[Beam]

Originally Posted by socralynnek

I also didn't own Civ4 when it came out (I think, it was 3 months in until I got it)

But I remember much more positive feedback, especially by top players. It was quite ok, already after the first patch.

OK, maybe if they didn't have steam, then they wouldn't have sent more than one patch out, but it seems like they need a lot more patches than in Civ3 to have a nice game.

I don't mind the occasional falw in game design. E.g. RCP in original Civ3 up to PTW still offered enough challenging decisions on where to place cities and how set up rings. But removing it made the game like one level harder (or let's say, the AI was a level stronger w.r.t. the game mechanics)

Sure, it might be worth waiting for the first expansion or some more patches, as probably there is a lot that can be tweaked (and e.g. if they do have proper code, they might replace happiness caps with Civ4 like maintenance or something like that)

Bottom line: Two months after Civ4 came out, I couldn't wait getting it in my hands and getting a new machine to handle it properly. Just from reading the feedbac and strategic articels in the forums. Now I feel, like I have a ot of time switching to the new version (hey, and if they don't make significant improvements, then I'll just wait for Civ6 when Sid, Soren, Sulla and PP will design the game, with Mistfit doing the graphics)

Imo the graphics in Civ5 are pretty good. If only the rest of the game was at least that good.