Talk:Civilization IV

The Expansion Pack

Since Civ IV is the most moddable in the Civ series, probably the idea that Firaxis will crate an exapnsion is a bit slim. But I myself (and many others) hope that there will be an expansion. Why ? Here are some of my reasons:

• Some bulidings should change their apperance when entering a certain age (e.g. a theatre with an ancient look in the Modern Age should look like a modern day theatre in the modern age).
• More leaders and more civilizations.

• Despite the fact that the Civ series is said to be the best history simulation game ever made, there are some inaccuacies:
  • Arabs are the only people in the game that get to use camels (how about other Middle Eastern nations which used them?)
  • Religions can't be removed in cities once they spread to them.
  • Some techs are misplaced, such as democracy (since democracy existed in Greece during the Classical age).
  • Nearly all units all have a Western look and this might be a very annoying thing, considering the fact that the Civ series is said to be the best history simulation game ever made.
  • There are many missing units or buildings (solar power plants, tactical bombers, etc).
  • Scouts and Explorers can't attack.
  • Citizens can't become militia.
  • You can't choose what units you want to create when using the draft option.
  • Spies can only be built in a city with Scotland Yard.

• More civics options and civic effects.
• Some buildings should be improved.
• Some cut scenes and movies should be improved.
• Many Civilopedia errors (such as the use of wrong grammar in some articles).
• More victory options.
• More soundtracks or music.
• How about those fans who don't know how to mod? Do they have to wait for the next mods in the download pages in Civ IV related sites?

- InGenX

Um, just because it's heavily modable doesn't mean that they won't make an expansion pack. I don't think that would make their fans very happy. Not everyone can mod; in fact, most people can't, and I'm sure that the average fan (myself included) would want an officially released expansion pack. And many fans, myself included, I'm sure would prefer any expansion pack over just about any mod. And, to be perfectly honest here, some of your proposed changes are ridiculous. War elephants weren't used by all of these civilizations. Well, neither were tanks, chariots, marines, planes, longbowmen, carriers, or any other modern unit. bob rulz 19:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

In any case, this isn't really the place to talk about the game (marvellous as it is! :)), talk pages are for discussing the article about the game... Just wanted to point that out... (now back to Civving!) — QuantumEleven | (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

safedisc

Should this article really mention that work-arounds exist? Isn't that helping people learn how to pirate software? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Framed0000 (talk • contribs)

I don't think so. There are a number of legitimate uses that Safedisc prevents, and it's not like the article tells how to get around it. —LrdChaos 05:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I second LrdChaos for the same reasons. Nothing illegal or immoral about noting a problem that some users have had with an aspect of the game. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 19:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The article does not state how you work around it, just that you canCodelyoko194 16:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Who goes to wikipedia to learn how to pirate a game?--Can Not 23:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Archived

In accordance with WP:SIZE, I've archived old discussions to Talk:Civilization IV/Archive 2. I've left discussions that were less than a week old on this page. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 18:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Civilization IV, stereotypical haven

