View Full Version : backward step?


BaconLad
Jun 14, 2008, 03:05 PM
after playing the ps1 version of civ2 for the last decade i decided to buy civ rev yesterday, and ive got to tell you other than the superb graphics it feels like a massive step backwards. decision making comes far to easily, theres a few REALLY NICE TOUCHES in there but at times i felt like the game was literally playing itself... feels like a childs game...

for starters the lack of options has infuriated me.

can settlers/engineers (are engineer units evan in civ rev?) do anything other than build new cities and join existing cities?
one of the fascinations i have with civ is the terrerforming aspect (changing/ improving terrain) - building fortresses with real stratgic value. can settlers still do all of this???

ive got far too many complaints/concerns to list.............................................. .................................................. ...

Thrallia
Jun 14, 2008, 03:46 PM
Civ2 is the only Civ game where any of what you just mentioned has ever been possible.

Helmling
Jun 14, 2008, 04:05 PM
Civ2 is the only Civ game where any of what you just mentioned has ever been possible.

Um...no. It's been a component of the Civ genre on PC's from the beginning. Though each iteration changes some aspects, those are some of the elements of the game dropped for a streamlined console experience.

Helmling
Jun 14, 2008, 04:09 PM
after playing the ps1 version of civ2 for the last decade i decided to buy civ rev yesterday, and ive got to tell you other than the superb graphics it feels like a massive step backwards. decision making comes far to easily, theres a few REALLY NICE TOUCHES in there but at times i felt like the game was literally playing itself... feels like a childs game...

for starters the lack of options has infuriated me.

can settlers/engineers (are engineer units evan in civ rev?) do anything other than build new cities and join existing cities?
one of the fascinations i have with civ is the terrerforming aspect (changing/ improving terrain) - building fortresses with real stratgic value. can settlers still do all of this???

ive got far too many complaints/concerns to list.............................................. .................................................. ...

You're kinda hitting the selling points.

See, you've got to understand, while many thousands of PC gamers have enjoyed Civ 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the PC and Mac, the audience for Civ on the consoles up to now has bee, well, apparently: YOU.

Firaxis created Civ Rev as a reinterpretation of Civ for the console, without the complexity possible with the mouse/keyboard interface that made all previous attempt to port Civ to consoles such colossal failures.

So it's more a step to the side then backwards.

If you want a better Civ experience than Civ 2 on PS, then you should consider getting a computer and playing the sequels. Once you've enjoyed what the rest of us have been playing for the last 15 years, then you'll really be impressed.

Krikkitone
Jun 14, 2008, 04:25 PM
There is no terraforming

you can buy roads, and constructing buildings in a city or reearching tech will give certain terrain bonuses.

BaconLad
Jun 14, 2008, 05:02 PM
There is no terraforming

you can buy roads, and constructing buildings in a city or reearching tech will give certain terrain bonuses.

so my 10 year old playstation version of civ2 is more in depth than my shiny new ps3 version of civ rev...
i was really excited about a next gen console version of civ...

i was hoping/expecting something that playd similar to civ2, but looked really sexy.

BaconLad
Jun 14, 2008, 05:10 PM
If you want a better Civ experience than Civ 2 on PS, then you should consider getting a computer and playing the sequels. Once you've enjoyed what the rest of us have been playing for the last 15 years, then you'll really be impressed.

shouldnt civ on ps3 be a better experience than civ on ps1???

i tryd civ 3 on pc shortly after it came out, but i couldnt get to grips with it, i kept turning back to civ2 on ps1. i would of expected civ rev to be a natural evolution of that ps1 version as the user interface worked fine on that format.

bonafide11
Jun 14, 2008, 09:21 PM
If you want a better Civ experience than Civ 2 on PS, then you should consider getting a computer and playing the sequels. Once you've enjoyed what the rest of us have been playing for the last 15 years, then you'll really be impressed.

:lol: So well said...

Thrallia
Jun 15, 2008, 12:03 AM
Um...no. It's been a component of the Civ genre on PC's from the beginning. Though each iteration changes some aspects, those are some of the elements of the game dropped for a streamlined console experience.

