CivIV idiocies...

[Suicides-by-Steve]

What the heck is with the one-unit-at-a-time combat?! OMG how silly! You'd think a game that incorporates so much detail to cities and such would have a MUCH better combat system.

For those that don't know how it works- here's the gist. A stack of your combat units approaches an enemy city with another stack of enemy units.To engage in combat, you select ONE unit, from the stack, and enter the city with that unit. So if you have a tank unit, infantry unit, and helicopter unit, only ONE unit can attack the city at a time, and not as a whole? WTF!? Total gayness. And then to boot the defender has no option which unit to defend with, the computer automatically selects the "best" most "appropriate" unit? :rolleyes:

Now, I may be placing a heavier emphasis on combat than was intended, but I think in a "civilization" game that is supposed to mimic human life upon our planet, that it's not entirely unfounded.

Hey Aku, if you're reading this, I have had hints that you can change religions within a city, but have not actually encountered a button to allow me to do so; do I need missionaries or is there some other way? I would like to ban a few religions from my cities, and I can't (so far) find a way to do so. In Europa Universalis, it was just a matter of moving a slider, giving certain "tolerance" percentages to various religions... It was great sacking a Western European city in that game and enforcing Paganism only... Oh how the cities would burn.... Heh.

[moya]

You can't stop religions from spreading in your cities unless you have one of the civics (maybe Theocracy?) which makes it so that only your state religion will spread. To spread a particular religion to a city the best way is to create a missionary unit for that religion and go and evangelise! Or you could wait for it to spread "naturally", through trade routes, but that may take a while. Generally though you'll find that your cities have more than one religion at a time, especially in the mid-game when you've made contact with several different civs.

And it seems strange that you talk up a highly unrealistic "religion slider" feature in another game, while at the same time denouncing the combat in Civ as "unrealistic". Sure, combat isn't one of Civ's strongest points, but it never was. Yeah, you can only attack with one unit at a time, but you can attack with all your units in the same turn, assuming they have enough moves left, thus simulating an onslaught on a city. In any case, I think Civ IV brings enough new stuff to the table in combat to make it the best of the bunch.

[Suicides-by-Steve]

Well, Moya, the "religion slider" I was talking about is not really THAT unrealistic at all. It reflects a country's religious tolerances and as such, doesn't allow for ANY practiced religion within its' borders at all (if you so wish). Not unrealistic at all, especially considering the time frame in which EU takes place (Medieval/Renaissance). In case you don't know alot about the period, there was LOADS of religious persecutions AND tolerances, and it's the main reason why Islam is present in modern-day central/eastern Europe. Religions where looked apon as accepted, tolerated, or outright banned. The slider was an excellent tool to slowly ween a country from one religion to another, especially over a century or so. Happened all the time, my friend, so I don't see how you can say it's unrealistic at all.

Now, on the other hand if you moved into an Orthodox country and immediately turned that slider down to zero and Paganism up to 100%, what do you think would happen? Yeah, they'd riot. But again, it's not unheard of... Roman/Christian (0-300 AD) era comes to mind. Geez, it happened in your OWN country for starters! Hehe. The British Isles where primarily Pagan (Celtic) until along came the Romans, and *ahem* "introduced" the Roman Church (circa 400 AD).

I still would be tempted to say that Shadow Magic STILL has a ton of merit, and while I did play CivIV for a full game the other night, and enjoyed it, I find that there's just not a lot of realism to the game... In AoW for instance, razing cities, mixing alignments and races have consequences, whereas in CivIV, nuking someone (on Settler level mind you), has NO noticable detrimental effect on yourself or your country. They need a mod I think that of you start nuking someone, then you risk trade sanctions, wars on multiple fronts, etc. As well, one unit being able to "raze" a city? Hmmm, again, very odd. You have a city the size of New York being destroyed by a marauding Longbowman unit? My God, how large are the units for Pete's sake!? LOL

Still I don't mind the game, but saying it's the best of the lot? I dunno, I can think of about 5 or 6 things I'd change right off the bat.... I can think of only 2 or 3 for AoW (city management one of them); however, to omit or overlook something as simple as denying a certain religion within an area of an empire building game (ESPECIALLY one that mimics OUR civilization), seems a little off... Religions did NOT spread willy-nilly during the course of our history, and neither should they in the game... That's all I'm saying...

