Andyr Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 So, back in the day I was a pretty big fan of Civilisation and Age of Empires. Then the sequels came out, and there was much rejoicing. Then Civ 3 came out. I didn't really get into that one; might've done with a bit more time. It was the animations that threw me a bit. I was playing then on a laptop with small screen and no diagonal keys on the keypad, which made movement tricky. Anyway, I was in a computer game shop the other day and saw that both Civilisation 4 and Age of Empires 3 are out... Anyone got comments? (I know Cam does on Civ). How do they compare to their predecessors - what is different, and what the same? And lastly, if you own both then which do you prefer and why? Link to comment
CamDawg Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 I'll start with the caveat that I've never played any of the Age of Empires games. Civ IV was rushed out the door, and has some ridiculous system requirements for a turn-based game. ATI graphics cards are having serious problems, but nVidia cards are not without their troubles as well. To get it to work on my comp I had to download the latest ATI drivers (Catalyst 5.10), which make my Win x64 box unstable as hell. I rolled back my drivers and I'm awaiting new ones until I try again. Check the tech support forums at Civ Fanatics to see the full range of issues, bitching, and workarounds. That being said, when it works it's fantastic. The new resource and diplomacy options are worlds better than any previous implementation, and religion is a good and balanced addition to the game. Civics is also a huge improvement over the previous government system, and provides a lot more choices for how you run your civ. I rate it as the best of the series, though I'd also wait until there's a patch released--supposedly one's coming next week. Link to comment
Lord Ernie Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 I don't have Civ4 yet (going to a LAN next week, so I should be able to tell you more afterwards ), but I have AoE3. Basically, if you liked the first and second AoE, you'll like this one. Not much new, really, though the Home City principle is quite nice, and the physics are funny (those poor infantrymen against my cannons). Do keep in mind that you need a pretty good system to play it at it's full glory, though. Mine is not even 2 years old, and I can't play with all the bells and whistles enabled. Civ4, as I hear, is a blast, which is why I'm certainly going to get it. Good ol' Civ (I've played the first one way back then) with plenty of new stuff to enjoy. Link to comment
Bri Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 My system struggles with all the bells and whistles and it's only a year old. It is well done, and I love how one can adjust the various government policies (once you reach the appropriate Civilization advance). This is very reminiscent of the system used in Alpha Centauri. And as Cam has said, and others, it is very hard on ATI cards. I haven't had it crash, but I have had it freeze up on me twice...so much so, I had to do a hard reboot. Additionally, I have had sound problems with the movies unless I was in close to the cities, and didn't have a million units going on in the background (and yes, I have plenty of RAM). Also, if the map was reloaded after the computer was turned off, and brought back on, there has been some definite graphic smudge/screw ups. Link to comment
Borsook Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 @Civ4 and ATI - actually you don't have to use the newest drivers, I'm on 4.12 and had absolutly no problems, apparently part of 5.x line is problematic. That said performance is terrible without any justification in the quality of graphics. e.g. in RTW I get on my PC 25-40 FPS in CIV4 9-15 and graphic options are badly chosen, you cannot turn off things like shadows which would give some perforamnce boost. The game has a lot of rule tweaks that seem little at first but make the game much more fun... but it also lost of the atmosphere (e.g. no Great wonder animations, no eras division hence no leader look change etc.) And history is almost non-present... authors seem unable to find a second leader for e.g. Romans beside Julis Caesar (What about e.g. Octavian August!?) Also the music is "lion-king like" which is at least for me bloody annoying. And civilopedia is... strange. Much info is simply scarse, sometimes it uses text interface sometimes icons only... the one in Civ3 was much supierior. that said it's still a civ, and it's still a great game. Though if you're PC is not great and you've not played 3 too much I'd chose Civ3 if only for the zillion mods that are out there. Link to comment
Andyr Posted November 7, 2005 Author Share Posted November 7, 2005 I have a newish computer. I looked at the box cover for Civ 4 and the graphical style looked quite different from what I was used to from Civ 1 and 2 (I like the top-down and almost top-down views). Is it still turn-based and grid-based? Link to comment
