Should I buy this if I'm a Civ 4 veteran?

If you enjoyed the complexity of civ 4, you probably won't like how civ rev has been simplified.

This is a common view that I totally disagree with. The game is not dumbed-down or simplified. It is a different game! I´ve played Civ2-Civ4 for many years and love CivRev. It is quicker and more accessible, which fits me well since I´ve become older and have less time than before. The strategy is still there but differently. AND nothing says that you have to stop playing Civ4 just because you get CivRev, you can still play both and get the best of two worlds. Go Get It!
 
Here's my $.02. I've been playing Civ since it first came out on the Mac around 1992. At first, I was really excited at the promise of playing Civ on a the DS--in fact, I bought a DS when I learned that this game was coming out. Then I played it and was very underwhelmed. It was a huge difference in gameplay. However, I gave it a couple more chances, and now that I understand the way it works, I really like it. I think they could have definitely done a few things to improve the interface that would have made it from a good game to a great game. For instance, if I have a unit selected, why not show me its stats (attack, defend, remaining moves)? That would have taken up a single line of the screen and would make it a lot easier to say what was going on. I'd say borrow it from a friend if you can and try it for like a week, but I'm really enjoying it now.
 
If your new to the series it may be just your thing and a good introduction to Civ, but if you've been playing and really enjoy the PC version you may want to think twice before getting it.

I don't understand this viewpoint.

I'm a Civ 4 veteran and I love the DS version, as does my husband and two adult children. Will Civ Rev replace Civ 4? Heck no! They are two different games and you can enjoy each one for its own merits.

Although if you're someone that doesn't enjoy testing different strategies, then I'd say you might as well pass it by.
 
What does testing different strategies have to do with it? Civ4 is 100x more strategic than CivRev.

I'm a Civ1-4+SMAC veteran and I think the game is crap. It's very much like playing the original Civilization only with unique civs/units and borders/culture.
 
Allow me to toss in my opinion of the game. From a less "civ" player point of view.

I have played civilization 3 ctp, and civilization 4 before playing civilization revolution, so I have a good idea on what parts were in and out of Civilization. But I'm pretty sure I can enlighten on how Civilization revolution was designed.

Civilization Revolution was designed primarily for multiplayer, and the multiplayer was designed to be very fast paced and streamlined. The reason for this is simple, players will be playing this at their consoles in their homes, (not on a laptop they could bring anywhere, and take a break at anytime), they don't want to be up all night finishing a match with a friend.

The game was designed so players could face against random opponents, and finish a match in a single day, which for a civ game, would be extremely fast.

PC civ's no matter the setting, can last for quite some time until a player reaches a victory, so the game was welcoming for complexity.

Civilization Revolution on the other hand, is designed to be a (Fast-Civ) for players that want to play a civilization game with a friend (or a random person), in a couple hours.

The method Civilization Revolution uses to pull this off is by making the turns simultaneous, meaning all Players (not computer players) do their turns at the exact same time. Meaning that you can be attacked while it appears to be your turn.

While this may seem like a bad idea, the way it is executed works nicely, in the first few turns of the game, when your setting up your first city, you'll end your turn, only a few seconds afterwards realizing, its the next turn already. So the game basically offers a speed that Civilization veterans might find surprising at first.

As for your question whether you should buy the game.
I have a single thing to tell you, if you don't intend to play multiplayer, then don't buy this game. It is built from the ground up to support a streamlined and exciting multiplayer with friends or random people, which can be performed in a mere few hours, and the turns can have time limit settings on the turns to make the game feel like an "advanced version of Time Chess." The single player isn't bad, it's really ment to let you either get used to the game for multiplayer, or take a break and explore the game. There's plenty of scenarios to play in, but in comparison to the PC civ's its limited.

So if you want to get a copy, find a friend to get a copy also, its good if you want just a nice "quick" game with a civilization feel.

PS. Just an FYI it actually plays slightly like a "real-time strategy" game on multiplayer, if you like RTS and civ's then its really good, if you hate/dislike RTS then you might not want this game.
 
PC civ's no matter the setting, can last for quite some time until a player reaches a victory, so the game was welcoming for complexity.

Civilization Revolution on the other hand, is designed to be a (Fast-Civ) for players that want to play a civilization game with a friend (or a random person), in a couple hours.

