Are you excited about civ 4?

[Daddy-O]

Am I excited about cIV?

No.

I loved Civ2.

SMAC had some things that I wanted Civ2 to have like growing borders, and the design-your-own-unit thingy. But I could not get my little mind around the graphics and techs. What was all that? I know it was sci-fi futurama stuff, but come on.

Based on some of the features of SMAC, I was excited for what Civ3 could be. I was very excited. The increased negotiations where exactally what I wished Civ2 would have. The borders, the culture - Civ3 delivered. I missed the movies. Civ3 is a great game. I don't know what all the complaining is about. Maybe I'm not good enough to be bored with the pathetically weak AI. (AI seemed to be the biggest complaint. I don't see it.) I love Civ3!

cIV -
What no terrorism, sabotage? What's that? Let's take the spears and guns away too. We'll create the Peace Movement Unit. "Our words are back with candle light vigils".

Religions? That was covered with the tech tree, buildings, and culture. Yes it would have been nice to see how a religion could spread across national borders, but the use of a select few actual religions bothers me. Why couldn't it be more abstract? They abstracted the government types in cIV.

The units of the screenshots look huge. I know that Civ is basically a board game on the PC. That's fine. The size of units never bothered me before. Maybe it bothers me now because they are trying to make the game more life like with the 3D - they are failing.

What is the point of having a 3D globe view that is really just a tapered cylinder? Why can't my units cross the poles? A true 3D world would have been a selling point for this game. I think they missed the boat here.

I also see how much of the micromgt is being removed. Um that was part of Civ! I am not a good micromanager, but that was part of the challange.

3D Graphics, running water, worked land animations. What kind of PC am I going to need? I've got two pretty decent PCs that take long enough to process all the AI's moves late in the Civ3 game. What is this going to do to game play in cIV? I don't see the point in adding all the heavy graphics if the game does get anything from it.

No. I am not excited. In fact, I am saddened by the previews.

I guess I will be alone on the Civ3 Forum come December 2005.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Yolky
I am sorry, I forget who Soren is. Name sounds familiar but can't remeber who he is.

The lead designer of cIV and the AI guy for C3.

Frankly, you might want to do a little research on the game before posting your opinion of it on a forum...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by skrobism
cIV -
What no terrorism, sabotage? What's that? Let's take the spears and guns away too. We'll create the Peace Movement Unit. "Our words are back with candle light vigils".

Because of course Civ sans "poison water supply" and "sabotage production" isn't Civ at all

This is even more inane given that there's no reason to assume sabotage is out. It's most likely part of the espionage screen, like in C3.

Religions? That was covered with the tech tree, buildings, and culture. Yes it would have been nice to see how a religion could spread across national borders, but the use of a select few actual religions bothers me. Why couldn't it be more abstract? They abstracted the government types in cIV.

Why not just abstract civilizations too? Since the name has no gameplay effect, why do you care?

The units of the screenshots look huge. I know that Civ is basically a board game on the PC. That's fine. The size of units never bothered me before. Maybe it bothers me now because they are trying to make the game more life like with the 3D - they are failing.

What is the point of having a 3D globe view that is really just a tapered cylinder? Why can't my units cross the poles? A true 3D world would have been a selling point for this game. I think they missed the boat here.

Because if they had made it actually spherical they would have had to ditch the entire tile system and move to hexes or something and God knows you would be complaining about that.

I also see how much of the micromgt is being removed. Um that was part of Civ! I am not a good micromanager, but that was part of the challange.

Right... because it's such a HUGE challenge to play Pollution Whack-a-Mole

[Solver]

Religions? That was covered with the tech tree, buildings, and culture. Yes it would have been nice to see how a religion could spread across national borders, but the use of a select few actual religions bothers me. Why couldn't it be more abstract? They abstracted the government types in cIV.

Religions are a new concept in Civ4 that bring a new thing to the gameplay. That's good. More abstract? They are already abstract as all religions are the same. How exactly are you bothered by the selection of these exact religions?

What is the point of having a 3D globe view that is really just a tapered cylinder? Why can't my units cross the poles? A true 3D world would have been a selling point for this game. I think they missed the boat here.

The best thing about the 3D view apparently is that you can zoom in and out easily, as well as rotate the map if you want, and have different views to play however you want. No need to cross the poles. If it was in, they'd basically have pretty big landmasses for the Antacrtica and the North pole which you'd never want to cross anyway.