Civ1 had nothing you could do to the terrain except mine stuff and irrigate stuff
Civ2 had engineers that could terraform any landtype into any other landtype(given enough time, that is), along with irrigating, mining, and chopping down trees
Civ3 had chopping down of trees, irrigating, and mining, but no engineers or terraforming, and all of that was done by specialized worker units, not by settlers
Civ4 had an extensive list of terrain improvements, and chopping down of trees...but no engineers or terraforming, and again, all of that was done by specialized worker units.

Only Civ2 has had terraforming to any true extent.

so my 10 year old playstation version of civ2 is more in depth than my shiny new ps3 version of civ rev...
i was really excited about a next gen console version of civ...

i was hoping/expecting something that playd similar to civ2, but looked really sexy.

It isn't necessarily more in-depth, some parts are(such as the terraforming aspect), but in general, CivRev has just as much strategy, and much better AI than Civ2 had.

And if you were expecting a game more similar to Civ2 than you got...well, you should have read more about it before buying it...or played the demo.

BaconLad
Jun 15, 2008, 12:25 AM
an average campaign on civ2 can last for weeks, probably 100's of gaming hours, where i can build anything between 50 and 100 cities. i can have 10-20 cities before the timeline reaches ad.
ive played thru 2 campaigns on civ rev in the last day and a half, both lasted about 3-4 hours each, and both times i only managed to build 6 cities. ad can be reached in a matter of minutes.
the game feels miniscule and claustrophobic...
theres no sense of acheivement...

Thrallia
Jun 15, 2008, 12:27 AM
you don't build dozens or hundreds of cities in Civ4 either, that doesn't make it not Civ. :)

I understand your gripes with it, and they are the gripes that probably a lot of PC civ players will have, I probably would have felt the same if not for the fact that I rarely have time for such long-winded games anymore, and I find the strategy in CivRev is great enough to satisfy me in shorter sessions.

Squikel
Jun 15, 2008, 12:49 AM
well if you got time for a 100+ hour game then play on the PC, it would take me a half year to finish a 100+ hour game so I quite like the shorter games.

Minor Annoyance
Jun 15, 2008, 12:54 AM
shouldnt civ on ps3 be a better experience than civ on ps1??? If Civilization was a first person shooter then yes, but Civilization is not a game series that necessarily benefits from more power from the system running it. They probably could have made civ:rev for PS2.

Smidlee
Jun 15, 2008, 06:31 AM
shouldnt civ on ps3 be a better experience than civ on ps1???

i tryd civ 3 on pc shortly after it came out, but i couldnt get to grips with it, i kept turning back to civ2 on ps1. i would of expected civ rev to be a natural evolution of that ps1 version as the user interface worked fine on that format.
wow.
you mean you could play civ3 on the PC yet still play civ2 on PS1?
I remember at the end of the game there's a 5-10 minutes wait between turns. Ps1 versions was a lot slower than the PC version as well didn't have all the options of Gold.

If you don't have a PC I understand where you are coming from since that why I got civ2 on the PS years ago. If you got a pc and still love civ2 then you should consider getting the pc version and then a copy of Alpha Centuri which also allows terraforming.

If you are a TBS and a RTS fan then you made a mistake buying a console since PC rules when it come to strategy. PS1 probably had more strategy games than any other console.

one2escape
Jun 15, 2008, 08:13 AM
Civ Rev as got me back playing Civ again. I am usually a builder type in Pc Civ but with CIv Rev I have developed a blood lust! I am now playing until the finish now rather having to stop and go to bed and play again. I think they have developed this for the Civilization (the first one) vetrians who now have families. It is so good that when the kids go to bed and can sit down and have a Civ fix knowing I can finish a game over one night rather that over a week. There a flaws in it but what a great start. It is very playable and instead of the one more turn from previous it is now you can finish a game in one go. So for me some may say it is a step back but for me it is a step away from Civ main to Civ mainstream with a big future.

Shiggs713
Jun 15, 2008, 10:25 AM
so basically Sir Meir sold out. This game reminds me of some mindless shooter compared to Civ4.

Felgar
Jun 20, 2008, 10:49 AM
I just posted this same post in a thread where a guy asked if he'd like Civ IV. It's better suited to this discussion though... I've been considering what's in each version of civ in terms of a game concept... Now of course Civ II had some things over Civ I, but still...

In general CivRev is actually a little more fun than I expected, but I was thinking about it, and I'm likenning the depth of strategy and complexity to that of about Civ I. To me, that's a HUGE step back.

Civ I:
- Contains concept of population happiness. This is the ultimate determinant of how large your city can grow.
- Can't remember if Civ I had luxury taxes (divert commerce into luxuries to make people happy) or if it was just from making city people do entertaining instead of working a square.
- Contains concept of consumed food - each citizen consumes 2 food so to grow you need sqaures that provide surplus.
- Contains concept of maintanence costs. Each building costs gold to maintain.
- Contains concept of terrain movement cost - hills, forest, etc take 2 turns of movement, roads only 1/3 turn. Railroad provides unlimitted movement. The obsolesence of Railroad in CivRev sort of bothers me - it was a critical turning point into industrialization in Civ I and Civ II. Probably the biggest turning point in the game, IMO.
- Concept of unit maintanence - units cost gold to maintain once they're built.
- Biggest difference: Civ I has concept of Workers - units that build and improve on terrain squares - they build roads on individual squares, build farms, build mines, etc.

But there are things in CivRev that aren't in Civ I...
- CivRev contains concept of culture (although very simplified)
- CivRev contains concept of Great People.
- Contains concept of Attack Strength / Defense Strength, and damaged units (Civ I just had unit strength)
- Contains concept of Armies and also of unit promotions.

So in general I'd say CivRev is just slightly less complicated than Civ I. Civ IV though, is a whole other animal. It has everything in Civ I and Civ Rev, plus:
- Concept of health. As a city grows it becomes unhealthy and that will waste food production, which then limits growth. It's a second growth-limitting factor besides happiness.
- Concept of controlable resources: Luxuries (like gold) to make people happy, food resources (rice, wheat) to add health, and strategic resources (iron, coal) to make certain types of units and to build railroads, etc.
- With controllable resources comes trade of those resources among civs.
- Expanded concept of culture - each cities culture clearly determines borders and territory between neighbouring civs.
- Concept of religion (affects happiness as well as wealth generation).
- Corportations (use controllable resources to generate wealth)
- National Wonders - these are wonders that are available to every nation independant of other nations, but only after the nation reaches a milestone (like, after building so many banks, you can build Wall Street). Incidently, are wonders in CivRev able to be duplicated? If so they kind of (unfortunately) act like national wonders. World Wonders can only be build by one person, so the "Wonder Race" is a critical part of every Civ game since Civ started.
- Civ IV replaces building maintanance of Civ I with city maintanence. Each new city costs gold/turn; more if it's further from the capital.
- Concept of other government states (called Civics) beyond just one type of "main" government. There are 6 civic categories (market system (free market), representation (voting system), religion (organized or free religion, etc) and each category has 5 options.

Hmm, I think that's a pretty good comparison between the three. I probably missed some concepts here and there; feel free to chime in if anyone else has more. Ultimately it's the interaction between all the elements of complexity in a game like Civ IV that make it such an in-depth strategy game...

Krikkitone
Jun 20, 2008, 11:44 AM
actually Civ 1 had Attack/Defense... what it didn't have was hp
Civ IV was the first to get rid of Attack/Defense
which illustrates that getting rid of a concept isn't necessarily a step back

Civ Rev has a REALLY big thing Civ I and II didn't, Civilization bonuses (not present until III... I remember the outcry over that being added)

Civ Rev has Treasury bonuses (never seen in any other civ)

Civ Rev has 'first discovery bonuses' definitely not in I or II, in ?III?






Civ Rev is definitely Much Less Complex than Civ IV ... but that is not a step Back, it is a step in another direction... a Direction they Said it would be in. So if you want a deep complex Long game, play Civ IV if you want simple short game play Civ Rev. Either can be equally fun (results may vary by personality and situation).

one2escape
Jun 20, 2008, 12:27 PM
One giant step forward is the workers and the roads. Is there any knockers for that?

