Why Civilization 4 sucks

[Segal]

I certainly think Civ 4 is the 4th best Civilization game; Its a good game, it just not a great game like the others. It plays too fast, and the feeling of different eras is gone. I guess playing a game of Civ in 2 hours was something that alot of people wanted, it wasnt something I wanted.

I do love some of the advances, the combat system is great. The graphics are fine, I guess, I would have bought the game regardless of the graphics.

But to reply to the comment about high rating for Civ 4. Magazines earn their income from selling Ad space to game publisher, the major publishers can stick a blank CD in a box and get a 8 out of 10.

 

[hema80]

The economic advisor sucks

 

[MrCynical]

@Segal: Why not try an epic game? They're not going to be over in 2 hours. If you've got the 1.52 patch then marathon mode will give you a game that will last several days. If even that isn't slow enough then about 10 minutes of xml editing will give you a reasonably balanced game that lasts 6000 turns, and if that isn't slow enough I don't know what is. Civ 4 is far better blanced than Civ 1 or 2 (which were very easy thanks to stupid AI), and at least on my machine runs a lot faster than Civ 4. I like a slow game too, but with Civ 3 most of that slowness was due to the fact I could have lunch and read a book while the turn ended.

The comment about high ratings does have some truth, but not always as should be evident from the abysmal reviews Firaxis got for Play the World. If you are one of the ones without technical problems, then Civ 4 lives up to it's reviews in my opinion.

 

[holy king]

who cares?

 

[MattJek]

Playing a game in two hours.... It takes me at least a few days to finish a game. My current game I've been playing (with a mod for 875 turns) for the last two days and I just reached the 1500s.

 

[Yuri2356]

No, that's not what he's saying. Read through his first post. Clearly, he doesn't like numerous design choices in the game when compared to its predecessors, such as the inability for spies to "reveal" the contents of a city.

... Civ IV spies can reveal the contents of a city. Just place your spy in a forign city during peace time, and hit 'sleep'. As of the next turn, you'll be able to monitor production, growth, improvements, tile work, units garrisoning, and all that good stuff. (Same thing as the LoS granted in cities with you State Religion)

 

[player1 fanatic]

I was big CTP1/2 fan.

But if I need to compare Civ4 to CTP series, I would say Civ4 is at least 10 times better.

CTP1/2 feels like many interesthing concepts thrown around without any good detail, plus poor balancing, AI worse then Civ1 (I don't think "vanilla" CTP2 AI is capable of winning at all) and good modability (for its time).

Actually, modablity (including AI) is only thing that saved CTP2 for me.
I moded/played it extensively until Civ3 arrived.
Then I filed it and forgot it.

 

[Willowmound]

... Civ IV spies can reveal the contents of a city. Just place your spy in a forign city during peace time, and hit 'sleep'.

Actually, it's enough hit W(ait). When you come back to the spy (in that same turn) all have been revealed.

 

[Yuri2356]

Actually, it's enough hit W(ait). When you come back to the spy (in that same turn) all have been revealed.

Well, that will certainly save time.

 

[zulu9812]

TheCabal has made some very good points. CivIV does have some major gameplay improvements, such as the unit promotions, religion, etc. However, the game is still as fundamentally simplistic as CivIII. TheCabal is correct: peacetime is boring. CTP2 had great options for alternative warfare, through lawyers, diplomats, etc. but in CivIV the most you can do is try and convert a civ to your religion.

And despite what the modding community has been telling them for the last 4 years with CivIII, Firaxis have chosen to implement a tech tree and unit line that is extremely simplistic and generalised. The problem with civ games, unlike in CTP games, is that you don't actually feel like you're running a nation. It just doesn't feel real. The units are far too generic, and the tech tree should have allowed civs to develop in very differing directions. Hopefully, this is something which modders can take up.

 

[Archbob]

I've played CTP, I thought it was horrible. Just my opinion. Civ III and IV are way better.

I bought CTP with expectations for it to be as good as Civ II or SMAC, and it fell far short. There was just something that CTP was badly missing.

 

[warmwaffles]

Driveby originally called civ4 more complex.


I agreed with him, and still do.


We all have our opinions, civ4 is vastly superior in nearly every way to civ3 is mine.

When I say "more complex" I mean you can change the .xml coding for the game and you could program almost anything you want...infact if your good enough you can make a unit that shoots down a cruise missle if its incoming..

BUT that takes a lot of coding and time...time that I would like to spend 3D animating, being with my GF, and getting by with my school sports

 

[BriantheBold]

I have played Civ II to IV and I believe that in terms of improvement from one game to the next, the leap from Civ II to III was much greater than the step from Civ III to Civ IV. This discredits Civ IV in no way because it took a few years less to complete Civ IV than it did Civ III.
The combat system in Civ III seems so outdated and almost amateur as now I find myself asking "How did I put up with the fact that a Spearman killed my Cossack?" Conquests eliminated a couple of nearly useless and frustrating gateway techs like radio and introduced some nice scenarios and music, but Civ IV surpasses everything in previous Civ games from both the design and replayability perspectives.

 

[player1 fanatic]

I have played Civ II to IV and I believe that in terms of improvement from one game to the next, the leap from Civ II to III was much greater than the step from Civ III to Civ IV. This discredits Civ IV in no way because it took a few years less to complete Civ IV than it did Civ III.

I think it's just the other way around.

I kept pretty much same Civ2 strategies when Civ3 came around, while with Civ4 everything is new.

 

[Wodan]

Re: Spies have to (W)ait to reveal contents of a city

Actually, all you have to to is move the spy to the city and you can immediately double-click on the city's name (just as you do with your own cities).

Wodan

 

[Xavier Von Erck]

He comes to an obviously pro-civ4 forum creates an acoount and his first post is basically civ4 sucks.

Since when can anyone describe this forum as pro-Civ4? It's filled with whiners and non-Civ gamers.

 

[Arturus]

Cabal, the brilliance of Civ IV is that you don't HAVE to fight wars to enjoy and beat the game. It is complex in that there are many ways to win this game; warfare is only one part. I for one am a pacifist player and work on culture, trade, and research. I very much enjoy this game and am happy you are not forced into military options as much as we were in Civ III (though I do build some military because the promotions are rather fun and interesting).

All and all, this is not a simple game but a multifaceted one that is extremely difficult on the highest levels. Your complaints seem solely about warfare and not about the other aspects of the game. You accuse us of being simpletons; I would argue your single faceted approach seems rather simple. If you want more complex warfare models pick up a game such as Rome Total War (which is a great game and was better than the standard Civ III but Civ IV is far superior).

 

[Arturus]

TheCabal is correct: peacetime is boring.

I completely disagree. I have played complete games without once fighting a war and perhaps producing forty units if that. I very much enjoy peacetime and avoid war at all costs.

 

[Reignking]

Since when can anyone describe this forum as pro-Civ4? It's filled with whiners and non-Civ gamers.

It seems so -- either we have posts on why the game sucks, or why wasn't X included.

 

[BirraImperial]

Oh God, another bashing thread.