PDA

View Full Version : Civ IV vs. Civ V




kontari dasou
Sep 20, 2010, 07:16 PM
As someone who (a) has never played a Civ game but is interested and (b) owns a Mac, I'm wondering if it's worthwhile to wait for the eventual Mac release of Civ V, or to just dive in on Civ IV, despite it being four years old.

I know this is a bit premature, as the game isn't even out yet on a PC, but I had the thought to ask now, so I figured I'd get people's impressions about this before making a decision one way or another.



savvos
Sep 20, 2010, 07:27 PM
Civ IV is very cheap and available on Steam. If you wait for a sale (which might happen just before Civ V is released) you might get a great deal. I picked it up for $10 in the early summer, and that included all the expansion packs. Since then Civ IV has given me dozens of hours of enjoyment. Civ V will be $45+ when it is released.

Another consideration is your hardware. Civ IV runs great on a MacBook with Intel graphics. Civ V will require a much beefier system.

Whatever you choose, I don't think you can go wrong.

EmanuelPM
Sep 20, 2010, 07:56 PM
There is an open source, free Civ clone that is decent. It doesn't have all the features or pretty graphics of the newer Civ games, but if you aren't sure you like the gameplay it will cost you nothing to try it out before committing money.

http://freeciv.wikia.com/index.php/Freeciv

kontari dasou
Sep 20, 2010, 09:30 PM
There is an open source, free Civ clone that is decent. It doesn't have all the features or pretty graphics of the newer Civ games, but if you aren't sure you like the gameplay it will cost you nothing to try it out before committing money.

http://freeciv.wikia.com/index.php/Freeciv

I am poring over this right now. Is it good that I'm enjoying just going through the manual strategizing and have yet to actually make a move?

EmanuelPM
Sep 21, 2010, 01:13 AM
I am poring over this right now. Is it good that I'm enjoying just going through the manual strategizing and have yet to actually make a move?

Probably means you enjoy the game just fine :). I myself am torn between Civ IV with it's expansions or V. I'm keeping myself busy by finishing other games first so hopefully reviews and a mac port of V will be out when I have time to play. If you find FreeCiv fun, try to hold out as long as you can. But, like savvos said, IV would not be a bad choice at all if you want the larger and more modern game experience.

EmanuelPM
Sep 21, 2010, 01:39 AM
Reviews are starting to come out. I recommend reading the lower reviews to see what people didn't like about V. I just read the IGN review and it did a good job of comparing to IV. Enough so that I might go IV. You know your tastes and what you find fun so reading the good and bad of both games will help you make the best decision for your money.

V: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/sid-meiers-civilization-v/critic-reviews

List of IV and expansions: http://www.metacritic.com/search/all/Civilization+iv/results

BertyBoy
Sep 21, 2010, 03:13 AM
Underneath, it's exactly the same game. And the same as CIV III and Civ III Complete and Civ II and CIV: CTP and original Civ.

The detailed graphics get better with each release, but on a huge 8-player (or more) map, you quickly get tired of the animations, even at 2D and you just want to get on with the game. A winning strategy on a higher difficulty setting can produce a 40-hour game if you skip all the animation and just play it 2D like original Civ.
And there are always new units, buildings and Wonders with new benefits for all existing units and buildings too. So you have to re-learn all the important buuildings and wonders with each new version, but other than that the gameplay and goal is the same across all versions.

They're all great of course, but I couldn't pick one over the other.

If playing a turn-based game is not imperative, you could look at some of the Age of Empires games, Age of Mythology, even Rise of Nations.

kontari dasou
Sep 21, 2010, 06:53 AM
I have experience with things like Age of Empires and StarCraft... and I suck at them. I don't have the speed in me to do it. Hence my interest here.

miles01110
Sep 21, 2010, 06:59 AM
I don't really like Civ IV tbh. They candied it up to the point where it's just kind of silly. Eagerly awaiting Civ V to see if they fixed the numerous gameplay issues in IV...

txa1265
Sep 21, 2010, 07:25 AM
Underneath, it's exactly the same game. And the same as CIV III and Civ III Complete and Civ II and CIV: CTP and original Civ.

You mean like how Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is the same as Wolfenstein 3D ...

... and how Dragon Age is the same as Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord?

