Why do people use Civ4 as an illustration of how Civ5 isn't up to par?

[SuperSmash5]

In all objectivity, I don't even see how Civ4 is that great of a game. Sure, it's fun. And I like that it's competitive. But it has some pretty major flaws and broken strategies. I don't see how anyone could think that Civ5 wouldn't. Civ5 wasn't made by God. The game mechanics won't work perfectly. There were always going to be mistakes and broken strategies and this is nothing new to anyone who has ever played a video game before.

But seriously, why praise Civ4 so much? The only reason I really liked it was because it is the only Civ game that I have and playing it was a very unique experience. Aside from that aspect, I didn't think it was all that spectacular. Like most video games, there gets to be a point where it all just feels dumb, broken, and repetitive. I got to that point with Civ4 even after trying various mods. I don't see how people can be so attached to it now. Unlike RPGs or action games, style has almost no effect on the gameplay with strategy mechanics making up the bulk of the "feel" of the game. And even if Civ5's "feel" is cheesy, so was Civ4's and almost every other game that existed.

The only gripe that I didn't expect was how hard the game would be to run. But that's not really a gameplay issue and shouldn't even be considered.

 

[Brawndo]

Because it was the latest released Civ game? What else are we going to compare it to, Total War or Europa Universalis?

IMO, each game represents an evolution in the series, not a stand-alone product. Personally, I think Civ 5 took both steps forward and steps back

 

[Biz_]

although the underlying strategic mechanics are completely different, things like user interface or performance and general infrastructure/setup should be a step up from previous iterations by the same developer

it doesn't really make sense to argue about whether the gameplay in one or the other is better because they aren't related, but people can still have a preference

 

[SuperSmash5]

Because it was the latest released Civ game? What else are we going to compare it to, Total War or Europa Universalis?

IMO, each game represents an evolution in the series, not a stand-alone product. Personally, I think Civ 5 took both steps forward and steps back

It's more than that. It's like people try to use Civ4 as a way to prove Civ5 isn't that great when Civ4 wasn't that great to begin with. Is Civ5 really so bad that it would make people rather play an antiquated game?

 

[Earthling]

Because it was the latest released Civ game? What else are we going to compare it to, Total War or Europa Universalis?

Yeah, and I would add "by the same company" for redundancy maybe but just to drive the point home in there.

For instance, clearly Soren Johnson and the team he led did a far better job developing an AI, and we knew that from years ago going into civ4. Still the same company though and they could've done a little better with civ5.

 

[ArthurIhde]

Because it was the latest released Civ game? What else are we going to compare it to, Total War or Europa Universalis?

IMO, each game represents an evolution in the series, not a stand-alone product. Personally, I think Civ 5 took both steps forward and steps back

yes,i agree with you

 

[Zelig]

Because there are some really obvious things that were in civ4, that should also be in civ5.
(Disabling of animations without starting a new game, being able to see where units are going, being able to see what workers are building, non-overlapping keyboard shortcuts, being able to see how many hitpoints units have)

 

[Brawndo]

It's more than that. It's like people try to use Civ4 as a way to prove Civ5 isn't that great when Civ4 wasn't that great to begin with. Is Civ5 really so bad that it would make people rather play an antiquated game?

Antiquated in what sense? Other than largely improved combat, I can't think of any reason why Civ IV complete's gameplay, and even graphics, don't stand up to Civ 5

 

[Todd Hawks]

It's more than that. It's like people try to use Civ4 as a way to prove Civ5 isn't that great when Civ4 wasn't that great to begin with. Is Civ5 really so bad that it would make people rather play an antiquated game?

Uhm... yes, yes it is.

 

[Oneluv]

Because it was the latest released Civ game? What else are we going to compare it to, Total War or Europa Universalis?

IMO, each game represents an evolution in the series, not a stand-alone product. Personally, I think Civ 5 took both steps forward and steps back

I agree completely. But the steps weren't equal in both directions and that's the problem. IMHO as well.

 

[Zurai]

Civ4 is the single, pretty much undisputed, best historical (non sci-fi, non fantasy) 4X game ever made. Of course Civ 5 is going to be compared to it. Hell, even if it wasn't called Civ 5, it'd be compared to Civ 4. The fact that Civ 5 is a sequel to Civ 4 just makes the comparison even more obviously appropriate.

 

[Dave_Oz]

Sequels are by definition meant to add and improve to the game series

Civ 5 has instead of keeping all the things added in 4, taken them away, so they can sell it to us all over again.

I'll bet we will get more DLC offered before we get mod tools also

 

[Selous]

But seriously, why praise Civ4 so much? The only reason I really liked it was because it is the only Civ game that I have and playing it was a very unique experience. Aside from that aspect, I didn't think it was all that spectacular.

because it was awesome? because u could mod the wazzoo out of it (FFH and Rise and Fall!! FTW ) and it kept me engaged for so many years ... to come to civfanatics and say that civ4 is mediocre ... think u are in the wrong place

personally i think civ5 is great and is going to be the best civ game ever, just give it a bit of time to mature

 

[DeathReborn]

The first thing most people will do is compare it to what they have now/what came before it. There's nothing much wrong wit that but they shjould probably go back to Civ 1 & Civ 2 and see where the game has really changed over the years.

To me Civ 2 is pretty much as good as it gets, doesn't stop me buying, playing & enjoying Civ 4 & Civ 5 but it just shows a diminishing returns in enjoyment as they remove features that worked well & add features that don't appear to have been fully thought out. Until Civ 5 has been patched a couple of times I am treating it like a Beta so i'm not too disappointed when things go awry.

 

[Kharum]

It's more than that. It's like people try to use Civ4 as a way to prove Civ5 isn't that great when Civ4 wasn't that great to begin with. Is Civ5 really so bad that it would make people rather play an antiquated game?

I can't help, but cring a bit when someone calls Civ IV "antiquated". It's only, what, 5 years old. Mechanics of the game haven't changed much at all, at least not in the way they couldn't have easily been done 5 years ago. People even discuss that V might be "dumbed down version of IV". Whats antiquated about that? I play Master of Orion and Master of Magic occasionally and they aren't far away from being 20 years old. They have the exact same principles as newer 4X, that's why they are called 4X game duh, and the mechanics have hardly improved. Only AI and graphics have improved a lot, and graphics don't matter one bit in a strategy games, 2D and simplicity is where it's at.

I just wanted to say this, because lately I've played more and more older games, I've played only about three games that have been released within four years. Civ V will be exception to that though, when I receive it. So not trying to be rude, just saying that I think it's wrong to call older games "antiquated" when they are often times actually deeper and more enjoyable than latest games.

 

[ArthurIhde]

i just want to know the reason too

 

[digitalcraft]

It claims to be a sequel to Civ 4. Why wouldn't people compare it to that? : \

 

[Venger]

Civ4 is the single, pretty much undisputed, best historical (non sci-fi, non fantasy) 4X game ever made. Of course Civ 5 is going to be compared to it. Hell, even if it wasn't called Civ 5, it'd be compared to Civ 4. The fact that Civ 5 is a sequel to Civ 4 just makes the comparison even more obviously appropriate.

This.

Civ4 was compared to Civ3, Civ3 to Civ2, Civ2 to Civ, if you don't want it compared, don't call it Civ. And even as noted, it'd still be compared.

If it comes up lacking in comparison to Civ4, that's not Civ4's fault, nor the comparers...

 

[Ayt]

What else would you compare it to?

 

[digitalcraft]

Hello Kitty Adventure Island comes to mind. This game has more tanks.