Anyone else severely disappointed in Civ4? (RANT)

[Robert]

My ranking now listen to my ranking

1. Civ 4 (I'm about to uninstall civ3)
2. Civ 3 (played it 1000s of hours, never cared for civ2 after it)
5. Civ 2 (played it 1000s of hours, never cared for civ1 after it anymore)
6. Civ 1 (played it 1000s of hours.)
3. Ctp 2 (it was nice, but the PW system sucked.)
4. Ctp 1 (it was nice, but the PW system sucked.)
7. SMAC (never liked the non-earth phantasy environment, unit workshop sucked and brought unites that were all alike)

I think people that played 3 games of civ3 shouldn't be allowed to comment on it. period.

[Dolph]

Well, surely the game has its issues but in general I think it's better than previous ones. And it will get much better as soon as patches come and solve those issues.

What for one I prefer, is that spreading cities all over the world and becoming the strongest in this way, it's not the "correct" tactic anymore. Balance is the key to civ4 and that's what we must all try to get.

Of course I also agree that it is quite fast, but I have not played on epic yet, so I can't be sure about how things are going there.

[xxFlukexx]

Originally posted by Dis
how much like civ2 can thrones and patriots really be? I'm curious. I never bought RON because I played the demo. And it just seemed to be a typical RTS.

The main theme of Civ2 and RoN is the same, I mean you start off with one city, build farms and mines, build more cities and expand, and you do this throughout the period of human history. Lots of nations to pick from and different victory modes.

Gameplay-wise, err yeah RoN is definetly an RTS and Civ is definetly a TBS and there is barely any similarity there, even though a few very dumb reviewers tried to say that RoN was a cross between TBS and RTS, it is not.

That being said I would say RoN is about #3 on my RTS list, goes like Starcraft, AoE2, then RoN.

I wonder if the OP is going to ever post again or just give up and make another username.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sirian
I know Civ2 is beloved by many, and perhaps deservedly so, but it is actually because it was TOO MUCH like the original (in all the wrong places) that I disliked it on first contact. All the things I had burnt out on from Civ1 were carried forward more or less intact.

Quoted for truth.

Civ 1 is the best because it more or less started this whole 4x genre, and it was a very innovative game at the time. Civ 2, OTOH, was only a minor refinement. True, the changes made the game much more enduring and brought it a huge fan base. Yet, in many ways, it's mildly disappointing.

My ranking:

1. Civ 1
2. Alpha Centauri - the apex installment of the original series. Many nice additions without changing the underlying design
3. Civ 4 - a great many changes; still unproven. May yet climb up in the ranks.

[RGBVideo]

Re: Anyone else severely disappointed in Civ4? (RANT)

Originally posted by 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

"BOOHOO MY CIV2 PLAYING STYLE DOESN'T WORK IN A DIFFERENT GAME BOOHOO!"

RTFM

[Robert]

I really can't see why people liked SMAC so much.
Of course it was new, hardly a civ-sequel but civ though. That may make it less comparable to civ then other civ sequels.

But in the end the entire future-phantasy system really spoiled the fun for me.
It was impossible for me to relay to the game.
In civ I relay to what happens, that doubles the fun.

I mean, c'mon, being chased by mindworms........

[Urban Ranger]

For me, Social Engineering and the Unit Workshop are strokes of genius. It means you can do a lot of customisation each game so they'd be very different from each other.

The various kinds of modifiers (efficiency, etc.) are also great, since you can have very different factions competing against each other.

[NanoDingo]

Some Good Things about SMAC:

• Each Faction has inherent strengths and weaknesses, requiring vastly different play-styles depending on who you're playing or playing against.
• Social Engineering and the use of Social Factors rather than set groups of effects not only allows for another layer of strategic planning, but AI opponents can and do react differently to the Social Choices - each Faction prefers a certain Social Choice, reacts negatively to others, may not be able to use one (or more?) and emphasises one Social Factor. This emphasis on ideology leads to very interesting diplomacy.
• The Design Workshop is just a great idea - mix-and-match units for fun-and-profit.
• The Planetary Council is a working model of the U.N., not to mention the fact that it gives the illusion of friends.
• Psi combat - another layer of strategy.
• The game will spill flavour if you squeeze it like a sponge. Wars based on ideology; the rise of a sentient planet; the future of mankind.

SMAC is to Civ as Planescape: Torment is to Baldur's Gate; If you can't love SMAC, you've got no soul. END OF DISCUSSION.

