Why couldn't Civ IV have the fun nature of Civ Rev?

What? CIV barbs are def. the best in any game. They get more units than warriors and have cities and work the same way as you!
 
Civ IV is superior in every way. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a n00b and will be pwned :lol:
 
Well, I played it on a DS and I must say that I'm not impressed. It has serious imbalances that would make most of the Civ IV players to explode of anger if they were found in the game.
 
My dream is that Revolutions will become a great success, and that there will be great synergy within the CIV family.

I like the idea of REV as a sort of elementary" CIV" or "CIV bridge "or "CIV intro "that will introduce the game to younger players, and get them excited about history and strategy. If and when it comes out in a Wii version, I'm buying it for my neices and nephews.

I also like the idea of reaching a broader audience, teaching it the basic concepts, and allowing CIV itself to evolve into a longer more realistic and complex game than it already is. My concern is that CIV has already become pretty complex for people to learn, and that the more choices it offers, the more daunting it becomes for new players, and harder for them to find the fun of it.

Likewise, I'm hoping that CIV can benefit from devolopments in Rev- graphics, leaders, discovering natural wonders, anything that can add to the game without dumbing it down.
 
I've been playing the civ franchise practically since its inception, and I can tell you that it has always been a rather plodding game ... that's sort of always been its appeal to a certain crowd. It is to other video games what a box of crackers or a bag of popcorn is to a chocolate bar. Duller, less rich and exciting, but somehow more satisfying in the end.

Yeah but that begs the question, which one is better with peanut butter ;-)

I also agree that this is a cool analogy :goodjob:

I only had my DS with me on a trip recently and I found the game extremely addicting for awhile. Obviously now I'm at home and I have my desktop and it seems rather silly to play my DS... I wouldn't knock Civ Rev too much though, it's really pretty funny for awhile at least.
 
I definatley hope that CIV will not follow in Revs graphical appeal. Discovering natural wonders is cool. Hopefully CIV will follow Col 2's graphical style.

All I needed to hear was a friend of mine said that discovering the tech for tanks first, gives you a free tank in every city. This was enough to let me know I need not purchase revolutions. I agree its good for people stepping into the series but lets not take steps backwards.

Rusty Edge said:
My concern is that CIV has already become pretty complex for people to learn, and that the more choices it offers, the more daunting it becomes for new players, and harder for them to find the fun of it.
The hardest thing to learn about Civ is it isn't formulated. You can spot a n00b on these forums with the common threads we see of "Who is the best leader/Civ/unit/tech/etc." The real time strategy market is much more mainstream right now. And man those games are all about formulas. Because each RTS usually has 3-5 formulas that can't be beat. (Except by one of the other formulas if not the same one.) Civ has so many formulas that are valid, it can feel overwhelming for all newcomers. Every single person I have turned onto Civ has ran into this problem first. The first thing I do is show them how to easily access the civilopedia. (Especially about right clicking on the tech tree.) Explaining the city screen usually takes around 10-15 mins. Once that is done, wham. We run into formula time again. "What should I build?" Of course formula time #1 was "Who are the best leaders to play as?" These are questions a veteran can even steer you wrong in on Civ. The best questions a player must always ask "What is MY strategy playstyle" and "How can I reach the conditions for victory with it." All other answers will fall into place with that usually. Then come onto here and discuss other people's strategies and determine how you value them.

The big question in that is "What is MY strategy playstyle?" Because if you have played alot of formulated strategy games, the game has always determined that for you. But turn based games can usually cover more ground and generally offer you your own choices in:


EDIT: Crackers and chocolate go good with peanut butter. Which one goes better with cheese? Popcorn and crackers.
 
...All I needed to hear was a friend of mine said that discovering the tech for tanks first, gives you a free tank in every city. This was enough to let me know I need not purchase revolutions. I agree its good for people stepping into the series but lets not take steps backwards....

Nonsense. That means nothing. For myriad reasons.

The first person to get the tech is not necessarily the most powerful. Perhaps they just beelined it, at the expense of other more/equally valuable techs. Maybe you have one city, or perhaps just a few large ones.

Judging any game by one unqualified facet of it is silly imo.

For the record, I think its fun to get rewarded for teching something first. Civ4 does it, arguably in equally potent fashion (liberalism anyone? other free GP techs).
 