[General Ludd]

I'm not excited. Eager, maybe, to see just how big of a screw-up it turns out to be. But not really excited.

Originally posted by CyberShy
Oh my
After the first months of enthousiasm finally the negative feelings have entered the board.

I've been popping in here occasionally for a long time now.

It doesn't matter how good something is, some people will always voice their criticism.

It doesn't matter how bad something is, some people will always lap it up.

Get a life, enjoy your life, instead of bashing and critisizing your way through it.

Indeed.

Please move over from this messageboard and don't poison it. In fact: please disconnect from the internet. I'm ashamed for being part of this "never enough / never satisfied" race.

You're the one who's satisified with anything you're given. Go play in a sandbox.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Solver

The best thing about the 3D view apparently is that you can zoom in and out easily, as well as rotate the map if you want, and have different views to play however you want.

That's not particularily amazing as far as "best things" go. Infact, it's pretty frivelous - a novelty at best. It's not a game-making feature. Certainly nothing to justify a new game engine and higher system requirements.

No need to cross the poles. If it was in, they'd basically have pretty big landmasses for the Antacrtica and the North pole which you'd never want to cross anyway.

Yes... because russia, for instance, would never want to fly across the north poll in the event of a war with the United States. It's just too big of a land mass, and really cold too. They'd just go the long way to avoid it.

[Kuciwalker]

That's not particularily amazing as far as "best things" go. Infact, it's pretty frivelous - a novelty at best. It's not a game-making feature. Certainly nothing to justify a new game engine and higher system requirements.

I'd say it's quite useful to be able to change your view to some arbitrary zoom and angle. It doesn't even require much higher system requirements - according to Firaxis, 1 GHz and 256 megs.

Yes... because russia, for instance, would never want to fly across the north poll in the event of a war with the United States. It's just too big of a land mass, and really cold too. They'd just go the long way to avoid it.

That's an inane argument, because the only thing Russia would be shooting over the poles are nukes, and the ICBM's can hit anywhere on the map anyway.

And of course the entire map system should be changed to accomodate something of improbable utility (how often will the two superpowers be directly across the poles from each other?) in the very late game.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

That's not particularily amazing as far as "best things" go. Infact, it's pretty frivelous - a novelty at best. It's not a game-making feature. Certainly nothing to justify a new game engine and higher system requirements.

I'd say it's quite useful to be able to change your view to some arbitrary zoom and angle.

Why? it's a board game. Changing the zoom and angle isn't going to help you see anything on a two dimensional plane. If anything, it will only make it more difficult to see.

That's an inane argument, because the only thing Russia would be shooting over the poles are nukes, and the ICBM's can hit anywhere on the map anyway.

I don't believe they would only be "shooting nukes" but flying planes in general. As far as I understand, most of the nukes would of been delivered by bombers, not missles, and certainly not ICBMs.

And not to mention that the north and south poles could potentially have usable water ways or land bridges when playing on a non-earth-like planet.

And of course the entire map system should be changed to accomodate something of improbable utility

No, it should be changed because it's antiquated.

how often will the two superpowers be directly across the poles from each other?

Given the nature of a sphere, quite often.

[Kuciwalker]

Why? it's a board game. Changing the zoom and angle isn't going to help you see anything on a two dimensional plane. If anything, it will only make it more difficult to see.

Some people find it easier to use the isometric view; others prefer going back to the original top-down. And zooming definately does help you see things on a two-dimensional map...

Given the nature of a sphere, quite often.

Actually, given the nature of a sphere, it's the least likely arrangement.

I don't believe they would only be "shooting nukes" but flying planes in general. As far as I understand, most of the nukes would of been delivered by bombers, not missles, and certainly not ICBMs.

Civ has never had nuclear bombers though, and there's no reason to think it would.

And I don't think run-of-the-mill strategic bombing was cost-effective over the poles.

And not to mention that the north and south poles could potentially have usable water ways or land bridges when playing on a non-earth-like planet.

Even if there's no continent, they'll be frozen over.

No, it should be changed because it's antiquated.

Hexes are even more so.

[Yolky]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


The lead designer of cIV and the AI guy for C3.

Frankly, you might want to do a little research on the game before posting your opinion of it on a forum...

Why should I have to do research before I post? I thought that is why we have these forums so we could ask questions that we don't know about.

Anyways why would I have done the research on Soren on the first place? That had nothing to do with my origanl post.

[Yolky]

Please lock this thread since it seems it has nothing to do with my origianl question. Some people are saying if they are or arn't excited, others are not.