"The data is Civ I's and Civ 0's; SMAC is the jazz."
-

[Senethro]

Originally posted by NanoDingo
SMAC is to Civ as Planescape: Torment is to Baldur's Gate; If you can't love SMAC, you've got no soul. END OF DISCUSSION.
-

Preach it, brutha!

[Strudo]

Originally posted by Dis


navy is very useful in civ4. Without frigate support my cavalry could never have taken over a city defended by longbowmen. You could use catapult/canon units I suppose. But you sacrifice those. I didn't have to sacrifice my frigates to get city defenses to 0. The only bad thing is they can't cause collateral damage to units . I have to wait for the ultimate weapon: bombers.

You do know that you can still bombard with arty units without attacking? In the same way the frigates can bombard when next to cities, arty units can do the same, without risk to themselves. It's only if you attempt to move into a hostile plot that the arty unit attacks and you risk loosing it. However you don't get collateral damage for bombarding with arty, only when attacking. (Might be a promotion to allow some collateral damage with bombard, not sure though)

[glsunder]

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.

I'll assume you mean 3GHz, not 3GB. I'm not sure what delay you're talking about. My guess is it's a technical issue with a driver or maybe because of the geforce3.

Why do I have to listen to one-third of it each time before I start a game???

I never do. You can click through all of the intro screens, and the LN intro never seems to start until I can already enter the game.

These 2 things make it sound like your system is running pretty slow at times. Try shutting off any AV or spyware scanners while playing. Make sure nothing's running in the background - including web browsers. Civ4 comes pretty close to using 512MB, so if you have other apps open, it very well may be swapping. Also, defrag your drive if you haven't done so since installing the game.

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

Several people have mentioned the need to expand more slowly. When going for a large empire, I've had the best luck building 5 or 6 cities, letting my finances stablize, then attacking one of my neighbors. Let the computer build the cities for you.

But the animals are way too easy to kill.

It seems about right to me. Animals come early and pose a danger to unprotected settlers. Barbs are the real threat to your military troops, and can force you to protect your cities.

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

I agree. The current ones are kind of lame compared to civ2. They're better than none at all though.

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

You raise taxes by cutting science (and culture).

[Dis]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I really can't see why people liked SMAC so much.
Of course it was new, hardly a civ-sequel but civ though. That may make it less comparable to civ then other civ sequels.

But in the end the entire future-phantasy system really spoiled the fun for me.
It was impossible for me to relay to the game.
In civ I relay to what happens, that doubles the fun.

I mean, c'mon, being chased by mindworms........

mindworms rock!

I'm actually not that much into sci fi. But the game is so much like Civ2, how can you not like it? With added improvements like borders, unit workshop, and a more complex goverment and faction system.

The downsides are the graphics and the sound. But the wonder movies were pretty damn good. Far better than civ4's. Some of those wonder movies kind of scared me. But the gameplay easily made up for the dark graphics and lackluster sound.

[Falconius]

Re: Anyone else severely disappointed in Civ4? (RANT)

Originally posted by siredgar
BRING BACK THE VIDEOS FOR GREAT WONDERS FROM CIV2!!!

Why not just play Civ 2?

But seriously, the Civ 4 videos are adequate. If they put in the same videos as were in a previous game, does it really add any value to the new game?

[Falconius]

Originally posted by Dis
With added improvements like borders, unit workshop, and a more complex goverment and faction system.

I have to agree with Cybershy on this one. I couldn't relate to it either. While playing, I kept thinking how much more fun a game of Civ 2 would be! The historical setting and the chance to change history seemed more realistic and added more fun.

And the SMAC graphics were dreary to the point of depressing. That horrid dark-red terrain: Uggggghhhh!

Also, I think the unit workshop was over-rated. I would give units either the highest defense or highest offense values. Nothing else made any sense, so the choices you had to make were really an illusion.

[Montesquieu]

They should have released Civ4 in 2006. The current version is full of bugs. It's really "funny" for those who paid full price and pre-ordered the game to face such big problems. These guys who say civ4 crashes frequently are a sizeable majority, and that really reveals that Firaxis made a bad thing rushing it into the stores and then announcing a patch soon after. Better would be to release it in 2006 with less bugs and better code, so they wouldn't have to announce a patch a week later. This is really annoying to customers.

Fortunately, I will wait and buy Civ4 later, paying a better price and facing less bugs. But I suspect it is only eye-candy, flashy graphics and no gameplay. Just like MOO3.