Just too watered down for me.

tommy61157

Chieftain
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
5
Location
Michigan, USA
Personally, I think Civilization Revolution was just a horribly watered down version of a civilization game. Yes, the graphics did look pretty compared to civ 4 which was the only PC civ title at the time. But I play a game for gameplay, not graphics. Watered down Tech trees, victories, units, lack of map and civ customization, omission of religion all played a role in this. Plus, I dislike how they made all the leaders so cartoonish. Everything was just too simplified and made the game feel cheap and sort of like more effort went into the graphics than any other actual mechanic of the game. Plus, if you're going to make DLC, I wish it would add better and grander content, not just wonders, scenarios, and map packs.

So, I have two questions to ask people on this forum.

1. Do you agree or disagree with me and why?
2. Do you think they should make an effort to make a Civilization Revolution 2, port the Civilization PC titles, or not even try to get into the console market any more at all and why?
 
I agree with you that it indeed an extremely simplified civilization game. Combat is cut and dry, one type of unit will ALWAYS beat another no matter how much of a numeric advantage there is. Diplomacy is nonexistent. Its not a matter of if the AI will declare war on you but when. Their excuses are bit dim witted as well, not that it matters.

However, in my way thinking anyway, civ rev is meant to be a simplistic, quick, version of civilization. It was written somewhere that while an average game of civ4 could take 4-6 hours and average game of civ rev was only meant to take 1-3 hours. Sometimes it is fun to play a quick game of civ rev. I go in knowing that diplomacy isn't a thing and that the game isn't all that deep. Despite that its still a somewhat enjoyable experience, but can very easily get repetitive. It is really a game that was meant for mobile devices.
 
1. Do you agree or disagree with me and why?

Disagree. Yes, of course it's "watered down" in comparison with Civ 5, but I personally think that's the beauty of it. It is aimed at console players who want a quick 1-3 hour strategy game. For me, multiplayer was always the most fun, because then it often became a battle of wits, timing and luck. If you want something with massive depth, you buy Civ 5.

I now own both (having bought Civ 5 a few months ago), and while I also enjoy Civ 5, I love the fact that I can play a Civ Rev game in a couple of hours.

2. Do you think they should make an effort to make a Civilization Revolution 2, port the Civilization PC titles, or not even try to get into the console market any more at all and why?

Well, they have made a Civ Rev 2 :) At the moment, it's just for mobile devices.

I'm not sure it would make commercial sense to port Civ 5 onto console. Generally speaking, console players expect faster, more action-packed games. That's why Civ Rev was ideal for consoles, especially multiplayer.

On the other hand, I definitely think they should port Civ Rev 2, now that we have a new generation of consoles. And they should add multiplayer.
 
I would like to see civ rev2 be similar but add just a bit more. Keep it arcade style (1-3 hours) but improve some of the weak points like diplomacy, etc with a bit more AI.
 
Personally, I think Civilization Revolution was just a horribly watered down version of a civilization game. Yes, the graphics did look pretty compared to civ 4 which was the only PC civ title at the time. But I play a game for gameplay, not graphics. Watered down Tech trees, victories, units, lack of map and civ customization, omission of religion all played a role in this. Plus, I dislike how they made all the leaders so cartoonish. Everything was just too simplified and made the game feel cheap and sort of like more effort went into the graphics than any other actual mechanic of the game. Plus, if you're going to make DLC, I wish it would add better and grander content, not just wonders, scenarios, and map packs.

So, I have two questions to ask people on this forum.

1. Do you agree or disagree with me and why?

No; it keeps the spirit of Civ without getting bogged down in all the micromanagement.

2. Do you think they should make an effort to make a Civilization Revolution 2, port the Civilization PC titles, or not even try to get into the console market any more at all and why?

None of the above; they should make a console version of SMAC.
- :)
 
Top Bottom