![]() ![]() Next I'll mention some things I felt Civ IV did better than Civ V: These added some great diversity and replayability to different civs, however they were fairly imbalanced. A great fun natural addition to the game, something which only really adds to the game, other than being a bit OP at some times and in some ways, but it's singleplayer so whatever. Gold being a spendable resource is a lot more interesting and feels better than pumping it into research as much as possible. Vastly superior to squares on so many levels, they are nothing but an improvement, both strategically and aesthetically I'll start by talking about the things Civ V did oh so correctly: ![]() Ultimately I prefer Civ IV (don't kill me) but I would like the next Civ game to be a combination of the best of both games. Civ IV represents a perfection of the original game of Civ I (and subsequently Civs II and especially III). I've played all the Civ games in their own time to a considerable extent, and I thought I'd compare Civ IV and Civ V, and see what other people's thoughts are on the two.Ĭiv V is in my mind the biggest change from one civ game to another, it represents an entirely new game in many ways. So I'm a huge civ IV player, having played somewhere in the range of 5 000 hours of it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |