Kalfear Posted February 3, 2006 Posted February 3, 2006 So finally got civ 4 working a month or so ago and have made it to noble level (that I can win at). But Im really starting to think Civ 3 was the better game. Now granted, I love having the religions and all that, thats a nice new addition. But Im finding that building units kinda less important in civ 4 as you can breeze through to tanks and mech inf so easily. basically if you can survive the barbarians early on, get to muskets (for defence) and knights (for offence) you have won. Civ 3 was much more detailed and getting those newer techs were more difficult (or fealt so anyways). Also the limitations placed on you early on in expanding I find annoying in Civ 4, I much prefered the old system of needing at a minimum, 3 pop in a town before you could build a settler. Im just not sold Civ 4 is a better game, graphically yes, has some new ideas and concepts that are appealing, but over all game wise, I just dont think so. Kalfear Disco and Dragons Avatar Enlarged
alanschu Posted February 3, 2006 Posted February 3, 2006 I think the only reason why it took you so long to get the later techs in Civ 3 is because in the later parts of the game, each turn took so much longer. To be honest it sounds like you're playing against the AI at a less than intense difficulty level. I think Civ 4 is much better than Civ 3.
Llyranor Posted February 3, 2006 Posted February 3, 2006 Coop makes all previous Civs irrelevant. (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it)
alanschu Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 (edited) Sid didn't make the game, though most "civfanatics" prefer Civ 4. The only ones I've seen that do not like Civ 4 try to play Civ 4 as if it is Civ 3. Edited February 4, 2006 by alanschu
Llyranor Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 Yeah, from the civfanatics forums, it seems - as a whole - those who preferred 2 to 3 like 4, but those who preferred 3 don't. (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it)
Darque Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 Sid didn't make it? I'm surprised it's not better :D I've had no faith in Sid since playing Alpha Centauri (which was thankfully sid-less)... and then the hideous Civ 3.
alanschu Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 (edited) Sid is managing the entire studio of Firaxis I believe. Though I think he had "final say" on anything to make sure it kept an appropriate Civ style of gameplay. He really liked the innovations IIRC. I thought Alpha Centauri was a Brian Reynolds/Sid Meier co-op project? Edited February 4, 2006 by alanschu
Darque Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 I was under the impression it was all Brian Reynolds and only had Sid's name on it.
alanschu Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 According to Moby Games, Brian was lead designer, but Sid was still a designer.
Pidesco Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 Yeah, from the civfanatics forums, it seems - as a whole - those who preferred 2 to 3 like 4, but those who preferred 3 don't. What about those that think that Civ1 is the best of the first three civs? "My hovercraft is full of eels!" - Hungarian tourist I am Dan Quayle of the Romans. I want to tattoo a map of the Netherlands on my nether lands. Heja Sverige!! Everyone should cuffawkle more. The wrench is your friend.
Llyranor Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 (edited) Heh, do you lurk on their forums as well? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, just occasionally, really. Haha, guess who's having a 4-player civ4 session without you right now Edited February 4, 2006 by Llyranor (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it)
Darque Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 According to Moby Games, Brian was lead designer, but Sid was still a designer. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Curious.
Pidesco Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 According to Moby Games, Brian was lead designer, but Sid was still a designer. Curious. I don't have the manual here with me, but I think there's a text written by Brian about the development of Alpha Centauri in it that describes the involvement of Sid in the creation of the game. "My hovercraft is full of eels!" - Hungarian tourist I am Dan Quayle of the Romans. I want to tattoo a map of the Netherlands on my nether lands. Heja Sverige!! Everyone should cuffawkle more. The wrench is your friend.
Darque Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 I'll dig up mine and check it out If I can remember where I put it
SteveThaiBinh Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 I'm taking a break from all things Civ at the moment. In a few months, I'll feel a civ urge once again, but will it be for Civ 3 or 4? I'd guess 4, but only time will tell which has the greater staying power. "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov)
alanschu Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 Heh, do you lurk on their forums as well? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, just occasionally, really. Haha, guess who's having a 4-player civ4 session without you right now <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Noooo, I'm still at work!!
Enoch Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 IMO, Civ 4 is clearly better than Civ 3. The removal of pollution and corruption alone (replaced by health and city maintenance, respectively) put it over the top. Also, the better tech tree and more varied infrastructure improvements both take what used to be mechanistic decisions and make them interesting. I haven't tried the multiplayer yet (need to hone my skills further first), so I can't talk about that. Overall, I doubt I'll play it as obsessively as I played 1 or 2, but I don't have that kind of free time anymore anyway.
Nick_i_am Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 IMO, Civ 4 is clearly better than Civ 3. Overall, I doubt I'll play it as obsessively as I played 1 or 2, but I don't have that kind of free time anymore anyway. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Exactly. Civ3 just wasn't fun. (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it)
Llyranor Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 That 4-player session rocked. Stupid freaking raging barbarians (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it)
Jumjalum Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 Civ 4 plays a lot better on Epic speed, it gives each unit time to be useful rather than being obselete by the time you've got a decent number on the battlefield. We now bring you live footage from the World Championship Staring Final.
Nick_i_am Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 Yeah, pretty much, 'quick' was good for learning the ropes, but it's epic all the way now baby. (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it)
Enoch Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 Civ 4 plays a lot better on Epic speed, it gives each unit time to be useful rather than being obselete by the time you've got a decent number on the battlefield. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I disagree. I find Epic too slow; Standard works fine for me. It took me just over 16 hours of game time to win a Standard SP game (my first Monarch level win :D ) last week-- I don't need it to last any longer than that! As for units going obsolete, I did notice that when I first started with Civ4, but it doesn't bother me anymore. I think that ratcheting up the difficulty level helps slow down the science (AI is more aggressive, and you have increased research costs). Plus, I'm not the type of player who often builds large invasion forces. I'm more of an opportunistic warrior-- grabbing a city or two from a rival when I have a momentary advantage and then suing for peace in exchange for some nice goodies.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now