If that is what you mean, I agree,.

milbournosphere
Sep 21, 2010, 12:08 PM
I own civ IV and civ V will be a no-brains purchase. The civ series is excellent.

racketeer71
Sep 21, 2010, 12:37 PM
Civ5 will be another bestseller. No doubt. Sid Meier games and reviewers fit like hand and glove. Even when it's only his name on the box.

But I will personally not be buying the PC version. Nope. There's no reason why it should not be available for Mac on launch date (other than laziness), so in my one-man army I'm going to punish Firaxis for their laziness.

StarCraft II have - slightly - more impressive graphics than Civ5, and for Blizzard it was no biggie to release it for PC and Mac at the same time.

Cougarcat
Sep 21, 2010, 01:12 PM
StarCraft II have - slightly - more impressive graphics than Civ5, and for Blizzard it was no biggie to release it for PC and Mac at the same time.

StarCraft II also runs like crap in OS X (not that I'm blaming Blizzard). Despite having it installed there, I much prefer to reboot into Windows.

I'm going to wait for the details of the Mac version, but if it's not SteamPlay I will probably just get the PC version when it's on sale.

txa1265
Sep 21, 2010, 01:18 PM
Civ5 will be another bestseller. No doubt. Sid Meier games and reviewers fit like hand and glove. Even when it's only his name on the box.
I read this as a cynical insinuation that the games are made to get good reviews. I really don't see that - but hey, I'd rather it that way then games that are obviously buying high scores through cash spent on sites

But I will personally not be buying the PC version. Nope. There's no reason why it should not be available for Mac on launch date (other than laziness), so in my one-man army I'm going to punish Firaxis for their laziness.

StarCraft II have - slightly - more impressive graphics than Civ5, and for Blizzard it was no biggie to release it for PC and Mac at the same time.

Blizzard has had 12 years since Starcraft, Firaxis has had 4 years since Civ IV. And your point is ... ?

Cougarcat
Sep 21, 2010, 01:21 PM
Blizzard has had 12 years since Starcraft, Firaxis has had 4 years since Civ IV. And your point is ... ?

Not to mention that Blizzard has had dedicated Mac programmers since Day 1 of their existence, working alongside the PC developers of the game. Considering Firaxis had to downsize after finishing Civ V, I highly doubt they are in a position to pull a Valve and hire some Mac people.

racketeer71
Sep 21, 2010, 01:32 PM
I read this as a cynical insinuation that the games are made to get good reviews. I really don't see that - but hey, I'd rather it that way then games that are obviously buying high scores through cash spent on sites

I think the Civ games get good reviews, because they're good games. I just find it slightly amuzing they call virtually all their games "Sid Meier's something", even though he's not the designer.

Blizzard has had 12 years since Starcraft, Firaxis has had 4 years since Civ IV. And your point is ... ?

That's probably one of the most stupid comments I've read on MR. And that says quite a lot. Congratulations with the trophy.

Do you believe it took Blizzard 12 years to release SC2, because they wanted to release the game at the same time for Mac or PC, or what is your point?

In that case, I'll just let you in on a secret: They released WarCraft III 4 years after SC1. And War3 was released in the PPC days, which probably also makes it a bit more difficult. Oh, and they also managed to squeeze in a little game called Diablo 2 between those games. And your point is...?

txa1265
Sep 21, 2010, 01:34 PM
Not to mention that Blizzard has had dedicated Mac programmers since Day 1 of their existence, working alongside the PC developers of the game. Considering Firaxis had to downsize after finishing Civ V, I highly doubt they are in a position to pull a Valve and hire some Mac people.

Good point - I am personally more annoyed at EA/Bioware over Dragon Age not being on Steam, Mass Effect 2 being held out of OnLive, and the Baldur's Gate / Icewind Dale games not being on Good Old Games (though that apparently might be changing).

Blizzard has been exemplary with Mac support, and I think that is great ... but sadly it is the exception, not the rule.

miles01110
Sep 21, 2010, 01:39 PM
Does anyone actually have the game yet? Sid Meier's last venture into computer gaming- Spore- was a huge DRM fail. Does Civ V have similarily arcane DRM methods?

Cougarcat
Sep 21, 2010, 01:42 PM
I think the Civ games get good reviews, because they're good games. I just find it slightly amuzing they call virtually all their games "Sid Meier's something", even though he's not the designer.



He designed the original. His name sells. Welcome to marketing.


That's probably one of the most stupid comments I've read on MR. And that says quite a lot. Congratulations with the trophy.


