Your Worst Fear for Civ 4 (The Negativity Post)

[spartak]

Personally, I think its because of an admin conspiracy to refuse to register accounts set up by smoke signals. Apparantly the code is on Markos' to do list, right next to restoring the scenario league forum.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by M. le Comte
My worst fear is that, on the diplomacy screen, the player wouldn't be able to trade borders .

No offense, but this is your worst fear? I mean, I like the idea, but in the grand scheme of things, it's trivial when compared to a host of other issues that could destroy gameplay. After all, if it's a choice between no border trading and braindead AI, I won't hesitate to nix the trading.

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by spartak
Personally, I think its because of an admin conspiracy to refuse to register accounts set up by smoke signals.

[Dis]

I just hope they fix the interfaces for multiplayer and the interfaces for maps/scenarios.

I didn't like the relationship between a map and a scenario in civ3. Or the fact you had to play a "scenario" just to get correct starting positions. This seems pretty basic, but they didn't get it right with civ3. And the whole scenario process seems weird to me.

[Volstag]

Originally posted by Mace
In Civ4, a player should not HAVE to make 10-15 cities on a standard-sized map just to win the game on a decent difficulty level.

Ya ought to be able to win with Venice, and a few far-flung colonies like Rodos, Candia, and Corfu...now that would really be neat.

Are you saying 10-15 cities is too many, or too few to "win the game on a decent difficulty level"? It's possible to win with one city in Civ III, fives cities, ten cities, 25 cities, 100 cities, etc. What exactly are you arguing for?

[Volstag]

Still would be nice to se in a Civ game that building a Switzerland civ or an European Union is possible without a Chinese o USA or ____ (put any Civ empire here) ____ feel the urge to burn them to the ground as the more efficient path to the victory.

Again, as before, it's possible to win with one city, or ten cities, or several hundred cities w/ or w/o military conflict. What exactly are you asking for? Whether the player feels the urge to "burn them to the ground" is... well... up to the player. How is that the fault of Civ III (or Civ IV)?

-V

[Volstag]

Originally posted by Dis
Actually I do have games crash on me. I'm curious how often games crash on Mac users. Do Mac users have games that don't have any bugs? If so, then I might consider switching.

I can't comment about the inherent stability of Mac games, but I can tell you that there's a definite paucity of titles to choose from.

As an aside: if Mac games are more stable / less buggy, it's probably because they've been on the PC market for several months already.

[TheArsenal]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
That Civ IV will be MOO3ed.

As someone not familiar witn MOO3, I'm not sure what this means.

[Darkstar]

MoO1 = Masterpiece
MoO2 = very fun game, (Civ in space)
MoO3 = very, very bad game. Bad just about everything.

For more detailed info, wander down to the MoO forums, and ask there. They'll post for days, I bet.

[Addled Platypus]

anybody else here been thinking on some of the great mods and how they will/wont work in C4

WWII
Star Wars
and a host of others

not worried yet

[Datajack Franit]

Oh my, the Star Wars mod is something I wouldn´t mind not working on civ4

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Darkstar
MoO1 = Masterpiece
MoO2 = very fun game, (Civ in space)
MoO3 = very, very bad game. Bad just about everything.

For more detailed info, wander down to the MoO forums, and ask there. They'll post for days, I bet.

I saw a guy in Paradox OT that claimed that MoO3 is a great game, it's just that it ain't a MoO game, but rather a very good space civ game that has a different approach.

[Darkstar]

Some people think their ugly baby is the prettiest human ever born, as well.

MoO3 is not a very good space sim. It isn't a good space sim. It's is, in fact, a bad space sim, made worse due to the click heavy user interface.

MoO is not a difficult game. Explore, colonize, reseach, fight, win. GalCiv is a "MoO" kind of game. It's the basic 4x in space. MoO3 is not a good 4x game. If Civ3 had been MoO3d, not one of us would have returned to Civ, looking for Civ4. Seriously.

There is a kind of person that will like MoO3. But they are very rare. MoO3 is mostly a click endlessly through spreadsheets sort of game, without the fun of being able to make most of your changes meaningful.

MoO4 will, hopefully return to MoO's roots, and be a fairly typical 4x in space. One without the worst user interface someone ever managed to get to compile.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Volstag
Again, as before, it's possible to win with one city, or ten cities, or several hundred cities w/ or w/o military conflict. What exactly are you asking for? Whether the player feels the urge to "burn them to the ground" is... well... up to the player. How is that the fault of Civ III (or Civ IV)?
-V

No, I'm referring to the fact that in Civ III one game tactic (that for brief I'll explain as "expanding as much as possible and crush any enemy Civ) is *always* a quicker path to the victory than any others, AFAIK.

Players better than me wrote here on Apolyton years ago how they tried to examine the game different victory condition (dominance, culture, space race, etc.): as long as they tried, you still have to "keep an arm tied at your back" to let the game keep up 'till any victory that's not by world domination / world conquer.

E.g. if you are advancended enough to win by "Wonders number", you are surely with a Civ developed and strong enough to win quickly by the use of weapons. By comparison, SMAC let you more freedom, and this Civ III limit was discovered as fast as strategist as Vel tried enough the game, IIRC.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Darkstar
The fact is that its a lot easier to get support from the Evilest Empire then from any other commercial vendor we've ever dealt with.

Sorry, I explained myself badly: I was speaking about support from developers of a program (a game) to the customers (e.g. making new patches).
Support from a OS vendor/maker is a different subject, IMHO, and you should also consider the geographical location into the equation: here in Italy some OS are not supported as well as in USA, AFAIK.

Originally posted by Darkstar
From a serious business point of view, that's what matters. In business, everyone is evil, despite the spinning otherwise.

I'm not starting a "OS support flame war". Evilness was not mentioned by me. Technical difference in OS are obvius to technician, but I'm not here to teach any lesson to anyone, so I'll spare this part

Originally posted by Darkstar
As for "some platforms are better then others"... not true. You can crush any OS with just a bug or two.

Sorry, I disagree about this. Crushing the whole OS (not the application itself) can't be done by most application in any real robust environment (again, I'm not starting any flame, so I'll let any commercial name out of the post - this is not a commercial advertisment ). My collegues don't wrote games, but they know quite well the difference in keeping up and running different servers with demanding apps - using different OS.

Anyway, as in Ford legend about black "T model" cars, I suppose we'll have Civ IV running over any OS as long as it's Windows XP, at least for the start, so my post is irrilevant