The game's own Civopedia calls Indian workers as having "compact, wiry frames". What's next, an expansion that adds Chinese sweatshops as a city addition? Scott 110 03:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It is idiotic to remove a reference to this issue when it is from the game's own documentation. If you want to change the language of the criticism, do so. But do not give a lack of sources as an excuse to delete it, there is a source and it's in the game itself. Just because this issue has not been published in the NY Times does not mean it doesn't exist. Scott 110 20:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• I did not remove the reference to the issue -- I kept the quotation from the Civilopedia, and even checked it against the version in the game's XML file. I removed the reference to it being criticism. Please read WP:CITE and Wikipedia:No original research. Just because something is 100% true doesn't mean that it should be included in the encyclopedia.--M@rēino 21:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• The question here is not whether it's true or not, the point is that it's OFFENSIVE. Further you're very happy to talk about citing sources, yet on the references section of this article, "In game experience" is cited....hardly an academic source. You have not changed that, yet you edit this.... Scott 110 00:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Whoopdie doo. I suspect I have it on better authority than you (unless you are also Indian, yourself) that this is not something that Indians are offended about. Are you one of these people that feels the need to be offended "for" people? Get over yourself, take a chill pill, and allow this to be subjected to the NPOV process. The fact of the matter is, who is doing the accusing? You say "accused by people," but if "people" amounts to yourself, then it's not encyclopedic. Also, your personal insult that you leveled towards Mareino is unprofessional and undermines your case. I have placed {{POV-section}} on the relevant section until this can be resolved. And let's leave the kindergarten namecalling at home. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• • To Joseph, three things: #1 Don't lecture me. #2 Don't make assumptions. Unless you have the ability to extrapolate a person's appearance based on their Wikipedia contributions, do not assume I am not Indian. #3 Just because YOU are not offended by this does not mean others aren't, so do not presume to speak for everyone. Agreed this issue has not been publicized in any major newspaper or other academic source, but that's due to a lack of awareness. Civilization IV, while a great game, still has a limited market as it is a turn-based strategy game and thus, appeals to a far smaller crowd than a game like Halo, for example. Also, Civilization IV is still a faily new release. A case in point, when Hitman 2 (a first person shooter) came out, it featured a level that was similar in appearance to a Gurudwara (if you know what that is, then I will honestly be surprised). That game caused an outcry among the Sikh community. Besides, I am not the first person to criticise the Civilization series as a whole. You want more info, see the Wiki article on the Civilization series. Scott 110 08:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • I agree with Joseph on this one. You are guilty of what you accuse him of. Just because you ARE offended by this doesn't mean others are. To quote you, "Do not presume to speak for everyone." Furthermore, this is nonverifiable information. You should read Wikipedia:Verifiability sometime. Nimlot 09:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I have never before seen this particular aspect of Civ 4 declared controversial - contrary to the claim in the precise wording proposed - and it's awfully petty. If Scott 110 is offended by it, he would be best off trying to raise consciousness elsewhere (along with informing the benighted Wikipedia community of what a gurdwara is) and sticking to the genuine points of controversy the game has raised, namely those pertaining to the religious aspects, which have upset people of all kinds, from hardline Christians unwilling to rule over a nonchristian empire, to radical atheists who think religion has been nothing but a force for unmitigated evil.

The unique unit aspect has raised very few - if any at all - eyebrows. I have always believed that the fast worker unit seemed kind of out of place with the Indian civilisation and the designers assigned it to them merely because they wanted to put them somewhere. The manual, therefore, is mere fluff to post-facto rationalise the choice.

As for the injunction given for reading the more general article on the series, the criticisms seem to be flaws in the game mechanics or, more apropos to this discussion, the unique civilisation traits. They are there to give the game some flavour, making the civilisations different. The games have all had an option to randomise these personalities so far as I know, rendering the situation moot. You can even disable the unique units if you have no sense of fun whatsoever. Pthag 14:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment To me, the Civilization series has had a strong joke element to it (which extreme political correctness would not fit into, in my opinion). Is it fair to call the game controversial because it is offensive to some people, especially since the game was not made to be offensive (no malicious intent)?--SirNuke 01:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

CIV4 is a game in which nuking the hell out of a few dozen million people is considered a smart tactic. One could be offended by that, as well. It's a game, people. It's not like it's SimAuschwitz. Wouter Lievens 15:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm with SirNuke. Among the most obvious jokes in various Civ games are:
  • The Japanese will occasionally declare, "All your base are belong to us!"
  • Some city names (Neo Tokyo, Thunderfall, etc.) are clearly references to pop culture or gamers
  • Declaring war by choosing the phrase, "your head would look good on the end of a pike."
  • Various world leaders having treasure from their war conquests on the walls behind them.
  • Tongue-in-cheek civilopedia entries explaining why certain techs must lead to certain not-so-obvious units and buildings
  • The "abort" noise if you try to launch an incomplete space ship.

It's all in good fun; the whole point is to challenge history. --M@rēino 15:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Scott 110 seems to be alone in his offendedness. Unless he can prove that "Some people" isn't just him, I'd strongly recommend the section just be yanked.-UmlautBob

Since i played this game back in the early 1990s i have never complained about possible bias towards tribes on civilization, in fact i viewed all quotes from microprose team quite funny and , let's say..., "civilized",,, if sid meier has been responsible of this project since that old good days, i believe all comments about civilizations on the game throughout the years , all has been done in good faith without any intention to diminish any kind of ethnical group, and in fact, the accuracy of the game, specially the contents on in game's civilopedia has been remarkable. I believe those kinds of accusations are pointless.--HappyApple 05:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:HappyApple. The Civ IV manual goes to a great length to ensure that people won't be offended by the religious aspect of the game, so why would they leave a throwaway comment about Indians having "wirey frames" in the middle of a description complimenting the Indian people if they thought it would offend? I support the removal of the section. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 11:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

A couple very questionable statements in the article:

1) Civ 4 is not very "RTS-like." RTS means "real time strategy." Despite the innovations in the latest incarnation, it's still a turn based strategy game through and through. If somebody plays any conventional RTS game they'd see those types of games have no resemblance to Civ 4's mechanics and gameplay.

