent time. Indeed, i couldn't win a monarch game, which i do nowadays easily. I even start to play at Emperor level. It took me the time since the release of the vanilla version until very recent times to figure that i had to build cottages very early, and to be familiarized with the growing algorythmes.

So please Sid, don't repeat this insanity again and do a much more comprehensive game next time. No deal, Civ4 is a pleasant game once the mechanics assimilated, but it takes way too much time to be assimilated. I don't want Civ5 to be over simplistic, but only, do the mechanics instinctive.

I want my first game of Civ5 to be played with all assets from the start, as long as i read the manual.

 

[vhhawk]

@Pluvo and T.A.:

I've been on various boards since the internet hit me in 1995, and I've become a huge fan of this board since I discovered it, for one reason only - the conversations are genteel and courteous. That's a rarity out here in the wilds of the 'net. It's a barbarian age we're in. I get paid to be a grammar nazi, as I teach English composition in college, and I've had my fill of text-speak and other unlearned freshman mannerisms. At the same time though, I love to see inventive and poetic use of language, and T.A.'s lingo is nothing if not inventive. I have no trouble reading it.

My real reason for jumping into this was that I'm basically with T.A. Civ4's technical requirements were, and remain, absurd. It's what happens when you give developers the latest edge technology and let them run free. Meier's program manager lost control on this one. It's similar to what happened back in the day of the Kilrathi series by Origin (Wing Commander, I think it was). By the time Civ4 was released, I had learned to wait. That cost Firaxis one unit sale. I also won't get Civ5 until a year or two later, and I'll buy it used. I'm not that desperate for it. My days of running out to upgrade hardware to support a game are over. Civ4 reinforced that mentality. I love the game and I'm immersed in it at the moment, but it had to meet me on my own terms, some four years after release date.

 

[Gooblah]

I want my first game of Civ5 to be played with all assets from the start, as long as i read the manual.

I think Civ4 is exceptional because all the assets aren't available from the start. The fact that I have to choose between revealing Copper or heading for Cottages first forces me to look at the current situation and makes me think - something a lot of computer games lack.

A lot of RTS games are really simple: Plop down a city, a troop producer, and rush. In Civ4, you have so many styles to choose from: planning, random, vague idea, etc.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I think Civ4 is exceptional because all the assets aren't available from the start. The fact that I have to choose between revealing Copper or heading for Cottages first forces me to look at the current situation and makes me think - something a lot of computer games lack.

I do not talk about those assets, but the assets inherent of the gameplay. Having copper is not an asset i understand them here. I'm just talking about the way to play the game, and understand it. When having copper to build axes is pretty obvious, spamming cottages very early is less obvious, where this is only good way to play Civ4. Assets to play the game correctly are differents of assets you find into the gameplay. The gameplay is the way you play the game, when the game proposes a full range of choices. In Civ4, building cottages early is a part of the gameplay as this is the only good way to play it, but is not a choice that the game let you appreciate. I put X years to understand the importance of cottages spamming, and i definitly do not want that to be reproduced with Civ5.

 

[Joshua368]

Firstly, you don't need cottages to win, especially on the early levels. (where you should be if you're inexperienced) In my first game I built less than a half dozen cottages, farmed everything, and staying in representation ran a sufficient specialist economy to keep up with the AI in tech. (of course then I lost, but that was for completely unrelated reasons: military tactics, or rather, my lack thereof )

Plus my second game I won by cottage spamming most of my cities... that was probably just like after a day browsing around in this forum. (I forget what I learned exactly, but I must've picked it up.) It's not exactly a complicated or hard to learn process.

 

[phoenix_sprite]

In short, yes. I've only played Civ3 and Civ4 but each game has a characteristic I like and wish were present in the other (mainly Civ4 for the graphics).

 

[grommit5]

played 1, 2, 3 and 4 (warlords and bts). bts is the best. imo

 

[Naokaukodem]

Firstly, you don't need cottages to win, especially on the early levels. (where you should be if you're inexperienced) In my first game I built less than a half dozen cottages, farmed everything, and staying in representation ran a sufficient specialist economy to keep up with the AI in tech. (of course then I lost, but that was for completely unrelated reasons: military tactics, or rather, my lack thereof )

I'm talking about a level around Monarch, as the level is IMO the ultimate challenge of Civ4. And i'm not taling about specialists, i don't like them.

Plus my second game I won by cottage spamming most of my cities... that was probably just like after a day browsing around in this forum. (I forget what I learned exactly, but I must've picked it up.) It's not exactly a complicated or hard to learn process.

I never looked for help on those forum. I consider that the game or the manual must be enlighting enough to allow the player to play a good game.

