Reflections of a console-tard

I'm new to the site, and would just like to say I believe it's wonderful, well maintained, and obviously supported by a great dedicated avid community.
Now, with introductions out of the way, I'd like to offer my observations and two cents as it were on the PC vs. Console debate, especially as it focuses on CivRev.
I've been a gamer all of my life, beating the 8bit Zelda and Mario titles on the NES before I could read, in fact, learning how to read primarily just to be able to read game manuals cover-to-cover.
I got my first PC on my 11th birthday, and was blown away, hopelessly hooked as a PC gamer almost instantly. The titles were so much more innovative, exciting, vast, and varied on the computer than any console titles of the same era. My PC quickly became my gaming platform, I would play Civ, Alpha Centauri, and similar titles for hours on end, and that would remain that way for years, until, 5 or so years ago, Bioware released StarWars: k.o.t.o.r . My inner fanboy had to have it, but my PCs power couldnt quite cut it. Being 17ish at the time, with limited funds, I found it actually worked out to be cheaper to buy a preowned Xbox, and the console version, than purchase my hardware upgrades, and the PC version. "Why not?", I said, so I fired up the big black box to give console gaming a second look. Since then, exponentially so, consoles seem to be now the frontrunners pushing innovation and technology. Long (winded) story short, it's a very exciting time for gaming overall. I think that the dedicated and loyal Civ fans and community shouldnt be asking themselves, is this bad for Civilization, is this the death of Civilization on the PC, but instead, could Civilization Revolution be the killer-crossover, the game that can introduce the complexities and brilliance of the Civ series, to a market that otherwise may not have experienced it. It took a multiplatform RPG for me to reach across the aisle, and give consoles a second look, maybe CivRev will do the same to console-only players, and give them an insight into a truly remarkable franchise, and help stir excitement and innovation in the growing gaming community.

Thanks Guys,
can't wait to start laying down the Cultural-Smackdown

First off welcome to civfanatics. Second yes the game does seem as though it has been well built for the console and I await the opportunity to be stab all my old Civ IV buddies in the back again.

welcome and great post.

Prophesy said:

My inner fanboy had to have it, but my PCs power couldnt quite cut it.

Click to expand...

i know that feeling i just got my computer that runs games good a little over a year ago, consuls have always been my one place that i could turn to be able play any game without lag, in fact i had Civ IV like a year before i could play it. I also think that any Civ games for consul will have better graphics if for no other reason that they know exactly what every one can run since all consuls are the same unlike computer games where they have to lower graphics enough to be able to sell it to a wider market

Prophesy said:

...could Civilization Revolution be the killer-crossover, the game that can introduce the complexities and brilliance of the Civ series, to a market that otherwise may not have experienced it.

Click to expand...

Here's hoping. I want this game to be the killer that "Drags me away and makes me play" (tm).

I was about to rant in the "pc gamers finally kicked in the teeth" thread but that was locked so here I am . So now the game is going console (again some people are quick to point out). A quick glance at the FAQ about Revolution and one realises that it is in many ways a dumbed down version of the real game. Of course, if one expects to suck sweet dollars out of the console people one has to adapt to an audience than normally would not have bothered with the intricacies of the real game.
Consider the following quote from the FAQ:
"The four player limit is to make the game a lot faster-paced than a Civ4 game. The idea is to allow people to play full games that run the course of history over Xbox Live/PSN in one sitting." Isn't it all too obvious that it really is all about moneysucking. To suck massmarketmoney one has to appeal to people with light attention deficit disorder. The console people. Nothing suprises me anymore. If someone came up to me and said "Alltidxx, have you heard the news? A new faced-paced game is on the market! It's called Civilization Revolution!", I would just smile back and say "that's great stuff!". But hey, the console players are people too. Real people with real feelings and they don't want to hear that their attention-span is so short one could suspect them to be stupid and vain. And fickle. Because don't forget, they've got loads of cash.

PS. I've spent some 200 hours playing F1 games on PSone, PS2 and now PS3. And other racing games and actiongames like resident evil and Silent Hill. I love it. FPS on consoles will be forever stupid though.

Alltidxx said:

I was about to rant in the "pc gamers finally kicked in the teeth" thread but that was locked so here I am . So now the game is going console (again some people are quick to point out). A quick glance at the FAQ about Revolution and one realises that it is in many ways a dumbed down version of the real game. Of course, if one expects to suck sweet dollars out of the console people one has to adapt to an audience than normally would not have bothered with the intricacies of the real game.
Consider the following quote from the FAQ:
"The four player limit is to make the game a lot faster-paced than a Civ4 game. The idea is to allow people to play full games that run the course of history over Xbox Live/PSN in one sitting." Isn't it all too obvious that it really is all about moneysucking. To suck massmarketmoney one has to appeal to people with light attention deficit disorder. The console people. Nothing suprises me anymore. If someone came up to me and said "Alltidxx, have you heard the news? A new faced-paced game is on the market! It's called Civilization Revolution!", I would just smile back and say "that's great stuff!". But hey, the console players are people too. Real people with real feelings and they don't want to hear that their attention-span is so short one could suspect them to be stupid and vain. And fickle. Because don't forget, they've got loads of cash.

PS. I've spent some 200 hours playing F1 games on PSone, PS2 and now PS3. And other racing games and actiongames like resident evil and Silent Hill. I love it. FPS on consoles will be forever stupid though.

Click to expand...

