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

[Alinestra Covelia]

I haven't played Civ3 much so I can't comment more than my 2 cents. From what I remember, the game had a load of interesting and fun ideas that lent greater sophistication (heroes, trade commodities), but there were issues in how they were implemented. Also, I found myself turned way off by the simplifications in gov't and combat. That seemed very unnecessary.

But Civ4 looks much better prepared and I'll look to borrow it or buy it at reduced price. I've learned my lesson not to blindly trust Firaxis to deliver a masterpiece just because... but I'm also willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

The real problem will be pulling me away from Rise of Nations.

[Thorpe]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle


Better an ungrateful heretic than the many thousands who will spend $50 on a game that ought to play on their computer, only to find out that they now have to spend $100s upgrading their systems to play at all.

Shouldn't oughta be that way. I'm not buying, at least not for a long, long time (and that will be a greatly reduced price).

You can't fault Firaxis for giving their game good graphics. Technology progresses, whether or not you have the computer to handle it.

As for Civ 3.

I had been playing SMACX extensively for several weeks before picking up Civ 3. SMAC was my first turn-based "empire-builder" and I was in a state of perpetual joy. The graphics were colorful and timeless, the gameplay was addictive and fun, and most importantly, the atmosphere was wonderful. God bless tech-quotations.

So I was more than a little underwhelmed when I got to Civ 3. The color palette was mostly tan and muted, the secret pro- err, "wonders" were mundane and without videos, and, worst of all, there were no quotations to speak of.

The game had the mechanics down pat as far as I was concerned, but it seemed to be more about number-crunching than getting involved with building your civilization.

Civ 4 seems to have righted that wrong, so I am very excited.

[Capt Dizle]

Thorpe, I certainly can fault them for having requirements that many can't meet. And, I do.

[Thorpe]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle
Thorpe, I certainly can fault them for having requirements that many can't meet. And, I do.

But the thing is, many can meet them. You must have a truly ancient computer to not be able to play it on low settings.

Asking the devs to cripple the game so that absolutely everyone can be able to play it is ridiculous.

[JonahFalcon]

After playing for a bit, yes, Civ IV is very ripe for backlash. It's very very very very different than Civ I, II or III. It's a true sequel, and does things very differently than the previous incarnations.

When something is different, it gets backlash from traditionalists.

[alva]

Well, then many are going to welcome the backlash

[Darkstar]

Well, if it won't install out of the box, there's going to be a huge backlash! (My Disk 2's data image is bad. Bleah! Going to have to do a return, and hope the next is good.)

As for gameplay... Civ3 was a let down for me, coming from Civ2 and SMAC. SMAC gave the player lots more playstyle choices. You customized every aspect of your empire to your needs (short, medium, and long term). That and its immersion made for a fantastic game.

Civ3 was lacking all of that. Big let down. Then there were the actual in game issues (Grumbold did a very good job of covering that).

Civ3 as a game named "World Conquests", well, it would be a 5/10. But if you were a fan of the Civ line (and its SF child), there was a lot to let you down.

In general, people don't want a revolution. They want the sequal to be a mere few baby-step evolution (with snazzier graphics and more of everything). Civ3 was different enough from Civ2 to be a bit further then just a couple of baby steps, but not advanced enough to be revolutionary (ie, difference between Civ2 and SMAC). So it hit a big sour spot. Hopefully, Civ4 will manage to avoid that, and be a lot of fun. (I'll tell you, once I get 2 good CDs that I can use to install the game! )

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Thorpe


But the thing is, many can meet them. You must have a truly ancient computer to not be able to play it on low settings.

Asking the devs to cripple the game so that absolutely everyone can be able to play it is ridiculous.

Can't help but LMAO!

[Thorpe]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle


Can't help but LMAO!

OMFG!111!1!!

DFRENT OPINIONS r hlerius!111!1!!1

Please.

If you want to disagree with me, make it an actual comment, as opposed to a lame insult that makes you look bad.

[chumly]

No, because no one will be able to play it enough to post any backlash

Form what I've played, it's great. A nice step forward, with a lot of interesting concepts. I just wish the stupid bugs weren't interfering.

I'm one of the lucky ones though, it actually runs for me.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Civ3 simply was not as fun or addictive as Civ2 was.

For me, Civ 2 isn't as good as the original, ground-breaking, genre-making Civ.

To each his own, I suppose.

[Darkstar]

Urban Ranger, now that is very true. The first one does tend to be the most special, jah? Even with Civ.

[Daimos]

I'll be getting pissed if my modern ships keep on losing to triremes and if my bombers are uselessly bombing targets but hitting dirt instead. My nukes should also do way more damage.

[Grumbold]

Bombers are pretty good at hitting nothing but dirt, especially if the enemy is well prepared and dug in. However many bombers you have, eventually some infantrymen has got to go in and face the enemy to take the ground.

[wilebill2]

Civ 4 is different enough from Civ3/Conquests that I think of it as another game already, being about halfway through my first game. Technical issues will go away with patches, and Civ 4 will live up to its glowing reviews on the pro review boards for everyone who has purchased it.