And this was the one of the most not-nice comments I've read on MR. Congrats on the trophy. :rolleyes:



Do you believe it took Blizzard 12 years to release SC2, because they wanted to release the game at the same time for Mac or PC, or what is your point?


I think his point was that the only reason Blizzard was able to release Mac and PC versions at the same time was that they took longer to do it, yes. Thankfully we have you to point out why this is not correct. (Diablo II was a separate team, Blizzard North, but your point still stands: From SC they moved onto WC3, WC3x, and then SC2.)

Firaxis does not have in-house Mac programmers, and they probably won't get any anytime soon, so this discussion is pointless. Either buy the PC version or wait a bit.

Does anyone actually have the game yet? Sid Meier's last venture into computer gaming- Spore- was a huge DRM fail. Does Civ V have similarily arcane DRM methods?

Sid Meier did not do Spore. You're thinking of Will Wright. Civ V uses Steam for its DRM.

Cougarcat
Sep 21, 2010, 01:47 PM
Trying to delete this...doubleposted trying to add to my comment.

miles01110
Sep 21, 2010, 01:51 PM
Sid Meier did not do Spore. You're thinking of Will Wright. Civ V uses Steam for its DRM.

Oh, that's right. Will Wright. Oops!

txa1265
Sep 21, 2010, 01:52 PM
That's probably one of the most stupid comments I've read on MR. And that says quite a lot. Congratulations with the trophy.

Sorry, I can't claim the trophy - all I was doing was shining a mirror on the TRUE winner :)

You made a direct statement that a non-release of a Mac Civ V was ONLY related to laziness, and hold up the ONLY company that does across the board Mac / PC same-day releases (well, at least they do NOW) as the standard.

Please show me the start dates, resource allocations, team sizes, project deliverables, and profit estimates that support your assertion that the ONLY reason that Civ V isn't day-and-date a Mac/PC release.

Also, realize that Blizzard and Firaxis are different companies with vastly different business models, and that (jeez I hope you realize this) larger companies assign teams of programmers to simultaneously work on multiple projects, typically at different stages to allow for some overlap ... and that therefore understanding the dynamics of what decisions have exactly what impact is not trivial.

Also realize that while there are market economics at play, and looking at Stardock's Elemental as an example, there are release date windows that companies get from retailers. It is possible that if they didn't release now it would have been next spring, so they decided to allocate resources to finishing the PC version and then work on the Mac port - or get it outsourced. I am not privileged to that information.

Look - you can choose not to buy the PC version for whatever reason you want. But saying it is laziness as the only reason? It just doesn't make sense - there are loads of reasons we Mac gamers end up not getting games in a timely fashion - if at all. Typically laziness isn't in the top 10.

Balthezor
Sep 21, 2010, 02:01 PM
Civ5 will be another bestseller. No doubt. Sid Meier games and reviewers fit like hand and glove. Even when it's only his name on the box.

But I will personally not be buying the PC version. Nope. There's no reason why it should not be available for Mac on launch date (other than laziness), so in my one-man army I'm going to punish Firaxis for their laziness.

StarCraft II have - slightly - more impressive graphics than Civ5, and for Blizzard it was no biggie to release it for PC and Mac at the same time.

These are two completely different games and companies. One is a giant, while one, is really not that big, even though they have been extremely successful, but not as successful as Blizzard.

Laziness? Releasing a game compatible for PC and Mac is not a rule, its an exception, like someone else said before me. Blizzard has made the exception of having their games work for Mac for years. Firaxis on the other hand, and most other developers out there haven't.

End result: Your punishment and your reasoning just plain sucks.

txa1265
Sep 21, 2010, 02:24 PM
Civ V uses Steam for its DRM.

That was one reason I just grabbed it on Steam ... there were some better pre-order deals out there, but I could pre-load and when I go to take my son to piano lessons this afternoon I will be able to play some Civ!

End result: Your punishment and your reasoning just plain sucks.

My point was that while I think his reasoning doesn't hold out under the weight of scrutiny, his 'punishment' is his own choice ...

sarcosis
Sep 21, 2010, 05:07 PM
Sorry, I can't claim the trophy - all I was doing was shining a mirror on the TRUE winner :)

You made a direct statement that a non-release of a Mac Civ V was ONLY related to laziness, and hold up the ONLY company that does across the board Mac / PC same-day releases (well, at least they do NOW) as the standard.