12ea56
Jun 20, 2008, 03:36 PM
So in general I'd say CivRev is just slightly less complicated than Civ I. Civ IV though, is a whole other animal. It has everything in Civ I and Civ Rev, plus...


In addition, Civ 4 has vassal states - this is one of the biggest additions.
I have Civ Revolution on my X360, played through the first tutorial level and it really wasn't what civ4 used to be.

Too childish, very little complexity, etc. For me, Civ4 is the best one atm.

blunt3d
Jun 21, 2008, 07:31 PM
"In addition, Civ 4 has vassal states - this is one of the biggest additions.
I have Civ Revolution on my X360, played through the first tutorial level and it really wasn't what civ4 used to be.

Too childish, very little complexity, etc. For me, Civ4 is the best one atm."

Yeh i agree,i hope they dont make civ5 as goofy. I wonder if they did try could civ4 actually be ported to the 360 or ps3 maybe with smaller maps?

Thrallia
Jun 21, 2008, 11:46 PM
how hard is it to remember that CivRev != Civ5?

It is an entirely different game, and is meant to be a completely different type of game. It is TBS, but it isn't meant to be as deep or huge as Civ3 or Civ4 were.

Perhaps CivRev2 will be more complex, but for now, CivRev was as much a proof of concept, as it was an attempt to reproduce Civ on consoles.

KurtG85
Jun 22, 2008, 12:35 AM
I thought I was the only one that has been playing civ 2 on ps1 for a decade! Ha!

The game was irritating to play once you had a ton of cities later in the game because the poster wasn't exaggerating when he said there was a 5-10 minute wait in between turns. However, when played on ps2 there wasn't much of a wait at all.

I have never had a good pc so I couldn't play any of the other civs but I have been playing the demo on xbox non stop for a couple weeks now.

The game IS CIV 2 streamlined. It is a bit simpler but I sort of thought the whole point of this was to allow for multiplayer to be feasible. The excessive necessary micromanagement (most especially going around clicking on every square to irrigate, build roads on it) of civ 2 was one of the most obnoxious things about it, especially later in the game. This did of course build a bit more 'pride' for your cities because of the 'work' you put into them but it would be entirely unfeasible to wait 20 minutes a turn while a dude took every one of his settlers around to build irrigation and roads on every square in his civ.
While I could've done with just a bit more 'newness' (culture doesn't count as far as im concerned. The UN cultural victory or even the process of flipping cities is far too ineffective to make it a balanced strategy as far as I have seen) I am still thrilled they made the game playable with a human which adds a huge boost to strategic replay value while still keeping the rest of the thrills and strategy that was the whole source of fun and addiction in civ 2.

If your disappointed that they didn't make Civ: rev a much more complex game than civ 2 (I would've loved that just as much as this streamlined-so-its-playable-online version) thats fine, but you only have yourself to blame for buying the game before doing any research on it or simply playing the demo.

I also wish the graphics werent QUITE so cartoonish, especially with the units that I hoped would look badass like bombers and battleships but this doesn't affect gameplay so it doesn't hurt the meat of where the fun is at in CIV.

Diablo_A1
Jun 22, 2008, 02:10 AM
Yes, I also agree. I was somewhat letdown after being excited about CIV:Rev after playing the demo on PS3 made me question whether or not I will buy, probably not, unless I get used to it more and more so if they come out with an actual replica earth map.

Too cartoonish and as Blunt3d mentioned, too childish
Wish they had more Civilizations as well..

Copywriter
Jun 22, 2008, 05:01 AM
The target market isn't hardcore strat people.

It's for those that want to knock out a game in 1-3 hours (also why the turn cap is there).

If you're looking for in-depth play and details, stick to the computer.

Civ: Rev is supposed to be very simple to pick up and play for the average gamer. And in case anyone hasn't noticed by the current console game lineup, "thinking" and "patience" isn't on the menu. :)

I'm buying it, because when I'm playing on the console, I'd like a short game and perhaps some multiplayer action.

