Ok, now I am intersted in Civ IV now.

[Yolky]

Before I had no interest in Civ IV but after reading some intervies and previews I am mildly interested in it. I believe I will by the game, maybe a week or so after it comes out, or even the day it comes out, but I have learnt my lessons from buying previous games.

What I expect from Civ IV will be a so-so game becasue of Firaxis's previous track record (when a game comes out of a box, it's not a great game but an ok game,wich later became a good game after a year or so with a gold edtion and all patches) this way I shouldn't be too disapointed with it.

I am just letting the Powers of be at Firaxis that yes I will get Civ IV but not expecting anything great coming out from them and hope to be very very wrong and play an awsome game out of the box, and unless that is the case I will not support them ever again.

I felt I have been very burned with Civ III and had to wait over a year to play a game wich should have been done the first time, but will give them one more chance.

Davor

[nbarclay]

Re: Ok, now I am intersted in Civ IV now.

Originally posted by Yolky
What I expect from Civ IV will be a so-so game becasue of Firaxis's previous track record (when a game comes out of a box, it's not a great game but an ok game,wich later became a good game after a year or so with a gold edtion and all patches) this way I shouldn't be too disapointed with it.

You clearly have a much lower opinion of the original Civ 3 than I do. In my view, the original Civ 3 was a major improvement over its predecessors, and subsequent improvements and expansion packs merely served to make it even better. I think the way Firaxis does things, making the initial version of the game available when it is reasonably solid but continuing to work to make it better over time, is clearly the right way to go.

[Zoid]

Yolky, your fears are exaggerated. Civ IV will be great!

[Jerh9e1k5]

I do not understand why everyone (well not everyone but many ppl) found civ3 to be a bad game. Sure it had a few bugs, but it was incredibly fun!
The only reason I don't play it anymore is that I have a set turn order of doing things from the beginning so each game turns out to be pretty similar to the last. For example the order in which I research techs doesn't really change based on my situation it is normally pretty much the same. That is what I hope for most in Civ4 a tech tree that does not have 1 best way to go through it, and no one government that defeats all others. A perfectly balanced tree and government will be re-playable over and over trying a new combination with each game. I don't care about fancy graphics and such, just give me different characteristics that are well balanced and I will play the game for a long while

Jerh9e1k5

[Dis]

Civ3 was a good game. But I'm no fan boy. It still has some major problems. Most important is the lack of choices you make in the game. Too many games play the same way and your empires look the same at the end of the game. And you pretty much have to play one way to win.

This was not the case with SMAC.

that said, civ3 is a minor improvement over civ2. There is no way I could go back to civ2. No way could I go to a game without borders. And howitzer/railroad rushes.

[Senethro]

Yolky, be sure to update us if your opinions ever change. An update in a new thread every day would be nice.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dis

that said, civ3 is a minor improvement over civ2. There is no way I could go back to civ2. No way could I go to a game without borders. And howitzer/railroad rushes.

If there's no way you'd go back to the earlier game, I regard that as evidence of more than just minor improvement.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Dis
that said, civ3 is a minor improvement over civ2. There is no way I could go back to civ2.

Civ1/2 had a few good features that didn't get to Civ3
I have considered installing Civ2 just because of the advisors

[M. le Comte]

In Civ3, I couldn't stand the corruption feature. It prevented me from setting up my usual rule-the-world strategy, without which I feel lonely and desperate...

[Nikolai]

The thing with Civ3 was that it was a good game, but not as great as it's predecessors. However, it had enough improvements to make a backwards change more or less impossible for me.

[Robert]

In the beginning, I couldn't work the corruption thing either. But I learned how to manage it, and now I have no problem with it anymore.

- make sure your cities are happy (reduces corruption)
- build the forbidden palace
- build courthouses
- build police stations
- democracy

that makes even the cities far away from your capital at least productive for 50%

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by M. le Comte
In Civ3, I couldn't stand the corruption feature. It prevented me from setting up my usual rule-the-world strategy, without which I feel lonely and desperate...

That could definitely be annoying under the stock and PtW rules, although proper positioning of the Forbidden Palace coupled with the use of a leader to relocate the palace to another continent (or toward the other end of a pangea) could usually make a huge percentage of the world at least marginally productive with courthouses and police stations. With Conquests, the answer is a lot simpler once you reach the industrial era: change to Communism and you can rule the world without an unacceptable corruption penalty.

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Ok, now I am intersted in Civ IV now.

Originally posted by Yolky
What I expect from Civ IV will be a so-so game becasue of Firaxis's previous track record (when a game comes out of a box, it's not a great game but an ok game,wich later became a good game after a year or so with a gold edtion and all patches) this way I shouldn't be too disapointed with it.

In order to be a "track record," it has to occur with more than one game. This seems to only be referring to Civ3, as I can't think of other Firaxis games to which this applies. Indeed, Pirates! was great out of the box, as was Sid Meier's Gettysburg! and Sim Golf (great in the sense of being complete and working, not necessarily the bestest of concepts).

[Atahualpa]

Re: Ok, now I am intersted in Civ IV now.

I agree with you yolky. Civ3 was quite a bummer when released and I remember I didn't touch it much until the second or third patch (after which I made my own mod, because I didn't found stock civ3 rules interesting. Mainly the defensive infantry pissed me off).
But of course, we shall remember that Firaxis was much less into the civilization franchise when they released civ3, because Civ2 was a long while ago.
Now with Civ3 they came in and maintained touch with their fanbase again. That's why I think we can expect Civ4 to be much better out of the box than Civ3. They know better what we want and how to satisfy that.

[patcon]

Originally posted by Adagio
I have considered installing Civ2 just because of the advisors

Yes, Elvis and the drunken military advisor when you're kicking butt are my favorite advisors.
But I was especially fond of the Egyptian emissary.