Cvilization IV better than Civilization V ?

Am playing civilization V I like the game alot but I didn't play IV when I saw user reviews about Civ 5 most of them are not happy about it. Should I play Civ IV ?

No you should be playing Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri which is the best Civ game to date even if it was just a spin off of the Civ 2 engine. Seriously its amazing.

Civ 5 has a few nasty bugs and relatively high performance requirements.

The issues are purely technical. Its actual design and gameplay mechanics are far superior to Civ 4.

If you put it that way I really Wana play Transport TycoonI thinki its 1996 am still waiting for a sequel.

I am playing Civ V right now and the system requirementshigher. I am experiencing issues with trying to skip the opening cinematics. It takes a longer load time than previous versions. Hoping this is just a bug. Figure out how to stop the opening cinematics from playingin the settings file.

If you put it that way I really Wana play Transport TycoonI thinki its 1996 am still waiting for a sequel.

sozar

There was a sequel last year..If i remember correctly..Even own a copy of it..

Civ 5 is hte best in the series, way better then 4 imo.

Civ2 is the only civ that is close to as awesome as Civ5 imo.

Dont listen to th haters, Civ5 rules!

[QUOTE="sozar"]

If you put it that way I really Wana play Transport TycoonI thinki its 1996 am still waiting for a sequel.

Gladestone1

There was a sequel last year..If i remember correctly..Even own a copy of it..

Civilization 5 is more streamlined than Civ 4 in many areas and the combat has been enhanced significantly. The game does lack content and depth compared to Civ IV with all it's expansions., but certainly not enough to warrant to go a step backwards unless you would consider playing mods. People are upset mostly because it's always tough to put down a Civ you've grown attached too and Civ 4 was certainly worthy of growing attached to.

edit: Just to spike Kozzy a little, but you have a bad case of nostalgia going on if you think Civ 2 is better than Civ 4. :P

I think Civ 5 is an alternative to 4, for now. Civ 4 has way more content and depth. 5 refined many gameplay mechanics, but has several expansion-shaped holes...

V sucks 8)

Civilization V made some excellent changes on the series, but I still think Civilization IV is a deeper and more complete experience than the last game of the series, especially because it has a lot of expansion packs as of now.RyuRanVII

I think Civ 5 is an alternative to 4, for now. Civ 4 has way more content and depth. 5 refined many gameplay mechanics, but has several expansion-shaped holes...

Baranga

From what i have read most people are not happy with Civ 5 because they can't run it....i mean i have seen a lot of complaints like Civ 5 sucks i can run Civ 4 at highest settings but not Civ 5 so it sucks LOL well Civ 4 is a game from 2005 and Civ 5 just came out, you can't expect a new game to run the same as a game from 5 years ago.

To me is like when Crysis was released all the people with lower specs PC's hated it because they couldn't run it, and even knowing they would not be able to play it at a good frame rate they still went ahead and bought it.

Civ IV BTS is one of my favorite games. I've litirally logged 1000s of hours playing this game and still play it vigorously. I pre-ordered CIV V and, so far, it has not really sucked me in yet. I'm holding out hope once it gets some patches and expansions. I've gone back to playing CIV IV again. I highly recommend grabbing CIV IV complete for cheap whether you have V or not. It is an absolutely fantastic game with unlimited gaming potential and tons of great mods that either improve gameplay or provide additional content. go to civfanatics.com. What really got me into CIV IV was learning how to play the game better - there is so much depth.

From what i have read most people are not happy with Civ 5 because they can't run it....i mean i have seen a lot of complaints like Civ 5 sucks i can run Civ 4 at highest settings but not Civ 5 so it sucks LOL well Civ 4 is a game from 2005 and Civ 5 just came out, you can't expect a new game to run the same as a game from 5 years ago.

DaRockWilder

If you go to civfanatics, you will see tons of complaints - other than performance - from diplomacy, sorry AI to a very common one of "it's just not entertaining". The ability to run the game is one of the least complaints I see.

Just like IV is better than V, III is better than IV and II is better than III.

Civilization 5 is more streamlined than Civ 4 in many areas and the combat has been enhanced significantly. The game does lack content and depth compared to Civ IV with all it's expansions., but certainly not enough to warrant to go a step backwards unless you would consider playing mods. People are upset mostly because it's always tough to put down a Civ you've grown attached too and Civ 4 was certainly worthy of growing attached to.

edit: Just to spike Kozzy a little, but you have a bad case of nostalgia going on if you think Civ 2 is better than Civ 4. :P

_Pedro_

If you put it that way I really Wana play Transport TycoonI thinki its 1996 am still waiting for a sequel.

sozar

It's called Locomotion and its been out for a while.

