Anyone else severely disappointed in Civ4? (RANT)

[siredgar]

Okay, so I was going to wait until all the patches were out and the price had gone down. But I caved and bought the game. And at full price from the store, too.

What do I think? Well, I played a few couple of short games (until 1100 AD and 1500 AD using Mongolia and Arabia, respectively) and I got so bored and frustrated that I quit and decided to play Age of Mythology instead.

Why? Because Age of Mythology is a game that actually works and it's fun to play. Civ4 does not really work and just becomes a chore. This is by the far the most disappointing one in the series. The other ones, especially Civ3, I had a lot of problems with (that got me very upset at times). But they were still addictive and enjoyable. (CIV2 IS STILL THE BEST!!!)

First impression: Civ4 looks like it's still in beta. You load the game and the screen says something like, "Load Greeting_SAV4." It takes a long while to start and the clicks are not smooth (there is often a delay).

I am running it on a Pentium 4, 3GB, 512 MB, and Nvidia GeForce 3. And the game speed is fine, but the delays after clicking on buttons is annoying.

The introduction by Leonard Nemoy was not necessary. It is boring and the graphics are TERRIBLE! Why do I have to listen to one-third of it each time before I start a game??? And I don't need a commentary on the origins of the planet and evolution. That really isn't relevant to civilization! Why couldn't there just been an introduction about building villages and cities and great monuments to their gods and then tanks and missiles and launching into space?

Okay, next: I don't like the use of the word "Empire". Not all civilizations were empires. They should have just left it to peoples like previous editions. In Civ3, the term "Arabia" was even annoying, but "Arabian Empire"?

Why do some civs have two leaders and others only one? This destroys the concept of balance in the game. Also, when the game ends, the leader rankings by name have returned (I think something from Civ1). It is very Western-centric and unnecessary. Was Caesar the greatest ruler of all time? Debatable. Especially since he is ruler of the Roman Empire civ, that puts a bias in the game.

So, at first, I was confused about how to play and I still don't know all the buttons. But, initially, the game looks a lot like Call to Power. After a playing it a while, it started feeling like Civ3. Too much like Civ3.

The concept of civics and religion is new though. But also doesn't really make sense. I hope they can get it so that you can make civs prefer certain religions (and also monuments, etc.) I always thought there should be a preference for civs to act like the way they really did (i.e. Chinese adopt confucianism and build The Great Wall).

I soon found myself bankrupt from expanding too fast. Yet, there was no way to build a marketplace. What gives?!!

Promoting units by specialization is cool. But the animals are way too easy to kill. I think bears and lions should have about a one-third to one-half chance of killing scouts and even warriors.

Trade is confusing. I can't seem to offer a technology for gold. I can't mix trades (resources, gold, maps, etc.) The AI still trade like *****es making ridiculous requests. I do like the way, they are more willing to give gifts though.

Making the boats not be able to move into waters they would sink in is good. Letting workers build roads connecting cities with one click is very good.

The map is beautiful. I love the way it zooms out and I like the fact that you have no idea of where you are on the globe until later in the game. The music is pretty good.

The quotes by Leonard Nemoy are totally inane.

BRING BACK THE VIDEOS FOR GREAT WONDERS FROM CIV2!!!

Even in epic mode, units become obsolete by the time you build them.

You can't build cities wherever you want, which is overall a good thing because I didn't like the way the AI would find a little empty space within your territory and found a city. But it also really limits the spacing between cities. There was plenty of empty space where I wanted to found a city, but it wouldn't let me.

I don't know how to raise taxes!!! I quit after I went bankrupt twice.

Regardless, I found the game kinda boring. Maybe I will get into it later. But it just didn't do it for me like Civ1-3. It just doesn't have that magic. Civ 2 was extraordinarily addictive and had me glued instantly. Civ4 doesn't do it for me at all.

ALSO, I KNEW THIS WOULD NEED A LOT OF PATCHES, BUT I HAD NO EXTENT WHAT AN UNFINISHED GAME THIS WOULD BE. THE PEOPLE WHO PUT THIS OUT SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES!!!