KurtG85
Jun 22, 2008, 05:14 AM
I'm wondering what is so childish about it? Are you just talking about the cartoonish visuals and how the leaders talk sim-speak or whatever?
Other than that it really is nothing more than a faster moving, less micromanagement heavy much better looking civ 2. Going around and telling your settlers/engineers to build roads and irrigation on every square and having to manually pull people out of the fields (/put them back in) when people got pissed were the only thing different in civ 2 from civ: rev outside of slightly less techs, city improvements and wonders, many of which remain the exact same as civ 2. Of course the other additions of culture and great people are obvious.
I'm assuming you mean childish in relation to the complexity (i.e. greater number of technologies, city improvements, wonders) of civ 4, 5 which I would know nothing about.
By the way, was a full game (not half-assing it or anything) of civ 4 or 5 able to be played online against someone in about 30-60 minutes (assuming you reached the end of the tech tree or whatever other end goals of victory there were in those games)? If the answer is no (I honestly dont know) than the identity and goal of civ: revolution couldn't really be more clear. Likewise, calling it too simplistic would then be missing the point that it was made that way with the goal for it to be playable in one sitting in a reasonable amount of time for an online multiplayer match.

Diablo_A1
Jun 22, 2008, 01:30 PM
I'm wondering what is so childish about it? Are you just talking about the cartoonish visuals and how the leaders talk sim-speak or whatever?
Other than that it really is nothing more than a faster moving, less micromanagement heavy much better looking civ 2. Going around and telling your settlers/engineers to build roads and irrigation on every square and having to manually pull people out of the fields (/put them back in) when people got pissed were the only thing different in civ 2 from civ: rev outside of slightly less techs, city improvements and wonders, many of which remain the exact same as civ 2. Of course the other additions of culture and great people are obvious.
I'm assuming you mean childish in relation to the complexity (i.e. greater number of technologies, city improvements, wonders) of civ 4, 5 which I would know nothing about.
By the way, was a full game (not half-assing it or anything) of civ 4 or 5 able to be played online against someone in about 30-60 minutes (assuming you reached the end of the tech tree or whatever other end goals of victory there were in those games)? If the answer is no (I honestly dont know) than the identity and goal of civ: revolution couldn't really be more clear. Likewise, calling it too simplistic would then be missing the point that it was made that way with the goal for it to be playable in one sitting in a reasonable amount of time for an online multiplayer match.


For the sake of time played, yes I agree and with the game. Although im new with CIV in multiplayer im pretty sure they take well over 60 min so theres that to help you point also.

My thing is that from being so used to the complexity of the game and feeling of accomplishment in CIV 3&4, to me its a let down. But I understand its aim more so now as well. But it lost all hope in me when I found out there will be no earth maps..:shake:

KurtG85
Jun 22, 2008, 01:58 PM
Yah, I remember that being a big desire of mine when I first started civ 2. Eventually I lost that desire in recognition of the increased depth that was added to the game by randomly generated maps. I recognized that they necessitated and made more realistic the need to 'explore' in the hopes you would find gold and other rewards; the same kind of chance/danger/reward scenario that was present for all explorers and their home civs throughout history. I also suddenly understood that the success of the real world's civs really have largely come down to how many resources they suddenly realize they had been sitting on or that they randomly stumble upon and claim, and their ability to grow unimpeded by neighboring societies. These realistic aspects were (and are) made dynamic and unpredictable by randomly generated maps and add a ton to the fun, personality and uniqueness of every game session in my opinion.

Felgar
Jun 23, 2008, 12:47 PM
actually Civ 1 had Attack/Defense... what it didn't have was hp
Civ IV was the first to get rid of Attack/Defense
which illustrates that getting rid of a concept isn't necessarily a step back

Civ Rev has a REALLY big thing Civ I and II didn't, Civilization bonuses (not present until III... I remember the outcry over that being added)

Civ Rev has Treasury bonuses (never seen in any other civ)

Civ Rev has 'first discovery bonuses' definitely not in I or II, in ?III?

Yup, you're right Krikitone. How could I forget those 1/2/1 Phalanx units in Civ 1 that would defeat my cannons so regularly. :) Good point about Civilization traits/bonuses too; definitely an added dimension.

