So how good is it really?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think the game is the best Civ game out there. And I don't think it has strayed that far at all from Civ. It's a evolutionary game, not a revolutionary one (and that suits me just fine). Some new things have been added, but nothing that really changes the basic underpinnings of the series.

I don't see what complexity is new here. More tile improvements? More city improvements? I don't see how that makes playing the game more complex. It adds more strategic choices, but doesn't make it more complicated.

And I like the graphics. We are in 2006 now, and the graphics should look like 2000 graphics, instead of '98 or '96 graphics. It adds to my immersion of the game (and that's one of the reasons I love computer/video games... the immersive quality of them).

[Mergle]

Originally posted by 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.

I completely disagree. To me, Soren has created the game Civ has always been in my head. It is the game I could see shining through Civ2's massive gameplay flaws and imbalances (and which was completely buried in Civ3). I'm still determined to work on the AI once the SDK is released (and, incidentally, the fact that this is going to be possible by itself makes Civ4 Great rather than Good even before I take account of all the rest).

Civ (including SMAC but not including Civ 3 and the CTP knock-offs) has always sucked me in and made me feel like I was truly building an empire (SMAC was incrediable in terms of worldbuilding). But there was no real strategy game underneath - there were just too many exploits and unbalanced features. Civ4 has kept the vimmersion for me, but added a real challenging game.

[MightyTiny]

I myself somehow skipped Civ3 altoghether, but did play Civ 1 and 2, and Alfa Centauri, liking all.

However, as I got into Civ4, I gradually saw that this one is the deepest game of the series, meaning that it has that "learn it in an hour, master it in a lifetime (well, maybe not quite THAT long )" feel to it.

After the n:th game I still feel that I'm learning new things, new tactics to try out, new stategic considerations. And this is a good thing, because that keeps you interested.

As said before, Civ4 is better balanced, and not as easily exploitable as the earlier incarnations. The complexity of options is there, but the point is you don't have to learn it by your first game - you don't have to care about the majority of things you could do in your first games. I don't think I built a single watermill, windmill or workshop in my first few games. I didn't have a clue about trade routes, and automated my workers from the get-go.

The point is that at lower difficulty levels, you can get away with not knowing half the game's mechanics and options. When you are then ready to learn more, move up a difficulty level, and start putting a little thought into how to optimize things, and what strategies are available to you.

[SpencerH]

I have lots of disagreements with cIV's game design but cIV is simply the best game since the original. If you dont want to deal with minutia, then automate everything.

[Urban Ranger]

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

It's not that bad. The trusty old standbys are still there (e.g. moving a unit with the numeric keypad) but there are now new ways to do things as well. If you don't like the interface you can turn it off completely and use keyboard shortcuts to move around.

The only thing I found confusing is using the right mouse button to move.

Originally posted by mikelazenby
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.

A sufficiently detailed game needs an interface to allow players to perform all the functions. As a result, the interface will be more complex than a simple game, such as Street Fighter (and you need to memorise the joystick and button combos to unleash the secret moves in that game as well).

Originally posted by mikelazenby
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).

Probably because of a misconfigured printer queue.

[sovietwaffle]

Hmmm, can we all agree that people have different opinions of the game?

Frankly, I think this is the best Civ game to date, and enjoy the many paths I can take (Though I've gotta stop taking the same route for Space Victory wins)

I've been playing it since about a week after it came out, and it's a damn good game.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

The only thing I found confusing is using the right mouse button to move.

UR, I ran into the same thing. After I got used to it, though, I discovered that you can go into Options and check the box for "Right-click Menu," which gives you back left-click go-to commands. You just have to make sure you left-click on an empty square. You can still right-click to move, but it pops up a one-item "Move To (x)" menu. For me, this discovery solved a few problems unrelated to the go-to command.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Solomwi
UR, I ran into the same thing. After I got used to it, though, I discovered that you can go into Options and check the box for "Right-click Menu," which gives you back left-click go-to commands. You just have to make sure you left-click on an empty square. You can still right-click to move, but it pops up a one-item "Move To (x)" menu. For me, this discovery solved a few problems unrelated to the go-to command.

I tried that too, though it added another step.

I wish they'd brought back left click "go to."

[Willem]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I tried that too, though it added another step.

I wish they'd brought back left click "go to."

When you have the right click context selected, you can use the left click for go to. Just hold it down for a bit longer and they'll move to where you're pointing.

[Urban Ranger]

Ah. Thanks for the tip. Another undocumented interface feature

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Another undocumented interface feature

What a whiner Did you expect Firaxis to actually tell you all this stuff.

[Arrian]

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.

That would have produced a different game, to be sure, and perhaps a game that he would like. The "high-end" players, however, would've been PISSED. You'd have seen a lot of "this is Civ3.1" and "they dumbed it down... AGAIN!" threads.

Can't please everyone all the time. They shot for strategic depth, and I think they mostly hit the target.

-Arrian

[MikeH]

I am not a big time Civ player. I loved and lost many days to Civ I. Civ II I thought was really good when I got it but not quite as exciting as Civ I.

AC I didn't really get on with. Loved the concept in the build up to the game but in the end "now I can have green lasers not red" didn't have the same appeal as "wooo now I've got tanks!!!".

CivIII I didn't play because I was a bit disheartened with the TBS concept. People I respected who loved AC said they really didn't like it. I think at that point I was expecting not to really get excited about a Civ type game again.

I was totally wrong though. Civ IV is a great game and I am absolutely loving it. I am learning all the time, but I'm totally hooked. For me this is the first civ game since the first Civ that I've really felt like that about.

When you got down to it Civ and Civ II were quite easy, the AI was really stupid. This game is way more complicated and the AI much more intelligent, but you can still win if you pick the right difficulty level for your ability. And you can play in so many different ways, and they are genuinely effective.

Yeah, there are some annoyances and by the sounds of things me only starting to play after patch 1.52 was probably a good thing. It's still totally addictive even with that though.

[Aro]

I'm not a "high-end" player, you can be sure.
To me, every game it's a completely new experience. I can play the same world size, same everything, same civ as I did before… And a different start position conduces to a totally different game! So many paths, so many decisions... I’m amazed! I'm still learning where to put my cities!
And we have a lot of other options: world sizes, types, speeds… I’ve just scratched the surface. I really have what to do until Civ V comes out.

Civ 4 is the best and deepest game I’ve ever seen.

But please, don't stop complaining because of me! Keep the good work!

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by Aro
Civ 4 is the best and deepest game I’ve ever seen.

It really is. Nothing comes close.