mariaevinne
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2017
- Messages
- 1
I'm probably going to get Civ IV just because it's dirt cheap right now, but I would still like to know how well IV holds up with the newest title in the series.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
What is the better game, Civilization IV or VI?
- Thread starter mariaevinne
- Start date
elitetroops
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,725
Asked in this forum, the answer is quite likely to be IV. And this is because IV simply is better. 
Of course it depends on what you are looking for, but I can tell that IV holds up very well still at this day. I got it on the day of release, now 10 years (or is it 11? 12?) and thousands of gaming hours later it is still able to challenge me and constantly provide new interesting situations.
I also got Civ VI on the day of release, beat deity with ease on my first attempt and soon lost interest in the game. On the surface it might seem like it is packed with tons of interesting mechanics, but in reality a lot of those are complete failures. For example, they went out of their way to make each leader have their own personality, which in practice only means that everyone hates everyone, just for slightly different reasons. Except if you ever declare a war past the early eras, then everyone hates you for that same reason. But it doesn't matter at all, because there is nothing really to gain from being at good terms with your neighbors. So in the end diplomacy can be completely ignored. In Civ IV it certainly cannot. Same goes for the AI as a military threat. In VI the AI is so utterly useless at dealing with 1UPT that there's never any need to be worried about a surprise DoW. In Civ IV your heart always skips a beat when the war horn sounds between turns...
If you are more of a builder type and more into building an impressive empire than winning the game as fast as possible, then VI might be more to your taste. There's certainly a lot more to do in that game (even if most things won't help you win any faster). As long as you can live with constant interruptions by AI who denounce you for having too much military/not having enough military/having too little gold/having too many resources/not building enough navy/cutting too many trees/listgoesonforever, then I'm sure you can have a good time with it as well.
Of course it depends on what you are looking for, but I can tell that IV holds up very well still at this day. I got it on the day of release, now 10 years (or is it 11? 12?) and thousands of gaming hours later it is still able to challenge me and constantly provide new interesting situations.
I also got Civ VI on the day of release, beat deity with ease on my first attempt and soon lost interest in the game. On the surface it might seem like it is packed with tons of interesting mechanics, but in reality a lot of those are complete failures. For example, they went out of their way to make each leader have their own personality, which in practice only means that everyone hates everyone, just for slightly different reasons. Except if you ever declare a war past the early eras, then everyone hates you for that same reason. But it doesn't matter at all, because there is nothing really to gain from being at good terms with your neighbors. So in the end diplomacy can be completely ignored. In Civ IV it certainly cannot. Same goes for the AI as a military threat. In VI the AI is so utterly useless at dealing with 1UPT that there's never any need to be worried about a surprise DoW. In Civ IV your heart always skips a beat when the war horn sounds between turns...
If you are more of a builder type and more into building an impressive empire than winning the game as fast as possible, then VI might be more to your taste. There's certainly a lot more to do in that game (even if most things won't help you win any faster). As long as you can live with constant interruptions by AI who denounce you for having too much military/not having enough military/having too little gold/having too many resources/not building enough navy/cutting too many trees/listgoesonforever, then I'm sure you can have a good time with it as well.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2008
- Messages
- 26,873
Everything elite says. IV is simply one of the best games ever - there's a reason why so many folks play it to this day. Firaxis went in a new direction with V and not so different VI, that turned off a lot of older civ fans. IV is a much deeper strategy game, while the newer versions cater more to a larger audience. That does not mean that you won't like those games, as we don't know enough about what you like and your experience with TBS 4X games. So as for IV "holding up", well there is no question that it does in every aspect, including graphically. Plus, a huge modding database here for all your whims, or just UI/Graphical enhancements.
My recommendation is to try IV anyway since you can get it for a few bucks, like on a GOG sale or Steam. But if it really boils down to one against the other based on spending the dosh, then I'd go with what feels right to you based on what you read here. Granted, in this forum we are a little biased, but most of us have at least tried V and VI so we can give some perspective. IV offers more challenge and a steeper learning curve, but pays that off in a rewarding game that you can keep coming back to - it has endless replayability. VI will be easier to get into, and is brighter and shinier. Right now it has a lot of flaws. Firaxis usually irons some of those out with patches, and later with expansions. I don't really know the status of the game now, but have already decided that I will likely never get the game. I did play V quite a bit. Did not like it, but played it for a while since I did pay full price and at least tried to master it, which was very easy..but it quickly bored me and I abandoned it. VI is not so different. It keeps many of the features of V, which again was an extreme move away from the game IV was, so I believe that if you've no experience with Civ type games, it may offer you some interesting stuff. How long that last for you, I've no clue.
oh..another thing it consider is you can buy IV now for cheap and get loads of enjoyment out of it. I expect VI will be quite cheap in the not so distant future.
If you get IV, come back to the friendly Strategy & Tips forum here to get help with learning the game faster.
My recommendation is to try IV anyway since you can get it for a few bucks, like on a GOG sale or Steam. But if it really boils down to one against the other based on spending the dosh, then I'd go with what feels right to you based on what you read here. Granted, in this forum we are a little biased, but most of us have at least tried V and VI so we can give some perspective. IV offers more challenge and a steeper learning curve, but pays that off in a rewarding game that you can keep coming back to - it has endless replayability. VI will be easier to get into, and is brighter and shinier. Right now it has a lot of flaws. Firaxis usually irons some of those out with patches, and later with expansions. I don't really know the status of the game now, but have already decided that I will likely never get the game. I did play V quite a bit. Did not like it, but played it for a while since I did pay full price and at least tried to master it, which was very easy..but it quickly bored me and I abandoned it. VI is not so different. It keeps many of the features of V, which again was an extreme move away from the game IV was, so I believe that if you've no experience with Civ type games, it may offer you some interesting stuff. How long that last for you, I've no clue.
oh..another thing it consider is you can buy IV now for cheap and get loads of enjoyment out of it. I expect VI will be quite cheap in the not so distant future.
If you get IV, come back to the friendly Strategy & Tips forum here to get help with learning the game faster.
Last edited:
I've never played Civ6, but I'll say this: Most players don't enjoy picking up old games if they've never played them before. Going back in time tend to just suck. This is true no matter how legendary the old game is.
It probably doesn't matter how good Civ4 is, the question is much more what kind of person you are. Are you one of those who have the ability to pick up old games?
It probably doesn't matter how good Civ4 is, the question is much more what kind of person you are. Are you one of those who have the ability to pick up old games?
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2008
- Messages
- 26,873
Well, you seem to be speaking for a very large group of people. I guess I'm one of the extremely rare people that completely disagrees with this statement, and certainly think it should not at all be a basis for the decision she is about to make.
Fippy
Mycro Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 14,978
Yep it's quiet the opposite for me as well..
i more and more look for older games, movies and so on cos i feel like today it's all about money and the quality suffers.
Civ sadly highlights this, and also other favorite series of mine like Homm or Might & Magic.
Or for movies, wonder woman? One of the worst movies i ever saw, terrible..
They all went crappy, what do fancy youtube videos and other social media advertisement & hype do for me if gameplay quality is bad? Hours played on steam, and other "interesting" topics in Civ6 forums?
DLC anticipation? I prefer going back in time then, ty very much
i more and more look for older games, movies and so on cos i feel like today it's all about money and the quality suffers.
Civ sadly highlights this, and also other favorite series of mine like Homm or Might & Magic.
Or for movies, wonder woman? One of the worst movies i ever saw, terrible..
They all went crappy, what do fancy youtube videos and other social media advertisement & hype do for me if gameplay quality is bad? Hours played on steam, and other "interesting" topics in Civ6 forums?
