the title says everything... now vote! :whipped:


I say it will be far worse! It looks so childish... and if it don't have the paratrooper, i'll blow!!! [pissed]

Different strokes for different folks. They'll have their own qualities.

This isn't even a true civilization game. It's an abortion they're slapping the Civ name onto in order to give it "Civ hype." Like how they slapped "Civ" onto "CivCity: Rome."

If Pirates had never been made in the nineties, the newer Pirates would have been called CivPirates.

Think of how the Sim franchise went. All of a sudden you have SimAnt and all this garbage that watered down the franchise and turned everyone off the Sim name. They're now doing the same exact thing with Civilization, apparently Firaxis didn't learn from the mistakes of Maxis.

This game will be total crap.

I have no interest in any console games, and if I did I wouldn't blow my money on this.

I think this is a wonderful idea! It's always good to see a strategy title make it over to a console. Although PC gaming and the Civ series have ruled my life for so long I am fawning over getting a Civ title on a console.

The last Civ game I had was the original Civilization game ported over to the SNES.

Btw I'm a gamer devoted to both PC gaming and Consoles. Each has their values and each brings me great joy and entertainment goodness.

I think they added Civ to CivCity Rome because City Rome would sound too stupid....

No suitable poll answer - this game is directed at a completely different market - it is not comparable, certainly until we see a playable version!

I think they added Civ to CivCity Rome because City Rome would sound too stupid....

CivCity Rome didn't need a name change to be stupid.

No suitable poll answer - this game is directed at a completely different market - it is not comparable, certainly until we see a playable version!

I disagree, for what we have seen from the images, it will be for babies; even if you don't bother spending (... or wasting :lol:) money on it, you'll still have to buy one of the consoles (if you don't have any of them, like me) and they're expensive... i think it doesn't worth buy it

Why do the graphics mean it is more compatable for babys? Did i miss something.. were the Axemen holding Lollypops?

I don't think it's supposed to compete with BTS. This is like asking if Mario is better than Half-Life. Yeah, they both might be 3D, and involve running around on an adventure, but both pretty different.

If I had to guess, I think it will have respectable sales that rival that of the BTS Expansion Pack. But to a very different audience.

multi-platform, i imagine it could be a topseller. Its a unique niche.

Why do the graphics mean it is more compatable for babys? Did i miss something.. were the Axemen holding Lollypops?

C'mon, have you at least seen this one:


http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/displayimage.php?imageid=1332&original=1

"You have captured my favorite village... but I have many others" ???
Isn't that for babies?

And about the axemen holding Lollypops, that might be an interesting promotion that they could have in that game...:
-15% of strength but randomly an animation of them using it... probably every kid would promote them with it, they'll lose the game, even being happy (and start clamouring their parents to buy them about one (or twenty :p) Lollypops)

It's a different game for a different platform for a different audience, it's not possible to make a fair judgment at this point.
Or we could hang around making snarky comments about things we can't possibly have an informed opinion on, either way works. :rolleyes:

From what I read about it, CivRev will be too watered down to be enjoyable for me, so I voted "Far worse". However, I expect CivRev to be very enjoyable for people who'd never even look at a game with the complexity of Civ4, and it's not a bad thing to interest new customers in the franchise. I wish Firaxis the best of luck with that project, although I'm pretty sure that this won't be a game I'd enjoy much.

Lol why is that screen shot for babies? I don't understand how that is for any younger of an audience than the stuff we see in Civ IV...

The interesting thing to me is that you didn't include a "There is no possible way I could know whether it will be better than BTS because I have not played it yet" option

I say it will be far worse! It looks so childish... and if it don't have the paratrooper, i'll blow!!! [pissed]

I'm a mature adult with responsibilities and as such I only play video games that are for mature adults with responsibilities

I dunno what it'll be like, since it hasn't come out yet. But if you ask me, it'll be automatically rated Far Worse if they don't have wonder movies!

I dunno what it'll be like, since it hasn't come out yet. But if you ask me, it'll be automatically rated Far Worse if they don't have wonder movies!