Thread has lost it's point now. Might start it again later.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Some people find it easier to use the isometric view; others prefer going back to the original top-down. And zooming definately does help you see things on a two-dimensional map...

Zooming in the fashion that you are in favor of doesn't really help. You only need two levels of zoom - a detailed view, and an overall view. More usefull are different map overlays.

Actually, given the nature of a sphere, it's the least likely arrangement.

Very few arrangments would have a path along the equator as the quickest route. You don't even have to pass the pole for a route to be shortened on a sphere where it can not possibly be represented on a cylinder.

Civ has never had nuclear bombers though, and there's no reason to think it would.[/quote]

It does have bombers, fighters, helicopters, paratroopers, and all other manors of air units, however, and there's no reason to think that Civ4 shouldn't expand it's horizons. (even though there's plenty of reasons to think that it won't)

Even if there's no continent, they'll be frozen over.

Note that I said non-earth-like. The extent that they're frozen would be variable.

Hexes are even more so.

Indeed. I don't think I mentioned anything about hexes, though... But since you have, they are atleast somewhat more flexible than the square grid system which was antiquated even before Civ1.

[ISTANBUL]

Civ4 will probably fall very short of meeting my expectations. I "was" excited about Civ4 before seeing the screenshots. I loved Civ2, CTP2 and Civ3. However, Civ4 map looks pathetic, if not outright ugly. Cities look bad. Forests look bad. Units are disproportionately tall. The new defense bonus system (the more a unit sits atop a mountain the more defense bonus it gets) is nice, but the promotion system may be overcomplicated. The global view looks bad. WYS/WYG city views could be much better.

The map is supposed to be realistic, but it looks not. Gridlike, maybe even more than civ3.

3D doesn't mean much for a game played on "maps". The number of zoom levels will not affect much. Poles, spherical world or whatever doesn't matter. I'm playing 4000BC to 1950, why would there be a global view anyway? It's ridiculous before the space age.

I wish they worked on the looks more carefully, but they rather focused on 3D, in terms of visuals.

I bought Pirates! (unfortunately graded 9.2 on gamespot), played 2 weeks or so and gave it away free to a friend. I'm afraid civ4 may have the same fate.

[Robert]

The reason why cIIIv didn't meet the expectations and why it got that many bugs was because cIIIv was build on old engines.

cIV is being made from nothing.
It's not valid to say that you have low expections for cIV because you didn't like cIIIv since Firaxis has listened to the feedback on cIIIv and decided to not continue on the cIIIv engine.

Further: I see no reason why micromanagement has been removed. It's still there, if you want it. But if you don't want micromanagement you have ways to avoid it.

Though the new religion model, the promotions model, the civics model really come with more micromanagement possibilities.

Of course the units are large.
They were in cIv, cIIv and cIIIv as well.
You don't want to stare at the map looking for your units, do you?

Not being able to pass the poles? C'mon, that's not a reason to not like the game. you've never been able to pass the poles in any civ game to date.

Hate the game because it has a globe?

Please, come with better reasons to not like what you've seen in the cIV previews.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by ISTANBUL
Civ4 will probably fall very short of meeting my expectations. I "was" excited about Civ4 before seeing the screenshots. I loved Civ2, CTP2 and Civ3. However, Civ4 map looks pathetic, if not outright ugly. Cities look bad. Forests look bad. Units are disproportionately tall. The new defense bonus system (the more a unit sits atop a mountain the more defense bonus it gets) is nice, but the promotion system may be overcomplicated. The global view looks bad. WYS/WYG city views could be much better.

The map is supposed to be realistic, but it looks not. Gridlike, maybe even more than civ3.

3D doesn't mean much for a game played on "maps". The number of zoom levels will not affect much. Poles, spherical world or whatever doesn't matter. I'm playing 4000BC to 1950, why would there be a global view anyway? It's ridiculous before the space age.

I wish they worked on the looks more carefully, but they rather focused on 3D, in terms of visuals.

I bought Pirates! (unfortunately graded 9.2 on gamespot), played 2 weeks or so and gave it away free to a friend. I'm afraid civ4 may have the same fate.

Who in his right mind would judge about a turn based strategy game based solely on graphics? Graphics is fluff, not more.

Whaaaaaa whaaaaa I don't like chess because I can't stand the look of the rook. It looks like a buttplug! . And the bishop, which isn't even close to how a real bishop looks. And alternately colored squares are teh suck!!1!