Why I'm not buying C4

[spaceweezle]

Having played a few hundred hours of the old box copy, I thought I'd take this opportunity to warn some people about the glaring flaws that apparently no one has mentioned in the review section.

While the game can be fun, it does have some fundamental game-breaking issues and I mean that in the most literal sense.

Combat itself and controlling Legions is by all means horrendously bad. Legions will often glitch and/or become unresponsive, stagnate and anything in between. This can become extremely frustrating especially on hostile settlements.

Trading ships can bug and not come to trade or simply not trade with you regardless of your inputs. This can completely ruin a game as the trader might be carrying resources that are vital to your mission goal, with no other means of attaining it.

Optimization is quite bad, it runs like tripe on almost any hardware you throw at it.

There are some other minor quirks but nothing that will impact as much as the above. If these were fixed, I'd have no problem recommending the title or purchasing the title here on Steam. Most will want to compare it with C3 and while it does a reasonable job of staying true to its lineage, some things were lost in translation which makes me feel like C3 is still the better game.

[BigBodZod]

Thanks for the info but i'm a game collector so I added the Sierra Collection to my Steam Library as I also have the entire Sierra titles on Diskette/CD for both the PC and Amiga.

[Natty La Ridge]

OP, you don't see the irony in complaining about "game-breaking issues" in a game that you've spent hundreds of hours playing?

I too have hundreds of hours into the boxed version, and I snapped up C4 on sale in a heartbeat. Even bought a couple extra copies to gift. Sure, legion combat is wonky, but you can minimize that issue by preferring the economic scenarios over the military. And the good things about the game are still there, notably that you can grow enormous, self-sustaining Roman cities with a reasonable amount of challenge.

The weak spots in the game don't come close to ruining what for me is an all-time favorite city builder. Recommended.

[spaceweezle]

Actually I do see the irony in pointing out flaws in a title, and yet choosing to persever with it regardless of said issues.

However, that still doesn't change the fact that those flaws exist and it doesn;t change the fact that such fundamental and potentially game-breaking issues were never ironed out, even for a release on the Steam platform.

I don't see that as a reason not to make potential customers aware of what state the game is in. I think it's completely fair and justified.

As far as my recommendation goes, it's one thing to have flaws in the game relative to when it came out, but it's an entirely different thing to recommend it today as the issues have been blatantly neglected after all this time and there is no excuse for that.

That also relates to the fact that I haven't played it for years for this very reason. I can't see myself playing it ever again until the issues are fixed and that is relfected in my descion not to purchase the game here on Steam.

[Natty La Ridge]

The issues you refer to are never going to be fixed. They're deeply baked into a 10-year-old title from a studio whose blog hasn't been updated since 2013.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and to spend your gaming dollars as you see fit. But to describe a game as "broken" because you don't like the way some of its systems operate isn't helpful.

1. Combat is tricky and wonky, as it has always been with this franchise. Frustrating? Sure. Broken? No. It didn't stop me from finishing the campaign.

2. Trade: a bit more predictable, but still occasionally glitchy, as you point out. Does it rise to the level of brokenness? I don't think so. Again, it didn't stop me from finishing the campaign, and building numerous large cities in sandbox mode.

3. Poor optimization: How would you know if you haven't played for years? Based on my experience your statement is simply incorrect. I'm running C4 tonight on a relatively modest system: Windows 10 64-bit, 16 GB RAM, 400 Mhz Core i7, and a dated GeForce GTX 760, and it runs smooth as silk with all graphics maxed out.

Don't want to buy or play C4, great. But there's no need to justify your decision by making it seem like your subjective opinions are game-breaking flaws.

[spaceweezle]

Firstly I didn't say it was "broken" I said it had some potentially game-breaking bugs and technical issues.

Nowhere did I complain about how the systems operate. I merely pointed out that some of those systems can fail all together ie: military freezing, hanging, stagnating, becoming non-responsive. Trade ships not trading etc. Those are not subject to preference or opinion at all. They either work when they are working or they fail when they are failing.

Combat, is buggy and frequently glitches out. You call it "wonky" not very helpful or insightful. It's not even an accurate representation of what happens in the game. "wonky" .. lol.

Trade: as mentioned above, it can fail totally causing you to restart a whole mission. Does it rise to the level of "Brokenness" ? No, they are your words not mine. It does rise to the definition of a buggy game mechanic that can result in your mission failing because of it.

Optimization: I've played this on multiple machines, the result was always the same. The fact that you can run it's mediocre assets on modern hardware, does in no way change the fact that it ran like crap on the hardware relative to it's time of release. I pointed that out purely for people expecting to play this game on hardware that was relevant at the time of release.

None of what I said it subjective. Every single issue I described above is 100% correct which is evident just by playing it. Just because you would like to twist my words and definitions with some vacuous non-contextual argument doesn't make it subjective.

[spaceweezle]

Originally posted by Soggy Bog Moggy:

The issues you refer to are never going to be fixed.

Exactly my point.