[Suicides-by-Steve]

Anyway, another question if you don't mind? What's the difference between the Marathon, Epic, Normal, and Quick time settings? I have been only playing on normal, yet the progression of technology seems a bit hurried to me...

[Mochan]

Hey Aku, if you're reading this, I have had hints that you can change religions within a city, but have not actually encountered a button to allow me to do so; do I need missionaries or is there some other way?

Religion will change with missionaries and simply by cultural influence. Those are the only two ways I know of. I don't know of any way to ban a religion.

I still would be tempted to say that Shadow Magic STILL has a ton of merit, and while I did play CivIV for a full game the other night, and enjoyed it, I find that there's just not a lot of realism to the game... In AoW for instance, razing cities, mixing alignments and races have consequences, whereas in CivIV, nuking someone (on Settler level mind you), has NO noticable detrimental effect on yourself or your country.

Personally I'm still more into the other games other than Civ, especially since Civ 1. Civ 1 had a charm that none of its sequels had; those little touches like the funky music when you make a discovery and see a greek philosopher slowly turn into a labcoat scientist was cool, and Civ 4 doesn't have anything like that. You could view your city with the in-depth view and see every building represented. Civ 4 doesn't allow this. Etc. etc.

I do enjoy Shadow Magic more, mostly due to the setting (I love the fantasy setting) and also due to the combat. Civ's comabt is just boring but Shadow Magic was good enough to practically be a separate tactical combat game. I also found the "ethnic culling" option in AoW to be really funny though they called it "migrating" or some such euphemism, lol.

[Suicides-by-Steve]

Yeah, it's not entirely fair of me to compare the two games, they are inherently different after all. One is a Tacstrat, while the other is a Globestrat (if you follow my abbreviations 8)).

[Suicides-by-Steve]

The only button I have found that can do this is the State Religion button, and this of course changes your whole state religion obviously. In my game I created the majority of the religions in the game, and then set my Religious prefrences as a Theoracy. Eventually, every nation had Buddism as their major religion- netting me huge profits when I built my shrine, I of course sent out missionaries to make all the heathens BELIEVE! Hehe. Turns out I'm not the only one that thinks the religion is sort of broken. There's already a huge slew of mods in place to slow down the rate and assimilation of those religions (not to mention adding tons more). Can't wait to get a better feel for the game, I'll make sure that I install some killer mods.

[moya]

You could view your city with the in-depth view and see every building represented. Civ 4 doesn't allow this.

Except that you can see all the improvements you've built in your city on the main game screen if you zoom in. And you can rotate the camera around to get a better view.

In any case, I think Civ 4 is the most Civ1-esque of the lot, and it's clearly leaps and bounds ahead of Civ 1 in many areas, including the combat. So that's what I meant when I said "best of the lot" - I'm not counting other strategy games, which as we all know, have different goals. I mean, sure, I'd personally love it if Civ could give you a real-time strategic component of the sort that the Total War series offers, but I don't think that's ever going to happen (not because it's not possible--it clearly is--but rather because it's just not that sort of game).

[moya]

Yes, SBS, Theocracy is the one which stops the spread of non-state religions in your cities. So with that civic and heavy missionary use, you should be able to spread the religion of your choice.

The reason I was picking on the "religion slider" thing was just that it struck me as a very "gamey" tactic to use. It seems like a case of adding complexity to increase depth, but you'll have to take what I say with a pinch of salt since I never played the game in question.

[moya]

Anyway, another question if you don't mind? What's the difference between the Marathon, Epic, Normal, and Quick time settings? I have been only playing on normal, yet the progression of technology seems a bit hurried to me...

Play on Epic then. Fewer years pass per turn in comparison to Normal and Quick games, and techs take longer to develop.

*triple post NINJAR!*

[Friend_Bear]

Don't get me started about the civ games, the first two and test of time we're good, then they broke it with Civ3, even the call to power games wasn't that great. Call to power has some huge bugs that can totally screw up you're save game, and CTP2 just plane sucks. So I don't trust civ4 at all, and now with added religion that you must control...why can't they go back to what made the originals good.

[moya]

I don't trust YOU!

