At last! The truth about CIV 4!

[Abernathy]

Sorry if this is in the wrong forum, but it kinda spans across the board - just something I came across on the ES Forums that I felt was worth sharing:

Lol, some noob at gamespot told me to buy civ IV, and he kept talking about how good it was, worst 49.99 i ever spent on a game, hands down. I start the game up, the grahpic are horrible, i'd rather play heros of might and magic 2. For being a 2005-2006 game i thought they would atleast be semi good, but graphics aren't everything, so i try it out.

It's like turn based, wtf is that. So i still play, then it's like research this, wow my city adds like a lighthouse, lmao. WORST GAME EVER, don't buy it. Kinda off topic, but yeah, oblivion is the best game out this year i think.

I still don't know how Civ got a 90 something on gamespot, am i missing something? If the attacking animations suck, Why not just get out some paper and a pencil and like, use your imagination.

http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/inde ... 91753&st=0

Not that this kind of total ignorance is anything very rare on the ES forums, but I was just a tiny bit taken aback that this kid obviously had NO FUCKING CLUE WHATSOEVER about any genre outside of FPS/Beating the crap out of stuff!

Sorry, just had to vent - I seem to have developed a masochistic habit of reading the ES forums, and it's all the Codex's fault.

 

[OverrideB1]

It's a habit you need to break -- quickly -- before all of your functioning braincells atrophy and you start thinking Oblivion is "teh bestest game, like, evah" and that buying a crappy horse-armour mod that was ripped out of the game before release is a "real cool deal"

As for the the fuckwad whose post you were quoting, take heart -- this IS Bethesda's target audience so they deserve everything they get

 

[sheek]

Civ4 does suck though.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

It was still damn good for a while, though.

 

[Abernathy]

It was still damn good for a while, though.

To be honest, it bored the shit out of me

Sure, it added a few bits - but mostly it was just Civ III with a new coat of paint. I really hope the industry gets over its graphics obsession soon. Or the console market suddenly self-destructs, or... I dunno.... maybe I'm just getting old, but it seems all we have left is nostalgia

 

[Andyman Messiah]

Well, hence the "for a while" part in my post. :wink:

I didn't know that it actually added anything though, just that a lot of the design had gone all backwards, making it easier and faster and eventually, sadly I should add, into something even more boring than a snark hunt minus the potential intellectual experience. You build everything up on a few turns and then either wipe the other players out or just sit there.

But hey, nostalgia is nice and Civ2 is still good.

 

[Abernathy]

Well, hence the "for a while" part in my post. :wink:

I didn't know that it actually added anything though, just that a lot of the design had gone all backwards, making it easier and faster and eventually, sadly I should add, into something even more boring than a snark hunt minus the potential intellectual experience. You build everything up on a few turns and then either wipe the other players out or just sit there.

But hey, nostalgia is nice and Civ2 is still good.

I'm currently gameless, so I might do just that - or Civ III maybe - err, it'll have to be 3, I had a cleanout a while back and I think I must have gone a bit nutty. My Fallouts aren't here any more, and I was looking for Caesar III the other day...

Bugger.

Anyway, yeah, In Civ 4 I just tech rush and bomb the fuck out of the opposition once I have flight. Pisses me off that I lack the imagination or moral fortitude to resist, but I've always done shit like that, and probably always will.

Is it just me being a weak-kneed power gamer, or is it a question of game balance? Should I be able to do this shit, or not?

Hmmm...

 

[Naked_Lunch]

If he hates turn-based, why would he play Heroes of Might and Magic 2? D:

 

[Goliath]

Anyway, yeah, In Civ 4 I just tech rush and bomb the fuck out of the opposition once I have flight. Pisses me off that I lack the imagination or moral fortitude to resist, but I've always done shit like that, and probably always will.

Is it just me being a weak-kneed power gamer, or is it a question of game balance? Should I be able to do this shit, or not?

