What's with all the hate?

You know, Civ4 is waaayyyyyyy too time consuming, and so I don't really care for the series anymore. Yes, I know there will be a lot of "blah" coming at me, but here are all the games on Gamerankings that are higher than Civ4 (not in order).

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
God of War
Burnout 3: Takedown
Halo 3
Grand Theft Auto III
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3
Resident Evil Code: Veronica
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Gears of War
Company of Heroes
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell Chaos Theory
Super Smash Bros. Brawl
Ninja Gaiden Black
Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
Grand Theft Auto Double Pack
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City
Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec
Half-Life
Halo 2
NFL 2K1
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2
Perfect Dark
Gran Turismo
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
GoldenEye 007
BioShock
Half-Life 2
Halo: Combat Evolved
Resident Evil 4
Tekken 3
Super Mario 64
Soul Calibur
Metroid Prime
The Orange Box
Super Mario Galaxy
Grand Theft Auto IV
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

And it's missing a buch of old games (e.g., TIE Fighter, X-COM, StarCraft) plus things like Metal Gear Solid 3, Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy X, Final Fantasy XII, Metroid Prime 2 and 3, Virtua Fighter 4, Madden NFL 2004, Mario Kart DS, Rome: Total War, etc.

Honestly, I have to wonder why you guys are not playing one of the aforementioned games instead. I stated my opinion; I can't understand why anybody would get into Civ4 unless they forced themselves. And I enjoyed other games previously; I remember playing Soul Calibur II at my cousins' house and I loved it (almost more than Smash Bros., and at the time SCII actually was above Melee by 2% at GR). Mario Galaxy was just no-war, no-maintenance fun, and Metroid Prime 3 really filled in the dark void that Mario Galaxy missed for me. And Twilight Princess had awesome gameplay and graphics, though the ending was ultra-childish for a teen rated game. Civ4, on the other hand, well, now I'm deciding between StarCraft and Civ4 to play.
 
Do you do ever do anything besides whine about how much Civ4 sucks compared to games that in my opinion are much, much worse? (Except Orange Box) Edit: (And maybe Oblivion if it didn't crash every nine seconds)

Games that aren't even in the same Genre, none the less.
 
Honestly, I have to wonder why you guys are not playing one of the aforementioned games instead.

Because my preferred genre is TBS. None of them are in my favorite genre.
 
Now here is an interesting list from GameRankings. Since I mainly play strategy games, I'll filter on that.

The top Strategy games on all platforms:

1. Company of Heroes
2. Civilization IV
3. Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos
4. Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar
5. Advance Wars
6. Rome: Total War
7. Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings
8. Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
9. Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne
10. Advance Wars: Dual Strike
11. Sacrifice
12. Advance Wars 2: Black Hole Rising
13. Black & White
14. Civilization III
15. World in Conflict
16. Rise of Nations
17. Pikmin 2
18. Age of Mythology
19. Homeworld
20. Homeworld: Cataclysm

Once GC2:Twilight of Arnor gets enough votes to be included it'll bump something off this list (it'll likely end up in the top 3). All of these games are good games that I enjoyed playing.

Filtered further to throw out the RTSs and leave only TBS, we get:

1. Civilization IV
2. Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar
3. Advance Wars
4. Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
5. Advance Wars: Dual Strike
6. Advance Wars 2: Black Hole Rising
7. Civilization III
8. Fire Emblem
9. Disgaea: Afternoon of Darkness
10. Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions
11. Final Fantasy Tactics Advance
12. Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords
13. Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword
14. Pathway to Glory
15. Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance
16. Disgaea: Hour of Darkness
17. Advance Wars: Days of Ruin
18. Civilization III: Conquests
19. Jagged Alliance 2
20. Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones

A truly awesome set of games. These are the games that Civ Rev has to measure itself up to.
 
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
Halo 3
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
Super Smash Bros. Brawl
BioShock
Super Mario 64
Grand Theft Auto IV
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
ok, of your idiotic list, these are the ones I'd actually play even up to A QUARTER of how much I play Civ...
the Civ series is the best of my favorite genre, TBS, and no one cares if you don't want to play them anymore, so please shut up about not being able to get into Civ anymore...
besides, if it comes out for the wii, it might cure you from you TBS no fun disease.. because it's specifically designed to be SHORTER.
 
