Printable View
This is my favorite game currently along with Rome Total War. I think everybody should get this if you are a fan of strategy in any mild way, which your very presence on this site would suggest.
With the new Warlords expansion pack, there has never been a better time to get it!
I got Civ IV a while ago, and I've got to say I was disappointed. With all the good reviews, I expected it to be good. It's quite difficult to learn though, and boring when you have to walk for centuries before meeting an enemy.. only to die because the troops can only attack once at a time. I just don't see anything good in it.
CIv IV was the first Civ game I got, and I must say I liked it. It took me longer than usual to stop playing, which is good.
Have not really given thought to the expansion, I'll wait and see, read some reviews and then make up my mind.
:balloon2:
Please tell me more of the expansion
Having played Civ2, Alpha Centauri and Civ3, I decided not to get Civ4 as I don't think it has enough new content to keep me interested for an extended period. I got Galactic Civilisations 2 instead, and have been having great fun with that.
As for the expansion, I think the major innovation is the addition of hordes (sounds familiar doesn't it ~;) ) as well as a plethora of new units, wonders, scenarios etc. Here's the gamespy preview of it: link
I've been playing Civ since, oh, Civ 2 ... and while I had some fun initially with Civ 4, after several centuries I could literally take on every faction in the world, at the same time, with one arm tied behind my back. I lost interest after that. It just lacks ... something. Don't get me wrong, the game is great, and I like it ... but I won't be getting the expansion.
That said, I don't even have it installed right now ... I rather play the old Call to Power and Alpha Centauri.
IMHO the best Civ is the first Civ you play. Whichever one it was. I started on Civ II, then got CTP and Civ III and I'm not getting Civ IV. I'm sure its great if you are new to Civ, but lets face it, its all pretty much the same game really.
The only reason I'd upgrade (and I might at a discount) is for fan content, eg maps. I used to enjoy playing Civ III on Mars, but obviously all that action shofts to the latest version.
I think more civilisation 4 every1 would be a good idea...
Got it, enjoyed it, played for several months and then got bored. I know I will go back to civ4 one day, when it will feel a bit fresher. The expansion has nothing which makes me want to buy it, thus far. I might pick it up if it sounds more appealing when its out on the shelves. Or I might not.
I must compliment those of you who played Civ IV without having played any of the previous civ games, because as Will Wright put it in his critisism of Civ; because it is so huge with so much depth, so many features, it becomes almost too much to take in. "Daunting" as he put it. I think you should devote about 4 hours too it (but not nesesarily all in one go) to really "get into" it and learn all the features. I myself am still finding things I've never noticed before.
As for Warlords, it looks like it will only make a good game better. For those who don't know about it, it adds:
- Six awesome new scenarios all set in action filled periods of history.
- A new Great Person (a wonderful part of Civ IV): A great General, who in turn can become a fearsome Warlord who will be a Superunit when he attaches himself to a unit. He can also do other stuff as well.
- 10 new leaders, 6 new civs.
- 3 cool new leader traits - imperialist, protective and charismatic.
- Many new units.
For more info visit the already posted gamespot link or wander round CivFanaticsCenter:
http://www.civfanatics.com/
Sorry chaps double post.
I like Civ4 but unfortunately have way too little time to actually PLAY it (or any other game for that matter ~:( ), the new expansion doesn't look like it will add a whole lot of new stuff.And as soon as i got Civ4 I was wondering why there wasn't a great general, and figured they'd probably build that into an expansion, I'm kinda pissed that they kept something like that out of the game, it was clearly designed with the expansion in mind.
But I'm not a warmonger, so I probably won't be getting it.
Been playing CIV series from very first of them all.
Lets not forget colonization either. I could easily still play it, even if it's ancient game. Actually, I might try it now :2thumbsup:
We can definitly expect a Colonization 2 very soon down the road because Firaxis is definitly in a remake mood - think Pirates!, Railroads! and all the sequels to civ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragabash
I have never played colonization but I have only heard good things about it.
I dislike CivIV. The glitzy 3D graphics are unattractive and irritating, and the movement, combat and city management systems are clumsy and dated. Somehow I enjoyed CivIII Conquests more even though the underlying gameplay is almost identical. Perhaps because the gameplay seemed more balanced.
I think CivIV was a very unadventurous iteration, they are obviously frightened to do anything but tinker around the edges of what they consider a winning formula, but the result is that the series looks very tired and dated. I won't be buying another Civ title unless major changes are made.
I like Civ4. It's as addictive as always, but more fun this time round - especially the Great People and the combat system (combined arms+promotions).