On which difficulty do you play? Noble? "Tech rush" is impossible on all difficulty levels designed for grown-ups. Civ4 is the best Civ by far. It offers far more strategic options than the older titles and it is certainly not easy. Playing against the AI in a game as complex as Civ4 is unfair if the AI does not get extreme advantages. Below "Monarch" it is for Oblivion players (i.e. retards) - once you are familiar with the controls you should not play below "Emperor".

 

[sheek]

Anyway, yeah, In Civ 4 I just tech rush and bomb the fuck out of the opposition once I have flight. Pisses me off that I lack the imagination or moral fortitude to resist, but I've always done shit like that, and probably always will.

Is it just me being a weak-kneed power gamer, or is it a question of game balance? Should I be able to do this shit, or not?

On which difficulty do you play? Noble? "Tech rush" is impossible on all difficulty levels designed for grown-ups. Civ4 is the best Civ by far. It offers far more strategic options than the older titles and it is certainly not easy. Playing against the AI in a game as complex as Civ4 is unfair if the AI does not get extreme advantages. Below "Monarch" it is for Oblivion players (i.e. retards) - once you are familiar with the controls you should not play below "Emperor".

I only ever play on 'Chieftain'.

 

[Goliath]

I only ever play on 'Chieftain'.

That is like playing an RPG with an invulnerable character who can insta-kill everything. It is impossible to lose on that level. No strategy required at all. Much worse many of Civ4's game elements do not even show up. Civic upkeep for example. If you are playing Noble or lower you have probably wondered who could care about that. Play on Emperor or higher and you will know...

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

Well, hence the "for a while" part in my post. :wink:

I didn't know that it actually added anything though, just that a lot of the design had gone all backwards, making it easier and faster and eventually, sadly I should add, into something even more boring than a snark hunt minus the potential intellectual experience. You build everything up on a few turns and then either wipe the other players out or just sit there.

But hey, nostalgia is nice and Civ2 is still good.

Ah c'mon, Nostalgia is just what it is - nostalgia.
Why I agree with you that CIV 4 didnt bring in anything significantly new to the series, it's clearly better then CIV 3 which was a huge dissapointment and in many aspects its also better then CIV 2.

Funny thing, all those retarded people who hated CIV 3 like nothing turned into a bunch of nostalgic CIV 3 fans when CIV IV came out.
"blablah the good old times CIV 3 blablabla".

Sometimes, the good old times shit applies (like for RPGs), sometimes its just total bullshit.


CIV 4 wasnt that good and motivating because its the same CIV as always with a few minor improvements. It definatly isnt a backstep in comparison to the former installments though.

 

[Zomg]

Eventually we'll get the holy grail of moron posts - the kid that doesn't even understand the concept of turn-based. "It keeps stopping."

I also like Civ IV and think it's the best of the series. I know a lot of people are nostalgic for Civ II, but the overbearing emphasis on rapid expansion as the key to success is dull.

 

[elander_]

It may be the AI level is not adjusted properly for a bigger chalenge. Or try Galatic Ciivilizations 2 instead for a slightly different style of game.

http://www.galciv2.com/

 

[ixg]

eh, the Civ series is a classic one. they're a type of game that is hard to really change, but, at the core, very good.
but actually my favorite civ-type game is Alpha Centauri. awesome game.

 

[El Dee]

Civ II is the only one of the series that I haven't played, so I don't know what all the nostalgia is about.

I like Civ IV better than III mainly because in III I always found the 'place as many cities as possible regardless of location' strategy the most effective. In IV I think that there is a lot more emphasis on picking good locations for your cities.

Also, I like IV because they got rid of the AI moving its units in and out of your territory. I got sick of telling AI rulers to move their damn spearman or whatever out of my territory and have them say "we'll move them at once" then next turn the fucking thing is back again. I don't know how many times I declared war over this.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

Well, hence the "for a while" part in my post. :wink:

I didn't know that it actually added anything though, just that a lot of the design had gone all backwards, making it easier and faster and eventually, sadly I should add, into something even more boring than a snark hunt minus the potential intellectual experience. You build everything up on a few turns and then either wipe the other players out or just sit there.

