Anyone else severely disappointed in Civ4? (RANT)

[Aileron]

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

Originally posted by siredgar
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???

Am I the only person that cannot hear the Nemoy intro?? All I see (if I don't click the done button) is the evolution art pics. I don't hear anything. Maybe it is boring, but I'd like to hear it at least once anyway...just wondering if anyone else cannot hear it.

[Bill3000]

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

Originally posted by Aileron


Am I the only person that cannot hear the Nemoy intro?? All I see (if I don't click the done button) is the evolution art pics. I don't hear anything. Maybe it is boring, but I'd like to hear it at least once anyway...just wondering if anyone else cannot hear it.

Hmm. If you just want to hear it, you can look in the audio folder. It won't solve the problem (since it won't be in game), but at least you can hear it.

[NanoDingo]

Originally posted by SpencerH IMO it ranks with the original...

Is it better Civ II?

[Brutus66]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Wow, a tough bunch we have here.

Anyway, Civ 4 is very different from the rest of the series, so you may want to take it slow. Perhaps play through the tutorial and play the first few games on "settler" level.

That's no lie. Some of us need to put away the flame throwers.
Siredgar, you're frustrated. Give it a chance. Chess is a good game too, but you're going to get whooped a lot at first playing that game too.
I would suggest playing on a huge map. The game seems most balanced then. When I play on a small map with a lot of civs, I get frustrated too. The larger map lets me expand enough to be competitive with the AI civs.
Most of us have had our fist-banging moments of frustration here and there (ever have the AI complete a wonder one turn before you?), but starting a thread screaming that the game sucks is just asking to be flamed by some of our more gentle readers here.

[Jim Cobb]

QUOTE]For example, I do not remember the text about evolution in Civ1. If that is so, then so be it. But the intro still sucks. The graphics are terrible. I think we can all agree on that.[/QUOTE]

Uh no, we can't. I like the graphics.

[Sirian]

Originally posted by siredgar
For example, I do not remember the text about evolution in Civ1. If that is so, then so be it. But the intro still sucks. The graphics are terrible. I think we can all agree on that.

They're the original graphics.

You don't have to like the throwback intro, but you are definitely not getting it and missing the point. IT'S THE CIV1 INTRO. If you don't remember it, then you clearly did not play much Civ1.

The same applies to several of your other criticisms, especially the complaints about not being able to sprawl across the whole world with reckless, unchecked expansion. You're missing the point there, too. That's OK; you like what you like, and you like spreading out to lots and lots of cities in BC times. Well, that's a LOSING move in Civ4. By design!

If you want endless REXing, then yes, stick with Civ3. You can have as many (uselessly corrupt) cities as you can squeeze on to the map. Or you can play Civ4, build fewer cities, have each one count for something, be careful NOT to overexpand beyond your economic means, expand more as your empire can support more cities, and play an actual STRATEGY game instead of a formulaic "settler spam" exercise.

My two bits.


- Sirian

[Bill3000]

Sirian

[Robert]

Originally posted by Sirian


They're the original graphics. - Sirian

I thought the civ1 ones were in color...., isn't it...?

[Aro]

Maybe I'm just a fanboy, but...



Sirian, you're my hero. Solver too.

[Strudo]

Yeah civ1 was in colour.

The music from the intro sounds almost the same too, if not exactly. Good old tracker music I'd reckon.

[Strudo]

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

Originally posted by siredgar

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.

In regards to the end game tape, I have always found this to be pretty ordinary, in every civ. I almost never use it (once per new version to see if it improved, but it never does) so it doesn't bother me.

As for the interface, I find that if I click an action button to say, upgrade a unit, then mostly when the next unit's turn arrives I don't get the pop up text for that button. I have to move the mouse around to other buttons and then back to get the popup to work again. Not huge, but still annoying. Not sure if it has been mentioned before though. The bugs thread seems so huge though I didn't even bother looking for it. I don't want to get shot down for reporting a bug thats been reported 100 times before.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by NanoDingo


Is it better Civ II?

Much better, IMO.

#1 CIV original idea - therefore the best
#2 SMAC/SMACX- brilliant
#3 CIV4- maybe better than SMAC/SMACX, time will tell
#4 CIV2- some improvements to CIV but not original so loses points
#5 CtP- some good changes
#20 CIV3- bah humbug!

[NanoDingo]

Originally posted by SpencerH #1 CIV original idea - therefore the best
#2 SMAC/SMACX- brilliant
#3 CIV4- maybe better than SMAC/SMACX, time will tell
#4 CIV2- some improvements to CIV but not original so loses points
#5 CtP- some good changes
#20 CIV3- bah humbug!

So, you're fundamentally against sequels...that doesn't really explain why you think Civ IV is better than Civ II, though.

[Boris Godunov]

I'd agree with that list except for CtP over Civ3. Yech.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by NanoDingo

So, you're fundamentally against sequels...

I'm not sure where you get that idea from, perhaps because I rank CIV #1. You have to have a little historical perspective.

that doesn't really explain why you think Civ IV is better than Civ II, though.

CIV2 was a good game but it didnt really change the fundamentals of the game from CIV. If one was good at CIV then on was good at CIV II, SMAC, and CIV3. SMAC scores above CIV II because it added new concepts and ways to win in addition to the classical CIV methods i.e. you could play and win with REX/tech race but you didnt have to. Many of those innovative concepts are back with CIV IV and from what I've seen so far there have been many improvements.

The only way I could lose at CIV3 was to play at deity so I moved to PBEM. OTOH, I havent won at noble yet with CIV4 (I think I'm REXing to much). The challenge is back, diplomacy makes sense, combat is much more complex, etc, etc.