Please show me the start dates, resource allocations, team sizes, project deliverables, and profit estimates that support your assertion that the ONLY reason that Civ V isn't day-and-date a Mac/PC release.

Also, realize that Blizzard and Firaxis are different companies with vastly different business models, and that (jeez I hope you realize this) larger companies assign teams of programmers to simultaneously work on multiple projects, typically at different stages to allow for some overlap ... and that therefore understanding the dynamics of what decisions have exactly what impact is not trivial.

Also realize that while there are market economics at play, and looking at Stardock's Elemental as an example, there are release date windows that companies get from retailers. It is possible that if they didn't release now it would have been next spring, so they decided to allocate resources to finishing the PC version and then work on the Mac port - or get it outsourced. I am not privileged to that information.

Look - you can choose not to buy the PC version for whatever reason you want. But saying it is laziness as the only reason? It just doesn't make sense - there are loads of reasons we Mac gamers end up not getting games in a timely fashion - if at all. Typically laziness isn't in the top 10.

Can't be said better than this. It's plain and simple economics, most gamers are windows users, hence the PC only release. It would cost far too much to develop a OS X version right away since most games these days use the DirectX libraries that Microsoft provides them. For game developers, many are far more familiar with Direct X vs. OpenGL.

It's not as simple as changing a little bit of the code. It takes a great amount of over head, actual development, testing and then marketing. While Blizzard does this since it believes that there is enough of a market to justify the cost of developing a Mac version at the same time.

Dr. McKay
Sep 22, 2010, 06:02 AM
I bought Civ4 complete via Steam for 10 during the aforementioned summer sale.
It runs like a dream (with all the bells and whistles) on my 24" iMac 2.8Ghz Core2Duo with 4Gb of RAM and a ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro with 256Mb of RAM : that means at full resolution of 1920x1200 with graphic details set to maximum. And it looks great !

I tried the Civ5 demo yesterday. I must admit, it's looking very slick and it's clear that it's an improvement over Civ4, but needless to say, it didn't run as nicely. I had to either lower the resolution to 1280x800 to be able to play with maximum graphical detail, or play at 1920x1200 with low detail. For me that's unacceptable (that's why consoles have unbeatable life spans :D ) . When I play a game, I want full detail. That's why I don't bother with the latest games and I always buy older games (from 2007/2008). You'd be amazed what kind of games you can pick up cheap... (provided you have bootcamp because on the mac side, cheap is a rarely used word)

I'm sure that by the time Civ6 is announced, I will have replaced my computer with a more powerful one, at which point I'll be buying Civ5 complete for 10 during a future summer sale...

Cougarcat
Sep 22, 2010, 11:10 AM
Do you really need maximum settings for what is essentially a board game?:rolleyes:

miles01110
Sep 22, 2010, 11:28 AM
Do you really need maximum settings for what is essentially a board game?:rolleyes:

I am pretty sure you are being facetious. Right?

(Otherwise, what an amazingly lame question...)

Cougarcat
Sep 22, 2010, 12:34 PM
I am pretty sure you are being facetious. Right?



Of course.

kontari dasou
Sep 22, 2010, 01:32 PM
Right... so, other than your childish bickering over systems, I think you've convinced me to look for a deal on the full Civ IV and then go up from there down the road. I don't think I'll have this machine as my primary for more than another year or maybe two, so upgrading to a better machine when Civ V is out seems reasonable.

txa1265
Sep 22, 2010, 03:46 PM
Right... so, other than your childish bickering over systems, I think you've convinced me to look for a deal on the full Civ IV and then go up from there down the road. I don't think I'll have this machine as my primary for more than another year or maybe two, so upgrading to a better machine when Civ V is out seems reasonable.

I would definitely watch for deals on 'Civ IV Complete' ... of which there have been many during the last few months ... there are hundreds of hours of gaming there, then you can decide and have waited for a better Civ V price :)

Hastings101
Sep 22, 2010, 04:54 PM
Civilization IV is the best out of all the available Civilization games, five looks pretty nice too but I'm betting it will be based on the mechanics of IV, so you could jump into four now and be prepared to play five when it's released in a year or two for Macintosh.

jjvdhoef
Sep 28, 2010, 02:00 PM
Played every game since Civ II, and have to say this is the most different one yet.
The strategies I used for the other games are pretty useless. Units are more valuable here, and terrain improvements are build more slowly. I'm having even more fun than with CIV IV and thats saying a lot. Wonders are less expensive, but less important than in previous games. Barbarians are a welcome training for your soldiers now, in stead of a nuisance. Diplomacy feels better, less irrational.
I have to say its pretty buggy still, you might want to wait for a few months. Also, balance isn't quite there yet, its very difficult to achieve cultural victories. However, you could also say that it's more important then ever to think ahead and plan for a certain type of victory.
Overall I can see why the reviews online are so high, it is an incredibly well thought through successor. Maybe the first "real" sequel to CIV I. I especially like the emphasis on units, it makes every turn more important.