But hey, nostalgia is nice and Civ2 is still good.

Ah c'mon, Nostalgia is just what it is - nostalgia.

Nostalgia is nostalgia and nostalgia is good. May I always live in interesting times (a.k.a. "the past") when games were entertaining for a bit longer than maybe a day. :wink:

Why I agree with you that CIV 4 didnt bring in anything significantly new to the series, it's clearly better then CIV 3 which was a huge dissapointment and in many aspects its also better then CIV 2.

Funny thing, all those retarded people who hated CIV 3 like nothing turned into a bunch of nostalgic CIV 3 fans when CIV IV came out.
"blablah the good old times CIV 3 blablabla".

Heh, I never actually played Civ3. I had a lot of friends who did, however, and they kind of just said it was awesome, so I suppose it must have had some genuine sex appeal going, eh?

Sometimes, the good old times shit applies (like for RPGs), sometimes its just total bullshit.

CIV 4 wasnt that good and motivating because its the same CIV as always with a few minor improvements. It definatly isnt a backstep in comparison to the former installments though.

Funny thing is I still think the former games in the series are loads more challenging than Civ4, even while playing at "Monarch"-level or whatever. It's faster and easier. Call me a lowlife but I preferred the days when I could spend days conquering the world and having fun. Civ4 is something you can play from start to finish on a cigarette break, and it breaks my heart.

 

[OverrideB1]

While I never played CIII or CII, CIV certainly wasn't as appalling as is made out. Yeah, okay, it's not as good as the original (of which I have very fond memories of wasting whole weekends playing) but its nowhere near as bad as the fourth installment of some games I could mention :D

If you're a fan of 4X games, then GalCiv and GalCiv2 are definately worth a look

 

[ixg]

nah, Alpha Centauri is the best turn-based out there :D

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

nah, Alpha Centauri is the best turn-based out there :D

Aye, SMAC beats the shit out of every single CIV title

@Locue
Dunno, maybe its just me but I didn't notice a significant change in the average time one needs to play trough one session between the 2nd and the 4th.
If you feel there is a magor difference, maybe its because back then you was less experienced in playing the game.
I think the best possiblity to find out would be to fire up CIV 2 again and compare

Like Zomg I like about CIV IV that it shifted away from the expansion and conquer fest of the previous installments.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I like Civ IV better than III mainly because in III I always found the 'place as many cities as possible regardless of location' strategy the most effective. In IV I think that there is a lot more emphasis on picking good locations for your cities.

Civ 2 allowed poxing as well, but to be honest, I think Civ2 is still the best one in terms of what it offers over the previous sequel. Civ4 is pretty good too, if only because Civ3 was just lackluster crap.

To be honest, my favorite Civ to date is Civ2: Test of Time.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

Did anyone play these Call to Power Spinoffs?
Im wondering if they are any good...

 

[LlamaGod]

but mostly it was just Civ III with a new coat of paint.

uh, no.

there's alot of crazy-rad gameplay mechanics and strategy elements they added with 4. 4 is completely different, just retains the history theme and some of the core 4X ideas.

I liked GalCiv2 more, though.

 

[User was nabbed fit]

I stopped reading those forums because of people like him, who made me want to start hearing those voices in my head again.
Kill, kill, kill!

 

[Zomg]

Civ IV definitely has lots of serious innovations over Civ III, plus it includes many retuned elements that were good ideas previously executed very poorly, like strong size-limiting corruption effects and Great People (the implementation of Great Leaders in Civ III was horrendous). Nothing in Civ IV jumps out at me as idiotic - the only thing I can think of is how strong the cultural effects of borders are, which makes low intensity border wars and resource/city grabs difficult in comparison to civilization-destroying mass invasions.