Anyways on topic, When people say that Civ4 is better than Civ5 what they really mean to say is that Civ4 with beyond the sword expansion is better than Civ5. Personally I think Civ5 is by far the best in the series but most people don't compare the vanilla games.

There's no doubt that when Civ5 is given the same amount of time to prove itself it will be the best in the series.

[QUOTE="_Pedro_"]

Civilization 5 is more streamlined than Civ 4 in many areas and the combat has been enhanced significantly. The game does lack content and depth compared to Civ IV with all it's expansions., but certainly not enough to warrant to go a step backwards unless you would consider playing mods. People are upset mostly because it's always tough to put down a Civ you've grown attached too and Civ 4 was certainly worthy of growing attached to.

edit: Just to spike Kozzy a little, but you have a bad case of nostalgia going on if you think Civ 2 is better than Civ 4. :P

F1_2004

Am playing civilization V I like the game alot but I didn't play IV when I saw user reviews about Civ 5 most of them are not happy about it. Should I play Civ IV ?

sozar

Civilization 5 is more streamlined than Civ 4 in many areas and the combat has been enhanced significantly. The game does lack content and depth compared to Civ IV with all it's expansions., but certainly not enough to warrant to go a step backwards unless you would consider playing mods. People are upset mostly because it's always tough to put down a Civ you've grown attached too and Civ 4 was certainly worthy of growing attached to.

edit: Just to spike Kozzy a little, but you have a bad case of nostalgia going on if you think Civ 2 is better than Civ 4. :P

Civ 5 is much better. How can anyone go back to Civ 4's combat?KHAndAnime

But it's stupid to compare Civilization 5 to a expansion like Beyond the Sword, I find it annoying when people do that...it took them like 2 years after Civilization 4's release to nail this, why should Civilization 5 be compared to a expansion that took them 2 in half years to make?wizdom

But why should they improve Civ IV then not take those improvements forward into the next game?

Your argument is flawed. Yes, Beyond The Sword came out two and a half years after Civ IV, but it also came out three years before Civ V. Why shouldn't a sequel take aspects from its predecessor's expansion pack and iterate on them? Why should it NEED to only iterate on the original game, ignoring the expansions? That's an extremely limited view!

[QUOTE="wizdom"] But it's stupid to compare Civilization 5 to a expansion like Beyond the Sword, I find it annoying when people do that...it took them like 2 years after Civilization 4's release to nail this, why should Civilization 5 be compared to a expansion that took them 2 in half years to make?kieranb2000

If it took nearly 4 years for the final expansion, then would you want Civ 5 to have taken an additional 4 years?

The development process for most good games is often starting from scratch. Unless you want copy and paste sequels like yearly sports titles. Adding more to what already exists isnt always a good idea. Sometimes cutting a feature is much better. Mass Effect 1 to ME 2 saw lots of improvements despiite cutting quite a bit of features and content.

Civ 5 is a redesign of Civ, not just another expansion. If thats what you wanted or were expecting, then you had plenty of time to realize that that was not the case from any number of previews over the years.

[QUOTE="kieranb2000"][QUOTE="wizdom"] But it's stupid to compare Civilization 5 to a expansion like Beyond the Sword, I find it annoying when people do that...it took them like 2 years after Civilization 4's release to nail this, why should Civilization 5 be compared to a expansion that took them 2 in half years to make?XaosII

If it took nearly 4 years for the final expansion, then would you want Civ 5 to have taken an additional 4 years?

The development process for most good games is often starting from scratch. Unless you want copy and paste sequels like yearly sports titles. Adding more to what already exists isnt always a good idea. Sometimes cutting a feature is much better. Mass Effect 1 to ME 2 saw lots of improvements despiite cutting quite a bit of features and content.

Civ 5 is a redesign of Civ, not just another expansion. If thats what you wanted or were expecting, then you had plenty of time to realize that that was not the case from any number of previews over the years.

all civ games are great.

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]Civ 5 is much better. How can anyone go back to Civ 4's combat?wizdom

[QUOTE="F1_2004"][QUOTE="_Pedro_"]

Civilization 5 is more streamlined than Civ 4 in many areas and the combat has been enhanced significantly. The game does lack content and depth compared to Civ IV with all it's expansions., but certainly not enough to warrant to go a step backwards unless you would consider playing mods. People are upset mostly because it's always tough to put down a Civ you've grown attached too and Civ 4 was certainly worthy of growing attached to.

edit: Just to spike Kozzy a little, but you have a bad case of nostalgia going on if you think Civ 2 is better than Civ 4. :P

_Pedro_

What they really need to deal with is all of the dumb bugs and hilariously bad AI. The need to at least bring it up to the "mildly incompetent" level that it always was in previous games, and the difficulty bonuses can hopefully take care of the rest. :P

[QUOTE="wizdom"][QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]Civ 5 is much better. How can anyone go back to Civ 4's combat?KHAndAnime

Most of the flack it receives are from people who got so addicted to 4 and find out that their favorite features from Civ 4 are gone. And as it happens, I am one of them.

The broken AI, worthless diplomacy, weak civilopedia (gives out false info sometimes such as where it states that Rationalism gives 2 research while it in reality only gives 1), one redicilously broken and out of place unit (Giant Death Robot), worthless resources, overpowered Russians (though I am very guilty of maining them in this game), cumbersome UI, dumbed down civics system, broken multiplayer, no hotseat, no victory/wonder movie, no trade via rivers or sea, a grassland-cow gives 3 food 1 production compared to a farm on normal grassland eventually gives 4 food, no civics and use of talent trees.

Either way, they both have different strengths Civ 5 has better combat, Civ 4 is better on everything else. But you might wanna get civ 4 as well in addition to alpha centuri, civ 4 has awesome mods and alpha centauri is the alpha male of strategy games.

The new civics system is not "dumbed down." It is actually more strategic now that you have to decide if you want to spend your points now or wait until later stuff that is usually better. No more flip flopping as the wind changes. You have to commit.

a grassland-cow gives 3 food 1 production compared to a farm on normal grassland eventually gives 4 food,Maroxad

The new civics system is not "dumbed down." It is actually more strategic now that you have to decide if you want to spend your points now or wait until later stuff that is usually better. No more flip flopping as the wind changes. You have to commit. [QUOTE="Maroxad"]a grassland-cow gives 3 food 1 production compared to a farm on normal grassland eventually gives 4 food,StopThePresses

First of all, the problem with the new system is how none of them carry an actual consequence. Like slave revolts in civ 4 for example. In addition a country changes it laws and rules over time, now it is once a monarchy always a monarchy. How about those countries that have switched from a monarchy or even tyranny to a democracy, or democratic nations that quickly turned into bitter tyrannies. What about taking away laws. There are no more revolutions, and this system is probably the most frowned upon in the entire game. One thing I like with it though is how developing your country politically doesn't temporarily stop you from developing scientifically.

Also, while I agree that 1 production is generally more useful, it isnt very good for towns that are farming great people. The main point is how a cow tile which is supposed to be more valuable than normal slots is barely more valuable than a normal slot, anyway the point I was trying to bring up there was that resources hardly affect a towns productivity anymore. But those arent of my own words though and I got that complaint from this long list of criticisms.

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"]

The new civics system is not "dumbed down." It is actually more strategic now that you have to decide if you want to spend your points now or wait until later stuff that is usually better. No more flip flopping as the wind changes. You have to commit. [QUOTE="Maroxad"]a grassland-cow gives 3 food 1 production compared to a farm on normal grassland eventually gives 4 food,Maroxad

First of all, the problem with the new system is how none of them carry an actual consequence. Like slave revolts in civ 4 for example. In addition a country changes it laws and rules over time, now it is once a monarchy always a monarchy. How about those countries that have switched from a monarchy or even tyranny to a democracy, or democratic nations that quickly turned into bitter tyrannies. What about taking away laws. There are no more revolutions, and this system is probably the most frowned upon in the entire game. One thing I like with it though is how developing your country politically doesn't temporarily stop you from developing scientifically.