2) The game does NOT record the results of every single game played in the Hall of Fame (as asserted in the Trivia section). The statement in the manual is correct. I played several games of Civ 4 before a single one was recorded in the Hall of Fame. Previous versions of Civ DID record every result. In Civ 4 if you retire before the game runs to completion it won't make the Hall of Fame even if the HoF is currently empty.

Did you use the 'retire' option? Krupo 03:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ashoka and Gandhi

Sure Mohandas Gandhi comes before Ashoka? It's interesting, since that's the complete opposite of the historical facts. 惑乱 分からん 20:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you referring to? --M@rēino 22:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_IV#Civilizations_and_leaders 惑乱 分からん 11:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the chart? Those aren't supposed to be in chronological order; China and Russia are also "backwards" in this regard. --M@rēino 15:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Pitboss

Could someone with a bit more knowledge than me please add a section about (or at least a reference to) the Pitboss application that was released earlier today? I've never played Civ IV multiplayer so I'm not the best person to comment on it. Thanks. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 14:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article?

No, I think not. But with a bit of work, all the Civ Games deserve to be FA. But first of all we need to make this game a bit more individual, first of all the article deals with changes to the game from Civilization III. We need to make a brief section on changes and make the rest on basic gameplay of Civilization. Hope we can get this task underway soon. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Also the dot points don't help and I will be removing most of them and converting the article to mainly prose. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great! Good luck with getting (most of) the article into prose, looking back there do seem to be a lot of bullets... -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 16:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have converted all of the new gameplay section into prose. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It sure sounds great! This subject matter deserves to be on the featured list. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 07:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My take

1. Featured article status has much more to do with the quality of the article than with the subject. If you look at WP:FA, there's some pretty obscure stuff that made it to the front page, but it's well written. 2. I agree with Noble Eagle; large chunks of the article are still written as a comparison to CivIII. Most people who come seeking info on CivIV are familiar with CivIII, but if this is to be a featured article, the reader has to come in knowing nothing about the Civ series, let alone CivIII, and come out understanding the game and the context in which it was created. 3. The article has a lot of subtle opinions. Those should be backed with citations to reviews -- it's not as if we're hurting for sources, but I'd like to match the sources with the opinionsd 4. We can definitely make this an FA if we work together. --M@rēino 18:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That's the spirit...Just want to raise your guys awareness to Indian cricket team which I've worked on for quite a lot of my times has come from this on April 1 to this on April 26. It's a good chance of FA and is probably going to be Selected Article for the India Portal and Good Article. But how many of you guys know much about cricket?? Or the Indian cricket team??. I'm modelling much of it on StarCraft at the moment, then we can add our own touches of Civ-ness to it. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Multiplayer

Can someone with a bit more knowledge than me about Civ Multiplayer write a section on Multiplayer similar to this. Just keep it simple. Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't play Civ Multiplayer so someone really needs to take their time off and write a section if we want to make this article better. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I would, but I've also never played Civ IV multiplayer either (see here). -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 08:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Create Civs

I know this might be irrelevant and not belong on a discussion page, I was wondering if someone knew how to create a new civilization. I know how to write the necessary code, but I do not know where to create the document. Thanks.

I had no idea you could do that. But instead of Wikipedia, you may want to check out gaming related websites. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It also might be usfull information for those visiting this article. I will try to find out how so in may be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.143.169 (talk • contribs)

I don't really think that information on how to create a civilization is relevant to an article about the game. This sort of information would be better left to specialised gaming sites; those really interested in learning how to create new civs would probably go there first and not bother with an article about the game. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 10:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion??

