Why are people disappointed with Civ 4????
- Thread starter Zalcron
- Start date
I think that Civ4 is the best one from Civilization serie, but I'm still disappointed. With huge budget and long development time I have expected somewhat more than moderate improvements in gameplay. I like direction they took (reduce micromanagement, loosen the tech tree, change combat). But some things (civilopedia, UI responsiveness) got worse than in Civ3. And plus we got clunky and unstable engine. And AI is still kind of ********. Ok, AI is truly hard to get right, but you wouldn't expect all those other nuissances in a solid software. Hopefully, Firaxis will fix those. Or maybe somebody will manage to mod those things somehow...
azzaman333
meh
Zalcron said:
Something tells me that isnt going to calm him down.
Charles 22
King
One HUGE improvement this game has made from CIV3, is that you don't have to enter diplomacy screens all the time with each civ in order to see what sort of goodies they have. They also save you time by showing you whether they're willing to trade every individual item or not.
AngryPants
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2005
- Messages
- 297
Why am I disappointed? They ruined the way artillery and naval bombardment worked. They also misplaced the paratroopers. Oopsies, no combined arms for us!
Iron Beagle
Designated Marksman
One thing is I liked being able to add new units -actual new units with new graphics, not reskinned ones-to civilization 3.
I think one reason why some people are disappointed is that they're not doing very well at it. It's a much tougher game to win than previous versions and some people just get discouraged at coming in second place, or worse, quite often. Since it was so much easier to be on top in Civ 3 and before, they expect the same from this version.
Graadiapolistan said:
Obviously you haven't tried Marathon yet. At 1200 turns, its the longest and most drawn out civ game ever. With this addition, I see them giving something for everyone. People like you and I who like to strech out our games can do so. Someone who just wants to play around for an evening can do that too.
I'm going back to civ iii because, despite meeting the spec requirements and exchanging the discs, I still cant get the game to install! Look at the Amazon comments - they divide about equally between 4 and 5 stars of people who can get it to run, and 1 star from people who get nothing but error messages.
I'm not disappointed. There are some things I'd like to see changed, like being able to have fewer barbarians, and I want a throne room. But I find it the most interesting Civ game since Civ 2. Having fewer cities to keep track of makes me quite happy.
Patriarch
Chieftain
I don't see why everyone is whining about stability. All you have to have is a PC that doesn't suck.
The only Civ I've played before is Civ 2, so maybe that's why I don't have all this "Civ 3 was better with this and this blah blah" ranting.
On its own, it is a fantastic game.
The only Civ I've played before is Civ 2, so maybe that's why I don't have all this "Civ 3 was better with this and this blah blah" ranting.
On its own, it is a fantastic game.
Patriarch said:
Yeah you're right, I don't know why I expected it would run correctly and not crash on:
Athlon 64 3500+ Winchester 1GHz FSB Socket 939
Geforce 6800Ultra 256MB GDDR3 AGP 4X/8X
Creative Sound Blaster Audigy2 ZS
CORSAIR XMS 1GB (2 x 512MB) 2-2-2-5 Dual Channel RAM
SOLTEK SL-K8TPro-939 MoBo
500W Power Supply
Lian Li V COOL PC-V1000 Case
Any other excuses you'd like to try there, buck-o?
Gaizokubanou
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 253
I loved civ2, liked civ3, and loving civ4. So I can't really even begin to relate to those who are disappointed with civ4 (other than those who are experiencing bugs... those can really ruin any game).
I just wish there was a pace between epic and marathon. Epic feels tad bit fast, while marathon feels awfully slow in the beginning.
I just wish there was a pace between epic and marathon. Epic feels tad bit fast, while marathon feels awfully slow in the beginning.
It is not always the hardware that makes a pc suck, and crash with CIV IV. Drivers, for your graphics card, sound card, bios, mother board all have a part. I run on much less of a machine than you have, a celeron with 1 gig memory and a gforce fx5500. One crash on a huge map. updated video driver....no more crashes.
And all it takes to cause a crash is a weak memory cell in your memory on either the mother board or video card.
And all it takes to cause a crash is a weak memory cell in your memory on either the mother board or video card.
GIO888
King
Civ4 is awesome.
That said, it made me upgrade my PC twice (although it needed it!) and learn a whole new vocabulary (ms.diag, etc!) but now I've got a handle on it, it blows all the previous incarnations away!
The closest-up graphics, though - do we really need that? I never go the last mousewheel turn in, so do we honestly need so-oo much detail?
That said, it made me upgrade my PC twice (although it needed it!) and learn a whole new vocabulary (ms.diag, etc!) but now I've got a handle on it, it blows all the previous incarnations away!
The closest-up graphics, though - do we really need that? I never go the last mousewheel turn in, so do we honestly need so-oo much detail?
Hrolf
Chieftain
I believe it was a mistake on the part of Firaxis to give Civilization IV 3D-graphics. It has greatly elevated the system requirements and not really added much to the game, in my opinion.
Civilization is a strategy game where the overview and overall condition of your civilization is what matters. Seeing as how all the new micromanagement is done in the City sreen and the Advisor menus, there is really no need for that much details in the Main Screen. A nicely drawn 2D-graphics would be equally effective in this case since the purpose of the Main Screen is to give you an overview of your and other players' empires and the terrain. The only reason not to stick with 2D must have been to give some of the more shallow players something pretty to look at, all the while practically excluding many of us serious and dedicated players who don't have the financial means to buy new powerful computers, or upgrade our old machines to the extent that is necessary, from playing the game.
I think it is a shame that Firaxis themsevles do not believe the inherent charm and diversity that caracterize all the games in the series to be enough to make this game a success.
Civilization is a strategy game where the overview and overall condition of your civilization is what matters. Seeing as how all the new micromanagement is done in the City sreen and the Advisor menus, there is really no need for that much details in the Main Screen. A nicely drawn 2D-graphics would be equally effective in this case since the purpose of the Main Screen is to give you an overview of your and other players' empires and the terrain. The only reason not to stick with 2D must have been to give some of the more shallow players something pretty to look at, all the while practically excluding many of us serious and dedicated players who don't have the financial means to buy new powerful computers, or upgrade our old machines to the extent that is necessary, from playing the game.
I think it is a shame that Firaxis themsevles do not believe the inherent charm and diversity that caracterize all the games in the series to be enough to make this game a success.