There are all these messages like "ENTER_TEXT_GREET001.SAV" or bull**** like that.

Oh yeah, and the tape at the end where you get to see what had happened SUCKS SO BAD. Really terrible graphics. As is the rating graphics.

And the interface is terrible, especially for the advisors. It just doesn't look like a finished game at all.

I can't understand how reviewers can give such high marks to such a poorly completed product.



Grade: D+

For comparison...

Civ1: B+
Civ2: A-
Civ3: B

[polarnomad]

I think it's the best Civ yet, perhaps you need to let it grow on you. Sounds like you haven't played it very much.

[Blake]

I kind of hope this is a troll...

I had to laugh at the bit about animals. Bears USUALLY kill warriors!

Taxes? They are AUTOMATICALLY raised so you don't go bankrupt.

[nbarclay]

It sounds to me like siredgar missed the fact that Civ IV is deliberately designed to counter ICS by making it unacceptably expensive to build too many cities too early in the game.

[evizaer]

The topic starter is such a troll. He sounds like he never played through even half the game.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by nbarclay
It sounds to me like siredgar missed the fact that Civ IV is deliberately designed to counter ICS by making it unacceptably expensive to build too many cities too early in the game.

Well, that's amply proven by his claiming he couldn't build a marketplace.

He might want to try discovering currency...

[siredgar]

Originally posted by evizaer
The topic starter is such a troll. He sounds like he never played through even half the game.

Considering I have more posts on here than you, I would more likely think that you are the troll.

I don't understand why people on the Internet are always quick to label someone a troll just because they have bad things to say about something. That's really stupid and annoying.

I am not a troll. I don't work for any game companies. I am a big fan of the Civ series (from the original version at that) and I don't like Civ4. At least not yet.

With all the little things I don't like about the game, I would at least expect the people who made it to ship one that at least appears to be a regular, functioning game. This is a joke! Did they even bother to play it even once before deciding to ship?!!!

From your posts questioning me, I wonder if any of YOU have ever even played it yet.

By the way, not one bear killed any of my warriors. A panther killed one of my scouts and that was it. I played chieftain, warlord, and noble levels.

[Senethro]

This is uninformed and heavily opinionated.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Well, that's amply proven by his claiming he couldn't build a marketplace.

He might want to try discovering currency...

Okay, I admit that I expanded too fast. But I did have the most Civ points on the continent I was on (there were four other AIs: Russia, India, Germany, and Mali).

I had over 400 gold and later got more by selling stuff, but the negative kept going up to like -30 and I couldn't develop any more technology. It happened too suddenly. There was no way to adjust things to get more gold. The civ was doomed. That happened to me twice. I tried to change the emphasis to gold in cities, but it only helped by a few pieces.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Senethro
This is uninformed and heavily opinionated.

It's based on me playing the game a few times. I am not saying I am an expert at the game, but how could I be when I am already bored and quit. I enjoyed playing my several year-old Age of Mythology more (which I have played to death).

I am not saying I will not play the game ever again. I probably will and I might like it more. But what I am saying is that this is least fun one of the series yet. It totally lost my interest. And that has never happened before with any of the other ones. I even found Civ3 fascinating from the beginning (despite its many, many bugs and major lag).

Yes, it is opinionated. It's my friggin' opinion. Got a problem with that? I warned you it was a rant. Am I not entitled to an opinion?

[Senethro]

Originally posted by siredgar
Yes, it is opinionated. It's my friggin' opinion. Got a problem with that?

Yes, I challenge you to internet fisticuffs.

Basically, what are you trying to prove here? That not everyone likes or can like the game? That some people will just "prefer" earlier versions? That it needs a bugfix patch and compatibility/optimisation for many hardwares? These are all a given really.

[siredgar]

I guess my main point, besides all of those things, is that the latest version doesn't have the magic of the series. Sure, I had problems with the other games (maybe not Civ2 though, I enjoyed that one from the beginning). But never before had I (almost) completely lost interest so quickly.