[Aku]

Civ 3 wasn't broke, they fixed most of the issues with the expansion. The quirks that were left in the game weren't bad enough to ruin it for me. It's a good game.

[Suicides-by-Steve]

Despite my rants, CivIV is a GREAT game. I'm enjoying it thoroughly.

[Friend_Bear]

Lies! :P I tell you! You're from the huge corporate civilization come to spread falsehoods and lies, not to mention religions to our glorious empire of civhaters, begone or I shalt be forced to bring in my stack of three dimensional mobile armor.

[BaneNWN]

Don't get me started about the civ games, the first two and test of time we're good, then they broke it with Civ3, even the call to power games wasn't that great. Call to power has some huge bugs that can totally screw up you're save game, and CTP2 just plane sucks. So I don't trust civ4 at all, and now with added religion that you must control...why can't they go back to what made the originals good.

Well if you dont like it probably means the rest of us would.Seriously its hard to listen to someone who hates every game ever made heh.Kinda made me wonder what games you like so i checked out your reviews and over half the games you review you score like 1/5???Man if i played that many crappy games id quit spedning money on pc games and find a different hobbie.Then i noticed a 3/5 for ut 2004??Dude thats the best straightup FPS game ever made gameplay wize bar none not even close,especially with all the game modes vehicles ,mods what have you.theres nothing that even comes close to it period.Then a 5/5 for KOTOR well i about lost it there lol.that game was shallow and was a game that should have just been a console release.And you do know that the ut 2004 singleplayer was only put there to familiarize yourself with the online play right??Kinda like the NWN of the FPS world.

[Suicides-by-Steve]

Not to mention Bane, all the great games made utilizing the Unreal technology. I wasn't a huge fan of the game, but I certainly recognize the impact Epic has made in the gaming community.

[Mochan]

The funny thing is Friend Bear and I tend to have similar tastes. :P

[Suicides-by-Steve]

Yeah, but at least you wait Mochan before making a call on whether a game is good or not. FB routinely says games are crap, and accuses them (the games) of not having features that ARE included if you simply look around a bit. Can't think of specifics and I'm certainly not going to hunt around the boards to back up my claims. They're all about for those inclined to browse for them.

[Aku]

Poor Friend Bear is sure getting the stuffing ripped out of him, lol. He should update his avatar appropriately. Even he admits that his take on games is, we should say, unique.

[BaneNWN]

didnt mean to offend its just weird that he plays games so much but yet he hates everything.

[Friend_Bear]

No no, I am right just most people are wrong about the very games they play, but I don't pull any punches to people I consider friends on various message boards but for any game its all a matter of taste, every one has there own particularly tastes in what makes a good game and post biased reviews about them or defend them in someway (human nature) I tend to have a very unbiased view, or at least I try. If I see something I don't like, or something in a game they essentially 'weakens' the gameplay, i'll bit*ched about it. But after all, no game is perfect and I doubt ever will be, some games that seem perfect to one person, will be seen as total junk to another, just remember that. Remember when I Bit*ched about Star Wars Battlefront 2, I still don't like the galactic conquest or the campaign modes, but I enjoy instant action a lot, still doesn't make it a good game though if only 1/3 of its good.

A lot of people claim the UT series to be among the best shooters ever, well after they are 'modded' but that doesn't count in an unbiased review, UT tournament and 2004 are pretty limited without all the patches, total conversions, sound packs, etc... I'm fully aware thats it ment to be a fully online shooter, but that also has its own issues and problems ranging from cheats through to poor internet connections which can give you grief, why do you think they put the ESRB label on any game thats played online?

I actually enjoyed playing both kotors, so I gave them favorable reviews, again its proberly pretty impossible to be totally unbiased, I'm a star wars fan, rpg fan so an rpg set in the star wars universe obviously I will be pretty interested in it. Same with WoW, if I did a review of it, I actually wouldn't give it a totally great review since I do enjoy the game, but it does have some issues especially at endgame.

There is actually few games I truly hate, I could count them on one hand most likely, the stupid Universal Combat and Battlecruiser series for instance, I hate them! So if you want to attack or flame me, you could use them I wouldn't mind =P

Oh one final thing, don't forget patches. Sometimes when a review is written, no patches are out for a very long time afterwards, these sometimes can fix a crappy game up and make it far better than on initial release, for instance when I originally got FFXI on launch I gave it a really bad review and at the time I think it strongly deserved it, but now after reading up alot of the new stuff, upgrades SOE have done to it, I think it sounds like a far better game now, almost re-interested in it.

