This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.
Civilization IV concensus?
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
I bought 5 and I hated it. I just can't get into no matter how hard I try. It just feels dumbed down.
All Hail Cornmuffins
Civ 4 is an actual civilization game, not some panzer general goon clone
You know why they call it an Xbox 360
When you look at it, you turn 360 degrees and walk away.
I'm loving Civ 5 right now. It's addictive, deep and easy to get into. I love it.
All Night And Everyday, I'm In A Galaxy Far, Far Away. Reborn, Unable To Die, I've Committed 100 Suicides.
When I first started Civ 4, I had no idea what I was doing. But I stuck with it and it's a fantastic game.
Proud owner of an '88 Peugeot.
I dunno which I prefer between Civ 4 and Alpha Centauri. I've played more Alpha Centauri but maybe only because it's existed a lot longer. I like that in Alpha Centauri I could focus on capturing a handful of very powerful psi-worms and lead an attack with just them whereas in Civ 4 I've always had to focus more on having a really large army to go on the offensive, and battle feels a bit more random to me in Civ 4 sometimes.
Anyway, Civ 5 is nowhere near as good as those two games as far as I'm concerned. It's not as deep, the system for regulating how many towns you have is really awkward and I don't think it's well-implemented, City-States are a mess and extremely exploitable, and the AI just plain doesn't understand the combat system. It seemed smart up-front that they made each space only occupiable by a single unit, even if it makes unit movement a bit uncomfortable at times, and they made it so that units are much less expendable than in previous games because they don't die as easily and a good melee+ranged combo can take on almost anything. Unfortunately because the AI doesn't understand the concept of ranged units, you can devastate it at any skill level and any tech level just by keeping a row of ranged units on high ground with a row of melee units in front. They will just keep charging blindly and being cut down by arrow/cannon/etc. fire, and eventually they'll surrender when they see how badly the war is going for them. It's pathetic.
Even after years of play I only play games like Civ 4 and Alpha Centauri on kinda medium difficulty settings, like setting 5 out of 9 or something. I get the games but obviously not to the extent that some people do. Civ 5, though, I can play on any difficulty because the AI never gets smart. It's a bit lame for that reason. Might be better online, but I've never played Civ online because I wouldn't want to play with a stranger and my friends don't play Civilization.
From: iscareu13 | #008
I really wish there was a civilization game made in the RTS format.
Check out Rise of Nations... that's about as close as I've seen to a Civ game in RTS.
Why's IV better than V? Especially now that Gods and Kings is out? I'm just curious as I've only ever played I, II, and V.
Civ V isn't a bad game by any stretch of the imagination. And the latest expansion helped fix a good chunk of the issues it had.
That said, Civ IV is generally a more complex, deeper game. It has more options, more variety, more things to concern yourself with.
One of the best criticisms I've heard of Civ V is that it feels like a game. In other 4x games, like Civ IV, or Galactic Civilizations II, you feel like you're leading and developing a culture while dealing with rival nations. In Civ V, you feel like you're playing a video game, against AI that also want to win a video game.
Too many things were removed, changed, or simplified. For example, the UN formerly could make game-changing decisions, like banning nukes. In Civ V, it's purely a way to win a diplomatic victory. There's also no pollution, "culture" isn't really a representation of a city's cultural power anymore, the city unhappiness system is a rather silly one...
If they could take Civ IV's systems, add it onto Civ V's combat, and rework the AI to Galactic Civilization II's level, we'd have the best Civilization game ever.
The sole purpose of this space is to make my post look longer.
Civ 5 sorta plays almost the same as Freeciv, this is a good thing.
I think I'm the only person on gamefaqs with a daughterboard - ToastyOne
New with a moderation history more plentiful than karma. - Fossil (Moderator)
CultCryptik posted...Why's IV better than V? Especially now that Gods and Kings is out? I'm just curious as I've only ever played I, II, and V.
I agree with this 1000%. Civ V is not a bad game, (I've played it quite a bit) it just doesn't stand up to IV. I'm not sure many other Civ games made after it could.
i5-2500k @ 4.3ghz | 8GB DDR3 | Nvidia 670 2GB SLI | 1TB HD x2
Add user to Ignore List after reporting