WilltoAct said:
The first person to get the tech is not necessarily the most powerful. Perhaps they just beelined it, at the expense of other more/equally valuable techs. Maybe you have one city, or perhaps just a few large ones.
Then why not grant 4 tanks per city? If there are more valuable/equal techs in the game it gets even worse. Is being the first person to build tanks not enough? WHy not do away with production and have techs just grant you free units upon completion. Production is part of the game. By adding a tech like this you have now added a bonus to production through superiority in science. After having almost made it through rebalancing Civ 4s civs (UU/UB) and units in general I fail to think that Firaxis made a system that hard to balance actually be balanced. I would bet money there are far fewer valid formulas in Civ Rev. Simply because it is obviously a much simpler game.

I am not big on the whole free tech thing either Liberalism will be losing that in my game. The oracle is a 1 shot wonder at the very beginning of a long game, the edge you gain is minimal. The reward for teching something first, is teching it first. GP are 2 steps forward 1 step back (sometimes 3) as it makes your GPP increase. I have avoided tech due to not wanting the GP attached. (I do this alot of times for music.)

So it does indeed mean something to me because Firaxis has shown that they don't value balance in their games the same way I do. And I would be willing to bet that CivRev has much fewer formulas available due to its simplistic nature. If you like Civ Rev, hoorah! Thanks for spending money on one my favorite titles. But we made it to Civ 4 without instant gratification that Civ Rev offers but rather off of the old system where you had to work for everything. There is no need to "fix" something that was never broken. From the sounds of it Civ Rev will remain independant from the original series and I am happy about that.

I am not judging Civ Rev on one facet. (BTW how is it "unqualified"?) I am judging it based on all I have heard. Maybe 1 or 2 things I like. Maybe 3-4 I am cautious of because I have previous experience with the company and am aware they could screw it up. (Or these features MIGHT be done right and be ok.) And then a BUNCH of reasons why I did not care for it. I sat on the fence for a while about it mostly disliking the atmosphere presented. Then I heard a few mechanics of it and wasn't concerned with ever playing it. Then my friend told me about the techs granting free stuff and it all went out the window. It basically means we went back to overpowered wonders and techs that decide the game. (Civ 2 & 3 wonders) style. I like that they pulled away from things like that and toned wonders down. In Rev, instant gratification. No thanks, give me Civ 2, 3, 4 or CTP any day over Rev.
 
I definatley hope that CIV will not follow in Revs graphical appeal. Discovering natural wonders is cool. Hopefully CIV will follow Col 2's graphical style.

All I needed to hear was a friend of mine said that discovering the tech for tanks first, gives you a free tank in every city. This was enough to let me know I need not purchase revolutions. I agree its good for people stepping into the series but lets not take steps backwards.


The hardest thing to learn about Civ is it isn't formulated. You can spot a n00b on these forums with the common threads we see of "Who is the best leader/Civ/unit/tech/etc." The real time strategy market is much more mainstream right now. And man those games are all about formulas. Because each RTS usually has 3-5 formulas that can't be beat. (Except by one of the other formulas if not the same one.) Civ has so many formulas that are valid, it can feel overwhelming for all newcomers. Every single person I have turned onto Civ has ran into this problem first. The first thing I do is show them how to easily access the civilopedia. (Especially about right clicking on the tech tree.) Explaining the city screen usually takes around 10-15 mins. Once that is done, wham. We run into formula time again. "What should I build?" Of course formula time #1 was "Who are the best leaders to play as?" These are questions a veteran can even steer you wrong in on Civ. The best questions a player must always ask "What is MY strategy playstyle" and "How can I reach the conditions for victory with it." All other answers will fall into place with that usually. Then come onto here and discuss other people's strategies and determine how you value them.

The big question in that is "What is MY strategy playstyle?" Because if you have played alot of formulated strategy games, the game has always determined that for you. But turn based games can usually cover more ground and generally offer you your own choices in:


Interesting. I have no first-hand experience with Rev. I'm hoping that 2 out of 7 neices & nepews between 9 and 16 will take enough interest in the game to either try CIV proper, or read about the leaders , civs , etc the game introduces them to on their own.

Personally my analogy would be - CIV is a beloved series of books, and I'm afraid to see the movie version ( Rev) because I might not care for the interpretation, but I'm pleased with the publicity and interest it's created.
 
Personally my analogy would be - CIV is a beloved series of books, and I'm afraid to see the movie version ( Rev) because I might not care for the interpretation, but I'm pleased with the publicity and interest it's created.

