Civilization IV anyone?

**Lorenzo_H** · 05-15-2006, 20:59

Sorry chaps double post.

**doc_bean** · 05-15-2006, 21:59

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.

**Ragabash** · 05-16-2006, 00:44

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

**Lorenzo_H** · 05-16-2006, 11:25

Originally Posted by Ragabash

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

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.

I have never played colonization but I have only heard good things about it.

**screwtype** · 05-16-2006, 13:28

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.

**econ21** · 05-16-2006, 15:20

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.

**Lorenzo_H** · 05-16-2006, 16:49

Originally Posted by econ21

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.

I feel very similarly.

**Reverend Joe** · 05-17-2006, 03:55

Originally Posted by econ21

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.

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.

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.

**Lorenzo_H** · 05-16-2006, 16:48

Originally Posted by screwtype

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.

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.

**screwtype** · 05-17-2006, 13:01

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

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 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.

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

I don't think you've played enough, or else you are too used to the Total War gameplay

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.

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.