CamDawg Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Yes and yes. It's now fully 3d-rendered, which means you can zoom from a globe view down to a very close (like 25 tiles) view. Link to comment
Bri Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Weirdly enough I was worried about the '3-D' view, but really it just seemed more like a slightly enhanced 2-D version, and didn't really impinge on my awareness either positively or negatively. Link to comment
jester Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 *Sob* From what I read (My system is too old for Civ4 and I made it a policy never to upgrade just for a game or something like that) they killed armies and a lot of units, but brought back wonder movies. I just loved King Richard's Crusade in Civ2. I just recently discovered the beauty of scenarios for Civ3 which will keep me going well into the coming year so don't cry for me just yet. They also claim that it is way easier to mod Civ4. We shall see about that. When I heard something about 3D and modability it almost smelled like NWN. I am still curious what the new diplomacy entails. Having hoped for yet another expansion to Alpha Centauri, I am glad to see some of its features included. Link to comment
Borsook Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 They also claim that it is way easier to mod Civ4. We shall see about that. When I heard something about 3D and modability it almost smelled like NWN. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You can mod more things than in civ3, but I'd say it's not easier, rather the oposite. Link to comment
Andyr Posted November 7, 2005 Author Share Posted November 7, 2005 I was never interested in modding stuff in Civ 2; I don't remember what you could do. I remember a few expansion packs but I was content with the stuff in the original game; none of these dinosaurs or aliens. Link to comment
Bri Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 I don't have a problem with something being more accessable for modding, but when you have a game like Civ IV, it would take a very specific scenario to draw my attention. In Conquests for Civ III, I did love the Napoleonic era module with the game, as well as the discovery of the New World. However, the average person doesn't have the patience to make new icons/pictures for the units for a given era... One thing I would like to see, though, is at least an offering of one female and one male per each civilization. It's obvious they did give this some thought since Catherine the Great and Peter the Great are both choosable for Russia... Yes, I did like this little option they had in Civilization II. However, one couldn't design whole new units like in Alpha Centauri once certain body types came into play. Civ IV does institude a system that if your units survive, they gain in experience, and there are a few options to make them variable (such as better attack against melee, make them marine units, etc.) though I didn't do much with this feature in play so far. They also claim that it is way easier to mod Civ4. We shall see about that. When I heard something about 3D and modability it almost smelled like NWN. I guess you can call it 3D but I haven't gotten it in the perspective of 3D as in a first person shooter/hacker game. I guess I would call it more appropriately 2.5D...but that is debateable. To me, zooming in and out doesn't make it 3D...just zoomable. Much info is simply scarse, sometimes it uses text interface sometimes icons only... the one in Civ3 was much supierior I have to agree Borsook. Heck, the info in Civ I was better I thought. Still, having Leonard Nimoy read things was...interesting. I do know that in the future, they really should leave Sid himself out of any tutorial. His voice was dry as toast... Having hoped for yet another expansion to Alpha Centauri, I am glad to see some of its features included. The only one I know of Jester was Alien Crossfire. What can I say, I like the Nautilan Pirates. Link to comment
Borsook Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 In Conquests for Civ III, I did love the Napoleonic era module with the game, as well as the discovery of the New World. However, the average person doesn't have the patience to make new icons/pictures for the units for a given era... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The wonderfull thing is that one doesn't have to. On the net you can find hundreds and hundreds of unit graphics for Civ3 to be used in your mod... Link to comment
jester Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Yeah I alway played as the Data Angels. Sadly Roze did not get to voice many wonders and advances. Even sader my XP is fending off all my attempts to bring AC and AX back to life. *sniff* As for scenarios : http://forums.civfanatics.com/ I enjoyed the Rise of The Mughal, Rood and Dragon and a lot more scenarios from this site. Also: http://apolyton.net/ Link to comment
Borsook Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 @Jester thanx, I didn't know the second side... Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.