Why is CIV4 still the best civ game?

[ArchGhost]

Put simply what happened is that the gaming industry moved away from the passion driven developers who wanted to make a great game to the profit driven model of earn as much money as possible at any cost.

it doesn't have anything to do with passion vs. profitability. Those small devs literally don't exist anymore or are forced to use things like free-to-play models to even get market share. The entire video game industry monetized heavily after the success of online multiplayer, with heavy investment from tech companies like Microsoft and the sudden need to please investing shareholders. So much money was being put into it, after games became a proven commodity after a couple decades, that it blew the entire thing up.

The core issue is instead of mass appeal. No one on the dev end cares how crap or not the game is as long as it can be forcibly marketed to make record profits. You do that by casting as wide a net a possible and spending as little time developing as possible to implement in-built obsolescence, creating the streamlined hell that is companies like Ubisoft or Activision and dumbing down the product whether intentional or not.

And I couldn’t even be bothered to finish the Infinite campaign because it was so painfully obvious that they threw away everything distinct about Halo in order to chase yesterday’s trends.

Unfortunately, Halo was long gone already by H4, arguably even Reach before it. Ironically they were trying to ride CoD's coattails, the franchise that muscled Halo out. CoD4 was a phenom that upset H3's grip in shooters, not to mention the huge success of the sequel, and by the time Black Ops came out, Reach had no chance at all.

 

[Daniel Boone]

I would say that is because Civ IV actually gives you a challenge. Civ VI might look pretty and have loads of content, but the bottom line is the AI, and Civ IV is much superior in that regard.

 

[TheBirdMan]

Is it Realism Invictus mod?

It is yes.


An updated version will be released within a couple of month or so.

Much stuff is already pre-released via the SVN, so it can be tested properly by many regular users of the RI-mod (or by anyone else after a download of the latest SVN-release). Anyone "just" interested on what's going on in general can read more here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/realism-invictus.411799/

 

[PPQ_Purple]

it doesn't have anything to do with passion vs. profitability. Those small devs literally don't exist anymore or are forced to use things like free-to-play models to even get market share. The entire video game industry monetized heavily after the success of online multiplayer, with heavy investment from tech companies like Microsoft and the sudden need to please investing shareholders. So much money was being put into it, after games became a proven commodity after a couple decades, that it blew the entire thing up.

The core issue is instead of mass appeal. No one on the dev end cares how crap or not the game is as long as it can be forcibly marketed to make record profits. You do that by casting as wide a net a possible and spending as little time developing as possible to implement in-built obsolescence, creating the streamlined hell that is companies like Ubisoft or Activision and dumbing down the product whether intentional or not.

I would argue that the only way to produce a good product is to set out to produce a good product knowing that this might mean you don't get market share, don't earn money and end up bankrupt. And than if you still want money out of it you just have to pray against hope that the consumers will materialize.

And some times that works such as in the world of modding or in the case of games like Dwarf Fortress. But some times it does not and you end up forgotten and poor.

But that is the cost of passion and wanting to create something good. If you are in it for the money and only the money than making something truly good is almost impossible. And I say almost because in some rare situations the two do coincide. But like, that's a fluke and not a feature.

 

[MassRiflemen]

People reported that aggressive AI cripples AI development, makes games easier.

You should disable tech trading and play on a huge pangea and tell me if aggressive Ai makes it easier....

 

[Plains-Cow]

You should disable tech trading and play on a huge pangea and tell me if aggressive Ai makes it easier....

Which scenarios do you like to play most?

 

[MassRiflemen]

Which scenarios do you like to play most?

I only play Huge Pang + 17 aggressive ai civs. No vassals, no tech trading, conquest only as victory with PA enabled.

 

[Plains-Cow]

I only play Huge Pang + 17 aggressive ai civs. No vassals, no tech trading, conquest only as victory with PA enabled.

Oh, I was wondering if you do other scenarios too with preset cities and units. I'm guessing to draft rifles under your conditions lol

 

[TheBirdMan]

I only play Huge Pang + 17 aggressive ai civs. No vassals, no tech trading, conquest only as victory with PA enabled.

I might be wrong - but the aggressive ai is only valid for the native barbs. Not the AI nations. Their behaviour is determinated by the leaders traits.

At least - that is how I understand this setting.

 

[AspiringScholar]

I might be wrong - but the aggressive ai is only valid for the native barbs. Not the AI nations. Their behaviour is determinated by the leaders traits.

At least - that is how I understand this setting.

No, it applies to AI war declaration likelihood. Raging barbarians is a separate setting which does what you describe.

 

[TheBirdMan]

I see.

