It seems I'm not alone in disappointment

[smithldoo]

A warning from Firaxis in this respect would have been in order, however, imho. Instead they imply, with their relatively low requirements, that this area has changed negligibly, when in fact it hasn't. It's changed quite markedly.

Which I understand is the basis of the complaint in Australia to have Civ 4 removed from the shelf until they properly describe the system requirements.

I have tried playing with a Ge Force4 and a Radeon 9200. The Rad was actually better till half way through the game, half the map garbled.

I know all games have bugs but I stand by my complaint about civ 4 with no fear. Easily the worst buggiest game for me, especially this year. (Have bought RON, RTW, AOE 3). Collectively they have 25% of the issues I have seen in civ 4. End of story.

I had a big argument with Yin 26 about exploiting a game to win, or in his case, choosing a booring safe way to crawl to a win. His attitude was he could so he did so therefore the game sucks. This led to a change in AOM capping victory points to prevent his new tactic of Infinite Outpost Sleaze.

In AOM, no route to victory is plain sailing. Go for war/conquest, you eventually push your aggression level up to the point the ai will all attack or resist you. Go for a science victory and you still have aggressive ai that need curtailing and space runs out usually before you get an empire big enough to research fast enough. Same issues with a diplomatic victory, and roughly 50% of ai are aggressive types so will not agree to treaties unless you basically force them.

I make 2 points about stankarps IAS. Firstly you CAN do it, it is FAR to easy to win by going on a super aggressive war path than any other way we found. Secondly, the reason is the game does not have enough penalties for going on the war path. I did not bother much with diplomacy much in the last game (which is wrong) because I did not have to. Same with religion but I am still trying to find out what the main thing it does is???? Only thing I could find is it allows multiple happy/culture buildings in cities.

With IAS, my score was 2.5 to 3 times higher than the next AI at turn 1850AD, while on the peaceful route it was equal at turn 200AD to 1500AD when a peaceful neighbour attacked me when I had never been aggressive to anyone at all, ever, in that game. There is a message here.

[ashbery]

The best civgame just not as good as Alphacentuari.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Wow, I love how he came here expecting to be less pilloried than at CFC but-if anything-he got caned even more here. What he doesn't realise is that, if anything, far more people at CFC enjoyed Civ3 than Apolytoners did-from my understanding of things-which is probably why there are in fact so many negative posts about Civ4 over there (the inevitable 'its OK, but its NOT civ3!!' complaint), but not nearly so many over here! Yet even over at CFC, all of the reader polls seem to suggest a strong love and preference for Civ4 over Civ3, even with some of the annoying technical problems. The poll that dsilvia himself set up here would suggest, if anything, that Civ4 is loved even more over here!!!! Looks like you are kinda alone there buddy .

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Drachasor]

Re: It seems I'm not alone in disappointment

Originally posted by dsilvia
1) Too expensive, almost twice the price of previous

Standard price of games these days, and I have no problem with it.

Originally posted by dsilvia
2) About half the game tuning ability. I'm talking preferences, world modelling choices, player/opponent choices (less than previous and you cannot even pick opponents unless you go to a whole different paradigm, "Custom Games")

It's all there and with more precision than we've had in previous games. You just have to say you want a custom game (which is of course what you want for those things). That said I will admit the custom game setup screen could use a good bit of work. It tends to reset all the other settings when you change one or two things (very annoying).

Originally posted by dsilvia
3) I can do a review like this one while the game is loading and starting up.

My computer is WORSE than yours and the initial game loads up quickly enough. I'll admit some save games (large maps) take a long time though. I'd like this to be improved.

Originally posted by dsilvia
4) It takes more PC horsepower than it should compared to its predecessors. I've got an AMD64 with 1G of RAM which should be more than enough according to the requirements specs, but performance is sluggish. The map "floats" around as I move the mouse as opposed to the snappy performance of other Civ versions.

I think this is because of an executive decision to release the game early. It certainly has bugs like an early release. I expect this shall all be fixed within 2-3 patches. That said there are a few tricks you can do to improve performance now (I say what I did in a thread I started in the help section).

Originally posted by dsilvia
5) It looks more like Sid trying to write a version of Rise of Nations or Age of Wonder or Age of Empires than trying to write the next in the Civ series.

It was time for 3D and all the other "rts"-like changes are either improvements or give you more options. What's not to like?

Originally posted by dsilvia
6) Civilopedia went from being on a par with Brittanica to being more like the Golden Book Encyclopedia. The information is _extremely_ terse and there's little or no linking around to related subjects.

The Civilpedia sucks this time around, I agree with that. Civ II had the best version and it has gone downhill since.