Because every game should strive to take years to finish(ala War in the Pacific), otherwise, they are just dumbed down games for 'ADD kids.' The game is simplified, but i'm not sure what's bad about trying to tighten the game up for shorter games. What kills a casual MP gamer is that I can't sit down and finish a game in one sitting, so I have to play civ at a snail's pace or try to coordinate a bunch of players to show up to a live game. CivRev is a bit better in that regard.

I guess we should . .. .. .. .. . about everyone who plays console games, always striving to make them look like 'ADD kids.' Maybe I should start talking about how Marathon players in civ4 have absolutely no skill for the game, no ability to optimize their game to take advantage of units that are not available for long, but I won't.

Alltidxx:
Just try to accept the fact, that Civ Rev is just different game. It is not improved Civ4. It is not better. It is not worse. It is different game for different people. Almost diffrent genre - because gameplay of Civ4 and gameplay of Civ Rev is really diffrent.

But is it a problem, that they released diferent game? Im glad for it. It is better then just releasing another copy of the Civ4 with jsut improved raphic. Now everybody have a choise what to play.

And to be honest - reducing and simplifing of the rules doesnt mean easier game for stupid people. Taek chess for example - the rules can not be simplier. Is i easy game for stupid people? And Civ Rev goes a little in this way. The rules are much more easier. But winning the game can be even more difficult. because even smaller mistakes will have bigger impact.

I'd be calling myself ADD kid because I play console myself, right? Look, what do we have most of in this world: really well thought out games like Civ4 or plug-and-play-wow-look-at-the-great graphics type games? Not Civ4 I think you agree. So if we take a great game and dumb it down, is that progress? I don't think so but not everyone agrees with me. It can be seen everywhere. Codmasters now have the license to make coming F1 games. F1 is a simgame by nature. They now spend time talking about the great crash effects they will put into the game and how they will cater for people with little time. So the fun is to be running the car into a wall now? It is not progress and it is very much part of a dumbning down process so that they can sell more copies to gamers with less interest in really getting into a game. Thus they will settle for less. I'm not applauding that. Others are. Both sides have understandable arguments from their point of view I find.

No matter how well do consoles do, I doubt Pc gaming will die. Pc game producers may need to rethink their platforms of priority but there will still be many games relased to the PC even tough they have been relased to the consoles.

Hopefully they will also learn that on PC its not all about graphics and have more mercy on the ppl with less funds to keep their hardware up the the bar.
Civilization is one game that has kept its requariments atleast on the side of confortable.

I also hate it when PC gamers bable about how console games need to be more simple. Heck Consoles are platforms that are mainly designed to play games, they have usb ports, standard hardware, and now they are even cabeable for greater resolutions.

I think that X360 and Ps3 would easily be able to handle Civilization IV on resolution 1280x720 + keyboard and mouse support. Even usermade mods are bossible, just look UT3(Ps3). Consoles hardware isnt something that is against the less simple games, only the casual gamers are.

PC gamers should not be afraid that consoles will suddenly kill pc gaming, it might change it a bit with some console ports, and games might actualy run on older hardware, but its far from dieing with games like Oblivion, Wow, Civilization, Half life, etc etc

that is untill theres no real difference between consoles and computers.
(consoles are begining to look like computers everyday, installs, HDD, changeable OS, mods, multiplayer games etc etc)

Simplifiing racing game is somethign diffrent. One race wil still take same time.
But this is strategy game. Some peopel like to play strategy games in multiplayer over the internet. Try to find the 4 players taht will play with me one game for two weeks... imposiible.

This is one of the reason why I like the change. It is now different game. Good for another occasions. If you want to play online the Civ Rev is much better then Civ 4. You will find oponents that will stay till end of the game almost instatnly. That is important.

If you have a long booring weeks before you and you want to spend hem in the SP, then Civ 4 will be better. This game is uned for MP. And it does it well. It is imposible to make the Civ4 so easyli Mp accesible.

And some people can like it better even in the SP. They changed the rules. But they did not make it easier. If compared to the Civ 4 this is compeltelly diferent gamestyle... so somebody can like it more:
- Due to the faster game, there is always something hapening. YOu dont need to wat one hour before contacting another Civ. And then another 5 hours before soem conflict begins. And use 40 turns to move armies to the oponent city.
- Due tu the shorter matches, the game is more difficult (especially in the MP). In the Civ 4 you can start almost how you like. Before somebodyfinds you you will ahev better defenses that is "scout" army that finds you. No matter how slow you build them. Try this in Civ Rev... You need to thing about each turn. Even the first one. Even small mistake can cost you victory. Loosing one of your 20 cities in Civ4 is really different then loosing one of your 3 cities in Civ Rev.

The rules may be little simplified - but the game is not. Try to win MP or Diety without using our brain Mabye you will be surprised how difficult and still complex the game is. Just in another way. But some people can not stand it :-(

According your post it seems that Chess are really simple primitive game for monkeys, right? 8x8 palying map (alawys the same!), primtive rules...

I ment this "console games are simpler than PC games" argument that many Pc gamers rant with. Civ revolution isnt really simplyfied, its more like high speed version of civilization which is made by multiplayer in mind as well as game of the week in mind.

Glutton said:

According your post it seems that Chess are really simple primitive game for monkeys, right? 8x8 palying map (alawys the same!), primtive rules...

Click to expand...

Not right. I said it was dumbed down. Not dumb. And I definitely don't recall using the word "primitive" at all. I think you get my point if you wanna get it.

I cut my teeth on Civilization II on Playstation, the very first time i played, I played 18 straight hours.

I had watched my son play it on our 60 inch TV screen.

I am most probably going to pick this up, for collecting purposes if nothing else.

I can still feel that..one..more..turn..passion.

Not sure if CIVREV will deliver that, but will probably be fun