DLC anticipation? I prefer going back in time then, ty very much
Archon_Wing
Vote for me or die
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,257
I would get Civ 4 now, and consider 6 if it were on sale. 4 is the better game because the diplomacy is superior and has more options, and the AI is functional. Civ 6 isn't bad. The district system is sort of interesting, and tile management is actually pretty involved. And as with V, the new combat system involves less RNG. However, it is currently marred by a useless and suicidal AI which makes diplomacy almost nonexistent. They declare war on you with 1/10th the power and you were friends....
Also, Civ 6 has awful performance late game. I have a fairly new computer and it takes 30s to process a single turn when it passes 1700. People with older computers may have even more trouble. Horror storries of 5+ minute waits on large maps were not uncommon.
There's also the modern game tendency of DLCs.... essentially sell overpowered new options for money. I wouldn't say 6 has been doing that 100%, but it certainly feels like it.
As an example, in Civ 4, you can through diplomacy ask for people to declare war, stop trades, change religion or civics, or even negotiate 10 turns of peace. None of this is possible in 6. Even Civ 5 had the cute little "vote bribe" thing that was mostly useless but at least amusing.
Civ 4 also features a much more intuitive tech tree, of which neither 5 or 6 really got right. For example, if you obsolete a unit, and don't have a required resource, you can just build the older version. In 6, that doesn't allow you to even build the older unit. For some reason, they decided basic units like musketmen and riflemen be resource dependent and that is plain stupid in most cases.
It's just stuff like this that makes 6 look like it lacks polish. Many will give the excuse of "give it more time! Civ 4 had years", but in reality the changes to Civ 4 through the expansions weren't essential. Corporations, vassals, and espionage were cool, but you can ignore most of it anyways. And many people don't like the AP. Besides, I would think it's a bad idea to reinvent the wheel constantly.... And just because it took people thousands of years to invent the wheel doesn't mean you should accept a car today without wheels.
I also prefer 6 over 5 at the least, since the limit to the districts early on means you have to specialize cities and actually do a bit of planning to how they'll be placed. Which makes it more like 4. But I would suggest playing 4 first anyways.
Also, Civ 6 has awful performance late game. I have a fairly new computer and it takes 30s to process a single turn when it passes 1700. People with older computers may have even more trouble. Horror storries of 5+ minute waits on large maps were not uncommon.
There's also the modern game tendency of DLCs.... essentially sell overpowered new options for money. I wouldn't say 6 has been doing that 100%, but it certainly feels like it.
As an example, in Civ 4, you can through diplomacy ask for people to declare war, stop trades, change religion or civics, or even negotiate 10 turns of peace. None of this is possible in 6. Even Civ 5 had the cute little "vote bribe" thing that was mostly useless but at least amusing.
Civ 4 also features a much more intuitive tech tree, of which neither 5 or 6 really got right. For example, if you obsolete a unit, and don't have a required resource, you can just build the older version. In 6, that doesn't allow you to even build the older unit. For some reason, they decided basic units like musketmen and riflemen be resource dependent and that is plain stupid in most cases.
It's just stuff like this that makes 6 look like it lacks polish. Many will give the excuse of "give it more time! Civ 4 had years", but in reality the changes to Civ 4 through the expansions weren't essential. Corporations, vassals, and espionage were cool, but you can ignore most of it anyways. And many people don't like the AP. Besides, I would think it's a bad idea to reinvent the wheel constantly.... And just because it took people thousands of years to invent the wheel doesn't mean you should accept a car today without wheels.
I also prefer 6 over 5 at the least, since the limit to the districts early on means you have to specialize cities and actually do a bit of planning to how they'll be placed. Which makes it more like 4. But I would suggest playing 4 first anyways.
Last edited:
Pangaea
Rock N Roller
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 6,390
People in this forum will naturally prefer 4. Not necessarily because we are horrible biased, but because we have played the other games and concluded 4 is better. Granted I haven't played 6, I learnt my lesson with 5 and wasn't silly enough to toss money in their direction for another poor product.
