Gallifrey
Keeper Of Traken
- Joined
- June 17, 2007
- Messages
- 658
I'll also say how dull I find CivIV. Lots of pretty graphics and a pile 'o stuff jammed in (long list of techs, units, bldgs, etc.), but just not a lot of substance. It boils down to some very, very simple gameplay dressed up with a whole lot of "stuff" that doesn't really amount to much. And the combat is dreadfully simplistic. That's perhaps the biggest disappointment for me.
I have to agree, though I'm still finding it reasonably fun. While playing, I keep wishing I could mix and match bits of CivIII and CivIV since each have their good and bad points.
CivIV lacks a sense of immediacy, it's very much all about hitting "end turn" and waiting for things to happen. CivIII had a greater sense of strategy, I think. Now granted, I've only been playing with IV for a couple of weeks versus III for a couple of years.
Combat in Civilization has always been simplistic and I agree, it's a low point. More tactical options would be extremely welcome, though Meier has repeatedly said Civ is not a war game.
Right now, my biggest compaint with IV is that I don't really feel the passage of the ages, or that the time spent in them is important, they seem to be there only as phases to get through, as spaces of game time to facilitate tech researching, and that's it, no sense of importance. With CivIII I felt that each period meant more.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 658