Also, I just can't believe they could ship the game in this state. With Civ3, there were problems in lag and LOTS of bugs, but I don't recall so many interface and text mistakes like in Civ4.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by siredgar
From your posts questioning me, I wonder if any of YOU have ever even played it yet.

Funny you should say this, since it's YOU who have been getting so many things flat-out wrong about the game. Care for some examples?

The introduction by Leonard Nemoy was not necessary. It is boring and the graphics are TERRIBLE! Why do I have to listen to one-third of it each time before I start a game??? And I don't need a commentary on the origins of the planet and evolution. That really isn't relevant to civilization! Why couldn't there just been an introduction about building villages and cities and great monuments to their gods and then tanks and missiles and launching into space?

For such a fan of the Civ series, I find it out that you didn't pick up on the fact that this is the SAME intro that is in Civ1, just voiced instead of a text crawl. It's called paying homage to its predecessor. And it's just to pass the time while the game loads, so who cares?

Okay, next: I don't like the use of the word "Empire". Not all civilizations were empires. They should have just left it to peoples like previous editions. In Civ3, the term "Arabia" was even annoying, but "Arabian Empire"?

Oh this is the height of PC stupidity. Who cares? What matters is they all get the same treatment. Civ4 isn't about historical simulation, it's about historical fantasy. And in some other reality maybe there could have been an Arabian Empire. Again, so what? If you *really* hate it, it's pretty damn easy to change the word to whatever you like in the XML files.

Why do some civs have two leaders and others only one? This destroys the concept of balance in the game.

Huh? What does that have to do with balance? You don't play against both leaders of a civ at once, after all. "Balance" means that in the game all the civs start off on more or less an equal footing (while still having unique qualities). And what does this have to do with gameplay again?

Also, when the game ends, the leader rankings by name have returned (I think something from Civ1). It is very Western-centric and unnecessary. Was Caesar the greatest ruler of all time? Debatable. Especially since he is ruler of the Roman Empire civ, that puts a bias in the game.

Uh, the Caesar in the rankings is Augustus Caesar, not Julius. It's Julius that is in the game. And there are plenty of non-western rulers on that list (Mandela, Shaka Zulu, Hammurabi...). And if they had to limit themselves to leaders who didn't represent Civs in the game, then it would be a pretty limited selection. You'll note none of the leaders who are on the list are in the game.

So, at first, I was confused about how to play and I still don't know all the buttons. But, initially, the game looks a lot like Call to Power. After a playing it a while, it started feeling like Civ3. Too much like Civ3.

Call to Power? Civ4 looks nothing like either CtP. Where on earth does this come from?

And here's a novel idea: if you want to learn the buttons, read the manual or do the tutorial. Why is that such a problem?

The concept of civics and religion is new though. But also doesn't really make sense. I hope they can get it so that you can make civs prefer certain religions (and also monuments, etc.) I always thought there should be a preference for civs to act like the way they really did (i.e. Chinese adopt confucianism and build The Great Wall).

Why not just hard code it so all civs only adopt a religion they really did, and make it so they can only build wonders they really did, and only have units they really did... oh wait, that's not Civ, and it would suck. Not to mention be unbalanced, eh? Civ4 is not, repeat NOT historical simulation. It would be boring if it were. Go play EU.

I soon found myself bankrupt from expanding too fast. Yet, there was no way to build a marketplace. What gives?!!

Tricksy game designers decided to have a means to counter ICS. Expanding too much creates too much pressure on your economy and leads to big problems. Hmmm, seems historically realistic to me. And you build a marketplace once you research currency. It's been that way in every single Civ game to date.

Promoting units by specialization is cool. But the animals are way too easy to kill. I think bears and lions should have about a one-third to one-half chance of killing scouts and even warriors.

First, as has been noted, I've had warriors and scouts getting slaughtered by animals frequently. Second, I'd say that's rather unrealistic. Primitive men were regularly hunting bears and wolves and such. By the dawn of civilization, humans being killed by them would have been a pretty rare, isolated occurence.

