...I can't believe it. I honestly thought the Civ franchise was over, but apparently I was wrong.
Who else feels the anticipation?
It's coming...
...I can't believe it. I honestly thought the Civ franchise was over, but apparently I was wrong.
Who else feels the anticipation?
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
Originally Posted by Think
Ur mom
But it's gonna be a pretty good game I hope. I'll probably illegally download it.
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.
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
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
nice work
so ive never played civ4 multilayer id imagine games take forever though
What made you think they weren't going to make a fifth one though? I'm surprised it's taken them so long.
I think they need to strike a balance between 3 and 4. But diplomacy definitely needs to be improved regardless, because it sucks balls in both games and lacks depth.
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.
It can be good in single player. I just think it's stupid you have to wait the equivalent of 40 years before the leader you're at war with will even talk to you.
In Civ 4 at least, the Beyond the Sword expansion really added a lot value to democracy and espionage in even single player games. I'm hoping that in Civ V they'll have an even more significant impact on the game.
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
I liked it but I think they need to do something about fixing the later parts of the game because it gets ridiculously bogged down.
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.
oh come on coq. everyone knows that you haven't played a video game whose system requirements could be met only with 1990 technology or later.
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks