Are you excited about civ 4?

[Harovan]

Oh, and before anyone accuses me of off-topic posting... concerning the orignial question: No, I am by no means excited. Not yet. However, I have a good feeling about it.

[Robert]

I'm playing 4000BC to 1950, why would there be a global view anyway? It's ridiculous before the space age.

This argument sums it all up

I want to add some more arguments to hate cIV already, in the spirit of this argument:

- it's plain stupid to have a view on your civ from a great height before planes are available anyway. Untill then there should be a from the ground view

- How can any civ leader live for 6000 years? That's ridiculous

- Why do the cities grow in big leaps
I mean, first there are 10000 civilians, and then out of the sudden there are 30000

- Why does my spearman need 150 year to cross europe in the early ages? That's so dumb!

- How can I provide all my armies with horsemen if there's only 1 horse found on that certain tile!

- And the #1 reason to hate cIV: HOW THE HELL is it possible in cIV to play a muslim civiliation and have judaism as a state religion! That's SO SILLY! ABANDON THE GAME NOW

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by CyberShy

I'm playing 4000BC to 1950, why would there be a global view anyway? It's ridiculous before the space age.

This argument sums it all up

As I said before, you don't have to pass directly over the pole to notice the difference of a globe.


This is what a globe looks like if you try to stretch it into a cylinder-like world:



There actually was a computer game that used a map like this, but I unfortunetly don't remember the name. (I bet no one does.)

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.

Exactly! And how long ago was Civ1 made? Even despite a decade of amazing strategy games being made in the mean time, the Civ series has remained in complete stagnation, ignoring every advancment made in strategy gaming. No signifigant progression has been made in the series, at all. It's been nothing but Ai/rule tweaks since the original.

Some games have acomplished more in a few patches than Civilization has in 4 games, numerous expansions and re-releases, and more than a decade of time.

[Robert]

I can see that the map is fallable compared to a 'real' globe. I just can't see how that would be negative. After all it's just a game.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I can see that the map is fallable compared to a 'real' globe. I just can't see how that would be negative.

What's negative is making the game 3D and still only using two dimensions. Squandered opportunity. It's like they go out of their way to make sure they don't do anything new or innovative with the game.

[DeathByTheSword]

There actually was a computer game that used a map like this, but I unfortunetly don't remember the name. (I bet no one does.)

and why is that because it doesnt work for a game...so just STFU j/k

[AeonOfTime]

Go on guys, it's actually quite entertaining

Here's a little something to spice up the discussion: in one of the E3 video interviews, one of the guys at firaxis showed that you can adjust the camera so that you get the 'old-fashioned' 2D-style map view, and comfortably zoom in and out, so they actually did not forget the 2D-aficionados.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by AeonOfTime
, so they actually did not forget the 2D-aficionados.

no, just the opposite - it's all they remembered.

[Ninot]

meh

the world is flat anyways. All this talk of a globe is pure fantasy.

[Daddy-O]

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

So, only reasons that you agree with would be valid.

Those are my reasons. I can't change them. I love Civ2. SMAC showed the promise of things to come in Civ3. Civ3 gave me most of what I wished was in Civ2. The things I don't like in Civ3 are very minor. Civ3 is a great game.

Things I wanted from Civ4:

Religion. Wasn't real high on my want list. Don't know what I would have done. But this isn't it.

More levels of zoom 2D or 3D. We got that, but it just doesn't look right.

A true 3D Globe. We got a cylinder.
Someone mentioned that they squandered an opportunity. Exactly! I know this was never part of the Civ series. I know this is basically a 2D board game. But, after all these years, with all the CPU power out there, I think they could have found a way. I think this would have been an innovative feature. Instead we got a rolled up map view.

You can argue that it doesn't make sense until the space race. Maybe it doesn't make sense until you discover Navigation or some other tech. So turn that feature off until this discovery. Many Civs before Columbus thought the earth was round. (Settle down Ninot - they were of course wrong and still are.)

For those that love a flat world map - allow that in the editor.

I'm just not excited and see no reason to stop playing Civ3 until the price of Civ4 comes down to $10.

[Yolky]

Originally posted by CyberShy
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.

Old engine? That is no excuse, but I thought Civ III was on a new engine but that is besides the point, there are so many games that are built on a old engine and they are good games.

The reason I am not excited was because of all the bugs,(old engine no excuse,) they released the game too early and had to patch it up,after patch after patch.

Civ III was being made from nothing as well and looked what happend. Remeber I never said Civ III sucked all I said was I was disapointed with it, after eageraly awaiting it, and it was a BIG disapointment with it, after the patches, and ex pacs the game is good, maybe great but it wasn't great when Civ III vanila came out.

