Will we see a backlash on Civ4 like we did when Civ3 was released?

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Guynemer
I don't think the problem was that Civ3 was different from Civ2, it was that it was, in many ways, a step backward from Civ2 (and especially SMAC).

I wouldn't say Civ3 was a step backward from Civ2, but it was from SMAC, and that's imo the biggest reason for disappointment (not including Planetary Council-like UN; not including social engineering choices).

Civ4 appears to be doing just that - developing on the Sid's legacy, including SMAC.

[Krill]

If you say so, All I know my campaigns succede more often than not in Civ1, 2/SMAC, where as in Civ3 they failed more so than succeded.

That was probably down to you using shoddy tactics, and your inability to adapt to the game.

[marcuspeddle]

Originally posted by Krill

If you say so, All I know my campaigns succede more often than not in Civ1, 2/SMAC, where as in Civ3 they failed more so than succeded.

That was probably down to you using shoddy tactics, and your inability to adapt to the game.

There must have been a nicer way to reply to that post.

[kolpo]

The previews and information we got seems to indicate that civ4 shall be more like SMAC then civ3, but after following the early developement of many games have I come to the conclusion that early previews can't be trusted.

This is because it is human nature to anticipate and dream about what is to come, in that state do people see the possitive points faster then the negative, do they focus on the sun rather then the darkness.

Just compare previews of games like black and white, MOO3 and AoEIII with reviews and you shall clearly see this effect in action. I still hope and think that civ4 shall be actually more like SMAC but until I have played the game myself for 2 months shall I be unable to know it.

[Sirian]

Originally posted by kolpo
The previews and information we got seems to indicate that civ4 shall be more like SMAC then civ3...

Maybe it will be unlike any game you've played before. Or is that possibility too far-fetched to contemplate?

- Sirian

[kolpo]

Originally posted by Sirian


Maybe it will be unlike any game you've played before. Or is that possibility too far-fetched to contemplate?

- Sirian

Off course shall it be different. But with "SMAC like" do I mean full of athmosphere, depth and personality. Colonization and civ1 actually had also a lot of those things(for their time), so I could have also said like colonization or civ1

[Verenti]

Originally posted by Krill

If you say so, All I know my campaigns succede more often than not in Civ1, 2/SMAC, where as in Civ3 they failed more so than succeded.

That was probably down to you using shoddy tactics, and your inability to adapt to the game.

And how is one to use good tactics in a game that is at no point on the tactical level?

I'm not saying I usually didn't win, I'm saying it usually wasn't through conquest, but usually through culture, which shows my ability to adapt just fine.

But thanks for being a jerk regardless.

[yin26]

For me, developer effort goes a long way. It's obvious to me that Firaxis took the sting from Civ 3 and decided to prove they are a force to contend with in strategy gaming. Now, for my money, they still tend to focus a bit too much on the warm fuzzy gaming experience, but as my poll even at Poly shows: A huge number of gamers don't really want killer AI. They want moderate challenges and lots of atmosphere. Civ 4 seems ready to deliver this.

Now, if the mod community can get us that killer challenges to go with the atmosphere, even more of us will be thrilled. So, my money says this thing can't really lose.

[tuckson]

Well, time to stirr some things up

First of all, actually I don't understand the comparisions of civ3 with SMAC. i've played SMAC for some time, but found it a horrible game. Same with CTP.

Secondly, between civ2 and civ3 was way to much time, so civ2 was idealised in the heads of many fans I guess. When civ3 came out, I too had to get used to it. But When I revert back to civ2 now, it really feels... ancient. Civ2 was good for many, many hours of fun, but I wont trade my civ3 back for it.
Far better graphics, culture system and more balanced wonders imho were a few of the things which made civ3 much more playable.

True, some things shouldn't have been changed the way the did (i want my spies back ), but overall.... as for me civ3 was a big hit and I think firaxis did a great job then.

And if civ4 only meets de current expectations, well it's gonna be the best game ever.

[Targonis]

It may be about the graphics, not gameplay

A lot of you(most) are focused on the gameplay choices being the reason we may see negative feedback once the game gets to us. My own feeling is that we will hear a LOT of complaints from people with five year old computers or people with integrated Intel graphics not being able to play or play the game with the graphic options turned all the way up.

