So, I read that CIV 5 is coming to the consoles also. Could this mean the end of the series as we know it? Will this game be more like CIV rev? I have nothing against console gaming, but, really.
This just sucks. Sucks hard.
Why they didn't make CIV rev 2 for consoles and CIV V on PC?
I think that loss of religions, SOD's and all that... OMG, the PC-version is going to be terrible port of XBOX360 game.

Nightmare come true.

Civilization V on PC:
- You can control the game by using XBOX360 controller! Use the analog-sticks to execute powerful combo-moves with your troops!
- Join Microsoft LIVE to get exciting newsletters and buy the CIV 5 merchandise, like t-shirts and such!
- In game advertising!
- Use LIVE arcade to compare your hi-score with your friends in Facebook!
- Buy patches online! Only $6,99!
:crazyeye:

Civilization 4 will be last good one... sadly.
I mean, if this game is going to be on consoles, it will be simple game. Fast to learn, relying on online multiplayer with 13 year old kids with armies to command (I have nothing against kids) and gathering "microsoft-achievements" to unlock new units...

Do you think if this is the future, or am I just trolling and scaring people here?
:confused:

Huh? Where'd you see that it's coming to consoles? I don't believe it for a second.

My local gamenews site announced the trailer, and they said that it would be released on consoles too, they have made some major mistakes before too, but as an big friend of the series, I got frightened anyways.
Is it confirmed that Civ 5 is coming ONLY on PC?
If not, I'm not celebrating yet.
:rolleyes:

..and 'cause I'm from Finland, I'm not going to put link on that site, because no-one can read the Finnish jibbersh... :D

The game coming to consoles would go against the direction every other single piece of info we have about the game points. With the introduction of hexes, deeper ai/diplomacy/trade, and a more complex combat system, everything indicates the game will be grander and deeper than ever before.

how about a link please.

Why ? Civilization1 was released both on pc and the snes !
for a TBS , it's really , i mean really simple to adapt the game for consoles , unlike an RTS !

Why ? Civilization1 was released both on pc and the snes !
for a TBS , it's really , i mean really simple to adapt the game for consoles , unlike an RTS !

The problem is that console and PC markets are completely different targets. Something on the scale of Civ V would not work well with the console market. Consoles need faster pace than most in depth PC strategy games offer. That is why Civ Rev is so different from the PC core games. It was designed from the ground up for PC.

As for the OP, I think you got the information wrong. I am about 99% certain that this is PC only.

So, I read that CIV 5 is coming to the consoles also. Could this mean the end of the series as we know it? Will this game be more like CIV rev? I have nothing against console gaming, but, really.
This just sucks. Sucks hard.
Why they didn't make CIV rev 2 for consoles and CIV V on PC?
I think that loss of religions, SOD's and all that... OMG, the PC-version is going to be terrible port of XBOX360 game.

Nightmare come true.

Civilization V on PC:
- You can control the game by using XBOX360 controller! Use the analog-sticks to execute powerful combo-moves with your troops!
- Join Microsoft LIVE to get exciting newsletters and buy the CIV 5 merchandise, like t-shirts and such!
- In game advertising!
- Use LIVE arcade to compare your hi-score with your friends in Facebook!
- Buy patches online! Only $6,99!
:crazyeye:

Civilization 4 will be last good one... sadly.
I mean, if this game is going to be on consoles, it will be simple game. Fast to learn, relying on online multiplayer with 13 year old kids with armies to command (I have nothing against kids) and gathering "microsoft-achievements" to unlock new units...

Do you think if this is the future, or am I just trolling and scaring people here?
:confused:

I will admit that that would kind of stink. Civ Rev 2 for the Consules is good enough methinks. Wish it would come out for the Wii though.

I would buy Civ 5 merchandise however. I'd love a T-shirt. ;)

If you asked me yesterday if it would worry me that Civ5 was released to consoles, then I would say no. Now after the Supreme commander demo, where it became obvious that they completely raped the game because of the consoles, then yes.

edit: But I'm still sure it's pc exclusive(mac is a pc).

I wonder where have you read such a thing?
It's 100% false, as Firaxis already announced that Civ 5 is going to be PC only, this is official info.
No xbox360, no PS3, no DS, no SNES, no Neogeo CD, no Saturn... no consoles of any sort, nada.