Much has been said already, and this has been said between the lines, but an advantage with 4 is that you can customise the game's difficulty according to your skill to a much higher degree than the later games (because they are dirt easy even on Deity). In Civ 4, Deity is exceedingly difficult, and you will get your ass handed to you if you don't know your way around the game. But there is nothing wrong with playing on Noble for instance, where neither you nor the AI have advantages over each other in terms of speed of production or research.
I'd recommend to try out 4 first, since it's fairly cheap, and if you don't like it you can always try out 6 (is there a demo?). It depends on what kind of games you prefer too. 5-6 is more of the "dumb it down" type, while 4 offers deep and strategic gameplay, with seemingly countless ways to reach your goals.
Much has been said already, and this has been said between the lines, but an advantage with 4 is that you can customise the game's difficulty according to your skill to a much higher degree than the later games (because they are dirt easy even on Deity). In Civ 4, Deity is exceedingly difficult, and you will get your ass handed to you if you don't know your way around the game. But there is nothing wrong with playing on Noble for instance, where neither you nor the AI have advantages over each other in terms of speed of production or research.
I'd recommend to try out 4 first, since it's fairly cheap, and if you don't like it you can always try out 6 (is there a demo?). It depends on what kind of games you prefer too. 5-6 is more of the "dumb it down" type, while 4 offers deep and strategic gameplay, with seemingly countless ways to reach your goals.
Kouvb593kdnuewnd
Left Forever
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,146
Better is to ask which game is more fun to play and that is an individual question.
blitzkrieg1980
Octobrist
I've been away for quite a while. I've been playing this game since I was in my mid-twenties when it first came out. Now I am a dad with a grownsup job a house and all and I'm still playing Civ 4. Oh I dabbled in Civ5 which I actually think is a really fun game but nothing compared to 4. And I've had periods of time where I went to Europa universalis 3 and 4 but I always return to Civ4 for a few games or a few dozen games LOL. I've been on and off of these forums for so many years I can hardly believe it.
There's just something so engrossing and immersive about Civ 4. Even with its cartoony leader heads and it's less than realistic graphics, it has a stylistic charm and if compared to today's graphics may seem simplistic but are still 3D and fun to look at. Everything is easy to see on the screen to my opinion and is not as cluttered as in Civ5. Some of the 5 players will probably laugh and say that I have it backwards but I really do believe that 4s interface is more solid. Additionally everything that all these other guys have said about it being more challenging and more in-depth is absolutely true. When they took cottages out of Civ5 and separated tech advancement from the economy, I was devastated. Finding the right balance between science, funding your army with gold, and keeping your people happy during longer wars never gets old. The Civic system is absolutely awesome and it allows you to create some pretty powerful combinations but it also allows for some very interesting role playing if you're into that.
Now to be completely fair I've never played six. When it came out I was on a serious Europa Universalis kick and even now I'm not even considering buying it I'm just going back to play Civ 4. EliteTroops said it perfectly. In none of the other games would I have an actual fear when I heard the war horn between turns. Civ4 always made me jump when I heard that and quickly check to see if I was getting DoW.
The only thing is... and I'm not sure if it's a problem in 5 or 6, but from what I understand in 4, once you master deity the game is a little bit broken. If you're able to regularly beat deity, not much can make the game challenging or new without heavy modding. I forget which Forum member warned me about this, but it was a guy who had a much larger than 50% win ratio on deity. He actually referred to it as "breaking his toy" LOL. But don't be discouraged... It will take a very long time to master deity to that point! I STILL haven't!
There's just something so engrossing and immersive about Civ 4. Even with its cartoony leader heads and it's less than realistic graphics, it has a stylistic charm and if compared to today's graphics may seem simplistic but are still 3D and fun to look at. Everything is easy to see on the screen to my opinion and is not as cluttered as in Civ5. Some of the 5 players will probably laugh and say that I have it backwards but I really do believe that 4s interface is more solid. Additionally everything that all these other guys have said about it being more challenging and more in-depth is absolutely true. When they took cottages out of Civ5 and separated tech advancement from the economy, I was devastated. Finding the right balance between science, funding your army with gold, and keeping your people happy during longer wars never gets old. The Civic system is absolutely awesome and it allows you to create some pretty powerful combinations but it also allows for some very interesting role playing if you're into that.
