Is cIV too balanced?

[aneeshm]

I've only recently started playing the game, so my opinions aren't really solid yet, but I've noticed that it's nearly impossible for any one civilisation to pull clearly ahead of the rest (barring a gigantic size difference, which is also "balanced" so that it's very, very difficult to achieve).

I'm asking this in the OT because the question is not so much relating to the game as much as it is to the effects it is having on sites like this one. There seems to be much less enthusiasm, and much fewer "Wow! Cool! Fantastic!" moments which made Civ 3 so much more memorable, specially the community aspects of sharing such moments. This, IMO, has led to less people coming and staying in sites like this. I remember the OT was a much more vibrant during the Civ 3 heyday, and the strategy and general discussion forums were more full of life during the Civ 2 days.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

What you're on to here is that Civ 2 drew a higher quality of forum participant than civ 3. The heyday of the games forums was during civ 2's popularity, while the heyday of the OT was during the time when the Civ 2 players moved on from the game forums and came here. Those drawn to the site by civ 3 first ruined the game forums, then ruined the OT -- not to cast aspersioons or anything.

[Provost Harrison]

Well bear in mind it is a while since the release of Civ 4 - although the general concensus is that Civ 4 is a vastly better game than Civ 3...

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
What you're on to here is that Civ 2 drew a higher quality of forum participant than civ 3. The heyday of the games forums was during civ 2's popularity, while the heyday of the OT was during the time when the Civ 2 players moved on from the game forums and came here. Those drawn to the site by civ 3 first ruined the game forums, then ruined the OT -- not to cast aspersioons or anything.

Maybe so.

But why did Civ 2 attract the best sort of people to 'poly?

And why did this same cycle repeat with CFC, only, instead of Civ 2, it was Civ 3 that drew in the best crowd there?

And why have the game forums of both sites deteriorated after the coming of Civ 4? You don't get to see really epic victories, games, or stories any longer, like that game where someone played a 5CC always war game on the highest level? Or the one where one guy decided to play a game on the highest level without building a single military unit, and still managed to pull off a diplomatic victory? It's probably because the game is much more "real", but has fun been sacrificed at the altar of balance?









Note that I've played only around three games of Civ 4, so my opinions aren't worth much at this point, but this is just my first impression.

[Ecthy]

You'd have some good friend in EON.

[Provost Harrison]

SMAC attracted all the coolest people!

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
What you're on to here is that Civ 2 drew a higher quality of forum participant than civ 3. The heyday of the games forums was during civ 2's popularity, while the heyday of the OT was during the time when the Civ 2 players moved on from the game forums and came here. Those drawn to the site by civ 3 first ruined the game forums, then ruined the OT -- not to cast aspersioons or anything.

[OzzyKP]

Is this all motivated by an annoyance of the Fast Worker?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Ecthy
You'd have some good friend in EON.

I've played, as I said, only three real games of Civ 4, so my opinions are completely flexible at this point. I don't know what EON has to do with this.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Is this all motivated by an annoyance of the Fast Worker?

What's annoying about it?

[Arrian]

CIV >> CivIII. It's not even close. CivII vets will claim that CivII was superior (for its time, anyway), and I won't bothering arguing that. I played a ridiculous amount of CivII. But then I also played CivIII and CIV for countless hours.

I don't think it has anything to do with the supposed decline of 'poly. Has CivFanatics declined? Other sites? Or maybe just this one?

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian
CIV >> CivIII. It's not even close. CivII vets will claim that CivII was superior (for its time, anyway), and I won't bothering arguing that. I played a ridiculous amount of CivII. But then I also played CivIII and CIV for countless hours.

I don't think it has anything to do with the supposed decline of 'poly. Has CivFanatics declined? Other sites? Or maybe just this one?

-Arrian

As far as I can recall, the on-topic forums were far more vibrant back during the days of Civ 2. I may be wrong, however (I spend most time in the OT, these days).




Could you please explain how cIV is better than Civ 3? This is not a confrontational question, I'm genuinely curious, not having played much Civ 4.

[Patroklos]

I think it has alot to do with the decline in the popularity of turn based games. I happen to think CIV is crap, but thats just me.

Lets face it, what new gamers every played anything from Avalon? Are they brought up to appreciate detail oriented gameplay or shooters?

[Arrian]

1) balance is a generally a good thing. There are multiple paths to victory. "Interesting choices" was the idea, and I think the game delivers.

2) there are things you can do to "get ahead" as it were, but as with any complex game you have to learn how to do it. Check the strategy forum here and at CivFanatics.

3) the game is much, much less buggy that CivIII. That's not to say it was bug-free on release or something, but do you remember how many patches there were for CivIII? They finally had it just about right with the final patch for the first expansion... and then broke a bunch of stuff again with Conquests, and never got it right again.

-Arrian

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
What you're on to here is that Civ 2 drew a higher quality of forum participant than civ 3. The heyday of the games forums was during civ 2's popularity, while the heyday of the OT was during the time when the Civ 2 players moved on from the game forums and came here. Those drawn to the site by civ 3 first ruined the game forums, then ruined the OT -- not to cast aspersioons or anything.

What a pathetic load of complete cack.

ZOMG teh Civ 2ers r teh 1337!!! LOLZORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!