As for the piracy thing...emulators are not possible with any of the current consoles...they are too powerful for it to be possible for any computer to run an emulator for them...if I recall, computer specs need to be at least 6x the console's specs to be able to run an emulator well(at least, for PS1 and SNES emulators you need a 1000MHz+/500MHz+ CPU to run them well and that's well over 6x what the PS1 and SNES had).

We're getting there though.

High-end computers have the processing power to run the previous generation of consoles. The PS2 catalog is mostly playable on PC now, and the gamecube and xbox are lacking good emulators, not PC power.

The Wii is just a souped up gamecube, if proper software existed, a high-end PC should already be able to run Wii titles.

The rest of the current generation (PS3, Xbox 360) are beyond what current PCs would be able to do, but that's usually been the case for every generation of consoles.

Going by 6x MHz spec isn't a great rule of thumb...
Architectural improvements greatly improve the efficiency of newer processors. The topped specced Pentium 4 CPU made it to 3.8 GHz, while the current top Intel CPU is only 3.2 GHz, even discounted the 3-core advantage the Core 2 has, the 3.2 GHz chip will still be at least 1.5x faster than the Pentium 4.
Older consoles had only 2D graphics, or simple 3D graphics, so emulation has the PC CPU do everything, emulation of newer consoles require a video card for the 3D work.
Multiple CPUs and cores complicate emulation, even when not necessarily from a raw speed standpoint, it complicates it from a coding standpoint.
 
ok, of your idiotic list, these are the ones I'd actually play even up to A QUARTER of how much I play Civ...
the Civ series is the best of my favorite genre, TBS, and no one cares if you don't want to play them anymore, so please shut up about not being able to get into Civ anymore...
besides, if it comes out for the wii, it might cure you from you TBS no fun disease.. because it's specifically designed to be SHORTER.

() likes Fire Emblem and Advance Wars more than Civ4.

I'm not saying I hate TBS games; I'm saying that Civ games are waaaaaaaayyyyy too time consuming, and become unfun, and a good game is fun by definition, isn't it? Mario Kart DS packs more fun in 30 minutes than Civ4 does in 3 hours. There. That's how you can compare genres.

Admittedly I did hate Civ on the Wii going bye-bye.

And yeah, I can't wait to play Final Fantasy VI on my DS, and let's not even mention




FIRE EMBLEM DS

Which will have Marth as the protagonist.

Okay, I've been dying to play games from these series (and these don't even include the M-rated games, and they only include games that I have the platform(s) to play them).

Fire Emblem
Advance Wars (okay, I rented Battalion Wars 2 for the Wii)
Guitar Hero/Rock Band
Okami

whatever, i forgot half of what i was going to put
 
The fact that Civ4 is not in the top 50 at Gamerankings is enough (that's a repeated statistic, m'kay, and it doesn't count), but there are more reasons why. First of all, let's start with all these dumb discussions I've gotten myself in. I constantly thought of what should have been in BtS after I played it. The scenarios were dumb, except for RaFoC which was extremely timeconsuming. I think everything truly finished off with my computer going bogus on Christmas (due to some program my dad installed that was meant to make it run faster, though he thought it was because of StarCraft), but when I tried to return to Civ4 again, I didn't really get too much fun (after playing all that Mario and Metroid, and soon, Zelda). But worst of all are these dumb "Civ3 vs. Civ4" debates. Nobody's going to have a large scale debate over whether Metroid Prime is better than Metroid Prime 2 or 3, because they all happen in a sequence. Bah.

And while I understand I shouldn't be throwing needless statistics around, Civ4 was not in IGN's Top 100 Games List last November. I was just thrown off by that. That's not because of the fact that Civ4 didn't make the list that time, rather it was because of what HAVE made it into the Top 100 in previous years. Battlefield 1942 might count, but it's because of the website members' addictions, so that's fine. Now, in the 2005 list they had Freedom Force (an RPG where you make your superheroes) at #81 (that may not sound like much, but Final Fantasy VII was #88, though that's wwwwwwwwaaaaaayyyyyy off) and Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings at #53 (might not sound like much, but Smash Bros. Melee was #58, and Metroid Prime was just a place ahead of Age of Empires II, with GTAIII just ahead). And let's not forget about Rome: Total War at #14 in 2005 and #53 in 2007. But anyways, I was incredibly disheartened about IGN not having Civ4 in the Top 100 (at least Civ2 was #3, wish I played it). And later, I managed to discard the fact, but then Civ4 was also not in the Readers' Choice Top 100 in 2006 (actually, no Civilization game was there, and Rome: Total War, Fire Emblem, Disgaea: Hour of Darkness, and Advance Wars were all there). So why play it? A game that's never made it into IGN's Top 100 Games lists of any sort has stolen 2 years of my life? No, thanks. I still play Civ4 every now and then, and I still enjoy it (though my computer has a tendency to randomly autoshutdown when I'm playing an actual game), but when it gets time consuming, I'll just find something else to do. Maybe I should play Advance Wars, Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy Tactics, or something like that to get an epic TBS all over again.