I absolutely do not think this article should be deleted. It's fine if "Wikipedia is not a game guide," but having pages about games doesn't indicate that Wikipedia is a game guide. Having a separate page for the chart of Civs -- well that may be objectionable. But Civ IV is a cultural artifact and a work of entertainment. Should movie pages, pages about music albums, etc. also be deleted? Anyway, there's my two cents. Motorneuron 20:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)motorneuron

Who's asking for deletion? bob rulz 22:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I was about to ask the exact same question.... Circeus 22:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

He/she is talking about the Civilization IV civilizations color table list that is located on a seperate page even though it shows up on this one. Took me awhile to figure out what this person meant but I found it and someone said that it should be deleted as I guess they didn't like that someone used a seperate page just to list the table. I guess the only solution would be to move the table to this page directly instead of directing it from another page. Either way I don't think it should be deleted but put it on the CIV IV page if that person has such a problem with a seperate page for the Civilization list colored table. PantheraLeo 23:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll subst the template. LD 23:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

link

"On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. See Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines."

There are a lot of fansite-like links in the external links section. I really don't think that most of them are necessary here. Chris M. 03:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'll leave an inline notice as well for any potential fan site adding people. Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Being bold...removing those links which don't seem to stack up. Chris M. 12:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Special Edition?

I noticed a Special Edition has been released. Should this be mentioned? (And what *is* the difference from the normal version, anyway...)

Languages

In Talk:Civilization_IV/Archive_2#Copies user thinks Civ 4 is only in German and English only. Actually, it is also in French, Spanish and Italian. It is also translated into Finnish and Russian by fans. Kahkonen 16:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, in the article there is not said what is/are games language(s). Where it can be added? "Overview", maybe? Kahkonen 22:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

bowing to Chinese censorism?

I'm not sure (so I'm not posting on the main page before someone confirms) but didn't Forbidden palace and Three Gorges Dam change names in a recent patch (I believe 1.61 or could it be Warlords?).

There's a distinct bitter taste of caving in to chinese governmental demands in order to sell copies here. Would a "trivia" entry stating these (to my eye) wholly unmotivated changes be appropriate? 195.24.29.51 15:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly not the case for Civ IV 1.61, and I would be surprised if it were the case for Warlords. I don't see how mentioning the Three Gorges Dam and the Forbidden Palace would cause a problem with Chinese censors, and, in any case, as far as I know, there is no Chinese version of Civ IV. So the point is moot. — QuantumEleven 14:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick question

Anyone know who performed the music you hear on the main title page of the game? It's kind of African-style chanting. Proto::type 10:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. Proto::type 10:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Recommendations for improvement

Howdy all, I stopped by here looking for info the game and found a nice article. Good job to the folks who've worked on it! I saw above that editors were considering getting this article to Featured Article status. I had a few recommendations based on the Good Article criteria:

• The introduction does not give a "heads up" about the sections of the rest of the article. There should be a paragraph that gives a quick peek at what folks will learn about Civ IV's new features and customization, as well as high critics scores despite launch problems. (See WP:LEAD for more info.)
• The article's Trivia section is quite large. A new "Pop Culture" or "Cultural References" section can be added to provide a new home for much of the Trivia. (See WP:TRIV for more info.)
• Remember that articles should be easily readable for all, not just those who play the game or computer games in general. When Civilization appears alone, the article should specify whether the statement refers to the original game or the series. Also, consider not abbreviating the game term "civilization" as "civ" unless the article clarifies that. (See WP:MOSDEF for more info.)
• The article does not have appear to have a uniform method of citing sources. I would recommend using Wikipedia:Citation templates. (See WP:SOURCE and WP:CITE for more info.)
• The captions of the gameplay screenshots can be rewritten to be more succint or informative.

Overall, this is an informative, broad, and interesting article. With some work and a peer review by the Video Games WikiProject, this can definitely be on its way to Featured Article status. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 19:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your constructive criticism! I've replaced all occurrences of "Civ" with "Civilization" and placed in a {{toomuchtrivia}} tag. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 00:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why there's a tag asking to get rid of trivia... I think the trivia should be subcatagorised possibly, but the trivia section itself is OK... There are a lot of hidden features and easter eggs in this game (and the series) and a trivia section is appropriate —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Happysmileman (talk • contribs) 20:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Per WP:TRIVIA, trivia is not OK. There is such thing as details too trivial to mention per Wikipedia policy, and right now, I'm seeing the easter eggs section is ripe to be edited out. That section doesn't really list easter eggs as much as it does really fine minutia. I already took out the "Live long and prosper" item because it's flat out false (longevity and prosperity was a Chinese blessing long before it was a Vulcan one, it's not a reference to Leonard Nimoy), and I think the rest of the section is based on personal observations rather than items that would interest a general reader. hateless 23:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)