Pixelcade wrote:
Civ 4? I loved Civ 1,2 and 3 LOVED 3 still think it's the best in the series. I'm a fan of pixel graphics so when it hit 3d and my Mac's couldn't run it at a good rate. Even on my gaming PC it ran like a snail. What do you like about it so much? High points and low points.
I should mention that I once spent several hours a day for ten straight weeks playing Civilization 2, and struggled to keep Civilization 3 from getting in the way of school work.
As for why I like it so much, this version (with the BtS expansion) adds a kind of balance that was never present in the earlier games. It's actually interesting if you take a peaceful approach and try to win via culture, technology/space, or diplomacy. This is because there's a new depth to these components that can keep you busy at all times. I always felt in the earlier Civ games that the only way to gain the kind of dominance needed to win -- even if not seeking a conquest victory -- required a constant focus on military endeavours. I had no problem with this, since I enjoyed the warfare mechanics (except late in the game; modern era warfare sucked). But now I can shift the focus around as desired, and not be left behind.
A civ with a small military can dominate via culture, religion, or trade. Then, if a powerful civ attacks, they can survive not on the strength of their military defence, but on the strength of their culture, which can give huge defensive bonuses to fortified units in cities, and make holding large cities almost impossible. Or, if they are the elected leader of the Apostolic Palace (religion), they can force peace, arrange trade embargoes, or bring in "brothers of the faith" as allies.
There is one interesting new mechanic that I toyed around with in my last game -- permanent alliances. You can disable this option (in fact it's disabled by default), but it provides a potential twist in dynamics mid-game. Permanent alliances see both civs maintain their independence, but automatically share technology and resources. A small civ may join forces with a large one and suddenly become a major player, perhaps soon surpassing the score of the larger civ. Or two large ones might join to become an invincible force that everyone hates but no-one will fight (if they can help it). Where it gets really interesting, though, is when a civ that has a very strong culture joins with a civ that has very strong military or espionage.
An odd new feature that is kind of hit-or-miss is the addition of optional quests, and random events. Quests usually involve building a certain number of units or buildings in a short period of time, and offer small rewards. Events occur randomly throughout the game (to every civ), and add an element of unpredictability, with famines, technological breakthroughs, natural disasters, and other oddities drawn from real history. It's debatable whether this adds to the game -- I think it does more good than bad.
I could probably go on for a lot longer, but I'll stop there in describing the features I like in Civ 4. I thought you might be interested in why I like the series as a whole, so here's something I wrote a while back.
I've been a huge fan of the Civilization games for a long time now - ever since my brother came home from school and showed me the original Civ running on his black and white toshiba laptop. There was something magical that hooked me from that very first moment. The freedom to take a civilisation of my choice from a small, insignificant tribe through to a world superpower - or even the only power - and do so across a vast expanse of time, with my every decision altering the course of human history, must be unparalleled. How/where else could I explore the possibility that China might have never caved under external pressure following the Opium Wars of the 18th century, or the Aztec, Mongol or Incan empires might never have fallen.
Low points
-it takes way too long to complete a game (although that was always a problem, and I only dislike this because it takes over my life; I actually enjoy long Civ campaigns more than short ones)
-It's still possible -- albeit difficult and extremely rare -- for a warrior to defeat a tank (it'd better be a pimped out warrior with some huge defensive bonuses and a tank with 0.1 health and no attack bonuses)
-diplomacy and trade (but not trade routes) still feel silly and awkward at times
-Civilopedia is now useless as a teaching tool
-there's no real difference between religions
-I preferred the 2D look of Civ 3
-some stuff I liked in Civ 3 is gone, like mobilisation
EDIT: Holy crap, I wrote a lot