Also, while I agree that 1 production is generally more useful, it isnt very good for towns that are farming great people. The main point is how a cow tile which is supposed to be more valuable than normal slots is barely more valuable than a normal slot, anyway the point I was trying to bring up there was that resources hardly affect a towns productivity anymore. But those arent of my own words though and I got that complaint from this long list of criticisms.

i'd rather take the stack of doom any day than the blanket of doom (ai covers all tiles with units...). not to mention it takes FOREVER to fight a war with an AI that has filled up all its tiles with units. zzzz

Whatever, I think the new civics system is better and makes for more interesting gameplay decisions. The consequences are that you do not get the other bonuses that you could have picked. I don't know how you can say there are no consequences. Not having the other stuff is the consequence. It isn't like Civ IV where you research a new civic and most of the time it is either clearly better to switch to that thing or it isn't. I'm not much interested in how "realistic" it is. That is one thing the series has sure as hell never been. I just hope they fix the idiotic AI and the bugs.

StopThePresses

A list of consequences would be:

• Slavery: Slave revolts
• Pacifism: Extra upkeep for every unit
• Theocracy: No non-state religion spread, although this can also be a strength
• Emancipation: Although this can only be bad in team matches (very popular online) Emancipation affects your team mates just as it affects your enemies.
• Merchantilism: No trade with foreign nations, foreign corporations have no effect.
• State Property: Corporations have no effect.
• Environmentalism: Corporations have 25% more maintenance.
• In addition each new civic also have their own maintenance cost, although this cost never really bothered me.

Either way you stated that you prefer the new system and I don't, at least we can agree to disagree ;). We can also agree that the series have never been realistic and that the AI is bad in civ 5. Once I become better at programming I will try to make my own mod in an attempt to fix as many issues as possible as well as adding a Mongolian faction as I have been unusually obsessed with Mongolia as of recently.

You don't understand how game development works if you believe that since it took 2 and a half years (yes 2 and half, that's only "nearly 4" in the sense that 20 is almost a hundred.) that means it would have added an extra 2 and half years to the Civ V development process to re-implement those features. A lot of those two years will have been designing how the additions would work and how they would change the pre-established game. For Civ V they were starting from scratch, as you mentioned, so starting with ideas from their expansion pack in mind would have in fact reduced the production time on such elements. While I'm not arguing that Civ V is better than Civ IV, I think the argument that "You can't compare it to a game with two expansions" is extremely silly when expansions exist to add new features to an old game, and new sequels exist to further iterate on those ideas and also add new features. I didn't even play Beyond the Sword, so maybe Civ V does in fact have all the elements from it in the game, I wouldn't know. However, if it doesn't, then a better argument should be "it wasn't fun and added nothing to the game" or "it wouldn't fit with the new style" or something, not "But that was added in an expansion pack!"kieranb2000

Expansion packs are just that...expansion packs. Their purpose is to expand on already existing core design concepts. Since Civ V is a brand new entry built from scratch, it's not particularly reasonable to expect it to build upon an expansion pack of a previous entry. Civ V brought some major changes to the series, most notably the hex grid and the combat system. It's wise to scale back when doing a complete overhaul. A competent developer knows when it's time to redefine the basics as opposed to simply adding features on top of one another.

Civ IV players should find this quote familiar - "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

You better believe that Sid knows it as well.

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"]

Whatever, I think the new civics system is better and makes for more interesting gameplay decisions. The consequences are that you do not get the other bonuses that you could have picked. I don't know how you can say there are no consequences. Not having the other stuff is the consequence. It isn't like Civ IV where you research a new civic and most of the time it is either clearly better to switch to that thing or it isn't. I'm not much interested in how "realistic" it is. That is one thing the series has sure as hell never been. I just hope they fix the idiotic AI and the bugs.

Maroxad

A list of consequences would be:

• Slavery: Slave revolts
• Pacifism: Extra upkeep for every unit
• Theocracy: No non-state religion spread, although this can also be a strength
• Emancipation: Although this can only be bad in team matches (very popular online) Emancipation affects your team mates just as it affects your enemies.
• Merchantilism: No trade with foreign nations, foreign corporations have no effect.
• State Property: Corporations have no effect.
• Environmentalism: Corporations have 25% more maintenance.
• In addition each new civic also have their own maintenance cost, although this cost never really bothered me.

Either way you stated that you prefer the new system and I don't, at least we can agree to disagree ;). We can also agree that the series have never been realistic and that the AI is bad in civ 5. Once I become better at programming I will try to make my own mod in an attempt to fix as many issues as possible as well as adding a Mongolian faction as I have been unusually obsessed with Mongolia as of recently.