YOUR REVIEW of Civ4

[MarkG]

We have two ways to post your review of Civ4:

1) Post your full review in a thread (with [Review] tag in the subject) in this forum

You can use the Upload Service to store screenshots

http://apolyton.net/upload

2) Post your short review and your rating in the Directory

http://apolyton.net/dir/index.php?id=4898&t=reviews&toprate=5.0000&tophits=5534&cat=3#rating

We hope that we have as many player reviews as possible so that we can help other civers make their purchase choices!

Thank you for your help!

[angrybowen]

I thought there were some comments already in this thread from other Apolytoner's.

[tawert]

I eagerly awaited civ 4 relaese. Civ 3 had challenged me to the utmost. However I was puzzled by reports that civ 3 was considered a flop. I had read reports of people whinning that it was unwinnable and thus unfair. I, however, found it tough but realistic and winnable. I was ready for a new challenge. This is why Civ 4 is so disapointing. Like MOO 3 and Axis & Allies it was 'popularized' into mindless-ness. The game is so simplistic to have no worth. It is childish to play and thereby thoroughly boring.

[smithldoo]

I played 4 games, no struggled through 4 games. It is far to easy IMHO, it is too easy to attack. I found if you attacked there were insufficient penalties, and ai were less likely to attack you than if you had a peaceful build approach.

My score when using Infinite Attack Sleaze was 2.5 to 3 times the AI at turn 1000 AD compared to equal using a peaceful build, (monarch level, 2nd largest map).

Throw in major performance issues and it was the worst gaming experience I can remember for a long time, worse than the pushover original AI in CTP2.

[elboldizar]

BIG ISSUE... i haven;t bought the game yet (got AoE3 first instead) but where is the palace/thrown room upgrades as per the older versions! I used to live for getting those random upgrades! Anyone know what i'm on about?

The website/reviews say nothing about this feature...

[Metaliturtle]

they were not released with the final version of the game, I miss them too btw

[unscratchedfoot]

My friend and I only played Civ4 for a couple of days last New Years holiday before deleting it to free up the 4 gigs or so for something more useful. We didn't like it at all cause it's the same old micromanaged tech race with new techs popping out every other turn making units obsolete before they are even finished being built. I found to win on emperor, which is the level I tried, you either attack and wipe out the AIs in caveman era before they can start up or you are doomed to be forever struggling to keep up to their tech race. And forget about any fun wars cause the AIs never fight each other and just tech up forever. I suppose you could keep up to the AI teching if you puke hundreds of cities all over the map and do some boring space race or something but that's what accountants are hired to deal with. I am not an accountant. The oppressive micromanagement and repetition was way too boring for me. There's no thinking or creativity in this at all. I tried editing the emperor difficulty level to boost the player tech rate and I upped the tech costs using a handy editor program but the game still had no life to it with the AI's doing nothing but teching up and never fighting. Sid's gaming creativity has sunk lower each new production since he made that nice Colonization game. I wouldn't play Civ4 again even at gunpoint. I would say Civ2 was the best, although I only played it for a couple of weeks before giving it away, with Civ3 taking a big step backwards with huge, unnecessary micromanagement and a very weak AI, and Civ4 really going down the toilet with only slightly reduced micromanagement along with the same boring tech race packaged with an even weaker AI. I tinkered with Civ3 for a bit cause it's easy to edit but Civ4 has no charm at all other than the colorful intro music and I think it's actually quite detrimental to one's creative skills to play such a drab game for long hours. At least I can credit Civ3 for sparking my interest in story writing which I still do now and am getting into publishing so ironically I think writing the Civ3 stories on this site, supplemented with intense chess play, trained me to think better and I forever lost the destructive urge to play repetitive 'just one more turn' time-killing games like Civ4.

[Nubianmercenary]

: Thats alot of bad talk about civ4 dude, yet you have very little experence playing civ4 as a result.






NubianMercenary

[unscratchedfoot]

Originally posted by Nubianmercenary
: Thats alot of bad talk about civ4 dude, yet you have very little experence playing civ4 as a result.

NubianMercenary

Nubian, this is a review thread. If you don't like see other people's opinions which are not all going to match yours, then don't read this thread.

[Metaliturtle]

it does seem over critical for 3 days worth of gameplay...

[unscratchedfoot]

It is a bit harsh. I can edit the post if people prefer.

[Thedrin]

I'm kind of curious as to how you were able to start on Emperor level. Since you only played CivII for a few weeks I'm guessing it was based off of CivIII which plays very differently. I'd imagine CivIV at that level would be highly frustrating using CivIII rules and would appear to be very limited - I can't say for certain; I dropped down a few levels when beginning CivIV so I could learn the new rules without being negatively influenced by CivIII strategies.

[unscratchedfoot]

You guys never have anything good to say about stories people write, just complain about this. I guess this is why there's no one here but you.

[SKILORD]

I have to admit, while harsh, scratch does have a point.