Civilization IV anyone?

[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

[Lorenzo_H]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Viking]

I have it. Felt great in the beginning, but I got soon tired of it.

[Lorenzo_H]

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.

[Reverend Joe]

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]

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]

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.

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.

[BDC]

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.

[screwtype]

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.

[screwtype]

It's just so boring and lacking in proper control. I spend three hours clicking next turn and then get killed/bored/win.

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.

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.