Trade is confusing. I can't seem to offer a technology for gold. I can't mix trades (resources, gold, maps, etc.) The AI still trade like *****es making ridiculous requests. I do like the way, they are more willing to give gifts though.

I've bought/sold techs for gold all the time. You can't trade techs until a certain point in the game. You also can't trade a yearly gold payment for a tech. That's a good thing, as it was a cheap exploit (Make trade, get new tech, cancel deal next turn). Same holds true for resources for techs.

The quotes by Leonard Nemoy are totally inane.

Your opinion. And I find some to be so, yes. But again, so what? This has nothing to do with gameplay.

Even in epic mode, units become obsolete by the time you build them.

I've not experienced this. Epic mode, large map works pretty well for me in this regard.

But it also really limits the spacing between cities. There was plenty of empty space where I wanted to found a city, but it wouldn't let me.

The only reason it wouldn't let you is if it's 2 squares or less from another city. Given the new mechanics of the game, it would be a bad idea to put a city that close to another anyway.

I don't know how to raise taxes!!! I quit after I went bankrupt twice.

If you mean you don't know how to adjust the percentage of your income going to wealth/science, it's on the main screen in the top left corner of the map display. It's the flask with the +/- buttons next to it.

ALSO, I KNEW THIS WOULD NEED A LOT OF PATCHES, BUT I HAD NO EXTENT WHAT AN UNFINISHED GAME THIS WOULD BE. THE PEOPLE WHO PUT THIS OUT SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES!!!

Oh please. The game works fine for most people. Why should they be ashamed of putting out a product that works great for most people and is garnering all-round rave reviews for being fun? Oh, because someone like you has barely touched it and is giving it the thumbs down. Boo-hoo

Oh yeah, and the tape at the end where you get to see what had happened SUCKS SO BAD. Really terrible graphics. As is the rating graphics.

It's pretty much the same as Civ3 (but still better, as it gives more info). And it's certainly better than Civ1. And what does this have to do with the gameplay again?

And the interface is terrible, especially for the advisors. It just doesn't look like a finished game at all.

This is a matter of opinion, really, but compared to Civ3, it's infinitely better-looking and more polished. And I (and most reviewers) find the interface to be the best of the series. It's very intuitive and things are easy to find. Everything is pretty much accessible from the main map view, which is great. It's leaps about bounds better than any Civ interface so far.

I can't understand how reviewers can give such high marks to such a poorly completed product.

The reviewers probably actually played more than 2 half games and put some thought into it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by siredgar
Okay, I admit that I expanded too fast. But I did have the most Civ points on the continent I was on (there were four other AIs: Russia, India, Germany, and Mali).

I had over 400 gold and later got more by selling stuff, but the negative kept going up to like -30 and I couldn't develop any more technology. It happened too suddenly. There was no way to adjust things to get more gold. The civ was doomed. That happened to me twice. I tried to change the emphasis to gold in cities, but it only helped by a few pieces.

So now you know not to expand too fast. And now that I've told you where the wealth/science slider is, you can actually adjust things. You could have learned these things from the manual, too. Or reading any number of threads here.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by siredgar
I guess my main point, besides all of those things, is that the latest version doesn't have the magic of the series. Sure, I had problems with the other games (maybe not Civ2 though, I enjoyed that one from the beginning). But never before had I (almost) completely lost interest so quickly.

This is again a matter of opinion. Many posters here (I'd say a healthy majority) were instantly hooked, including myself.

Also, I just can't believe they could ship the game in this state. With Civ3, there were problems in lag and LOTS of bugs, but I don't recall so many interface and text mistakes like in Civ4.

What on earth are you talking about? You'll have to post some screenshots or something as examples. I don't think you realize what a true "mistake" is. I haven't seen hardly any interface "mistakes" in the game.

Bugwise, people have short memories, and Civ4 is much lower on that scale than Civ3. And if it's a choice between game-effecting bugs and some typos in text, I'll take the latter any day. But the initial release of Civ3 had lots of textual mistakes, literally dozens all throughout the Civilopedia and beyond.