HELL even Call to Power 2 is a great game but after all the patches and people made the mods for it.

So by your argument I should wait 2 years after Civ IV is out and all the patches and ex pacs are out and then it will be a great game. I want a great game as soon it comes out of the box, not after patches and ex pacs.

[Robert]

Old engine? That is no excuse, but I thought Civ III was on a new engine but that is besides the point, there are so many games that are built on a old engine and they are good games.

cIIIv was buid on a REALLY old engine that even still had parts of the cIv engine (1991!)

The reason I am not excited was because of all the bugs,(old engine no excuse,) they released the game too early and had to patch it up,after patch after patch.

For which infogrames was to blame. Now there's a new publisher that apparantly has a total different approach to building games then infogrames / Atari.

Not to mention that during the cIIIv development half the team left Firaxis so they basicly had to start all over. A problem that didn't happen this time.

That's already three MAJOR reasons why people can't compare the cIIIv development process to the cIV process.

Civ III was being made from nothing as well and looked what happend.

it was not.

So by your argument I should wait 2 years after Civ IV is out and all the patches and ex pacs are out and then it will be a great game. I want a great game as soon it comes out of the box, not after patches and ex pacs.

No, the information we have right now tells us that there's a very good change that the vanilla release of cIV will be very good.

- mp games are already been played for 1,5 years
- development is already busy for over 2 years
- beta testers from the civ-community are busy with the game for months already

The entire atmosphere right now is sooo different from the atmosphere before the cIIIv release.
At that time we were still wondering if the game would have multiplayer or not.
Just to point out how different things are right now.

We had huge discussions in those days, but people had reasons for that. I don't see why we should be worried right now.
Of course people may be displeased by some parts of the game. Unhappy with the way religion will function, prefer a 2D map, more civilizations, etc. etc. but one should know that it's impossible to please everyone.

Conclusion: there's a huge difference between the cIIIv pre-release situation and the current cIV release situation. That's a fact. I repeat: no half team left Firaxis, no old engine, better publisher, beta team from the community, multiplayer games already been played for 1,5 years. That does make a difference. And it can't be ignored.

So, only reasons that you agree with would be valid.

No, that's not what I said.
That's a very simplistic reaction to my arguments.
You can disagree with arguments and opinions. But arguments and opinions can be wrong as well.

I have oftenly disagreed with arguments people gave who are on my side of the fence.
If someone says: "Civilization IV will be great because it's been made by Sid Meier himself how made cIV as well" I will disagree and say that that argument is BS. Because Sid is hardly involved in the development of cIV, and because sid worked on cIIIv as well while much people dislike cIIIv.

See how an argument can be wrong, no matter if you agree or not with the speaker!

[Daddy-O]

Sorry to be simplistic in my response.

I am still not excited for Civ4. Maybe I'm just to happy with Civ3. I gave my opinions based on the facts that I have seen so far.

At its most basic my opinion is this. Civ4 will not be better than Civ3. No reason to be excited.

I listed some of the facts as I see them.

On another point. Opinions themselves cannot be right or wrong. Facts and data used to support an opinion can be.

Often opinions have no basis in fact. Example, dark chocolate is better than milk chocolate. Try to prove that true or false.

You could try to show me the error of my ways since my opinion is based on some facts.

Opinion: Civ4 will not be better than Civ3 because it is
Fact: not moving to a 3D globe.

If you can show me that Civ4 has a 3D globe I might change my opinion, or just move my support to another fact.

peace

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Yolky
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.

You posted an opinion about a game that you know very little about. You can't expect us to take you seriously.

[Robert]

Opinion: Civ4 will not be better than Civ3 because it is
Fact: not moving to a 3D globe.

Fact: 3D globes are impossible anyway when you use a 2D computer screen. If something seems to be 3D it's just that your eyes are cheating you.

The cIV globe appears to be 3D
I just does not appear to be a ball or a globe. It appears to be a cylinder, which still is very 3D.

Try to compare the cIIIv pancake with the cIV cylinder

Of course I wish cIV would be totally 3D on my 3D screen as well and my troops would obbey my vocal commands while I sit comfortable in my chair. Though I guess I should try to become president of the USA for such a life

Besides that, I'd rather see good gameplay then fancy graphics. 3D cylinders, globes, pancakes. I don't care.

Oh, about opinions. Opinions can be wrong.
Though opinions about taste can't be wrong. (they're tastes though, not opinions)
If I have the opinion that black beauty is faster then shadowfax while shadowfax is clearly a faster horse my opinion is very flase.

I can see how an opinion on a 3D globe or cylinder or pancake is a matter of taste though.