Originally posted by dsilvia
I'm _very_ disappointed. Although it's as good a game as many empire builders (The Settlers?), it's certainly not on a par with the Civilization Series games!

I disagree. I think it is the best Civ to come out yet. The problems with it shall all be fixed (slowness) or have no effect in the long-term (Civilpedia).

-Drachasor

[xxFlukexx]

Originally posted by smithldoo

I know all games have bugs but I stand by my complaint about civ 4 with no fear. Easily the worst buggiest game for me, especially this year. (Have bought RON, RTW, AOE 3). Collectively they have 25% of the issues I have seen in civ 4. End of story.

Please do not make stuff up. AOE3 has had it's MP bugged since launch and AOE3 is ALL MP.

"CLIENT FIXES

* New hotkey editor added to the gameNew large map set.
* 5 new large versions of popular maps have been added.
* Fixed a sound crash issue.
* Fixed a bug with sound being choppy
* Fixed some performance issues with boat battles.
* Fixed a D3D initialization error when launching the game.
* Fixed a bug where the auto-patcher text was impossible to read.

NETWORK AND ESO FIXES

* Fixed an bug where disconnecting a player would lock up the game.
* Switching home cities unchecks all players.
* Quick search now uses the Standard Map set.
* Fixed an issue where a user would get in a state that they could not host or join a game.
* Fixed a number of multiplayer exploits.
* New ESO privacy.
* Updated a number of error and user messages.
* Allow users to turn off enter/left chat messages on ESO.
* New user.cfg commands to assist with router and direct IP issues.
"

And this stuff is in patch 1.02 which has yet to be released.

You can say Civ4 is as buggy as any other game, but just because AoE3 works and Civ4 works for you does not mean that Civ4 is bugged and AoE3 is not.

Smithldoo started to have a good post, but then you compared Civ4 to AoM and then lost all credibility, what next compare Halo to Gran Turismo?

[ng89]

I only with the OP on #6. The Civilopedia stinks.

There are things I don't like about the game, but none of them are in this post.

See what kind of video card you have. You may need to upgrade based on what you said.

[angrybowen]

I can remember the S**T-STORM which erupted, both here and at CFC, over what a hugely buggy game Civ3

I don’t remember anything like that at all, I got the original collectors editions and don’t recall any major issues but that was a long time ago.

If anything, given what a huge move 2D to 3D is-in terms of CPU power required-I am amazed that there haven't been far more widespread problems with Civ4-it is definitely a 100X less buggy than its predecessor

I 100% disagree. I have got some one else’s Civ 4 (Stankarp) as after all the threads (over 600) re technical problems here at Apolyton, was not prepared to pay for a game. Already having the same problems trying to finish one game. I can play any TBS or RTS style strategy game released this year without anything but very minor graphics problems (e.g. units jerky occasionally in RomeTW in maximum size battles), but Civ 4 is slow, excruciatingly slow, I have had dark maps, corrupted maps, crashes, freezes, you name it. I totally agree with another comment I read where someone was critical of Firaxis for under stating the system specs. They quoted in min specs a 4yr old graphics card you can no longer buy. Very, very naughty.

3d does nothing for playing the game IMHO and if you zoom out to a normal type view (same as Civ 3) it is nearly impossible to tell who a unit belongs to or if there are multiple units there. Very, very poor design IMHO. Do not have anything like those problems with CTP2/AOM or Civ 3. Graphics are insipid, lacks atmosphere and is terrible when I have to turn off the animations and special effects just to get the ****** to run.

Also, there are the new game concepts-such as civics

Excuse me, these are mainly just government traits recycled. All it means instead of several main government types, you end up with lots of little decisions all the time all over the place. Decisions that don’t produce a historical government but rather some conglomerate. In CTP2 (where much of this stuff is borrowed from) there are 63 different settings for each government giving a lot of variety without all the chopping and changing.

and different religions

I have seen several posts where people ask what is the main point of religions? The only answer I have seen so far is it allows multiple culture/happiness buildings in cities. There is apparently a diplomacy adjustment for religion, but in my games I have noticed no practical difference.

What was the line from the movie “I’v got a bad feeling about this” and I have not even managed to finish a game yet. Think I will be back at AOM to play AOM II very quickly.

[Khab]

Originally posted by angrybowen

I have seen several posts where people ask what is the main point of religions? The only answer I have seen so far is it allows multiple culture/happiness buildings in cities. There is apparently a diplomacy adjustment for religion, but in my games I have noticed no practical difference.

Er...have you actually paid any attention to anything but wars then? It's true that religion doesn't affect relations with other Civs hugely initially, but over time it gets more significant - I've had as much as +5 in relations because of religion (and indeed -5 as well). Also, there's shrine income, the religious civic effects and of course happiness.

