Which was better: civ3 with all expansions/patches or cIV at launch?
- Thread starter bryanw1995
- Start date
aukrest
History Buff
When I played my first game of Civ3, it pulled me in and made me not want to leave the computer screen. I was having a ton of fun exploring the game and getting my civilization to be victorious.
Compare that to Civ5 when I get the game I am also immersed into the game and it's fun to see hexes, new combat rules and a graphically pretty game, but not so much that when my friend asks me to play Civ3 with him on hotseat half an hour later that I want to keep playing Civ5
edit: oh shoot i thought the title meant civ5 i never bought civ 4 my bad
Compare that to Civ5 when I get the game I am also immersed into the game and it's fun to see hexes, new combat rules and a graphically pretty game, but not so much that when my friend asks me to play Civ3 with him on hotseat half an hour later that I want to keep playing Civ5
edit: oh shoot i thought the title meant civ5 i never bought civ 4 my bad
Civ 1 at launch.
You weren't even born yet.
timerover51
Deity
I have Civ4, and view it as a very poor excuse for a computer game, with Civ3 with expansions so superior that I have removed Civ4 from all of my computers as it occupies valued hard drive space. Note, Civ3 with all expansions is still on all of my computers, of which I have 5, depending on which one I am using at the time. As for Civ5, I have no interest whatsoever.
CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
Civ V is a lot closer to Civ 3 than 4, its a very good game timerover51
M
Me,myself,and,I
Guest
cIV. I mean ya vanilla had issues, but civIII? Ugh!
This thread is linked to the civ 3 and 4 forums.
hardcore_gamer
King
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2009
- Messages
- 672
What was so painful about it? And what did Conquests have that made it better?
blind biker
King
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2009
- Messages
- 609
Yeah, but to be honest, I see that only on the Civ V forum. Perhaps all the dumbing I mean streamlining, had left a distinct brain damage? Just imagine how will that affect searching the forums. CiV and CIV will cause people to not find relevant info on Civ V or CIv IV. And CiV and CIV are treated as the same string during searches. Dumb idea.
bryanw1995
Emperor
sorry, I'll add that to the op. I was asked to link it to the civ3 and civ4 forums as well.
jagdtigerciv
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2007
- Messages
- 468
I cringe when CivIII hate rolls around this time of the year. Where's your Christmas spirit people!?
Powerslave
Prince
Civ 3 was, beyond a doubt, the worst of the series, in my opinion. Civ 3 was like doing your taxes. Some autistic people really get into that (doing taxes and Civ 3, both), so I guess there's always going to be some people who love Civ 3 to death.
Civ 4 was basically Alpha Centauri with better graphics and AI, and I loved Alpha Centauri. So, I really liked Civ 4, on release. There were lots of issues, but it was a pretty good release. I seriously disagreed with the 9.95/10 reviews that came streaming in (I thought it was more like an 8.5 or 9.0/10), but what can you do? Game review sites are basically just another cog in the marketing machine. They're a complete joke. Also, the fanboys were highly annoying. Anyone else remember the "thank you. it's perfect." thread that sprang up? Ugh.
So, I'd definitely say that Civ 4 was better on release. Civ 3 was an abomination. Yeah, conquests made it better, but it was still kind of like doing taxes, while you balanced your checkbook, and did math homework. Civ 4 was like composing a symphony. Civ 5 is... is... hmm... I'll have to get back to you on that. Preliminary tests reveal it to be more akin to riding a bicycle with training wheels, but, hey, not everyone wants or needs the complexity of a 10 speed bike. Sometimes you really do want a game with training wheels. It's not a put-down, necessarily.
Civ 4 was basically Alpha Centauri with better graphics and AI, and I loved Alpha Centauri. So, I really liked Civ 4, on release. There were lots of issues, but it was a pretty good release. I seriously disagreed with the 9.95/10 reviews that came streaming in (I thought it was more like an 8.5 or 9.0/10), but what can you do? Game review sites are basically just another cog in the marketing machine. They're a complete joke. Also, the fanboys were highly annoying. Anyone else remember the "thank you. it's perfect." thread that sprang up? Ugh.
So, I'd definitely say that Civ 4 was better on release. Civ 3 was an abomination. Yeah, conquests made it better, but it was still kind of like doing taxes, while you balanced your checkbook, and did math homework. Civ 4 was like composing a symphony. Civ 5 is... is... hmm... I'll have to get back to you on that. Preliminary tests reveal it to be more akin to riding a bicycle with training wheels, but, hey, not everyone wants or needs the complexity of a 10 speed bike. Sometimes you really do want a game with training wheels. It's not a put-down, necessarily.
Do you really want to make such an analogy? I mean, not everyone wants a 10 speed bike yes, but I think most people want to ride an actual bike and know they can balance themselves. Do you want to say that maybe it's like driving a 4 door economy car as opposed to driving a luxury car?
LeHam
Prince
Well, I have to say CivIII with all its expansions was superior to CivIV when it first came out. Later on when Firaxis added more units, buildings, civilizations, etc. to IV, I really learned to appreciate the game mechanics and I think overall IV turned out better in the end.
Similar threads