Now to be completely fair I've never played six. When it came out I was on a serious Europa Universalis kick and even now I'm not even considering buying it I'm just going back to play Civ 4. EliteTroops said it perfectly. In none of the other games would I have an actual fear when I heard the war horn between turns. Civ4 always made me jump when I heard that and quickly check to see if I was getting DoW.
The only thing is... and I'm not sure if it's a problem in 5 or 6, but from what I understand in 4, once you master deity the game is a little bit broken. If you're able to regularly beat deity, not much can make the game challenging or new without heavy modding. I forget which Forum member warned me about this, but it was a guy who had a much larger than 50% win ratio on deity. He actually referred to it as "breaking his toy" LOL. But don't be discouraged... It will take a very long time to master deity to that point! I STILL haven't!
elitetroops
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,725
Eh, wouldn't this apply to any game? Once you can regularly beat the hardest level, there is nothing to make it more challenging. If there was, it wouldn't be the hardest level...
Anyway, I believe Civ IV is one of the games where this will be the least of a problem, because getting to the point where you regularly beat deity takes forever. Most players won't ever come close. In VI this was a problem right from the start.
blitzkrieg1980
Octobrist
A fair enough assertion in most games. However, I feel that a grand strategy game should allow for a lot more options even given the hardest difficulty. For example, the Europa Universalis games are different. Even if you've mastered extra hard/ironman, there are a million and one challenges and a huge variety of gameplay that will make the game new almost every time. In eu4, even if you are getting your ass handed to you by the AI, there's still a strong chance you can come back to fight another day or develop some kind of strategy to come back from the dead or even completely change your approach to the game and start excelling in a different area altogether like trade or colonization instead of Conquest. It's almost impossible to be completely annihilated as the player. This opens up a whole litany of possibilities.
With Civ4, i was more so speaking of the limitations when it comes to its hardest difficulty's choices of strategy. Meaning that there are a very limited number of strategies that will allow the player to avoid annihilation unless an especially lucky or freak game progression took place (a fraction of games).
But as for Civ games specifically, you hit the nail right on the head. Civ 4 is by far the hardest of the three and the hardest to master.
Last edited:
ztrapon
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 15, 2014
- Messages
- 92
Been playing Civ 6 a lot recently and it's a very fun game. It's just that Civ 4 is a masterpiece. Radically changing it, and applying the same name, doesn't mean they're even comparable IMO.
Throughout the years, I've played more or less any decent 4X game out there (and most RTS too), so at this point I feel qualified to compare. And there is literally no game comparable to Civ 4. There are games with the same ambition, but none are nearly as deep, or well-executed.
I played Civilization 4 (and previous games) on-and-off intially, thinking they were good but nothing special, until I got hooked. But I think Civ 4's greatness isn't really apparent until you've played a lot, and grasp the finer mechanics in it. Many people understandably don't have time, or patience to discover that, the game has steep learning curve, and - due to old age - has some technical flaws (most fixed by mods). However this is why I think Civ 5 and 6 became what they are: the developers were not experienced Civ 4 players. When they changed some of the things between Civ 4 and 5, they had no clue the impact it would have.
I have no gripe with the newer Civ games. Again, they are good on their own. But what bothers me is they've basically crushed any hopes of a high-budget Civilization game similar to number 4 in the future - that improves upon the things needing improvement. Maybe I'm alone in this, but to me that's such a strange decision, both from an artistic and economic standpoint. (Now admittedly 5+6 were financial successes so what do I know.) Many major titles like Super Mario 64 and GTA 3 did the same thing - following immense success with complete overhaul - but in that case the reason was technical limitations (2D to 3D). In Civilization's case it seems more like change for change's sake.
Firaxis shouldv'e kept the Civilization concept intact, and developed this new slow-paced, build-oriented, hexagon, 1UPT-game as a side project under a different name.
