...I can't believe it. I honestly thought the Civ franchise was over, but apparently I was wrong.
Who else feels the anticipation?
...I can't believe it. I honestly thought the Civ franchise was over, but apparently I was wrong.
Who else feels the anticipation?
I'd love to say that i'm waiting for it with baited breath, but sadly i'd be lying. I think Civ 3 is by far away the best Civ game, 4 is ok but it just feels far too short, too easy and just doesn't seem to have the epicness of Civ3. It is more then likely that Civ 5 will be more like 4 then 3, but I guess its early days yet so hopefully I may be proven wrong.
What do you think it was about Civ 4 that makes you say that? I have to admit that my experience with Civ 3 was minimal, so I can't make a decent comparison.
Many say that Civ 2 was the pinnacle of the civilization games, but I honestly felt that Civ 4 was definitely a step forward.
As for Civ 1, the most remarkable thing was that it could be ran off a single 3.5" floppy disk. That's only 1.44 MB. Granted, the graphics were far less impressive, but it was still an incredibly engrossing game.
In terms of pacing alone, I have seen in multiple places that they are taking inspiration from Civ Revolutions. Now that's not to say they are also dumbing down the game to that extent. You have to admit that there was some tedium in the end game, even if you were using your governors to control city production, so it might not be such an awful thing to cut down on that.It is more then likely that Civ 5 will be more like 4 then 3, but I guess its early days yet so hopefully I may be proven wrong.
Well I haven't actually played Civ4 extensively, only a couple of games of varying map sizes. But even on the largest map with the longest setting it felt like a far cry from the grandeur of Civ3, it was too short and too small and while it undoubtedly has more intricacy as far as city control and such are concerned it just felt too.. crowded. That may be the wrong word but it just seemed like all the new options and details weren't really adding anything to the game.
Also I have only played on the release copy of Civ4, none of the expansions so these things may have changed but when I won on Civ4 there was just no satisfaction, even on medium difficulty with a large map I could go from zero to a win in a single day, maybe 2 or 3 if I only played an hour or two a day. In comparison on Civ3 even on the easiest difficulty it could take a week to complete a single game, and several if you only played an hour or two a day, and when you switched the difficulty to anything beyond easy it required serious tactics and consideration. When you finally completed a game it felt satisfying, like you had actually achieved something, with Civ4 that just wasn't there for me.
Last edited by Mortal Kombat; 03-17-2010 at 02:47 PM.
Of course I loved CIV 2 and then I actually went and bought (!) CIV 4. Loved the new layout and game design etc, but the gameplay also felt kind of...well empty after a while I guess, particularly in the endgame.
It seemed like you always ended up in one of a limited number of situations, no matter which civ you used. I think the fact that technologies, even on epic mode seemed to come too easily and also the tactical/warfare system was very repetitive.
It really needs more excitement and unique situations. I don't want to end up fighting the 2nd world war every single game.
you're coming
so ive never played civ4 multilayer id imagine games take forever though
Yeah I can agree with that for sure, only thing it seemed to be used for was to get some extra technology early on but as you get past the half way point it becomes rather useless. Half the time the window just pops open with other people demanding free technology from you and whether you actually give it them or not seem to make little to no difference.
Diplomacy should be disabled in single player... It's only meaningful in multiplayer games.
I'll probably steal it.
I ditched Civ 4 pretty quickly and went back to Civ 2, but what I remember... it didn't seem to get bogged down any more than any other Civ.
I really hate only being able to move individual troops in civ 3, unless i'm totally missing something obvious. I'd have 2 ludicrous 30~ man armies moving around, and only being able to command them one at a time was frustrating.
Bookmarks