Anyone else severely disappointed in Civ4? (RANT)

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I'd agree with that list except for CtP over Civ3. Yech.

It had some good points - no workers, stacked combined arms combat, trade screen, and naval piracy of enemy supply lines (I still havent bothered to build a 'navy' in CIV4). Anyway, for me it wasnt that CtP was so good but that CIV3 was so bad, I didnt even play conquests and my last PBEM just 'dwindled out'.

[NanoDingo]

Originally posted by 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.

|
|
|
V

Originally posted by SpencerH

original idea - therefore the best

Although, now I look at it, I guess you meant "original" as in "creative" and "unique", not as in "first".
-

Originally posted by SpencerH

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.

Which do you think is better - C, or C++?
-

To put it another way, isn't it really a case of if one is good at Civ II, one is also good at Civ I; Civ I is a subset of Civ II, even if chronologically it appears to be the other way around?

[JakeCourtney]

You ***** about everything else, but want animals to be more powerful? Killing an enire unit of Warriors? Stop expanding so freakin much, this is not Civ3 idiot. Maybe the tutorials would have helped you? Anyway, patches and mods will help alot.

[Adagio]

Isn't the point of animals to stop the players from sending out unescorted settlers?

Originally posted by Sirian
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.

"Unfortunatly" it's not the whole Civ1 intro, it just contains two pictures of the Civ1 intro... also, the Civ1 intro took 7 minutes, while in Civ4 it takes like 7 seconds

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.

Same here. I was confused as people started talking about someone talking in the intro...

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
The only time I was forced to go at 0% I was stuck on a dead continent away from the other civs. Luckily I was able to complete the Oracle, chose Theology and waited other civs to send their caravels in. When it happened I flooded their continents with Christianity and started to receive +40 gold at turn from converted cities.

WHAT? You can do that? What can't I? In my current game I built the Oracle and chose the free tech to get Theologi, but Christianity wasn't founded... a couple of turns later some other Civ founded it... I reloaded to just before I built it and chose another tech, since the only reason for spending it on theo was to found Christianity, and since that didn't work I felt cheated

[Sirian]

Originally posted by NanoDingo
Civ I is a subset of Civ II, even if chronologically it appears to be the other way around?

Not if you played five times as much Civ1 as Civ2, it isn't.

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.

One of the things I'm proudest of about Civ4 is the distinct effort to identify the unfun or unbalanced elements of the previous iterations and design new gameplay to overcome these. The idea being to identify what was good and fun, and keep that, plus identify what was not so hot, and replace it with something that (we hoped) would do better.


When I started working on Civ4, I declared (with sincere certainty) that I'd be sick of it by release and did not expect to want to play it much after that. ... I was wrong! I'm not the least bit sick of it, yet. I'm sure that will come at some point, but there are a few games that I can go back to over and over again and enjoy anew, and maybe Civ4 is going to be one of them. (Don't know yet! Ask me again in five years. )


- Sirian

[wilebill2]

1. Age of Mythology is an excellent game! Go for it! And I suppose you know that Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots is heavily based on Civ 2. Please try RON also if you never have.

2. I think a post like yours is important to Firaxis, because it really gives your honest first impressions. And there are some others who agree with you on some points.

3. IMHO, Civ4 will be a lot better with a few patch levels and some mods.

[Dis]

Age of Mythology? Isn't that a RTS?

I just don't think RTS gamers will ever like a TBS. Yeah I hear you liked civ2. But that was a long time ago. That doesn't prove you are a real TBS fan.

[Dis]

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.

interestingly the very first time I played I didn't get it. I didn't get until I played a large terran world. Now I get it all the time. I just escape through it though. . But it's kind of interesting the first time.

[Dis]

Originally posted by SpencerH


It had some good points - no workers, stacked combined arms combat, trade screen, and naval piracy of enemy supply lines (I still havent bothered to build a 'navy' in CIV4). Anyway, for me it wasnt that CtP was so good but that CIV3 was so bad, I didnt even play conquests and my last PBEM just 'dwindled out'.

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.

[Dis]

Originally posted by wilebill2
1. Age of Mythology is an excellent game! Go for it! And I suppose you know that Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots is heavily based on Civ 2. Please try RON also if you never have.

2. I think a post like yours is important to Firaxis, because it really gives your honest first impressions. And there are some others who agree with you on some points.

3. IMHO, Civ4 will be a lot better with a few patch levels and some mods.

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.

[My PitBull Tank]

I like RTS games, just haven't found one that is even nearly as good as AoEII: Conqueror's Expansion (edit: or Command and Conquer: Red Alert II, I demo all the new ones, they never impress me)...

Back on topic:

SirEdgar, I have a feeling if you just keep at it, spend a little money to upgrade your machine, and give it time, you will be back in a month with a different outlook!

Honestly, in this day and age, if you expect to keep playing the newest games, you have to keep upgrading your machine. If you can afford the fifty bucks for the game, you probably can afford the two hundred or so a year you'll need to keep yourself gaming!

[Dis]

as for upgrades. I feel I don't have to upgrade just for this game (and I didn't- my computer is nearing 2 years old- and it wasn't top of the line back then). I usually try to keep my computer a certain standard so I can play RPG's. I only play 2 types of games. Civ games and RPG's. I have to keep enough so I can play KOTOR 1 and 2, NWN etc.

I normally only do an upgrade every 2 years. And a new computer 4 years. I'm unwilling to budge (any lower) from that routine. I got my computer nearly 2 years ago as a refurbished computer (thought it may have been a mistake not to buy one specifically better suited for gaming). I payed a few hundred bucks for it. Then I spent another 500 getting a video card, sound card and 5.1 350 megawatt speaker system. err make that watts, not megawatts. .

I don't plan on upgrading much next year. Just my Ram and video card. And 2 and 1/2 years from not I'll build a new rig from nearly scratch (I'll probably keep my hard drives, and dvd/cd roms etc.).

[evizaer]

Originally posted by siredgar


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

"I have more posts than you so i am superior"

When'd you join this place?

If you search for my posts, i have a fair number where i praise the game and/or give constructive criticism.

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.

Then you don't know what trolling is.

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.

OK. You have to understand that you come off as a sensationalistic ass when you post a bunch of complaints and pull the standard "why are we paying to beta-test the game" BS.

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?!!!

It is a functioning game. "Regular" is up to you.

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

Go away... or at least stop trolling.

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.

Sheesh... you were lucky that you didn't get mobbed by barbarians. I thought that if you were going to write a whine post, that would be a problem you'd be whining about.

[Sava]

Originally posted by SpencerH


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!

interesting...


my rankings:

1. Civ4 - best Civ game to date... period

2. Civ2: ToT - civ2... the game that wasted the most time in my life... also, ToT graphics are better than regular Civ2, IMO

3. Civ1 - the original...

4. SMAC/X - good game, but I never got into it the way most did


CTP series and Civ3 just suck... they don't even deserve to be ranked with the other games

but about CTP... it had some interesting ideas... it's just that the game itself was poorly designed and made for people who are only obsessed with TBS games... I like Civ, but still, I want a game to be made well. I won't play a poorly designed game just because it is a TBS game.

[Dis]

I never cared for the TOT graphics myself. That was truelly a waste of my money. I never got much out of that expansion.

my rankings.

Civ2
SMAC
Civ4
civ3
Ctp2

Never played cpt1 or civ1.

civ4 may eventually move higher on that list. I'm still learning the game. And I'd like to see what kind of scenarios can come out of this game.