What I like best about it is that Civ in general is that it provides a competitive challenge from the AI that virtually no other strategy game does (certainly not TW, unfortunately) and yet diplomacy is still meaningful, with some scarey civs being a threat and others being nice to you.
I'm not sure about the expansion. I've never played Civ scenarios - they seem to want to turn Civ into a historical game and I just can't accept it from that point of view. The changes to the core game sound rather peripheral.
That is precisely why it is famous (because it didn't simply tinker around with a winning formula). It adds a lot of new features and gets rid of what wasn't fun in the last game. I don't think you've played enough, or else you are too used to the Total War gameplay.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
I feel very similarly.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
I have it. Felt great in the beginning, but I got soon tired of it.
Was there ever a game that you didn't get tired of even after playing it for ages? I can't think of one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I got tired of it soon...Quote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
Played RTW for six months several hours a day before I got tired of it.
Actually, the scenarios were what kept the second one going for so long. The main point was to have as malleable a game as possible; after all, the origional concept was pretty silly. I only played the "vanilla" Civ 2 for a few months- but I ended up playing all the scenarios for a frickin' decade. I still remember getting excited when the next WW2 scenario (by far the most popular) came out.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
In fact, I just recently had to stop playing; it was partly because the old Civ 2 following was finally dying out, but it was also part of a general lack of interest in the computer that has grown in me recently. Real life just proved to be too engaging and addictive. :2thumbsup:
I played Civ3 for just as long. I haven't had a chance to play #4 as much though - I just bought RTW and its absorbing to say the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I disagree. I think the things they did tinker with were the wrong things - like getting rid of the human advisors, changing the method of choosing worlds (Civ3's method was completely intuitive, the new system is a mess) and changing the method of building workers and settlers, to name but a few which come to mind - whilst retaining the bad features of the old, like the clumsy city economy screen and the primitive army raising and combat resolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
I played Civ3 quite a lot, so I'm more than familiar with the basic game system. But when it comes to Civ4, there's just something about it that I don't like. I feel that all the attention went into the graphics, while the rest of the game actually regressed. And the underlying game mechanics were already well and truly showing their age.Quote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
To me, it's a timid, cowardly product tailored by the marketing department and it shows. That kind of approach to games design really pisses me off, and we are seeing more and more of this sort of thing in PC gaming. Basically they are just milking their customer base. I've got no time for companies which operate like that. Game sequels should add greater depth and improved gameplay, not just the same old crap wrapped up in a shiny new skin.
I don't like it. Galactic Civilizations II seems better. I even liked Civ2 more.
It's just so boring and lacking in proper control. I spend three hours clicking next turn and then get killed/bored/win.
I should add, another thng I don't like about it is the new combat system. With the old one units had a separate attack and defence factor which was quite intuitive, in the sense that it was pretty easy to figure out which units would do better and worse against one another.
The new one has just a "strength" factor combined with unique unit abilites. These unit abilites are difficult to remember and quite arbitrary. For example, there is no reason why an axeman should get a 50% bonus in melee over a swordsman, or why a swordsman should get a bonus in city attack instead.
Perhaps if the unit abilities actually made sense it wouldn't have been such a turn-off. My own feeling about the game was that if I spent a several months modding unit abilities and tweaking the tech chart and time factors, I could probably have created a pretty decent game. But I don't have the time or inclination to do that. The out-of-the-box experience just wasn't up to scratch in my view.
Yeah, all you seem to do for the first thousand years or two is click the end turn button, because it takes so very long to build new settlers and workers. In the previous game, the early years are actually a lot of fun to play. It's the later years that get tedious, when there is too much to do and the AI takes ages to move.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDC
With Civ4, the early years go by in a flash with very little to do, unless you have a war, and then in the late game you research techs so fast that you are into one new era after another with no time to enjoy any of them. So, to my mind, the whole thing was just unbalanced and unsatisfying to play.
Screwtype!?!?!? What is wrong with you dude? You obviously know a lot about the series and are well informed, but I don't see how its possible to dislike Civ IV?
Civ IV is very satisfying and extremely fun imo.
And the bold part is exactly the point - whether you like the (or a) game or not is just an opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
While I share your view on Civ4 (I personally also very much enjoyed it and preferred it over Civ3) I can understand a lot of the issues screwtype has with Civ4 (e.g., how the battles work and how the different eras are treated).
You enjoyed it, he did not - you can continue to enjoy it and screwtype will (hopefully) find games he will enjoy - nothing wrong with either of you I would say...
I was making that comment for precisely that reason! I don't want others to be put off what many consider to be a great game. I think screwtype was harshly critical in his analysis.