Still, my own opinion is that Civilization is frustrating. Here's my summary of my opinions.

Super Mario Galaxy offers painless platforming fun Fighting giant bugs, giant moles, etc. has never been better for me.
Metroid Prime 3 (pretty much the whole trilogy) is just a fun (and frightening) first-person adventure, and rolling as a ball through the tubes can get really fun. And let's not even mention fighting Ridley or Dark Samus
Zelda: Twilight Princess offers more third-person adventure fun, and I like how some other guys use their wits to help me in the middle of the game.
StarCraft is fun because, well, you get to shoot down organic buildings and participate in an incredibly epic struggle between three almost completely different races.
Mario Kart DS packs in all the fun with those shells, bananas, bullet bills, stars, etc., and I get more fun in 30 minutes than I do with 3 hours of Civ4.
Super Smash Bros. Brawl, well, do I need to explain why I like it?

Civilization IV, on the other hand, is no fun in the beginning (mostly after you've repeated it over and over again) and gets a little better in the medieval era, but the music is sooo repetitive, and the graphics are no better (maybe that's because I've been seeing them over and over again for 2 years). Then, in the modern era, when things get most epic, there is a huge slowdown, and it takes forever to get your game saved. There. That's why Civilization IV is a toy compared to my favorite games. And in summer, it's going to get hit by The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind.

And once I finish StarCraft, I'll take to Age of Kings. And I'll probably find somebody to play multiplayer with later.
 
Someone posts at a forum for Civ games that they can't understand why we even play it.. ?? :|
Thats like one of the weirdest post I have ever seen..
 
Just tell me how it's more fun to you, than say, Mario Kart or StarCraft.
 
We're getting there though.

High-end computers have the processing power to run the previous generation of consoles. The PS2 catalog is mostly playable on PC now, and the gamecube and xbox are lacking good emulators, not PC power.

The Wii is just a souped up gamecube, if proper software existed, a high-end PC should already be able to run Wii titles.

The rest of the current generation (PS3, Xbox 360) are beyond what current PCs would be able to do, but that's usually been the case for every generation of consoles.

Going by 6x MHz spec isn't a great rule of thumb...
Architectural improvements greatly improve the efficiency of newer processors. The topped specced Pentium 4 CPU made it to 3.8 GHz, while the current top Intel CPU is only 3.2 GHz, even discounted the 3-core advantage the Core 2 has, the 3.2 GHz chip will still be at least 1.5x faster than the Pentium 4.
Older consoles had only 2D graphics, or simple 3D graphics, so emulation has the PC CPU do everything, emulation of newer consoles require a video card for the 3D work.
Multiple CPUs and cores complicate emulation, even when not necessarily from a raw speed standpoint, it complicates it from a coding standpoint.

lol the Wii being just a souped up Gamecube means all the difference between it being able to run or not...it is 3x more powerful than a Gamecube, thus is also well beyond the current crop of computers. I agree that pure MHz isn't the only method of checking, but it has historically been the biggest difference between console and PC capacities(after all, the PS2 was less than 500MHz, and the Xbox and Gamecube were less than 600MHz as well, while PCs at that time were easily over 1.5GHz and gaining on the 2GHz range)

Regardless, the fact that piracy is always at least 1 generation behind means that consoles don't have as much piracy to deal with as PCs do.
 
Uhm, yeah, good point.

But everybody knows that StarCraft kills Civilization IV 50-0.
 
lol the Wii being just a souped up Gamecube means all the difference between it being able to run or not...it is 3x more powerful than a Gamecube, thus is also well beyond the current crop of computers. I agree that pure MHz isn't the only method of checking, but it has historically been the biggest difference between console and PC capacities(after all, the PS2 was less than 500MHz, and the Xbox and Gamecube were less than 600MHz as well, while PCs at that time were easily over 1.5GHz and gaining on the 2GHz range)

Regardless, the fact that piracy is always at least 1 generation behind means that consoles don't have as much piracy to deal with as PCs do.