PC only. Thread over.

No no no no! This should not be happing! Having ciV on the 360, and the PS3 would ruin the game play, and the online community! I'll be objecting to this from now untill, well never!!!

So, I read that CIV 5 is coming to the consoles also.
Where did you read it? On a toilet cubicle wall?

I don't believe it unless you have a reliable source.

PC only as always. Closest to civ 5 you console jockeys will get is Civ Rev 2: the stupid years.

The OP does a funny parody of console gaming, and while he/she is wrong that ciV is for consoles, I think he/she illustrates why we must always fight to keep the console versions of civ entirely seperate from the pc version, no ports. Civ Rev was very enjoyable for the DS but would suck for the PC.

Good to hear that it is PC/MAC only.
As I said before, it was this sucky finnish site where I read about console releases.
Be aware, that this site isn't reliable source. But still it is quite popular game related news channel in Finland...

http://www.tilt.tv/?cm=news&aid=17993

Translation from the first lines:

Civilization 5 first trailer:

2K and Fireaxis have released the first trailer from a brand new Civilization V. New version changes squares to hex-squares and to more complicated battle mechanics..

Civilization V will be available in fall for PC, PS3 and X360.

That's baseless speculation. Why would other sites have more information than the official site?

Yep, in all likelihood, they've got their facts wrong.

I don't know if its true about consules,but I do know there will be less units and no workers.I'm only speculating,but the developers are doing everything in their power to cut down on units.That means probably one or two naval units and maybe a couple of variations of land troops for each era.They are trying to make it easier to run on all machines.

Hint hint all machines....I think its true its gonna be a PS3/Xbox360 game which could work well if they do this right,but if this is gonna be the final product(what they are showing us) then we should be worried.

The Civ series is dead to me if this is true (which seems unlikely.)

I don't know if its true about consules,but I do know there will be less units and no workers.I'm only speculating,but the developers are doing everything in their power to cut down on units.That means probably one or two naval units and maybe a couple of variations of land troops for each era.They are trying to make it easier to run on all machines.

Hint hint all machines....I think its true its gonna be a PS3/Xbox360 game which could work well if they do this right,but if this is gonna be the final product(what they are showing us) then we should be worried.

Cutting down will take away from what Civ is all about. "One or Two naval units", that takes away too much.

Between CivRev and CivNet, I don't think we have to worry about them sacrificing aspects of the game to make it easier, or more appealing. I think the idea of Civ5 having a limit of OUPT (One Unit Per Tile) is making everyone more panicky then they ought to be. No matter what they are doing, I'm sure they are making changes to make the game better.

Besides, I own an Xbox, a PS3 and a Mac (with Bootcamp). Guess which one I want to play Civ on, and what two I will never play Civ on? Releasing it on all three IMO, would be pointless, and probably not worth the expense.

I wonder where have you read such a thing?
It's 100% false, as Firaxis already announced that Civ 5 is going to be PC only, this is official info.
No xbox360, no PS3, no DS, no SNES, no Neogeo CD, no Saturn... no consoles of any sort, nada.

Source? I'm really really hoping you're right. My fear from the moment I heard Civ 5 announced, I started worrying about a dumbed-down-console-:):):):)-tastic version.

Civilization V will be available in fall for PC, PS3 and X360.I don't think there's anything to worry about, this looks like boilerplate thoughtlessly slapped on.

am I just trolling
Yep. Good work.

even though I love my 360, and I like civ rev but I wish it was a lot more like the normal civ games, but the thought of having a game like civ 4 on the 360 makes me scared lol

If they even think about releasing this for any console I'm done with Fireaxis. Colonization 2 and CivRev were bad enough, I think another step or two in the wrong direction, and they will lose many formerly dedicated fans.

Civilization V will be available in fall for PC, PS3 and X360. I don't think there's anything to worry about, this looks like boilerplate thoughtlessly slapped on.

Yeah, this is propably it. Oh, and they got one name wrong. It's not FireAxis, its Firaxis

Yeah, this is propably it. Oh, and they got one name wrong. It's not FireAxis, its Firaxis

Have you never heard of the Fiery Axis of Creativity? ;)

Source? I'm really really hoping you're right. My fear from the moment I heard Civ 5 announced, I started worrying about a dumbed-down-console-:):):):)-tastic version.

Source is official civ twitter:
http://twitter.com/civgame

Between CivRev and CivNet, I don't think we have to worry about them sacrificing aspects of the game to make it easier, or more appealing. I think the idea of Civ5 having a limit of OUPT (One Unit Per Tile) is making everyone more panicky then they ought to be. No matter what they are doing, I'm sure they are making changes to make the game better.

Besides, I own an Xbox, a PS3 and a Mac (with Bootcamp). Guess which one I want to play Civ on, and what two I will never play Civ on? Releasing it on all three IMO, would be pointless, and probably not worth the expense.

Better make sure your Mac specs support the new Civ...

Anyways I guess I wouldn't be heartbroken if Civ was ported to a console... Provided it's an edited copy and they just don't dumb down the entire game. After all, I found Civ when I was at the local movie rental place(Some Generic Blockbuster) when I picked up the Civ II port for the Playstation.

Again - Civ 5 will never be released for consoles. Currently it's PC only, and wasn't even announced for a MAC (MAC users may end up getting their port, but definitely with a few month delay, if not longer.)

Just to add to the chorus of anti-console voices, I'd like to point out that the console hardware is CRAP compared to a modern PC. I don't want a game that is designed to live in 256MB of RAM (512MB including the video RAM!) and run on a processor with performance on par with an Athlon XP or older model of Pentium 4. I want advanced AI, huge worlds, and piles of units.

If you go to the Civ V twitter page (http://twitter.com/civgame) there is a tweet on there saying it is PC ONLY. It states:

"@DarkWaterClone Civilization V is PC only!" at 12:50 PM on Feb 18th.

I'm still waiting for proof....a twit...or tweet,,,,whatever you people call it is not proof enough..

I'm still waiting for proof....a twit...or tweet,,,,whatever you people call it is not proof enough..

You don't need any proof - you just need some common sense. Civ 5 will not come out on consoles - anyone that things otherwise, is just plain clueless...

There's been confirmation on 2K Games' Facebook for more than a week that Civ5 is PC only. Go to their Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/2kgames?ref=search&sid=1435800127.464149748..1), filter posts to just 2K Games, go to the post where they announce Civ5 (Feb 18, 1:08 PM EST), view the comments, and you'll see:

Civ V is a PC exclusive.
February 18 at 1:22pm

Nice trolling and scaring people. Too bad it took two and a half days for someone to link to an official announcement that the game is PC-only (some guy named DarkWaterClone isn't quite official). Now, can we rest easy knowing that Civ5 will be the true successor?

Nice trolling and scaring people. Too bad it took two and a half days for someone to link to an official announcement that the game is PC-only (some guy named DarkWaterClone isn't quite official). Now, can we rest easy knowing that Civ5 will be the true successor?

Well.. actually DarkWaterClone is the name of the guy who asked if Civ5 was coming for consoles... CivGame twitter answer was "PC only"... which is as official as what written on Facebook.

I would like them to put it out on the consoles ... and not console-ify them. Honestly, with the addition of a bluetooth keyboard and mouse, my PS3'd be lovely to play Civ on, and I am unlikely to ever want to "get a better gaming PC" -- I ain't spending $1k just for one game. More likely, there is an expectation that the next generation of PCs will be possibly a bit slower -- as iPads and the middle ground between NetBooks and laptops become popular (NetBooks themselves just weren't quite good enough).

Nice trolling and scaring people. Too bad it took two and a half days for someone to link to an official announcement that the game is PC-only (some guy named DarkWaterClone isn't quite official). Now, can we rest easy knowing that Civ5 will be the true successor?

I wouldn't be quite so sure. IIRC, there was also this announcement for a session at the Game Developers Conference:

You'll learn how Firaxis developers have used the newly released GPA 3.0 PC platform tools and Threading Building Blocks to offer Civ V playability on a myriad of systems; from the rapidly expanding mainstream mobile gaming market, all the way up to the multi-core high-end enthusiast demographic.

Note the words "mobile gaming market", and remember how CivRev was ported to the iPhone. PC-only might raise interesting questions about what a PC is... given that GPA 3.0 PC is an Intel product, I suspect "PC" just means "Intel inside" and could include mobiles, Atom-powered pads, (but sadly not the IBM Cell-powered PS3 or the PowerPC-powered XBox360).

So, I read that CIV 5 is coming to the consoles also. Could this mean the end of the series as we know it? Will this game be more like CIV rev? I have nothing against console gaming, but, really.
This just sucks. Sucks hard.
Why they didn't make CIV rev 2 for consoles and CIV V on PC?
I think that loss of religions, SOD's and all that... OMG, the PC-version is going to be terrible port of XBOX360 game.

Nightmare come true.

Civilization V on PC:
- You can control the game by using XBOX360 controller! Use the analog-sticks to execute powerful combo-moves with your troops!
- Join Microsoft LIVE to get exciting newsletters and buy the CIV 5 merchandise, like t-shirts and such!
- In game advertising!
- Use LIVE arcade to compare your hi-score with your friends in Facebook!
- Buy patches online! Only $6,99!
:crazyeye:

Civilization 4 will be last good one... sadly.
I mean, if this game is going to be on consoles, it will be simple game. Fast to learn, relying on online multiplayer with 13 year old kids with armies to command (I have nothing against kids) and gathering "microsoft-achievements" to unlock new units...

Do you think if this is the future, or am I just trolling and scaring people here?
:confused:

I think you forgot the event-clicking-game from BTS: "In order to keep Monarchy you must conceive an heir, press X really quick..." Mehehe :p

I would like them to put it out on the consoles ... and not console-ify them. Honestly, with the addition of a bluetooth keyboard and mouse, my PS3'd be lovely to play Civ on, and I am unlikely to ever want to "get a better gaming PC" -- I ain't spending $1k just for one game. More likely, there is an expectation that the next generation of PCs will be possibly a bit slower -- as iPads and the middle ground between NetBooks and laptops become popular (NetBooks themselves just weren't quite good enough).
You may not realize how slow PS3 and Xbox are at Civ-like games. Because I am annoyed by their effect on PC gaming, I'll tell you. :)

First, you have only 512MB of RAM including the video RAM. With PS3 that is split 256/256. So your entire game cannot use more than 256MB of RAM, which may or may not be a problem for you. It will depend on how large a world you'll play. Honestly I don't know how much RAM Civ4 uses, but 256MB is its official minimum requirement.

Second, your only general purpose processor (i.e. not the Cell processing elements) is pretty slow, it many ways it should perform like an Atom (of Netbook fame) clock cycle to clock cycle. You do have twice as many clock cycles as a netbook... but your performance will trail something such as a Pentium 4 at similar clock speeds, and by quite a bit. You see, the Pentium 4 can execute instructions out of order and your PS3 CPU can't!

You mention $1000 as the price of a PC. My brother recently got a $999 PC, with a quad core Core i7 860 (2.8ghz to 3.46ghz per core), 6GB of RAM, Radeon 4650 video card, 500GB disk, and whatever else. Nice machine. Some day he'll upgrade the video. They compared that processor to a 3.8ghz Pentium 4 over at techreport.com and the P4 was getting maybe 1/3 the frame rate in games... when using the same video card (GeForce GTX 260) in the different tested machines. http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/18448

Your PS3 has maybe two thirds the general purpose CPU power of that 3.8ghz P4. The Pentium 4 was included in the review as a dinosaur, a point of comparison from the past. You don't need to spend $1000 to beat a PS3 at Civ!

You may not realize how slow PS3 and Xbox are at Civ-like games. Because I am annoyed by their effect on PC gaming, I'll tell you. :)

First, you have only 512MB of RAM including the video RAM. With PS3 that is split 256/256. So your entire game cannot use more than 256MB of RAM, which may or may not be a problem for you. It will depend on how large a world you'll play. Honestly I don't know how much RAM Civ4 uses, but 256MB is its official minimum requirement.

Second, your only general purpose processor (i.e. not the Cell processing elements) is pretty slow, it many ways it should perform like an Atom (of Netbook fame) clock cycle to clock cycle. You do have twice as many clock cycles as a netbook... but your performance will trail something such as a Pentium 4 at similar clock speeds, and by quite a bit. You see, the Pentium 4 can execute instructions out of order and your PS3 CPU can't!