[Suicides-by-Steve]

"I actually enjoyed playing both kotors, so I gave them favorable reviews, again its proberly pretty impossible to be totally unbiased, I'm a star wars fan, rpg fan so an rpg set in the star wars universe obviously I will be pretty interested in it."

I am too, all of the above, but those games (KotOR) just stunk to high heaven! I don't understand how hemmed in arenas and linear gameplay equals a great game? The blaster fights at point blank range with no cover were utterly ridiculous to boot, especially when you'd miss! Imagine seeing a recreation of those fights in KotOR on the silver screen for episode VII? I doubt you'd be a fan of Star Wars for much longer then.

[BaneNWN]

No no, I am right just most people are wrong about the very games they play, but I don't pull any punches to people I consider friends on various message boards but for any game its all a matter of taste, every one has there own particularly tastes in what makes a good game and post biased reviews about them or defend them in someway (human nature) I tend to have a very unbiased view, or at least I try. If I see something I don't like, or something in a game they essentially 'weakens' the gameplay, i'll bit*ched about it. But after all, no game is perfect and I doubt ever will be, some games that seem perfect to one person, will be seen as total junk to another, just remember that. Remember when I Bit*ched about Star Wars Battlefront 2, I still don't like the galactic conquest or the campaign modes, but I enjoy instant action a lot, still doesn't make it a good game though if only 1/3 of its good.

A lot of people claim the UT series to be among the best shooters ever, well after they are 'modded' but that doesn't count in an unbiased review, UT tournament and 2004 are pretty limited without all the patches, total conversions, sound packs, etc... I'm fully aware thats it ment to be a fully online shooter, but that also has its own issues and problems ranging from cheats through to poor internet connections which can give you grief, why do you think they put the ESRB label on any game thats played online?

I actually enjoyed playing both kotors, so I gave them favorable reviews, again its proberly pretty impossible to be totally unbiased, I'm a star wars fan, rpg fan so an rpg set in the star wars universe obviously I will be pretty interested in it. Same with WoW, if I did a review of it, I actually wouldn't give it a totally great review since I do enjoy the game, but it does have some issues especially at endgame.

There is actually few games I truly hate, I could count them on one hand most likely, the stupid Universal Combat and Battlecruiser series for instance, I hate them! So if you want to attack or flame me, you could use them I wouldn't mind =P

Oh one final thing, don't forget patches. Sometimes when a review is written, no patches are out for a very long time afterwards, these sometimes can fix a crappy game up and make it far better than on initial release, for instance when I originally got FFXI on launch I gave it a really bad review and at the time I think it strongly deserved it, but now after reading up alot of the new stuff, upgrades SOE have done to it, I think it sounds like a far better game now, almost re-interested in it.
Are you friggen kidding me with UT 2004 being limited without the mods??Name one other FPS that has so many game modes??And all of which are fun to boot.Wasnt it you that played Guildwars for over 200 hours saying you were having fun with it, then when you quit playing it you said it sucked??Your reviews are not reviews at all.Atleast SBS can admitt he didnt care for it but he seemed to atleast figure out why so many like it.Ive played games i hated and were just plain bad and ive played games that i hated but i could understand why so many liked it.Your reviews are based on personal preference and not facts.By the way ive never ever had any prblem connecting to any server.Saying UT 2004 without mods is limited is ridiculous. quit throwing around false statements about whats in a game and whats not.Please enlighten me to whats lacking??Do you do this to get attention??seriously man you also say theres a handful of games you really hated yet you got 3 handsfull of reviews that are 1/5.Its ok to have personal preference but when you review a game solely on that knowones going to listen to you.

[DBS]

I too have to say I love Star Wars and Rpg's and had high hopes for Kotor. I own it..played it and it didn't capture me the way I hoped.

I have to say I am no UT 2004 expert but I had it and played a lot of the single player and some of the multiplayer. It is a lot of game for the buck which is a good thing nowadays.

