Go Back   Steam Users' Forums > Steam Game Discussions > Q - S > Sid Meier's Civilization series

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-20-2011, 10:31 PM   #1
Join Date: Aug 2011
Reputation: 54
Posts: 515
Civ 4 or Civ 5? Which is better?

I have heard that both are from different sources and wanted to check with the community and see what the general consensus was. Planning on purchasing 1 of them during the holiday sale, but not sure which yet. I have played Civ 4 at a friends breifly and had some fun, but I heard that combat in Civ 5 is more strategic, but other features were "dumbed down". Any truth to these rumors?
ElazulHP is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 10:32 PM   #2
Join Date: Dec 2010
Reputation: 7
Posts: 26
You should check out my thread x3
I asked the same thing
MrMusical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2011, 04:02 AM   #3
Join Date: May 2011
Reputation: 12
Posts: 126
True. Civ V alas is inferior even to Civ II (and this "even" I place for newer players - I still think Civ II is the best in series XD). Civ IV battles are not less "strategic", they are more connected to reality. But when it comes to other sectors: economy, culture, diplomatics, science, goverment control, religion, Civ IV wins without any opposition from Civ V. Civ V has nothing to give in exchange for more fun battles.
Rastrelly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 01:58 PM   #4
Join Date: Aug 2009
Reputation: 253
Posts: 984
I'd say those rumours are right.
Civ 4 was... complicated, to say the least and anything beyond prince difficulty required levels of micromanagement the average gamer could only dream of, rendering gameplay a lesson in mathematics. Combat pretty much boiled down to the stack o'doom.
Now that's not to say I didn't love Civ 4. It was awesome.

But Civ 5 is slightly more my style. Yes ok, partly because it's easier, but for all the best reasons. With no religions you're no longer automatically the target of hatred, indeed it's finally possible to play peacefully and manage not to get goomba stomped into the ground by Alexander the moment he shows up. The stack of Doom is gone as only one unit can occupy a tile, making warfare a little more strategic. No more stacks of a hundred catapults to soften up a city. And most difficulties cities can generally micromanage themselves pretty well, although the purists would obviously be able to do it better. And resources are more strategic, having a source of iron no longer equals 3000 swordsmen, making acquiring these resources far more important. Having a swordsman when your enemy does not is now game changing.

Personally, I don't think the game has been dumbed down so much as retargetted at those gamers who don't have a PHD in statistical mathematics. I know some hardcore civ 4 players that would find it way too easy even on deity and hate it, but people i know who found civ 4 way too difficult on settler find civ 5 far more rewarding.

To answer which is better, I guess it comes down to how much do you want from it? If you want the challenge of tweaking every little thing always one step away from economic collapse or all out world war then civ 4 is your man. If you want something a little easier to slip into that still feels like Civ then 5 is what you want.

Hope that helped.
chibi_charon is offline   Reply With Quote

Go Back   Steam Users' Forums > Steam Game Discussions > Q - S > Sid Meier's Civilization series

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site Content Copyright Valve Corporation 1998-2015, All Rights Reserved.