You mention $1000 as the price of a PC. My brother recently got a $999 PC, with a quad core Core i7 860 (2.8ghz to 3.46ghz per core), 6GB of RAM, Radeon 4650 video card, 500GB disk, and whatever else. Nice machine. Some day he'll upgrade the video. They compared that processor to a 3.8ghz Pentium 4 over at techreport.com and the P4 was getting maybe 1/3 the frame rate in games... when using the same video card (GeForce GTX 260) in the different tested machines. http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/18448

Your PS3 has maybe two thirds the general purpose CPU power of that 3.8ghz P4. The Pentium 4 was included in the review as a dinosaur, a point of comparison from the past. You don't need to spend $1000 to beat a PS3 at Civ!
You my sir , know nothing about consoles!
FAIL ! sit down and never open your mouth again.(or write on this topic)

You my sir , know nothing about consoles!
FAIL ! sit down and never open your mouth again.(or write on this topic)
You serious? Because I am completely correct. Consoles are made of crap hardware.

EDIT: I should acknowledge that the Cell processing elements are fairly powerful at what they can do, but also they are not general purpose.

Ironically, my first exposure to Civilization was when I rented a console version of it for Super Nintendo back in the early 1990's! :) I had never heard of it until I saw it at my local video store. Ever since Civ 2, I've played it on the PC.

Ironically, my first exposure to Civilization was when I rented a console version of it for Super Nintendo back in the early 1990's! :) I had never heard of it until I saw it at my local video store. Ever since Civ 2, I've played it on the PC.
Consoles will almost certainly win in the end.

RAM is so cheap, maybe next time around they'll pop in 2GB or 4GB or something respectable. Also IBM's Power7 looms as a natural "donor" to spawn something that will replace the trashy CPU that currently powers both the PS3 and Xbox 360. (In case you are unaware, the PS3 packages one CPU with some Cell processing elements, whlie Xbox simply uses three CPUs. The CPU component is very nearly identical, however.) The graphics chip will no doubt be taken care of with some respectable ATI or nVidia design.

Graphical issues aside, the main problem with consoles is interface. You NEED a mouse and keyboard to play a complete civilization game. Sure, I have a bluetooth keyboard/mouse combo connected to my PS3 but it's not the same. Consoles are ideal for FPS's, racing games etc. But complicated strategies, like Civ will always belong on PC's only.

I tried playing Civ Rev on my PS3 and gave up, because I found using the controller in a civ-like game just plain sucked.

Consoles are ideal for FPSFor some maybe, but I'll take a nice accurate mouse over aim assist any day. /OT

This is kinda out of topic, but I agree.
FPS games are for PCs, strategy games are for PCs. Simulation games are for PC too.

Sport games, RPG's and most of the driving games are for consoles.

This is kinda out of topic, but I agree.
FPS games are for PCs, strategy games are for PCs. Simulation games are for PC too.

Sport games, RPG's and most of the driving games are for consoles.

Erm do any of you people own a console, you all seem to be moany creeps Please stay civil ;)., you can sit there quoting pentium processors and amounts of ram all you want you are the only people who care, i hope the support the PC gets for gaming withers and dies see how you guys like it, "I got upset when i heard it was coming to consoles"? really, honestly it really annoys you that much that a console gamer gets this game? i suppose its all about the money so i hope they decide it will be in their best interest to bring it to consoles then lets see how your oo were the only people who get the game fantasy falls apart

Consoles will almost certainly win in the end.

RAM is so cheap, maybe next time around they'll pop in 2GB or 4GB or something respectable. Also IBM's Power7 looms as a natural "donor" to spawn something that will replace the trashy CPU that currently powers both the PS3 and Xbox 360. (In case you are unaware, the PS3 packages one CPU with some Cell processing elements, whlie Xbox simply uses three CPUs. The CPU component is very nearly identical, however.) The graphics chip will no doubt be taken care of with some respectable ATI or nVidia design.

same here i fisrts even heard of it playing civ rev and im hoping we ge get civ 5 but i doubt it, if it doesnt come to consoles i wont lose much sleep over it but i can only hope

Holy thread necromancy Batman!

I thought they were finally going to announce that Civilization 5 was being released for consoles. False alert I guess.

