They took out features, but they also added features...especially if have the Beyond the Sword expansion. I have to say that there are not really any features I miss from Civ III, except that I don't like how they changed the cultural victory conditions to being city-based. Would you care to be more specific about what features you miss?SpaceMoose

Beyond the Sword is the second expansion, thus it is a bit unfair to say that a game requires two expansions to become somewhat rich in features. If you take the vanilla Civ4, it's skimmed of complexity.

I'm not sure what you mean about letting you do less things in a turn either. Like I said, if you change the game speed, games can last even longer than they did in Civ III. You're not seriously complaining that they gave you the OPTION to have a faster game, just because that's the default speed, are you? I rarely play the game at normal speed. At any rate, I have to say the AI in Civ IV, while being far from amazing, is a hell of a lot better from a strategy standpoint than the AI in Civ III ever was.

SpaceMoose

Better AI isn't the same thing as complexity, complexity is a part of the game mechanics, not the AI. Better AI makes better games ofcourse, but it doesn't have anything to do with complexity. Complexity means more units, more techs, more gameplay factors (such as pollution and corruption in civIII), etc... You can hate how pollution and corruption works in CivIII, but the goal should be to make them work better, not getting rid of them and replace nothing in their place. Then you just have a game with less depth and complexity.

Again, what features do you miss specifically? More tiers of the same kinds of units? I thought I might miss that, but in the end I really didn't.

SpaceMoose

I never liked any of the civ games, especially CIV4. In other games, Galactic civilizations, Alpha Centauri, etc... the game mechanics was a lot more complexed, you can even design your own units, and in Alpha centauri the super projects are much more interesting and had interesteing effects on gameplay too. I find all of Sid Meier's games to be too simple for a turn based Strategy. In galactic c civilizations Twilight of the Arnoryou actually get different tech trees for different races, not just one unique unit per race like in Civilizations.

[QUOTE="ZJI"]Can you give some examples?HenriH-42

STALKER Shadow of Chernobyl & Clear Sky

Cryostasis

Necrovision

Men of War

DSC Black Shark

Elven Legacy

King's Bounty

Space Rangers 2

etc.

Also if we include North Europe we have Frictional Games with the Penumbra series and their new upcoming game.

Interesting, many of these games got mediocre reviews on Gamespot so I didn't even look into them.

[QUOTE="ZJI"]

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"]

How is Civ IV simpler than Civ III? Because you don't need to attack with a stack of 50 tanks in one turn? Because they actually made treaties meaningful by enforcing them for a few turns?

SpaceMoose

It was Firaxis' own statements before launch that the game is going to be more "streamlined"and"fast paced", and they have admitted that in several pre launch interviews.

Also, the game makes it clear why certain factions are happy with or mad at you unlike previous games where some of the game mechanics were very enigmatic to a noob and possibly even some veterans. "Streamlined" does not necessarily mean simpler. Really, if you want to focus on making great people or getting a cultural victory (which personally I turn off half of the time because I think it's kind of lame) or something there is even more tedious micromanagement to worry about. If you want to.

Whats wrong with Dawn of War II going towards the Warhammer 40k Tabletop? The tabletop didn't have base building. Furthermore in Warhammer 40k universe, most of combat engagements are small skirmishes, occasional big mobilization here and there and a rare massive war once in a long while.

Hardcore game are still around and they mainly come from Europe and Russia...

How is Civ IV simpler than Civ III? Because you don't need to attack with a stack of 50 tanks in one turn? Because they actually made treaties meaningful by enforcing them for a few turns?

SpaceMoose

It was Firaxis' own statements before launch that the game is going to be more "streamlined"and"fast paced", and they have admitted that in several pre launch interviews. Don't ask sarcastic rhetorical questions by putting words in my mouth.

So the question is why did they do it that complicated in the first place? Sim city 4 was such a good game, and Societies is so simple that you get bored of it immediately. Most FPS games are nothing but jump and shoot a lot, like Crysis, Farcry etc... The old style games like Rainbow six and operation flashpoint have all been simplified in their sequels.

There are ofcourse exceptions, like Galactic civilizations, but those are the exception not the rule. And who knows if Galactic Civilizations III is going to be dumbed down just like every other game series? Because Galactic Civilizations II is already many years old, and Stardock says that the next one won't come for many years, they have to finish their fantasy game first. So anything can happen.

I believe that everyone around accepts the fact that games in general have been more and more simplified. But the question is why? Are they trying to kill off PC gaming and exclusive pc titles, and in the future all PC games are going to be cheap console ports?

Famous examples are:

Rainbow six series. The first one makes you do your own planning, rogue spear and raven shield plans for you (not necessarily bad for those that don't have time), but lockdown and vegas are all cheap console ports.

Sim city got more and more complexed up to 4, but societies is so simple.

Anno series, 1503 was the most complexed one, 1701 is simpler, 1404 is even more simple.

Dawn of warII you can't even build bases anymore.

Oblivion simplified the RPG elements of Morrowind, and is again designed for Xbox, from interface to the general game mechanics.

Civilization 4 is also simpler and has less game mechanics than CivIII. Firaxis explains by making the game "less tedious" or "more fast paced" or something like that.

First person shooters have less and less guns available, BF2142 has less weapons/veichles than BF2, Rainbow six vegas has less weapons than raven shield, etc...

There are tons of more examples.

However, there are exceptions, for example the TotalWar series is still feature rich, but that's the exception not the rule.

How is Battle Forge?

Are there any good RTS game like ACT of War? Some RTS games today seem too simple and are all about rushing.