Support NeoGAF

[Benedict]

Saw the first review of Civilization 4 today in the Swedish magazine Super Play.
I really thought it would show up on the web before the first printed review.

My demand for the game has risen.

The game gets 10/10 and the reviewer says he gets the same feeling as the first time he started Civ on his Amiga. He just wants to continue playing no matter what.

Something that is mentioned in the review, that I didn't know of, is that you can choose between two different worlds. Either the flat usual CIV-maps or as a globe-map, where you can zoom out as far as you can see the whole planet and scroll around it.
Other than that it seems that religion plays a major part and the user-interface has had a real update and been made more accessible.

 

[8bit]

That seems ever so slightly premature considering it went gold yesterday.

 

[jakershaker]

eh going gold usually means that a review code has existed for a looooong time...not always the case though, some games get review codes like just days before release.

 

[SantaC]

That seems ever so slightly premature considering it went gold yesterday.

review code

 

[lethial]

One of the few pc games this season i've looked forward to.

 

[Rayven]

they sent out review code of an earlier build (not gold) to european mags.

EDIT: santa beat me to it.

 

[Unison]

I don't think there's any reason to doubt this game is capable of a 10/10.

 

[siege]

Not surprising. Almost all of the previews I've read have been ecstatic over the game. IGN will have a review up sometime tomorrow.

 

[8bit]

I'm not doubting it's possible it would score that, but I thought magazines generally needed a lead time of a month or thereabouts before going to bed? I'm looking forward to it nevertheless, but just a bit bemused a print review would appear so early.

 

[Hitler Stole My Potato]

I don't think there's any reason to doubt this game is capable of a 10/10.

Civ 3 gives me doubt.

 

[Blackace]

oh yes... if it can bring me back to the old civ days I can forgive Sid for Civ III

 

[Unison]

Civ 3 was a mild step down from the OMFGBESTGAMEEVER that was Civ 2, but it was still really decent, blowing away almost every other strat. game out there, imo.

 

[Blackace]

Civ 3 was a mild step down from the OMFGBESTGAMEEVER that was Civ 2, but it was still really decent, blowing away almost every other strat. game out there, imo.

umm... I think it was a step and a trip... this is coming from a guy who has clocked maybe 8 months of his life away to 2 and Alpha...

 

[Tiktaalik]

I just hated how impossible it was to take over cities in civ 3. Maybe I'm crazy, but I remeber having 8 archers around a city and attacking with all of them, and still losing out to the one spearman fortified in the town.

 

[Bregor]

Here are some previews, with details, that have been up for a little while:

http://civilization4.net/3/169/
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/preview/

 

[8bit]

umm... I think it was a step and a trip... this is coming from a guy who has clocked maybe 8 months of his life away to 2 and Alpha...

Ahh, you're pretty new to this then? The only one I haven't spent that much time with was Civ III, and even then it's about a month cumulatively.

 

[Sinatar]

Civ 3 suffered from the loss of Brian Reynolds who was largely responsible for the design of Civ 2 and Alpha Centauri.

 

[Rayven]

it's not GOTY, but it's definately a time-sucker.

 

[Acosta]

Maybe it didn´t get to Civ 2 level, but Civ 3 was a worth intro in the saga, especially after the Call of Powers.

And yes, I´m agree, loosing Reynolds didn´t help. The true Civilization 3 (Alpha Centauri) was awesome.

But I trust this fourth entry, Firaxis is now more ready to do it and I think they added some clever things. I can´t wait.

 

[Nerevar]

Civ 3 gives me doubt.

Civ 3 made quite a bit of necessary changes to the static civ formula from 1 and 2. Notably the overhauling of sea-to-land and air-to-land combat as well as the overhaul of the trade system and concept of territory and culture were desperately needed. I'm sure they've ironed out the problems that the changes made and have made it more accessible and a tighter game now.

 

[SpoonyBard]

Civ 3 is a better game than Civ 2, even though it is not as polished. The problems with culture and corruption are not really such a big deal compared to all the improvements in the game. I used to think Civ 2 was better, but when I actually went back and played it again, it became clear how much things had been improved in Civ 3.

 

[siege]

From all the impressions I've read, it seems as if they took the best things from Civ 2 and Alpha Centauri to make Civ IV. It should be fun.

 

[Grug]

Got this baby pre-ordered.

 

[GDJustin]

The Civ games are amazing. I'm a HUGE gamer, but almost no games cause me to stay up all night and suck hours away without realizing where they've gone. I think there's like 4-5 franchises that have done that to me in my life, and Civ is one of them.

 

[Bregor]

From all the impressions I've read, it seems as if they took the best things from Civ 2 and Alpha Centauri to make Civ IV. It should be fun.

Thats not my impression at all. They have heavily revised and changed large portions of this game. It just sounds as if they did a really well balanced job of it.

What parts are taken directly from Civ 2 / AC? (But not Civ 3 presumably, since you omitted mentioning it.)