Anyway, not going to rant, but in short, I think that enjoying Civ 4 is of no real importance in whether you will enjoy Civ 6 or not. The games are only similar on the surface.
Throughout the years, I've played more or less any decent 4X game out there (and most RTS too), so at this point I feel qualified to compare. And there is literally no game comparable to Civ 4. There are games with the same ambition, but none are nearly as deep, or well-executed.
I played Civilization 4 (and previous games) on-and-off intially, thinking they were good but nothing special, until I got hooked. But I think Civ 4's greatness isn't really apparent until you've played a lot, and grasp the finer mechanics in it. Many people understandably don't have time, or patience to discover that, the game has steep learning curve, and - due to old age - has some technical flaws (most fixed by mods). However this is why I think Civ 5 and 6 became what they are: the developers were not experienced Civ 4 players. When they changed some of the things between Civ 4 and 5, they had no clue the impact it would have.
I have no gripe with the newer Civ games. Again, they are good on their own. But what bothers me is they've basically crushed any hopes of a high-budget Civilization game similar to number 4 in the future - that improves upon the things needing improvement. Maybe I'm alone in this, but to me that's such a strange decision, both from an artistic and economic standpoint. (Now admittedly 5+6 were financial successes so what do I know.) Many major titles like Super Mario 64 and GTA 3 did the same thing - following immense success with complete overhaul - but in that case the reason was technical limitations (2D to 3D). In Civilization's case it seems more like change for change's sake.
Firaxis shouldv'e kept the Civilization concept intact, and developed this new slow-paced, build-oriented, hexagon, 1UPT-game as a side project under a different name.
Anyway, not going to rant, but in short, I think that enjoying Civ 4 is of no real importance in whether you will enjoy Civ 6 or not. The games are only similar on the surface.
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
'It is' is actually correct, though?BiC, you lost me at "It's"
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
It is because of the entire idea of Civilization - empire-building - is gone. Instead, the optimum strategy of Civilization V revolves around a maximum of three cities, ten cities is seen as 'a lot', maps grow smaller and smaller, both in absolute size and because of things like one unit per tile and one district per tile. There is no immersion or diplomacy. And ever so on.
Archon_Wing
Vote for me or die
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,257
That mostly only applies to V; it's quite the anomaly in the sense that it encourages building a few cities. In VI, more cities is generally better.
My hunch is that they felt warring was too dominant so they thought of a thousand and one solutions to stop the player from warring as effectively. Every method was thought of, except making the AI competent at war; that's too obvious.
Fortunately I don't mind builder games with random war sprinkled in, but there are a number of cases where the barbarians are a bigger threat....
My hunch is that they felt warring was too dominant so they thought of a thousand and one solutions to stop the player from warring as effectively. Every method was thought of, except making the AI competent at war; that's too obvious.
Fortunately I don't mind builder games with random war sprinkled in, but there are a number of cases where the barbarians are a bigger threat....
Last edited:
civfanchambers
Prince
Civilization 1 was a foundation. It set the overall model and formula for the civ franchise. Every few years after the civ franchise was updated with a new game engine making use of more powerful computers. The game remained the same. Same model and formula. Small changes and enhancements were added without changing the foundation of the franchise model and formula. Anyone that played 2-4 new what "civ" was. Better computer technology and a better civilization. Then came civ5. The developers sought to reinvent the wheel so to speak. Civ5 is a radical departure from the civ model and franchise. I agree that 5&6 should not be called civilization. I tried 5, watched YouTube lp's of 6. Not for me. Civ4 is King, and will never be dethroned. I play many games new and old. Comp to console. But I always return to civ4. Civ 1-4 is an evolution, 5&6 is a disease. If that statement offends anyone so be it. The owners of the Civilization IP are only interested in making money. Dumbing down the franchise to appeal to a larger audience for cash. They are sell outs. Civilization has lost its soul. RIP.
Randy Random
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2011
- Messages
- 56
5 is better than 6 and 4 is better than 5.
