So how good is it really?

[mikelazenby]

I've been playing since the original Civilization. I've played that about a hundred times. Maybe 100 games of Civ2. Gotta be at least two hundred games of Civ3, probably more.

I've had Civ4 since almost day one and I have yet to even finish my first game.

It's not that it doesn't work on my hardware, it does, more or less (less is the videos).

It's just like, it's so busy and full of excruciating minutae that, well, really, I can't be bothered. I'd rather Play RON or MTW.

In all honesty, I've never been so disappointed with a game in my entire life.

You know what the problem is? They broke their backs to give it a "real-time" look and feel, but, hey! Guess what?

It's NOT a real-time game!!!!

Sheesh!

[Enigma_Nova]

I don't see anything excruciating about it.
Care to give us examples of said minutae?

[mikelazenby]

What are you kidding me?

[mikelazenby]

Ok....how many different permutations of terrain enhacements can you put on a given tile?

Could there possibly be more city enhancements available?

Could the map interface be any more cumbersome to navigate from a unit or an overall standpoint?

I want to play the game, not run for President of the Republic of Civilization. I don't want learning the interface to become my full-time job. I've got other tasks for my limited brainpower (like figuring why the new version of the Linux CUPS print spooler constantly loses and misspools jobs, for example).

Let's face it: everyone is playing it because this is what we were given. Can anyone really say that, honestly, this is the direction they thought this franchise was heading? I bought this game right out of the gate - and this is the ONLY game where I would EVER do that.

Or I should say, was....

[Enigma_Nova]

If learning how to manage a civilization isn't your cup of tea, then you shouldn't have bought a game titled "Civilization IV".

If you've played the Tutorial and still find the game to be too complicated, then it's not the right game for you.

Civ 4 was designed to be a Strategy game, where players test their wits against their computer, or against other players.
If you are frustrated because you find your wits to be too greatly tested, then you could play games like World of Warcraft or Counter-Strike. There are plenty of games marketed to people who are frustrated at the idea of learning or thinking - just go down to your local games store and ask!

Oh, and if your recent source of frustration was installing things in Linux, trust me - Windows XP is more stable, secure and easier to use.

[LordShiva]

Re: So how good is it really?

Originally posted by mikelazenby
You know what the problem is? They broke their backs to give it a "real-time" look and feel, but, hey! Guess what?

It's NOT a real-time game!!!!

I think this is a legitimate gripe. I have it too.

[Enigma_Nova]

Yes, we need a Sprite-based version, or at least a 2-D version without animating units that uses Icons like M g to indicate a Mine is on some Gold and is being Worked.

Anything that increases the OMGFPS is good by me.

[MightyTiny]

I don't quite get the complaint. Personally, I found the learning curve quite gentle - one game of tutorial, and I knew enough to enjoy the game.

Then with each game I learned more; looked for forums on the net, and learned new ideas and approaches by reading the strategy advice shared by other people.

You don't have to know every bit of the inner workings of the game before you get into it, just play a tutorial game, then start one maybe at warlord difficulty - that's gentle enough not to completely trample a newbie, and challenging enough for someone learning the subtleties of the game to be interesting and engaging.

It just looks to me like you gave up without really trying, and decided it's too dificult and complex. It really isn't.

If you find something perplexing in the game, or it seems overwhealming to you, then ask about it in these forums, people who know will gladly share their knowledge.

As to graphics, I REALLY don't understand your complaint there - what's wrong about the units looking lively? Nothing in the basic game mechanics has changed because of an improvement in graphics, and I think (though am not sure if I remember correctly) that there's an option to turn off the animations if they bother you so much.

Navigation of units - again there your complaint is vague; what do you propose in particular is wrong with it, and how would you propose to improve things? HOW is it cumbersome in your view, and what improvements would make it less so? I am puzzled by this complaint, because I personally see nothing whatsoever wrong with how units are moved; it's as simple as it could possibly be: click on a unit, and click on where you want it to go.

[eris]

What I cannot understand is how someone can play Civ, Civ2 and Civ3 and then find Civ 4 to be suddenly overcomplex. To my perception all of these versions are filled with interlocked complexities of various sorts.