Guild Wars I spent a ton of time in as did SBS and for what it offered it was time well spent. They took away some of what I wanted in the game and the game became more simplified with less meat. I still had a good time while it lasted.

WoW I have enjoyed for a long time now. I have a character near the cap and I think I am finally ready to move on. It is good, better than Guild Wars as far as content but still I feel it is too casual for my tastes in rpgs. It still feels..rpg lite in a sense.

Some of us really chop up the games and I know I am far too forgiving but when I read everyone's reviews and get to know who is who it does help me make an educated guess on what game I will enjoy. FB is hard on most games but so is Mochan usually. I know I go through different tastes in gaming and right now I am enjoying the FPS and Falcon is really getting addictive to me. Another game that has a ton of gaming for the buck if you can get into it.

[Friend_Bear]

Guild Wars was awesome but everyone knows that a few questionable additions kinder ruined the game for most, such as the rune vendors :( Overall though, GW was and still is a good game. I'm looking at the expansion hopefully to resurrect it, isn't there supposed to be 2 new classes and raise the level cap? I might dust off my copy if thats true.

I still think Unreal Tournament is limited though without its mods and total conversions, once you've played through the default maps several times, learned where all the secret locations are theres not much else. Now, add in all the mods, extra maps, sound packs and tcs then you have something thats excellent, and thats what makes the UT series and even quake 3 what it is, its almost infinate expandability, Same with Star Wars Battlefront 2, i've played every map like 10 times now both sides, and i'm pretty much sick of it, and theres no upgrades, no extra maps so its life is limited.

I also think the reason that I'm hard on most games is since I've played so many now that its really hard to find a true gem of a game these days, every style, every genre has been done. Each new release is just a take on another, or a sequel. The market could do with some fresh blood. The last great FPS I played was Half Life 2, I totally enjoyed that game end to end, I can't wait for HL3 or some expansions. There's one thing I like the most in games and thats sadly lacking these days and thats full co-op options, god knows how many hours I played BF1942 co-op with friends, and loved it.

One of the main difference between us all is are play styles, proberly would help if we did get our own guild together and played alot of games, I know you guys played Ghost Recon alot, did you play deathmatch or the co-op? I'd love to join those if I could find my old cds of it, I don't have any of the expansions though but I might be able to pick them up on ebay. Any of you guys have BF1942? I can't remember if Battlefield Vietnam or BF2 had co-op options?

[BaneNWN]

Guild Wars was awesome but everyone knows that a few questionable additions kinder ruined the game for most, such as the rune vendors :( Overall though, GW was and still is a good game. I'm looking at the expansion hopefully to resurrect it, isn't there supposed to be 2 new classes and raise the level cap? I might dust off my copy if thats true.

I still think Unreal Tournament is limited though without its mods and total conversions, once you've played through the default maps several times, learned where all the secret locations are theres not much else. Now, add in all the mods, extra maps, sound packs and tcs then you have something thats excellent, and thats what makes the UT series and even quake 3 what it is, its almost infinate expandability, Same with Star Wars Battlefront 2, i've played every map like 10 times now both sides, and i'm pretty much sick of it, and theres no upgrades, no extra maps so its life is limited.

I also think the reason that I'm hard on most games is since I've played so many now that its really hard to find a true gem of a game these days, every style, every genre has been done. Each new release is just a take on another, or a sequel. The market could do with some fresh blood. The last great FPS I played was Half Life 2, I totally enjoyed that game end to end, I can't wait for HL3 or some expansions. There's one thing I like the most in games and thats sadly lacking these days and thats full co-op options, god knows how many hours I played BF1942 co-op with friends, and loved it.

One of the main difference between us all is are play styles, proberly would help if we did get our own guild together and played alot of games, I know you guys played Ghost Recon alot, did you play deathmatch or the co-op? I'd love to join those if I could find my old cds of it, I don't have any of the expansions though but I might be able to pick them up on ebay. Any of you guys have BF1942? I can't remember if Battlefield Vietnam or BF2 had co-op options?
Friendbear we play alot of ravenshield now if ya dont have it im sure we could setup games of ghost recon with me, paine, aku and dbs.i think for the most part though Ravenshield is better then ghost well maybe not really id consider it a tossup other then RS graphics are somewhat better as ghost is alittle older.