Oh and welcome to the forums innocentzx. :)

Holy thread necromancy Batman!

I thought they were finally going to announce that Civilization 5 was being released for consoles. False alert I guess.

Oh and welcome to the forums innocentzx. :)

Haha, the guys first two post are to bring back this thread. <.<

Was reading the OP scratching my head a little at first since it said Feb. Only to realize this was started well before the game launched and was mostly fear mongering by people who didn't like the last attempt at console Civ.

Even if this was news though... To me it's like when they announced things like "Fable 3 coming to PC" or "Torchlight 2 going to XBLA"... If your still only considering the PC version, why be mad about it?


Well... at least till they announce that they delay for 2 months because they want to release simultaneously... :) *Cough* TL2 *Cough*

Haha, the guys first two post are to bring back this thread. <.<

Was reading the OP scratching my head a little at first since it said Feb. Only to realize this was started well before the game launched and was mostly fear mongering by people who didn't like the last attempt at console Civ.

Even if this was news though... To me it's like when they announced things like "Fable 3 coming to PC" or "Torchlight 2 going to XBLA"... If your still only considering the PC version, why be mad about it?


Well... at least till they announce that they delay for 2 months because they want to release simultaneously... :) *Cough* TL2 *Cough*

I think the fear is that they'll streamline the game to make it easier to port over in order to save costs. If you don't have to change much, you can save a lot of $$$.
I still stand by my prediction that there will be a console version of Civilization 5 released within 2 years. (by September 2012 that is) There is too much money on the table for 2K Games to ignore and being able to effectively simultaneously develop the PC and console versions sounds exactly like something they'd do. After all, this is the company that laid off a large amount of staff at exactly the wrong time of Civilization 5's development in order to penny pinch.

As far as Torchlight 2, I don't think they are releasing anything simultaneously. They delayed the release of Torchlight 2 so they could release Torchlight for the console. X-Box IIRC. They haven't announced a console version of Torchlight 2 yet as far as I know.

As far as Torchlight 2, I don't think they are releasing anything simultaneously. They delayed the release of Torchlight 2 so they could release Torchlight for the console. X-Box IIRC. They haven't announced a console version of Torchlight 2 yet as far as I know.

I don't quite have the time to go searching for an exact source, since Runic games website is rather dodgy when it comes to talking about release dates. So please keep that in mind, but last word of this was that it was initially set for release in May even had a date at some point, and they had so much success with XBLA and Torchlight that they decided to port Torchlight 2 also. However in reworking the UI to be a bit more console friendly they decided to invest more time into the PC versions UI and pushed it back to July with no set date.

So ya, we could have had the game a little earlier if it wasn't for that, but all honesty doesn't really matter. It could also have been to not Clash with Darkspore, or something else entirely. My only fear at the moment is that since summer releases aren't so hot for games they could push it back to a Fall release.

Here's the thing, as players, we don't need to care about how or what they port, we should only care for the version we might end up buying and vote for it with our money. So I really don't see any reason to lose any sleep over what they do behind closed doors.

I don't quite have the time to go searching for an exact source, since Runic games website is rather dodgy when it comes to talking about release dates. So please keep that in mind, but last word of this was that it was initially set for release in May even had a date at some point, and they had so much success with XBLA and Torchlight that they decided to port Torchlight 2 also. However in reworking the UI to be a bit more console friendly they decided to invest more time into the PC versions UI and pushed it back to July with no set date.

So ya, we could have had the game a little earlier if it wasn't for that, but all honesty doesn't really matter. It could also have been to not Clash with Darkspore, or something else entirely. My only fear at the moment is that since summer releases aren't so hot for games they could push it back to a Fall release.

Here's the thing, as players, we don't need to care about how or what they port, we should only care for the version we might end up buying and vote for it with our money. So I really don't see any reason to lose any sleep over what they do behind closed doors.

I don't really think they are being dodgy. Remember, these guys are the guys who developed Diablo and helped make Blizzard famous. Their credo might as well be, "we'll let you know when it's ready".

As far as not caring about whether there is a console version or not, it definitely could make a huge difference in the quality of the PC version. They'll try to cut costs by make them as similar as possible and save development time. However, you are right. We should vote with our wallets. It's about the only way we can have any effective say in what we would like to see in a game.