So I have to ask, what is so new? You mention complexity of improvements and city improvements, but they were there before, especially in Civ3. I am not trying to argue with you; your impression is your impression and no one else can forcibly change it, at least not through internet text. However, I would love to hear what you find that is so much more complex than Civ3 for instance. I would actually say that Civ4 is less complex than Civ3, but balanced in a more subtly challenging way. Obviously, you have seen something significantly different. What is it?

[Scumbag]

I like Civ games and all, but it really has a "you need to do X Y and Z to win... and you should have been done with X and Z 3 turns ago to not screw yourself" problem.

For every 4 things you've managed to do effectively and efficiently, there's 2 things you've had to put off or simply couldn't do any earlier... and odds are, those 2 things are the ones that you need in 2 turns.

People here will help you, but 50% of the time they'll say the same thing the game is saying to you - what do you mean you HAVEN'T done those too things? I always get X Y Z and G done, its 'easy' duh.".

[Enigma_Nova]

Many of us are of the idea that X, Y and Z are required to win - but some prefer an A, B and C route. Others go wth L, M and N.
Though yes, we will laugh at you if you try to do X, L and A and end up bankrupting yourself.

[Scumbag]

Many of us are of the idea that X, Y and Z are required to win - but some prefer an A, B and C route. Others go wth L, M and N.

It isn't a method of paths - its a matter of "do this, this, and this... and it needed to be done 5 turns ago".

Though yes, we will laugh at you if you try to do X, L and A and end up bankrupting yourself.

And in doing so, you're not only failing to help, but also confirming the thing you're trying to argue against.

I was reading in the Civ4 manual that they brought in high-end players to test the game. Major mistake. Test it with people like mikelazenby here.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Scumbag


It isn't a method of paths - its a matter of "do this, this, and this... and it needed to be done 5 turns ago".

I'd disagree with that. There's a multitude of paths that you can take, and none of them will take you into a dead end. I saw one post of someone who was building Bombers without ever having researched Alphabet. I'd say that's pretty non-linear. In fact, this is the most non-linear Civ I've ever played. I can pursue my own course in a variety of ways that I never could before. My complaint would tend to be that it might be too open ended. Like that Alphabet example for instance.

[mikelazenby]

I think that "conceptually" the game has strayed so far from its origins as to be something entirely new. I'm not saying it is a bad game, but it is not the successor to the games which I played compulsively, which I could not stop myself from playing.

If they wanted to go in this direction, I think they should have gone all the way to something like an RPG-Strategy combo with an over-the-shoulder-of-the-unit perspective window (Kind of like the semi-3d world of Alpha Centauri only more developed obviously). I would enjoy "exploring" a world much more from this standpoint. Then they could have kept the basic strategy elements much simpler without losing the game's ability to "engage" the player.

[Willem]

Originally posted by mikelazenby
I think that "conceptually" the game has strayed so far from its origins as to be something entirely new.

I see nothing wrong with that. I'd hate to think I was just playing Civ 1 with better graphics. Besides, There's enough of the standards in this version to make it clearly a Civ game. There's some new elements and some reworking of the old, but it's not that far from what I've been accustomed to since Civ 1. Maybe you're just getting too set in your ways to be able to embrace something new. You've become a traditionalist.

I'm not saying it is a bad game, but it is not the successor to the games which I played compulsively, which I could not stop myself from playing.

I got my copy just before Christmas and I've been playing it ever since. Sometimes sacrificing a good night's sleep.

Then they could have kept the basic strategy elements much simpler without losing the game's ability to "engage" the player.

The strategy elements take some getting getting used for sure, but I'd hardly consider them overly complex. A few games jumping in at Noble and I had the basics pretty much down, and each game I play I refine them even more. And I certainly haven't had any problems being engaged. I don't know how many times now I've looked at the clock and thought, "Holy Crap, 4 am already?"

It's ironic, many people complained about Civ 3 being dumbed down and catering to the general audience, not the hardcore fans. Now we're hearing just the opposite about Civ 4. It goes to show that you just can't please all the people, all the time. If you don't care to play it, then don't.