By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
totalwar23 on 29 January 2008
Edit Thread
Entroper said:
naznatips said:
Gnizmo said:

Civ 2 is just so much better than 4 it is ridiculous. I do like a few of the changes in 4 but for the most part they were just undoing the horror that was Civ 3.


I completely agree.


What was so wrong with Civ 3? I thought culture and borders were pretty sweet, and they vastly improved the negotiations and treaties over Civ 2. I also liked the changes to combat regarding unit experience and hp, artillery units, and so forth. What did Civ 4 do besides refine the government system and go back to a square grid? (I admit, the square grid is worth it all by itself, I've hated isometric view with a passion since it was born. Also, I don't own Civ 4, so this is an honest question, not a rhetorical one.)

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if they're having trouble getting the game to run in the Wii's limited amount of RAM. The Civ games have been extremely RAM-hungry on the PC.


I got Civ 4 pretty much when it came out and it was really disappointing. It got a 3D lift but that really didn't add anything to the game. For me, the game pretty much slowed down after a while into the game when there were more units and cities and everything on the map. Civ4 was basically a refined cross between 2 and 3 but it just plain sucked.