Ok then - I guess I will not active that setting

 

[MassRiflemen]

Oh, I was wondering if you do other scenarios too with preset cities and units. I'm guessing to draft rifles under your conditions lol

Toku of the English is the most fun and quite effective, 40% w (less than half but close) in rate immortal, 100% emporer

Boudica of the Sumerians is top tier though (courthouses on priesthood, marble start = orcale metal casting for forges, +2 happiness and fast promos with charamistic in an early game that lasts 400 turns without tech trading and aggressive melee promos on vultures, only combo that gives em 100% win rate on immortal.

Still 0% deity and not even bothering with trying anymore lol.

 

[Plains-Cow]

Toku of the English is the most fun and quite effective, 40% w (less than half but close) in rate immortal, 100% emporer

Boudica of the Sumerians is top tier though (courthouses on priesthood, marble start = orcale metal casting for forges, +2 happiness and fast promos with charamistic in an early game that lasts 400 turns without tech trading and aggressive melee promos on vultures, only combo that gives em 100% win rate on immortal.

Still 0% deity and not even bothering with trying anymore lol.

Yeah, I mostly play on Emperor too. I can win some Immortal games, but it's highly map-dependent and AI dependent for me. At that point, it's all about maximizing worker turns, it seems. Deity seems to demand actual luck lol

 

[Absolution]

I haven't played earlier Civ games, but I feel like in 5 and 6 diplomacy is nothing. Mostly ceremonial, absolutely not realistic.
Very very childish.

1 unit per tile is extremely unhistoric, limiting the ability to play a massive army to its historically realistic advantages.
Warfare tactics are great in civ 4 despite what many people assume about stacks. Building stacks, and thinking of different ways to challenge and enemy stack, considering the different units and their promotions. I sometimes find myself thinking for minutes before moving a single stack to an attack - which units should start, should I split them, can I wait for some of them to heal, etc.

Lastly, religion is horsehocky in 5 and 6. It is a flavour added on top of a game.
It gives you nothing but a victory condition.
For time victory players like me, it seems like an aesthetic ritual that doesn't contribute to the geopolitical gameplay at all.
In 4, religion benefits your civilisation, and is the basis of diplomacy.

And, the mystic werid value given to capitals - in civ 4, a capital is just the seat of government. In 5 and 6, it is like a spirit of a nation. In civ 4, some civs change their capitals (by choice or not) and it is part of the game. As it was throughout hisotry.

And at last - vassalge. Makes everything far more interesting and rich.
I can go on for long, but yea, I stopped hoping for new things from them. Only working on my mods for civ 4, that's it.


One thing I liked about the later games is the hexes.
I wonder how civ4 would play out with them.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Personally I think hexes would be a bad thing. A square grid just makes all sorts of mental sense that hexes don't. I think it's probably because we are used to thinking of the real world as being on a grid (maps) thus making it mentally feel "right".

 

[phillip1882]

to me i really like the flow of the game. every thing makes good sense. i especially like the way they handle civics. with civ 5 and 6, the tile unit restriction is a severe pain, it can be near impossible to gain ground with the right unit mix. there are some things i prefer about them though. the side bar instead of pop ups in particular. but yeah civ 4 will always be my go to game of the series.

 

[lymond]

to me i really like the flow of the game. every thing makes good sense. i especially like the way they handle civics. with civ 5 and 6, the tile unit restriction is a severe pain, it can be near impossible to gain ground with the right unit mix. there are some things i prefer about them though. the side bar instead of pop ups in particular. but yeah civ 4 will always be my go to game of the series.

There's an option to remove popups and have them appear on the side. Check the general game options. I forget the name of it at present but I think it is something like "minimize popups" (i've used that option so many years i forgot the name or what even happens when you don't have it on)

 

[MassRiflemen]

Personally I think hexes would be a bad thing. A square grid just makes all sorts of mental sense that hexes don't. I think it's probably because we are used to thinking of the real world as being on a grid (maps) thus making it mentally feel "right".

I find this to be the only thing missing in CiV4.

Civ 4 with hex tiles would be amazing, because then civs in the northeast couldn't' cross the Pangaea to the southwest with surprise war decs

 

[PPQ_Purple]

I find this to be the only thing missing in CiV4.

Civ 4 with hex tiles would be amazing, because then civs in the northeast couldn't' cross the Pangaea to the southwest with surprise war decs

Personally I really dislike hexes in these games. Like, when I see a world map I see a grid. When I see hexes I see a beehive. Not a map. It's just not as enjoyable for me.

 

[AspiringScholar]

Personally I really dislike hexes in these games. Like, when I see a world map I see a grid. When I see hexes I see a beehive. Not a map. It's just not as enjoyable for me.

I agree with you aesthetically and that is my preference for gameplay purposes as well, but there is something to be said about the diagonal movement loophole with square grids, IMO.