102 of 110 people (93%) found this review helpful 79 people found this review funny
108.2 hrs on record
Posted: May 6, 2015
Founded Christianity 400 years before Christ was born. Built libraries before developing an alphabet. Trained a light machine gun unit in 1776. Sebastian Bach dressed as Elvis discovered the radio. Got nuked by multiple rulers on the same turn. Yeah, it's a pretty good game.
Still playing this after so many years, I could never get into the '1 army per resource' of Civ 5 so stayed with Civ4 which has a vibrant Mod scene. I highly recommend the civ fanatics website and in particular the caveman to cosmos mod here http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=449
64 of 71 people (90%) found this review helpful 51 people found this review funny
543.5 hrs on record
Posted: November 8, 2014
This game will ruin your little aspie life. Your plants will wither, your pets will starve, and you'll probably get scurvy, and bed sores. Seriously, this is the wizard's glass, and when you look into it, it'll look into you, and find you wanting.
If you've already made the mistake of downloading this game, please contact me for a list of addiction counsling services in your area.
33 of 33 people (100%) found this review helpful 1 person found this review funny
12.3 hrs on record
Posted: December 26, 2015
I have played "Civilization III", "IV", "II" and "V" (in that particular order). "Civilization V" is my favourite, but "Civ IV" has also a lot to offer and it's worth playing not only for nostalgic value. Everything what I'm saying relates to "Beyond the Sword" expansion and I highly recommend to purchase all the expansions, because, without them, the game is incomplete and you have limited mod and civilization options. (Actually, I don't understand, why people play vanilla versions. For "Civilization" games, it's usually like this: they release an incomplete game with some gameplay faults, which is substantially improved with following expansions – not only in terms of content, but also in terms of mechanics. I believe this will be the case with Beyond Earth, as well.)
Here are some things that "Civ4" does have that "Civ5" doesn't, and things that "Civ4" is better at (well, imo, at least):
+ More customisation options (e.g., no limitations regarding how many civilizations could there be per map size; an option to assign leaders to different civilization, for example, Ghandi as a leader of Russia). + By far better interface (except, for one thing - when you are offered research/tech choice, you need to make decision right away - you can't examine your empire first. You can change it afterwards in the same turn, but, anyway, it's not very convenient). Apart from that, it's more easy to review the overall state of your progress. For example, howering over a tech gives you a detailed explanation of what you can achieve with a tech (units, wonders, bonuses for discovering first, etc.), why it's important and where it leads. Also, in "Civ4", there is the option to see the network of global politics or what a particular leader thinks of other leaders or what he wants or is willing to trade. I also prefer "Civ4" icons over "Civ5" icons. + Unit appearance is different for each civilization and religion (and not just in terms of colour). For example, Korean swordmen will have different swords than European swordmen, a Buddhist missionary will have a different outfit from that of a Christian missionary. + Cool wonder animations. + Civics (ideologies) are available much earlier in the game, you can change them more easily and they are not linked to culture points. In "Civ5", many of the civic system functions are transfered to relligion system. + Map trading + Cultural victory is actually a feasible option contrary to "Civ5", where it is possible only in rare occasions. + Inbuilt World Builder (In "Civ5" it's available only from the "Workshop") + Workers can build forest preserves (that add happiness) + The rather unique "Afterworld" scenario and "Final Frontier" mod (which both feel like and actually are completely different games – full-conversion mods, if you like). + Vassal states (you can push other leaders to become your vassals). + No lag on large maps, since it is a much older game and requires less system resources.
+/- Random events instead of city state quests +/- Workshops and windmills are tile improvements instead of buildings. +/- Religion doesn't have that much impact as in "Civ5". But it does have a considerable impact on diplomacy. +/- Culture bombs work in the same way as great general citadels. +/- Different great persons may discover different technologies. +/- Corporations - spread them like relligion and each corporation will have different effects. "They are mechanisms that can add substantial production to a city, at the cost of higher maintenance costs. Thus, in essence they convert gold into other basic goods (food, hammers, science, and culture)." [From Wikia]
However, there are some aspects in which "Civ4" falls behind "Civ5":
- Square tiles. Hexagon tiles are far better for strategical gameplay and layout. - Unit stacks. I know that I will be condemned for this and for a while I missed the stacking option in "Civ 5", but, when I got used to it, I must admit that one unit-per-tile limitation actually improves the gameplay a lot. With this limitation it matters much more where you put your units. You can manage your army more easily. The city placement has a bigger impact on your attack/defence strategy. And, finally, if you play smart, you can save more of your units (sometimes even win the game without loosing any unit), whereas in "Civ4" you are bound to throw your units into the battle as cannon fodder. "Civilization 5" feels like chess in that matter. And I prefer it that way. - Ranged units (Archers, Crossbowmen, etc.) don't have a "ranged attack" option. It is available only for siege weapons ("bombard"). - No city states. I actually like how city states provide bonuses, quests and influence the diplomacy. I think it's a better mechanic than influence points. Although, on the other hands, AI leaders in "Civ5" are completely irrational, their attitude sometimes doesn't make any sense and there is little you can do about it, whereas in "Civ4", you can at least change your civic/relligion or influence those of the AI leader. - "Civilization 4" is harder than "Civilization 5" (although it might be a good thing for some players). In "Civilization 5", I feel comfortable on "Emperor" and with a bit of luck I can manage "Immortal" on smaller maps, whereas I struggle on "Noble" in "Civilization 4". Perhaps, it's because I haven't played "Civilization 4" in years and hadn't developed any strategy when I did. - Technology trading. This actually makes the game rushed, unbalanced and it's much harder to make that technological gap between you and AI players. Although, there were moments, in "Civ5" multiplayer, when I wished there was this option. But, now, I see that research agreements are actually a much more balanced mechanic. Luckily, you can turn "technology trading" off in "Civ4". - "Civilization 4" pushes you to expand early (as mush as possible). "Civilization 5" pushes you to build army early (expansion is less crucial than in "Civ4)". I don't like any of the two, but, I think, that the fact, that AI civilizations are expanding so rapidly and that you need to keep up, makes "Civilization 4" unbalanced - it's hard to maintain positive stats and to manage the cities and units. In "Civ5", you can win with less units, less initial cities and the overall pace is slower, which allows you to build your empire in a more balanced way. "Civilization III" had the same problem btw. - No "Steam Workshop" support. But you can still use 3rd party mods.
There are probably some more differences that I've forgotten, but, in the end, I would like to say that "Civilization 4" is a great game and offers many things its successor lacks. For that reason it's worth purchasing even today – not only for a nostalgic value, but also for the different and fun experience it offers.
My overall rating: 9/10
Also, my personal feeling is that "Civilization 5" is better in its strategical aspect, whereas "Civilization 4" is better in its "God game" aspect – just to fool around on easier difficulties.