Civ is dead (or reminiscing on the past)

[Solver]

I've posted way too much on the subject before... but briefly, CtP cut down on micromanagement, had a good combat system (sure with its flaws), and introduced some other new ideas. It wasn't a game that you dominate with the same strategy over and over - though the AI was weak, and CtP suffered from balance issues.

CtP was a step in a different direction, which not everyone could appreciate. Of course, the extent of bugs didn't help either.

[DrSpike]

Actually I think it's more that you are trolling us by claiming the game is good.

[Dis]

never played ctp, but I did play ctp 2. Never got out of the beginning stages (whatever they are called). They game just wasn't fun. The stuff in the manual looks cool. They have all these cool concepts in the game. It just isn't fun to play.

[padillah]

IIRC the underwater stuff was cool. I like HUGE empires and that removed the land "restriction".

Tom P.

[hexagonian]

If you look really hard, there is a lot from the CTP series in civ4...which is why it is a huge step up from previous incarnations of civ.

[Solver]

Or, if you've been a CtPer for the past years, you don't even have to look too hard to spot the CtP improvements.

[alms66]

CtP wasn't good, it wasn't fun at all...
CtP2 on the other hand, was much better than Civ3 or any civ game before it. It's probably better than default civ4 as well, but I haven't played but maybe five standard games of civ4, so I can't say for certain. With civ3, I learned my lesson - Mods are better.

[Kuciwalker]

If you look really hard

That is, if you work hard to convince yourself.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Jeje2

Why? Is Civ played for it's graphics?

Yes, it is not a text based game, now is it?

Try Empire....great game for its time, but it was released new today it would be a laughing stock. Why? The basic gameplay elements are very similiar to civ. What stands out as a major difference? Graphics.

[Generaldoktor]

Yeah, I'll vote for CTP and thought CTP2 slightly better, though in the second I missed the nice mountain ranges, (with just the early suggestion of 3D) and space.

I left Civ2 TOT in the box after buying CTP/CTP2 because I didn't like the looks of it and didn't think it would interest me as well. So, we're all different.

Ref: Warlords; there's guys on other threads raving about Stalin, while somebody else says Stalin is the weakest new leader. I like Qin's new trait and dislike Gandhi's revision; somebody else is raving about Gandhi. So we're all different.

A bet is a bet. I'm sorry Yin had to eat the box and I'm not bothering with the video; sounds like something out of "JackAss-The Movie" or Spike TV. Some animals do eat wood pulp (termites come to mind) and find it nutrituous; humans are known to eat it in extreme conditions, I believe the survivalist solution is to cook or chew or both it down to pulp as much as possible.

Civ 4 has dark, dull graphics; slightly better with Blue Marble. The 3D including the triple avatars (yes, I know I can reduce them, ) give me a headache. The one-on-one, strongest vs. strongest combat is inane. Great Prophets spew out with unpleasant frequency as if my whole civ was run by Jerry Falwell; they skew the whole GP thing. (I'm trying to micromanage this, but am frequently undermined by the system governor, which spews priests worse than Mother Church can these days.) Siege weapons suicide themselves attacking alone. AI will never agree to anything (important, ) but if you build enough military, they won't fight you, except at high difficulty levels, where you are always hopelessly behind in tech. Barbarians spawn out of thin air, like fruit flies, unless you delete them, which doesn't seem right either.

Space race to win seems comic book, but there is no building in space, or underwater, no modern jet fighters, no carrier planes, no paratroops. Swords do not reduce cities, real-world. Archers are not the primary city defenders and grenadiers do nothing to riflemen; it was vice versa, historically. Steel appeared in the medieval era and cannon shortly after.

The system takes too much RAM and stresses the video card. (I'm tired of being told to upgrade, I don't need to for anything else; the computer I have was bought in 2003. Bush was still "president." ) I can't run needed background programs like security when I'm playing and the system has to be swept for "errors" and extraneous temp files after every time I play or other operations are skewed.

But still I play, because there's nothing better. CTP is now jaded, "Rome" is too narrow an emphasis, Civ3, which I enjoyed immensely, seems like last year's model, which it is. Alpha Centauri reminds me of my old girlfriend. (Don't ask.)

There, that's my complete take on Civ4, including all the criticisms I could think of, (for now.) So it's not a rubber stamp that this "thing" is God's gift to gaming, at least not with everybody.

So we're all different.

[Son of David]

Originally posted by Solver
I've posted way too much on the subject before... but briefly, CtP cut down on micromanagement, had a good combat system (sure with its flaws), and introduced some other new ideas. It wasn't a game that you dominate with the same strategy over and over - though the AI was weak, and CtP suffered from balance issues.

CtP was a step in a different direction, which not everyone could appreciate. Of course, the extent of bugs didn't help either.

Yeah I agree.

Other standout features in CtP was the colourful system of 'alternative warfare' like slavery units, abolitionists, lawyers, plagues, etc.

For conservative Sid Meier's Civilization players, those things are annoying but I loved them! There was actually a way to hinder opponents and be competitive without having to *yawn* start wars all the time!

Also - CtP had a system where unhappy cities could rebel, joining an existing civ, creating their own civ or joining the barbarians. I believe Civ3 copied this idea but took out the possibility of a rebelling city forming its own civilization.

[Harovan]

CtP is dead.

[DrSpike]

Agreed. It was barely ever alive to start with.

[Generaldoktor]

Even as an admirer of the system, I would have to agree it is dead. Activision's move to abandon it was cowardly and strange, but that is all many moons ago. Even when one plays AOM, an exciting mod IMO, the age of the engine and graphics is rather apparent. I think the people here that are reminiscing about it are doing exactly what the thead title says, "reminiscing about the past."

[Dis]

Where does civ go from here? Maybe I lack imagination, but it may have reached it's pinnacle.

Oh there can always be graphics upgrades and small gameplay additions. But what major gameplay elements could they incoroporate into the civ franchise?

You could always add more realism, but that doesn't exactly make a civ game a good civ game. Things like supply lines and stuff would really only turn it into a wargame.

The only major element I can think of that this game lacks is trade routes. Though the game has them, it's all handled automatically. It seems unlikely that they would increase the micromanagement of these. Even if it is for realism sake.