I'm pretty certain that the movies are a feature they won't cut. :)

Since it looks like they'll have to greatly simplify the game for ease of use with console controllers, I very much doubt it will be anywhere near the quality of BtS. I doubt the existing Civ fanbase is what this game is aimed at though

At least it could attract console people to the "true faith" of civ4. ;)

C'mon, have you at least seen this one:


http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/displayimage.php?imageid=1332&original=1

"You have captured my favorite village... but I have many others" ???
Isn't that for babies?

And about the axemen holding Lollypops, that might be an interesting promotion that they could have in that game...:
-15% of strength but randomly an animation of them using it... probably every kid would promote them with it, they'll lose the game, even being happy (and start clamouring their parents to buy them about one (or twenty :p) Lollypops)

Give "kids" some credit. I got addicted to civ (civ1 that is) when I was around 6. Does that make it a "childish game"? And I would never have used a promotion (no that they existed in civ1) that showed some random animation - I wanted to kill Romans. Maybe meet some gaming kids before you catergorise them all together.

^^
i'm talking about most kids, not everyone, there are always exceptions

let's stop talking about kids and simply vote the poll... OK?

^
But how are you meant to compare revolutions to beyond the sword? All that is known about revoluations are things the have been shown in a few screen shots - which can change (I remember seeing the first civ4 screen shots - they were bad, but it turned out good in the end). And I haven't even played beyond the sword yet.

But in all honesty I'm looking forward more to the revolutions then I was towards beyond the sword. Mainly because I don't have much time to play games on the PC, but I do tend to play a 1/2 - 1 hour of DS each day. If I can play more civ I will be happy

^^
i'm talking about most kids, not everyone, there are always exceptions

let's stop talking about kids and simply vote the poll... OK?

I need to know before I vote: what is Civ Revolutions like? Is it a good game?

Looking forward to your prompt reply

It is gona be very different from the computer civilizations and Firaxis is just trying to expand its horizons. Some people will think it will be alot better others(most people on forums) think it will be horrible. It is just a different kinda Civ but I think it will be a fun change.

I voted about the same.

It's a different game for a different experience. CIV BTS seems to be much much "richer" than CivRev. Great for people who like endless epic games.. Like me :)

Unfortunately I don't have a high-end PC, so I can't enjoy epic games on CIV. Thus I'm happy there's a console version coming out. Granted the graphics look a bit silly, but as long as the basics of Civ exist I'll be very pleased. I won't say It's "dumbed down" just because it's easier to learn. It's that it's hard to master that's important. After all, chess is quite easy to learn ;)

You know, looking back to my first experiences with Civ on the PS1, I see what they're trying to achieve with this- a simpler, console-focused game will help bring people to the series who usually would have written it off as "too complex". At the time of Civ2, all that required was an altered interface, but with the level of depth achieved by Civ4, it really is necessary to make a seperate game for consoles. Civ4 is simply too much for most console gamers, while revolutions is probably too shallow for most PC Civ fans. (Not that we couldn't enjoy it, but it wouldn't measure up to the standards of the main series.)

Very good post, Traitorfish ; I can only agree with that.

My first experience as a civ player was on the SNES (Civ1 port). I think some of us first discovered Civ by console gaming, so if this game can attrack other gamers and made them try "hardore" versions like Civ III and Civ IV, it will only be a good thing for the franchise.

Furthermore, I simply cannot imagine a game lasting several hours in single player and much more in multi on a console. This is a completely different mechanic involved.

you cant judge a game on the screenshots. I think it looks like a new an interesting idea. I dont understand why people are saying this game is for babies and its not good when its not even out yet. A true fan of civ would try every game that sid releases. I liked railroads and civcity rome and pirates and im sure I will like civ revolution too.

like it or not, "that much worse" is winning the poll

Hm, I feel choosing "worse" for those particular poll options is misleading. CivRev will not be worse. It may be not be as detailed as BtS. It may not be as fun as BtS. Etc.

i thought it would be a litte bitworse since it so much simpler but they do add a couple of other things to make up for it.so i voted a little bit worse.

like it or not, "that much worse" is winning the poll

You still haven't answered my question! I really want to know what this new game is like.
Even better though, I'd love for you to tell us what you think is the single worst aspect of Civ Revolutions, you know, since you're the only guy who has played it and is therefore a qualified authority on the matter.

bit worse I think, but that doesn't mean it's a bad game