Very well put and I agree with you on it. Civ Rev is actually getting rather huge in the console community. Its as if all of the Halo'ers and GTA'ers are looking at the Civilization title for the first time. And they may be.
The last time a CIv game was on a console was over 10 years ago on the PS1. There is a huge console crowd in the teen age group who because Civ hasn't been released on a console for a long time have never heard of it much less considered playing that type of game. So a whole new batch of people are playing console games exclusively and are discovering this "hidden gem" called Civilization.
Some may step it up to the original series as computers are very common now in the household. Others may not go past Rev. Either way, Civ benefits.
 
"Unqualified" means you made a blanket statement without sufficient supporting facts to back it up. You made your opinion clearer in your reply.

You left little room for a different opinion so so be it.
 
My housemante owns an Xbox 360 and has always tried to get into civ (the PC version). But he just cant because he find MM tedious and boring, he doesnt like assigning specialists and organising workers. what he wants to do is got to war; i have always told him to go and buy Rome:total war or something, but he doesnt listen. So when CivRev came out he decided to buy it. anyhoo, i sat next to him one day with my laptop and fired up a new game at marathon speed. he started a new game on his xbox. after 3 hours he was already finishing his game and i was still in the BC's. For this very reason, I will never ever purchase CivRev, and also for this very reason, i am glad they made CivRev, because it allows people like my housemate who were never quite able to get into civ, experience something that i have been doing since Civ 1. I think all in all, its a pretty good game and appeals to a wider audience. Firaxis (and by extension the civ franchise) is a business, not a club, sometimes people tend to forget that.
 
One point, the reward is not 1 tank per city... just one tank (all unit producing techs give a "first to" award of one of the units)... besides the very first techs which give no awards

some give one building or a Great Person, some give +1 pop per city and some give +1 or +2 production, science, or culture, to each city per turn [Industrialism and corporation each give +5 gold per turn per city the highest yield]

overall it is quick and simple... good when you don't have much time and want to have a basic game.
 
Certainly I think there is nothing inherently wrong with a tech granting an immediate benefit be it a unit or a new ability, and I rather think it makes the tech race that much more fun. The bonus you recieve isn't "free" in any way shape or form, it likely required considerable energies dedicated solely to rapid technological advancement.
 
One point, the reward is not 1 tank per city... just one tank (all unit producing techs give a "first to" award of one of the units)... besides the very first techs which give no awards

some give one building or a Great Person, some give +1 pop per city and some give +1 or +2 production, science, or culture, to each city per turn [Industrialism and corporation each give +5 gold per turn per city the highest yield]

overall it is quick and simple... good when you don't have much time and want to have a basic game.

So you get a unit for discovering a tech? Does it require resources, or would I get the fighter prototype without aluminum?
 
Certainly I think there is nothing inherently wrong with a tech granting an immediate benefit be it a unit or a new ability, and I rather think it makes the tech race that much more fun. The bonus you recieve isn't "free" in any way shape or form, it likely required considerable energies dedicated solely to rapid technological advancement.

It also favors the tech leaders heavily.
 
Well I'm having a blast in my current game teching everything before the AI. I used Liberalism to get me free Democracy, teched Communism for the Great Spy, and still had time to easily tech Physics for a Great Scientist XD I'm more than happy to get such a substantial return on my beakers.

I guess I don't see it as anything concerning, if anything it is a curious feature of the game that I would honestly like to see more of in some form or another as I think it adds some depth and excitement to the tech race. The free stuff does seem a bit out of place (or "curious") at times as there are only a select few techs that grant an immediate bonus in that fashion (I guess there is that free Great Engineer at the end of the game too... hmmm). This may not be the greatest example but take that tech that gives a Great Engineer at the end game. Perhaps you might choose to temporarily pass up a vital tech for your spaceship in order to try to get the GE to speed the Space Elevator Wonder. To me that adds more strategy and intensity to an otherwise rather bland tech tree.

It could also be said that the techs that grant a free religion give an insta boost to the researcher, but they still tend to require considerable investment to take advantage of.
 
Never played civ rev. The graphics look cool...if you're into hello kitty or pokemon (I'm not.)

I like the way Civ IV does combat as opposed to the old attack and defense scores.
 
Firaxis (and by extension the civ franchise) is a business, not a club, sometimes people tend to forget that.

True. And if they water-down civ in coming editions, the hard-core fan base (which is most of us here, and whose numbers are not insignificant) will take our $ elsewhere, or complain lividly whenever we talk to a kindred soul, or both.
 
Top Bottom