Schuesseled
Jun 24, 2008, 06:56 PM
so my 10 year old playstation version of civ2 is more in depth than my shiny new ps3 version of civ rev...
i was really excited about a next gen console version of civ...

i was hoping/expecting something that playd similar to civ2, but looked really sexy.

buy civ 4 then.

Civ Rev is all about streamlining, having workers to terraform the world is cool, but time consuming if you do it yourself, and jsut inconvientient if autoiung everything. I like the simplification of having no workers running around doing everything, but im still gonna want to play civ 4 though, remember civ rev is in no way a replacement for current civing.

Zalcron
Jun 25, 2008, 10:13 AM
i have stopped playing rev, gone back to civ4. I thought i would get used to a streamlined version but cannot. If you r up 4 quick and basic strategy game loosly moddled on the earlier civs its a great game. But i cannot live with that, i enjoy the complexity and involved diplomacy too much on civ4. Im trading it in , plus hate the way you cant get a good look at the world, or easily select units. I think P.C's will always have the monoply on decent dtrategy games.

juanjux
Jun 30, 2008, 04:45 AM
I just registered to comment on this thread. I've owned every civilization since I'm a great fan of the saga. I bought this Civilization Rev for the PS3 too (60Ä/94$!) thinking that it would be just as good as the other ones, and I really feel swidnled, it's like a game for idiots and that's how I feel for having bought it before making some research; idiot.

Next time I'll not trust so blindly on this Firaxis people before expending my money on their games.

The world is tiny and you can change the size by default (only for or five other civs). I always played huge worlds on other civs.
You can't define victory conditions.
You can't define the kind of terrain.
You can't continue playing once you or other civilization meet any victory condition. In other game you were given the option to continue playing; not here.
Two to four hours of gameplay at most.

Conk Donk
Jun 30, 2008, 07:02 AM
I would have been annoyed at this game if this was called Civilization V. But itís not, itís a sideward step, not a backwards one as it tries something new. Yes its more streamlined, yes games are faster and yes itís easier than the main series. But its got the magic and charm Civ 2 had, its got the addictiveness all Civ games have and itís got the tension. Since buying it I canít drag myself away. I go to bed later than normal and wake up an hour earlier to play more. Once one game is finished, I switch right on to another (just like I do with Civ IV). Even with all the achievement points earned Iím still playing it.

For me, this is a brilliant game Sid has made here and complements Civ IV nicely. It doesnít replace it but it was never trying too.

juanjux
Jun 30, 2008, 08:02 AM
For me it doesn't have the magic of Civ2 not it's 10% as addictive. I've played two games on this CivRev and it already bores me, which doesn't happens with Civ IV that I'm still playing after three years. It would be not bad if it was a 15$ playstation store game, but for a supposedly full 90$ title for third generation consoles, it's just ridiculous, even at graphic level which is by no way up to nowadays standarts and lags like a beast when you rotate the globe which for some odd reason you don't have a map, not even the option to have one. That's what really kills me, the lack of stupidly simple to implement options like map size, victory conditions, number of civilizations or terrain options.

Just my opinion.

1morey
Apr 03, 2010, 01:07 PM
The one thing I like most is that Civ Rev Catherine of Russia is probably the hottest video game character ever to be converted into ones and zeros.

MacGyverInSpace
Apr 04, 2010, 08:58 PM
Find an old broken computer, and go use the computer you use to make these posts, and get Civ3 off of Steam or something, and download mods from here. If there are no computers nearby, perhaps you have a friend that travels to a city on occasion? You could go dumpster hunting.

Or if your not isolated, maybe you just like the feel of a console better. You could spend some money, get a computer, hook it up to the TV, and get a PS2/3 USB controller adapter, and bind the keys. :goodjob:

As for civ4, there mods to make it pretty good looking and to let you terraform....
Yeah, Catherine indeed.

Gwoben
Apr 09, 2010, 01:48 PM
I also played all civilization games starting with Civ 1 and I like CivRev on iPhone/iPad a lot. I do not like CivRev on PS3 - fog of war or 3d projection confuses me.