And, you can't say the contrary, as this is my experience. You need early cottage spam to win, and this mechanic is, IMO, pretty hard to learn when you are familiar with the Civ series. Of course, this seems easy when you put it into words, but this is more complicated when you are faced to the game and its difficulty levels with no clue.

Plus, for some reason, by playing i learned to know when i can expand and when i should not expand, including by time of war. That is not in the manual and needs a good bunch of games in order to be felt.

So what i'm saying is not to reproduce this with Civ5, we need a comprehensive game from the start, with all assets from the start.

 

[Airefuego]

I'm talking about a level around Monarch, as the level is IMO the ultimate challenge of Civ4. And i'm not taling about specialists, i don't like them.

I never looked for help on those forum. I consider that the game or the manual must be enlighting enough to allow the player to play a good game.

OK - you don't like specialists and you didn't build cottages... no wonder you didn't like Civ IV at the start!

Seriously though, you mention the manual. OK... all i did before playing was read Soren's awesome little story at the back of the manual. It reads like a quick biography of the game, but really it's giving you every tip you need to play. It explains cottages, specialists, golden ages, city specialization, unit promotions... all of it.

Check it out

 

[T.A JONES]

@Pluvo and T.A.:

I've been on various boards since the internet hit me in 1995, and I've become a huge fan of this board since I discovered it, for one reason only - the conversations are genteel and courteous. That's a rarity out here in the wilds of the 'net. It's a barbarian age we're in. I get paid to be a grammar nazi, as I teach English composition in college, and I've had my fill of text-speak and other unlearned freshman mannerisms. At the same time though, I love to see inventive and poetic use of language, and T.A.'s lingo is nothing if not inventive. I have no trouble reading it.

My real reason for jumping into this was that I'm basically with T.A. Civ4's technical requirements were, and remain, absurd. It's what happens when you give developers the latest edge technology and let them run free. Meier's program manager lost control on this one. It's similar to what happened back in the day of the Kilrathi series by Origin (Wing Commander, I think it was). By the time Civ4 was released, I had learned to wait. That cost Firaxis one unit sale. I also won't get Civ5 until a year or two later, and I'll buy it used. I'm not that desperate for it. My days of running out to upgrade hardware to support a game are over. Civ4 reinforced that mentality. I love the game and I'm immersed in it at the moment, but it had to meet me on my own terms, some four years after release date.

Really thanks man. IVe seen a few forum rooms to and Civfans standard of proper edict is a beacon of quality sawt-out online wide! Er ya then there me here.., But Still...
Anyway my lingo evolved from adapting and, I dare say, thriving ; ), in a CIV3/civ2 vs CIv4 tinged atmosphere overwhelmingly biased to Civ4 in every way . Here its more healthy for a minority to put humourous touch to his posts, making for opinion heard or even adhered to when going the wrong way. ALso I Keep the vocab light so to carry more effective fact-laiden weapons. It stings more to lose in a contest agaist the laughably deceiving art of Brazilan dance-fu 'Capoeira', lets say, then it does getting dropped by Mr. 'black belt boasting' type. "Never saw it coming". ARe famouuss last words. Seen mypoiint? lol. IN fanboy talk: 'Heat seekers' penetrate easy on those with def sheild: DOWN. 'Flame attack' on: HIGH .


Yet despite the best fanbois appeals (I know, dirty word) The course that detours most from a once touted "build an empire " approach is evidently still clear .
In Civ4's graphics meant the most and so it goes smooth playabilty is now the Civ 'past ghost' while a Mini-me version of grand scale multi-empire-friendly epic we see in civ3 is the 'present'.
With BtS, larger maps representing a good healthy number of nations will have you , or the computer , crash. Whichever casualty comes sooner, both are inevitable with this new 'test of time'.
ANother warp of a civ3 phrase, The game coins the term 'late game' in a literailly sence as turns out 'after-nooners' or 'pink slips' if your idiotically patient upon reaching the back end of 'Huge' epics . Here in, I think its safe to say the civ3- inherited marketing phrase "just one more turn" got badly burned tied with the Civ of today .

 

[onedreamer]

definitely yes.

 

[T.A JONES]

definitely yes.

Cool glad you agree..

 

[Roller123]

Imho Civ4: BTW is the first one which surpassed SMAC. So definitely an improvement in my book. Though still inferior in diplomacy and units area. Where are my X-Choppers ffs.

 

[LDiCesare]

My own preference is: Civ IV > Civ 2 > Civ > Civ 3. Civ and Civ2 were only distinct because of Civ2 being moddable.
The ease of modding and richness of Civ2 mods I miss, though. Civ 4 is very moddable, but the 3D requirements for new units, not to talk about terrain, make it much much harder in some areas.