3x might be pushing it, the CPU is less than 2x the MHz, but I'm not sure about other CPU changes, or comparisons between the GPUs. In any case, when I refer to high, end, I'm thinking 8-core 3GHz+ Intel systems (Mac Pro, Skulltrail), which should (although this is pretty pointless guessing, as there's no available emulator) be able to emulate the Wii.

And it's emulation which is 1 generation behind, not piracy. :)

StarCraft kills Civilization IV 50-0.

In your opinion.

Seriously, comparing between different genres in absolute terms simply does not work. I used to play Starcraft at a fairly high level (no money maps, was wining 90%+ of my games on b.net at the end), and while I realize that SC is still a great game, it holds very little appeal for me anymore. There are a large number of games that I'd rather play before Starcraft.
 
:sigh: ORiginally, it was scheduled to come out 3 - 6 months after being released for the 360/PS3/DS. That would be roughly the September timeframe. It is now on indefinite hold, which is almost (but not quite) the same as saying it is not coming out, at all.
 
I dunno that he'll believe you Padma, he hasn't believed me any of the 4 or 5 times I've told him either....:sigh:
 
Now here is an interesting list from GameRankings. Since I mainly play strategy games, I'll filter on that.

The top Strategy games on all platforms:

1. Company of Heroes
2. Civilization IV
3. Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos
4. Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar
5. Advance Wars
6. Rome: Total War
7. Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings
8. Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
9. Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne
10. Advance Wars: Dual Strike
11. Sacrifice
12. Advance Wars 2: Black Hole Rising
13. Black & White
14. Civilization III
15. World in Conflict
16. Rise of Nations
17. Pikmin 2
18. Age of Mythology
19. Homeworld
20. Homeworld: Cataclysm

Once GC2:Twilight of Arnor gets enough votes to be included it'll bump something off this list (it'll likely end up in the top 3). All of these games are good games that I enjoyed playing.

Filtered further to throw out the RTSs and leave only TBS, we get:

1. Civilization IV
2. Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar
3. Advance Wars
4. Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
5. Advance Wars: Dual Strike
6. Advance Wars 2: Black Hole Rising
7. Civilization III
8. Fire Emblem
9. Disgaea: Afternoon of Darkness
10. Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions
11. Final Fantasy Tactics Advance
12. Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords
13. Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword
14. Pathway to Glory
15. Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance
16. Disgaea: Hour of Darkness
17. Advance Wars: Days of Ruin
18. Civilization III: Conquests
19. Jagged Alliance 2
20. Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones

A truly awesome set of games. These are the games that Civ Rev has to measure itself up to.

But the list lacks ultra-old games like StarCraft (93%, but 96% with Brood War). And, even on the TBS front, X-COM has an average of 94%, while Civ4 has 93%. But since X-COM is sooooooo old, it doesn't make it.

And Gamerankings is just crazy. I mean, Civilization IV ahead of Metal Gear Solid 3, Final Fantasy VII, Mario Kart DS, and Rome: Total War? Civilization III ahead of Fire Emblem and Conker's Bad Fur Day? Rome: Total War behind Advance Wars, Warcraft III and World of Warcraft? Zelda: Twilight Princess ahead of Smash Bros. Brawl (I agree, but most critics and gamers don't)? Halo 3 ahead of God of War? God of War being behind Halo 3, Metal Gear Solid, Zelda: Twilight Princess/Wind Waker, Company of Heroes, Tony Hawk 1-3, Oblivion, Smash Bros. Brawl, Ninja Gaiden Black, Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, etc.? Bah. () has much better opinions.

And the reason I still have Civ4 as one of the greatest games ever is because I liked having that Warlords game where there were two big world wars. And let's not even mention that I built the UN and it worked AGAINST me.

@Thrallia: Well, you DO know that Will Wright described the Wii as being the most next-gen console, right?
 
GameRankings just averages the scores from the media sources that meet their criteria (http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/help.asp). They (other than picking and choosing the sites to average in) do not rank the games themselves. It is just an average of a bunch of subjective reviews. Take it with a grain of salt, it's not gospel truth.

Some games do not make the rankings (like the ones you mentioned) not because they are old, but because there are not 20 reviews which is the cut off.
 
Top Bottom