So, I've enrolled in a research study in my college's REP program (a program where you gain a certain amount of "REP-credits" by completing surveys and in-person studies for a Psychology class). This study involves playing video games as homework; the premise is for me to play 15 hours of an assigned game within 5 weeks and to relay the save file to the guy who arranged it. In return, I get a $75 Amazon gift card, along with getting to keep the game I play. Pretty cool stuff.
The games that are available are Call of Duty 2, and Civilization 4. Study participants are not permitted to choose which game they get to play, which is sort of a bummer. I mean, any CoD game works the same way, and has the same gameplay, but I've never played a Civ game before, or seen gameplay videos or anything. All I know is that it's an RTS. Nothing else.
I figured a bunch of you fine TL'ers have some experience with the game. Generic gaming site reviews never really help me get the grasp of the game and give me an idea of whether or not I'll enjoy it. Instead, I turn to friends and such for their opinions, as our tastes are similar enough for their opinions to carry more weight. Also, one of the reasons I signed up for this was to explore different gaming environments, to see if a mandated 15 hours of a game would make me attached to the series, so informed opinions are more valuable in this case than usual.
So, in the event that I am assigned to Civ 4, the question is: Is Civ 4 representative of the quality of the whole series? What about the Civ series sets it apart from StarCraft and other RTS titles? Is it fast-paced or more methodical? And if I get CoD2 instead, would Civ 4 be a viable purchase for someone who enjoys RTS games?
civ 4 is not an rts, its turn based. It also is an amazing game it you like that kind of game. Dont expect SC2 type action/fighting heavy gameplay though as youre in for a huge disappointment if thats what youre looking for.
Civs are not fast-paced, they are turn-based strategy games; not real time. I actually just recently tried them and I found it very addictive and extremely fun.
On June 06 2011 23:33 Aeres wrote: but I've never played a Civ game before, or seen gameplay videos or anything. All I know is that it's an RTS.
Wrong :p
All civs are turn-based strategy games, but they are definately enjoyable, the one I haven't played are 1 & 3, my personal preference goes 2, 5, 4 if you're thinking about purchasing one. That program sounds really nice by the way.
EDIT = Uh, 3 replies already (looks like I want to rub it in now)
I'm afraid that you're misinformed. The Civ series is not RTS, but rather turn-based empire management, where warring is only one part of the gameplay, with things like diplomacy and economic management easily surpassing it in importance.
That said, it's a great game, and it is certainly representative of the quality of the series (disregarding Civ 5, which was depressingly sub-par), especially if your program allows you to include multiplayer games within the 15 hours... in fact, one multiplayer game might well take up the whole 15 hours :D.
I would personally recommend the game, though not if you aren't a fan of lengthy games or turn-based strategy.
EDIT: >_>. Well then, looks like that has been settled.
Well, it's nice to know that I'm completely fucking wrong, as usual. :D I guess I really didn't know anything about it at all!
So, Civ is turn-based. What happens during a turn, and how long do they last? It's crazy imagining a single multiplayer game lasting 15 hours, so I guess that means the turns are fairly long.
On June 06 2011 23:33 Aeres wrote: So, in the event that I am assigned to Civ 4, the question is: Is Civ 4 representative of the quality of the whole series? What about the Civ series sets it apart from StarCraft and other RTS titles? Is it fast-paced or more methodical? And if I get CoD2 instead, would Civ 4 be a viable purchase for someone who enjoys RTS games?
Civ 4, if combined with the Beyond the Sword expansion for it, was an excellent entry in the series. All of the first four Civ games were good and each has fans that consider it their favourite. Civ 5 is generally considered an over-simplified version and a bit of a failure, but even it has its fans.
As mentioned, the Civ games are turn-based strategy, and are best described by the word 'epic'. Your 15 hours may not be enough to cover even one game of Civ. If you want to learn more about it, try these resources:
I thought beyond the sword introduced way too many chance events. The illusion of choice when you're presented with a yes/no option whose payoff is determined by a random number generator. Ughhh. I liked the Warlords expansion a lot more, though collateral damage was super imba.
Civ 4 is quite good. I have spent a lot of time playing it. It's very addictivte and VERY time consuming (all civ games are by the way). I'm sure you'll have a great time if you get it.
Don't heap CoD2 in with the newer CoD trash pleaseeeeeeeeeee
Also; i didn't mind Civ4, however it was a bit too fast paced for me(personally i enjoyed the slower pace of civ4 myself) If its your first Civ game though make sure you see what time yous tarted playing so after what seems like 10 minutes, you come to find out its actually 10 hours later
On June 06 2011 23:46 Aeres wrote: Well, it's nice to know that I'm completely fucking wrong, as usual. :D I guess I really didn't know anything about it at all!
So, Civ is turn-based. What happens during a turn, and how long do they last? It's crazy imagining a single multiplayer game lasting 15 hours, so I guess that means the turns are fairly long.