Well dodgy might not have been the right term, but they did set hopes up for a lot of people with that May release date, and now they are kinda avoiding the subject and just posting content blogs every so often and I get the feeling that they know they might be joining such games as Heroes 6 and avoid the Summer release entirely at this point.

Well my comments are mostly pointed at the people that would spam 2kforums or email support over there going: OMFG don't release this on consoles!

Well dodgy might not have been the right term, but they did set hopes up for a lot of people with that May release date, and now they are kinda avoiding the subject and just posting content blogs every so often and I get the feeling that they know they might be joining such games as Heroes 6 and avoid the Summer release entirely at this point.

Well my comments are mostly pointed at the people that would spam 2kforums or email support over there going: OMFG don't release this on consoles!

Fair enough. I'm personally resigned to the fact that it'll happen so it doesn't really bother me now. What's done is done.

The problem is that console and PC markets are completely different targets. Something on the scale of Civ V would not work well with the console market. Consoles need faster pace than most in depth PC strategy games offer. That is why Civ Rev is so different from the PC core games. It was designed from the ground up for PC.

As for the OP, I think you got the information wrong. I am about 99% certain that this is PC only.

The biggest reason console civ won't work with new versions is shoddy code and controls, not its depth. The ludicrously abysmal controls that are outclassed by good developers from the 1990's and inefficient between-turns make people wait doing nothing as much as they play.

The console market has higher control/completeness standards than the PC market, which is a very sad reality. Civ has some of the worst controls of a AAA title I've ever seen; porting IV OR V to console would be a joke, they can't even make basic/working/efficient hotkeys on the PC so there's no way you'd see it with finite button layout with unorthodox inputs.

While I seriously doubt this is the case, in a previous discussion I was convinced to do a 180 on my previous position of "It wouldn't work at all on consoles." Actually, if they could get it to run on that hardware with the limited RAM, there really isn't much reason it couldn't be ported at near 100% functionality to consoles - or Civ II, III, and IV for that matter. Outside of hotkeys, which are not strictly necessary, what would not work on a controller? (beside the point that both of the major non-Wii consoles have games that allow keyboards on them)

To those of you saying "it would suck"... Outside of moving mass units and build orders taking longer, is there anything that would actually be lost in this or any other Civ game in an attentive console port? When I was asked that question and asked to really think about it, I couldn't come up with anything, just that inputting lots of actions would take longer. Can any of you who think this idea is terrible think up such reasons?

[...] there really isn't much reason it couldn't be ported at near 100% functionality to consoles - or Civ II, III, and IV for that matter. [...] is there anything that would actually be lost in this or any other Civ game in an attentive console port?

http://www.civforum.de/attachment.php?attachmentid=583255

...obviously not.

Funny, I didn't realize there was a Civ II port, just thought there was a Civ I port.

this just proves that civ 5 is civ rev 2.0. they should name it that to bump up sales.;)

Please do not post things designed to provoke negative reactions. This comment on its own is considered trolling, because it is in no way conducive to civil and productive discussion.

this just proves that civ 5 is civ rev 2.0. they should name it that to bump up sales.;)

Civ Rev is basically the name for the non-computer version of civ. Besides, V has much more in common with IV than Rev.

Civ Rev is basically the name for the non-computer version of civ. Besides, V has much more in common with IV than Rev.

5 has more in common with civ rev than civ 4.

Nice guys, was saying "I know you are but what am I?" too mature?

Seriously, it helps the discussion if you list some reasons why you feel Civ V is closer to IV or Rev than just writing "no it's not" and "yes it is." I haven't played Rev so I'd be curious to hear someone's actual analysis of IV vs. Rev.

Nice guys, was saying "I know you are but what am I?" too mature?

Seriously, it helps the discussion if you list some reasons why you feel Civ V is closer to IV or Rev than just writing "no it's not" and "yes it is." I haven't played Rev so I'd be curious to hear someone's actual analysis of IV vs. Rev.

he gave no examples so why would i

Well, V and IV both had complex lists of options, expanded lists of techs, expansions, expanded combat, etc...

I know some people, like me, who loved IV and V but hated Rev.

I play Rev on my DS, and it's a good game, but it doesn't compare to IV or V.