I have a Radeon 9800 pro with 128 megs for my video card. I for one don't expect the game to run amazing with all the graphics options turned up to max. I've learned that even a decent(not great) video card can play all the new games, but won't let me play with full video detail if I want the game to run smooth. Oh well, I can live with that. The problem is that my video card is a LOT better than the video that comes in most computers from the big name computer companies. Dell LOVES Intel so much that they sell most of their systems with Intel graphics, which don't support DX 9 in hardware. We also see computers from HP/Compaq and Gateway with low-end integrated video(SiS is better than Intel these days for video but still isn't all that good).

So, we will be hearing about how the game won't run, or how this or that are "black squares" on the screen, or what not and all the complaints about quality issues when the game says what is supported. Then we will hear about the differences in game play and how a certain set of users don't like certain features in the game.

So, I will say now what many of you may(or may not) be thinking. Games were a LOT more simple back when Civ 2 came out, and before that, when Civ 1 came out. As a result, people will complain because as technology advances, things don't always move in the direction they might like for them to go in. Many sequels are the same game but with updates. Even the game engine is the same for many sequels, and people love them.

First person shooters are a good example of irrational love of stagnation. Better graphics, new "eye candy", and people love every new shooter that comes out, regardless of the fact that overall it's all a rehash with new graphics, effects, and "storyline". It's why you hear so few complaints about first person shooters, because there is so little change from game to game when it comes to gameplay that people are happy with the new graphics and physics improvements they don't notice anything else.

Strategy games are still in the process of evolving. New ideas come out, and most are good. In some cases, things come out that are hated, and those go away. Civ 4 LOOKS like a huge jump forward in most areas. Graphics and gameplay will see some HUGE improvements compared to civ 2 and 3, but I'm sure a lot of people won't like some of the changes.

One change I am SURE will make people complain is the elimination of the massive expansion approach that is required in previous civ games. Many people take this method of play for granted, but I remember from back in the civ 1 days that the way to dominate computer civs was to just expand faster than your opponents because that was how to get the science and money you needed to dominate. Civ 4 will FINALLY eliminate this zerg type approach and it will bother the people who love it.

[uberloz]

I think there will be vocal disappointment with this game both legitimate and illegitimate.

Some people are never satisfied no matter what.

Others spend time breaking a game down to its code to see if they could have done it better. No game can withstand that level of scrutiny.

I was a late buyer of civ 3, having only got it about 9 months ago (I bought civ3 complete) so they had plenty of time to fix whatever was broken. I found it to be a very fun game in it's current state.

Sure, there are some late game micromanagement problems I didn't enjoy, but overall I think it's great.

Even if there are initial problems with the game I have every confidence that they will be addressed and fixed as quickly possible.

Some broken games never get any further support after release.

[DaShi]

Some of the people who complained about Civ3 never even played the game!

[conmcb25]

I dont think we will see as much of a backlash this time. I believe Firaxis took that lesson on and hopefully learned from it.

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by yin26
For me, developer effort goes a long way. It's obvious to me that Firaxis took the sting from Civ 3 and decided to prove they are a force to contend with in strategy gaming. Now, for my money, they still tend to focus a bit too much on the warm fuzzy gaming experience, but as my poll even at Poly shows: A huge number of gamers don't really want killer AI. They want moderate challenges and lots of atmosphere. Civ 4 seems ready to deliver this.

Now, if the mod community can get us that killer challenges to go with the atmosphere, even more of us will be thrilled. So, my money says this thing can't really lose.

The AI in Civ was always meant to be scalable in some sense. Who is to say that Firaxis hasn't made a powerful AI? Solver already says that it handles things pretty well. You can't expect him to commit to anything about the AI this early

Sheesh...even when you're trying to be positive, you're negative

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by DaShi
Some of the people who complained about Civ3 never even played the game!

But many others did. I played it off and on for years. I really wanted to like it. I tried really hard, but I just couldn't get into it. I uninstalled and it's probably never going back (even if Civ4 wasn't on the way..)