Turns at the start of the game takes seconds.
Near the end of the game, a single turn can take a hour if you have a large enough empire and you are micro-managing enough.
You start out with a single settler that can start a single city on your world map. Your oppents start in the same way.
Each turn consists of:
1) Managing which resources your cities gather 2) Managing what your cities build (new buildings, units, wonders, etc..) 3) Managing which science your civilization is researching 4) Managing your units in order to explore more of the world map
These are the basics to a turn. It gets more complicated as you meet other civilizations, then you add in:
5) Managing treaties with other civilizations (be them peace treaties or trade treaties) 6) Managing trade with your neighbors (trading tech and resources in order to get ahead) 7) Moving troops into strategic parts of your empire for defence
This generally makes up a basic turn. The game gets much more complicated when you know what you are doing. Such as managing when you chop down forests to increase the amount of resources you gather in a turn, and when you do not in order to stem overflow. When to manually adjust worked tiles in order to maximize gain in a turn without getting too far overpopulated. etc...
The game is VERY complex, and will quickly result in HOURS dissolving away in a fictional world.
It's an amazing game, though time can greatly vary depending on your game settings. You could set it to a small map, with only 1 other civ, and quick game speed for a fairly short game... or the maximum amount of other civilizations, huge map, and marathon speed - those settings would likely take you well over the 15 hours.
Basically you start with a settler, and choose a location to found your first city. Then you slowly work your way up the tech tree founding other cities/building armies. You can win in quite a few different ways, by war, culture (having 3 cities with legendary culture), technology (being the first to launch a space shuttle), or diplomacy. That's a very, very narrow basic idea of the game. There's quite a lot more to it, but if you have any love for strategy games at all, you'll likely become hopelessly addicted.
I have heard some good things with the Civ games. I never got into them in the past because I have not heard much about them til a certain brentalfloss made a lyrical version of Baba Yetu.
From what I can tell, it's an amazing Turn-Based game. Odds are I might actually enjoy it. Sadly, the only Civ games I found are Civ 2, 3 and 5. I could try Civ 5 since I heard it's a significant improvement over the previous game, but that game is not too friendly with my PC. Seriously considering an upgrade.
Oh man, Civ 4 is SOOOO addicting. I usually play with at least 15 civs on a real world map, usually on the easiest difficulty setting, usually as China or India. I then proceed to recreate the most fucked up version of human history possible in this semi-sandbox mode. Quite fun.
You'll probably get many more hours out of Civ 4 than CoD2. The gameplay is extremely addicting, and it tends to be seen as the "pinnacle" of classical Civ gameplay. Civ 5 does a complete reworking of most core fundamentals, some of which are seen as detrimental by some fans. Civ 4 is an improvement and refinement of the gameplay of every Civ game that came before it, and it also benefits from having a healthy mod community that churns out quite a few content mods and historical recreations.
CoD2 is also pretty fun, though. The campaign is definitely worth checking out, though it's not as flashy as recent CoD games. The multiplayer is a bit more basic than CoD4 and onwards due to the lack of kill-streaks, perks, and unlockables. However, I've always felt it to be one of the weaker games in the franchise.
I don't know if you can use a mod while playing but
http://kael.civfanatics.net/About.shtml Greatest mod ever made end of story. Its literaly a AAA title all by itself and the guy who heads it got a job with stardock to help save their company.
Haha it's super easy to waste your life away in Civ4. It'll give you 'one more turn' syndrome... I know people who have played Civ4 straight for a dozen hours easy.
civ4 is great and to say that it is turnbased and therefore not an RTS game is not entirely true. If you play it multiplayer, like over the hyper internet, then everyturn is RTS like, So forexample there are 2 units who are enemies. Then unit A is on tile 1 and unit B wants to attack unit A and therefore order his unit to tile 1, however meanwhile on the other side of the globe the player order his unit A to move to tile 2, and thus the attack wont be an attack because just miliseconds before the game wants to move unit B, unit A moves.
Civ4 hasa big flaw. You can mass units on 1 sinlge tile so the player who attacks first with his massarmy alsmost gives the blow that will set the deal. This leads to players just massing armies and camping and not taking any chances. And this is not so fun compared to battles being fought left and right and everywhere.
I think this is mainly what the developpers of Civ5 improved.
BTW this is the true lyrics of that song translated: Our Father, who art in Heaven. Amen! Our Father, Hallowed be thy name. Give us this day our daily bread, Forgive us of our trespasses As we forgive others Who trespass against us Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one forever.
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done On Earth as it is in Heaven. (Amen)
I always thought Civ IV (with BTS) was the best installment of the series (Civ V is a total joke, its what made me leave civ and start playing Starcraft). Also, depending on weather or not you'll be playing with other people, one single game might take more than 15 hours. My longest game (6 player LAN) took a bit over 30 hours. Fortunately it was a three day weekend, so we played it straight through. Brought to you by Monster and pizza
EPT