As for your bug woes, have you tried the patch? It seems to have solved a lot of other people's problems.

And the min requirements - if you've ever played a PC game before, you should know these are always a bit rounded down, to catch as much of the market as possible.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand finally: Civ3 not buggy at all?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=48&page=15&order=desc

Have a browse around there and then tell me Civ3 had no problems on launch.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Oh, and I love the comparison between Civ and CtP. I mean-are you SERIOUS??? Sure there were some good new ideas and concepts put forward in the game, but the whole thing was so poorly executed that I got bored of the whole thing after just a few days. The only thing that I hear makes CtP playable is the Ages of Man 'patch' but, given that Activision gave CtP I and II no post-release support, it's not suprising that it fell to members of the community to make CtP a playable game. IMHO, the 'unmodified' CtP games are the worst games of the entire TBS genre.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
The only thing that I hear makes CtP playable is the Ages of Man 'patch' but, given that Activision gave CtP I and II no post-release support, it's not suprising that it fell to members of the community to make CtP a playable game.

Well, to the credit of the AOM team, they did a major overhaul of the game that does play very well - and is almost unrecognizable from the original.

Ultimately, I'm more concerned about the end product, and I do not care if it has to come through the modding community or through a company.

I am still concerned about the playability of civ4 though. I have (2x) to (3x) the requirements of ALL system specs, I regularly defrag and virus scan, and I updated all drivers, yet I deal with substantial lags on my games on anything over Standard sized maps - and even Standard maps require ongoing reloads to clear the memory leaks.

This is not good.

I am about to try windowed mode because I heard this may help. But civ4's shelf life on my system will depend on how they handle the memory leak issue over the next few months.

To be frank, I think Firaxis really shot themselves in the foot on this issue.

[angrybowen]

To be frank, I think Firaxis really shot themselves in the foot on this issue.

Hexegonian.

I agree and I reckon one of the biggest mistakes in marketing in gaming ever. To make it clear, I exceed all minimum specs easiy on all counts. I exceed recommended easilty on all counts except video card. I have a 128 mb without p and v shaders. It supports directx9. Stating a 4 yr old out of date video card as minimum specs can only (as others have commented) lead you to assume your later card is adequate.

This conduct is legally (and morally wrong). Under consumer legislation it is deceptive and misleading conduct. In another thread it was excused "because everyone does it". Excuse me, that is no legal defense. I think I will join the action in Australia to have this action brought to notice.

Oh, and I love the comparison between Civ and CtP.

Lurker.

In the release ratings, CTP2 is streets ahead of Civ 4 at the same time for one big obvious reason. You put ctp2 on any average P3 and it played. No more comment needed.

The only thing that I hear makes CtP playable is the Ages of Man 'patch' but,

I saw exactly the same thing said about civ 4 (it will take major player mods to make it a good game), but 2 MONTHS BEFORE IT WAS RELEASED. I have since seen a major review use the words excruciatingly boring to describe the end game.

IMHO, the 'unmodified' CtP games are the worst games of the entire TBS genre.

Lurker.

So how do you measure that.

You already admit that ctp2 had some good ideas, yes original ones like slaves, special units (making a comeback in Civ 4 I note), real stacked combat, unit specialities (again making a comback in civ 4). Ctp did not take old concepts, cut them up into bits and re present them as something new. I am talking about civics. They are simply the government settings from ctp2 re presented in this way. (remind me not to get a restaurant recommendation from Lurker).

Is it on game play. The menus and functions in ctp2 are still streets ahead of civ 4 even though they copied a lot.

Wonder if it is the AI. The biggest complaint about the ai in ctp2 is it sat there like a punching bag (but in MP that was not a big issue). My friend Smithldoo points out the easiest and quickest way to win civ 4 seems to be attacking as early as you can and just keep attacking. The ai in his games just sit there like in ctp2 and let you splat them one at a time(monarch level). But even better, they can be lured out of defenses with workers as baits (which you recapture later). Better still, the defenders often leave the cities and come out in the open and become easy prey.

In ctp2 and now AOM, the defenders remain dug in and make you dig them out. In civ 4 Smithldoo reported several instances otherwise and one where 6 cavalry units left a city to re capture a city they could not see that had only 2 defenders. They lost 4 units in doing so, but removed more than half the defenders from a major city being attacked, making it also easy prey. Great stuff it sounds.

[TheArsenal]

Wonder if it is the AI. The biggest complaint about the ai in ctp2 is it sat there like a punching bag (but in MP that was not a big issue).

Interesting. I really like CTP2, but I found the opposite (although it has been some time since I played). The AI didn’t balance defense and attack. If you could weather the storm of the AI throwing troops at you, then you knew you could march into its territory and take cities at will.