Saying that its the same as Civ I through IV is ridiculous. They really implemented the lessons learned in revolution.

Dr. McKay
Sep 29, 2010, 06:05 AM
Do you really need maximum settings for what is essentially a board game?:rolleyes:

Yes.

Bakerman
Sep 29, 2010, 06:51 AM
Does anyone actually have the game yet? Sid Meier's last venture into computer gaming- Spore- was a huge DRM fail. Does Civ V have similarily arcane DRM methods?

Spore was designed by Will Wright and published by EA. Different designer, different publisher.

The DRM for Civilization 5 is handled by Steam. Don't know if that's considered arcane nowadays.

peskaa
Sep 29, 2010, 07:19 AM
To answer directly, yes, it is worth picking up the complete Civ IV, if only to get to grips with what is an excellent game.

I'm coming towards the end of my first Marathon game in V, and I must admit there isn't a massive amount of differences, but I'm preferring V as a whole. The biggest change is combat - it is no longer a guessing game, but you actually get a prediction of the result before attacking, and the removal of stacking makes the whole thing more tactical. Civ IV turned in to stacks of doom roving round the map, wasting cities with little effort, whereas V very much relies on smaller numbers of units and clever use of ranged/melee attacks. Scarcity of resources also comes in to play, as you don't get infinite horses (for example), meaning that you can easily only build a handful of the best units.

The other big change is simply that of simplicity. Some of the complexity is gone, which in my mind is great, as it stops the game crushing your very soul.

It's definitely worth the scores it is getting, and I'd argue it's way better than IV and III.

doh123
Sep 29, 2010, 10:37 PM
Civ 5 is very different from Civ4 in many ways.... yes its similar but there are many big changes.

overall I'm loving Civ5, much more so than I ever loved Civ4 my previous favorite game.

You can do a torrent search and just download the 3rd party Wineskin based port of Civ5 :-) Its a little laggy on my 320m without using pretty low settings, but its still fun to play and no Windows needed.

txa1265
Sep 30, 2010, 07:51 AM
Civ IV turned in to stacks of doom roving round the map, wasting cities with little effort,
Hehe ... that is fun in its own way, but I am glad for the new system.

whereas V very much relies on smaller numbers of units and clever use of ranged/melee attacks. Scarcity of resources also comes in to play, as you don't get infinite horses (for example), meaning that you can easily only build a handful of the best units.

It gets frustrating ... you want to build something but lack resources, and even when you get resources they are not infinite. I love the challenge they added by slowing everything down in terms of production ...

peskaa
Sep 30, 2010, 07:58 AM
It gets frustrating ... you want to build something but lack resources, and even when you get resources they are not infinite. I love the challenge they added by slowing everything down in terms of production ...
I'd argue it's more tactical - you can't just spam Swordsmen units once you find some iron, but have to decide whether to use that iron to build a handful of units to create a core of an army, or spend them on building improvements - or a balance of the two.

I also find the tactical rush for scarce resources exciting - if there are two neighbouring Civs with access to a single Iron resource... My biggest issue is that some of the resources aren't balanced - on the game I was playing there was a real lack of coal, but absolutely loads of oil and aluminium (as in, I had 35+ alu, 24+ oil, but only 8 coal!).

txa1265
Sep 30, 2010, 10:34 AM
My biggest issue is that some of the resources aren't balanced - on the game I was playing there was a real lack of coal, but absolutely loads of oil and aluminium (as in, I had 35+ alu, 24+ oil, but only 8 coal!).

Isn't that LIFE, though? I am currently engaged in a peninsula campaign, with loads of water resources, but only poor doomed Stockholm had an adequate area of iron ... you should have seen the AI flocking in to try to grab the cities I was attacking in order to capture territory ... once I had that Iron I was unstoppable!