For this game (Civ IV) I added a lot more RAM (now have 3 gigs) and had to swap out my video card for something better. My HP was purchased less than a year ago. For me it was not a big deal because I can justify the expense vs. hours that will be played (hundreds). But the more I read in the various forums, the more I think the frustration is justified.

Hopefully this will all be fixed.

Edit: Clarity

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Very simple, I tried to play CtP I and II quite a few times, but ultimately got incredibly bored, because the entire thing got really samey. I especially hated some of the really DUMB units like the Lawyer and Corporate guy-that just seemed really LAME to me. I might also point out that many of the good elements of the CtP system have now actually been incorporated into Civ4-and I am certain that more will follow-meaning that Civ4 will have all that is best about both the Civ and CtP series, thus putting the final nail into the coffin of Activision's failed attempt to enter the TBS genre. As I said above though, the key difference between Civ and CtP is that, for all of Civ's percieved 'failings', Firaxis WILL support this product, and work tirelessly to improve it in every way possible-through both patches and expansions, that is a HELL of a lot more than can be said for activision-who just gave up on their product a month after it was released-and NEVER released a single expansion I ever saw. Needless to say, I sold both copies of CtP for some quick cash, and don't regret it one little bit. As for Civ4, I have played it dozens of times already, in both SP and MP mode, and am absolutely loving it (have played for up to 4-5 hours in a single sitting sometimes). The fact that YOU don't, however, doesn't make Civ4 a bad game-just not your thing, which is unfortunate. Anyway, time talking to you is time wasted-because its time I am not spending playing Civ4. Goodbye.

Aussie_Lurker.

[Khab]

Originally posted by angrybowen
Hexegonian.

I agree and I reckon one of the biggest mistakes in marketing in gaming ever. To make it clear, I exceed all minimum specs easiy on all counts. I exceed recommended easilty on all counts except video card. I have a 128 mb without p and v shaders. It supports directx9. Stating a 4 yr old out of date video card as minimum specs can only (as others have commented) lead you to assume your later card is adequate.

This conduct is legally (and morally wrong). Under consumer legislation it is deceptive and misleading conduct. In another thread it was excused "because everyone does it". Excuse me, that is no legal defense. I think I will join the action in Australia to have this action brought to notice.

Oh COME ON...

I have an Athlon 64 3000, 1024 megs o'ram and a Radeon 9700, and Civ4 hasn't crashed even ONCE for me. It's got nothing to do with the system specs.

[angrybowen]

Khab and Lurker seem to unable to understand my basic point.

Congratulations to both of you for being able to play with systems whose specs are way above those recommended. Mine are the same (well in excess of recommended) except for video card which is 128 mb Ge force 4 SE, not P & V. However, my IT supplier assures me it is much better than the Ge Force 2 quoted in minimum specs requirements, which is 4 years out of date. I have a life other than upgrading my system all the time and I am ENTITLED to read and accept the systems specs printed on the box as they are a legal document. I am not the only once who suggests Firaxis has been deceptive and misleading in this area.

I have trouble shooted my video card through XP and run/dx.diag and it comes back saying it is working correctly(after reloading drivers several times). So today I am ringing the Aust Importer and going to make a formal complaint of Dec and Misld conduct over the system specs. Unless either of you are prepared to buy me a new video card. If not, I refuse to upgrade to play one game because they did not state realistic system specs, so shove it and I will keep you posted of the outcome.

because the entire thing got really samey.

Lurker.

Have been told EXACTLY the same thing about Civ 4 from a friend and read a draft review by a major Apolytoner who suggests the end game is excruciatingly boring, does not even bother doing things because he does not have to.

I especially hated some of the really DUMB units like the Lawyer and Corporate guy-that just seemed really LAME to me. I might also point out that many of the good elements of the CtP system have now actually been incorporated into Civ4-

Lurker.

Very inconsistant IMHO, those special units have made a comeback in Civ 4, are they also LAME? You havn't said so. Or is it that because it is civ 4 they are now not lame??? Some of those ctp units were designed that way deliberately to be non serious IIR. As you pointed out yourself, there is a lot of stuff in Civ 4 from CTP, but I recognise that some is stuff cut up into smaller bits and recycled 6 years later and served up as something new. As I said, I will not be getting a restaurant recommendation from you.

Cannot disagree about support (Activision re Firaxis), buuuuut I have received emails from 2 people who are not computer nerds, they have other lives and don't spend all their pocket money updating their system all the time just becasue they can update it, and both report the patch has not solved their performance problems, particularly their video cards. One reports it is worse.

Civ 4 is not the sacred cow of pc games and when it craps, I will say it craps, rather than put my nose in it and say, isn't that nice, just because it is a civ game.