If you play Civ4 on dual/tiny maps your games will last just as long as a CivRev game. This is the main reason games are so short, not because the game has been streamlined all that much.
 
Civ4 is 100x more strategic than CivRev.

Don´t care if you are a veteran or not. So am I and many others. Civ4 is not 100x more strategic than CivRev. It is different. Not as deep and therefore not as much micromanagement (for good and for worse) but definetily very strategic. On higher levels or when meeting a better person on MP you need to focus your game on one goal and specialize your cities.

I agree it is less micromanagement - and if that is what you mean by strategic then I give you that - but it is still highly strategic. Look up strategy in an encyclopedia (e.g., here).

The two games complement each other, they are not exclusive. I have both a PC and a PS3 and enjoy both platforms.
 
Well I played the demo Friday night to the end, thought it was okay. Played it again Saturday night and fell in love with it, ordered it at 3 AM and picked it up 12 hours later. Once I got home I played a couple games, didn’t sleep until 4 AM and now I’m paying for it at work.

Sid Meier, you have done it again. You have retained the fun factor of Civ 4 while streamlining everything.

To anyone who has followed this post I created, I see now what I hoped to be true is in fact true – Civ Revolution compliments Civ 4, and I’m hooked yet again.

Add me to your PSN if you’re on PS3 for some casual play.

PSN ID: infernogtitan
 
I was not a big fan of CivRev, was lacking in the depth that I enjoy so much in the PC versions. If your new to the series it may be just your thing and a good introduction to Civ, but if you've been playing and really enjoy the PC version you may want to think twice before getting it. I wouldn't say it was a bad game, but it wasn't for me and I did take it back to the store.

There was no religions, corporations, and the maps were tiny. Also I found that there was no real need to build anything but a baracks and possibly walls in any of your cities as the benefits of anything else never seemed to be enough to make the time it took to build them worth it.

It also seemed the only way to gain a victory type other than domination was if you had already pummeled your opponents into submission, which to me just seemed to be a domination victory anyhow.

I did like the new take on the culture being affected by combat, but culture itself didn't seem to play as big a roll as in Civ4. I also thought that the ability to see into a city and what units may be there as a unit upgrade was a good addition.

I was also suprised at the lack of unique units/buildings for some of the civilizations. I believe there was at least one that had no unique units, and being there arn't that many civ's in the game, and only 5 playing at any one time(4 human, 1 AI), you'd think they could have done a little more in that regard.

Probably the biggest problem with the game was the lack of diplomacy, you would have thought that a game for consoles emphasizing the multiplayer would have been a top priority, but games just went so fast you couldn't really afford to take the time to start diplomatic talks, not that you'd have been able to do much even if you did. The only thing you could trade was tech's, and the AI was more than happy to declare war on you if you didn't give in to every demand(you had no ability to negotiate). Also when playing multiplayer, if an opponent did try to contact you, and you were attempting to back out of another menue, his message would pop up just in time for you to hit the back button and close the diplomacy screen before you knew it was there, or who had even sent it.

Overall the game did not impress me, was it terrible? No, would I recommend it? No. Again probably a good game for people who are new to the series, or younger players, or even those that don't like the depth that the PC versions offer. But for me I'll stick with the PC.

And if Civilization Revolution contained all of the components that you wanted, then it wouldn't be Revolution, it would be Civ 4.

As far as depth is concerned, that has nothing to do with whether or not a game offers massive amounts of strategy - chess is also a relatively 'shallow' game. You can learn the rules in an hour. There are countless strategies for chess.

Try playing Revolution at the Emporer level and then get back to us and tell us how 'shallow' the game is.
 
And if Civilization Revolution contained all of the components that you wanted, then it wouldn't be Revolution, it would be Civ 4.

Well I didn't expect all of the components to be there, but did expect more, afterall, it may not be Civ4, but it is a Civ game.

As far as depth is concerned, that has nothing to do with whether or not a game offers massive amounts of strategy - chess is also a relatively 'shallow' game. You can learn the rules in an hour. There are countless strategies for chess.

Which is why the game is not a bad game, it definately had potential, and obviously some people like it - just like chess, it's not for everyone

Try playing Revolution at the Emporer level and then get back to us and tell us how 'shallow' the game is.

The difficulty level has nothing to do with how 'deep' or 'shallow' a game is.
 
As far as depth is concerned, that has nothing to do with whether or not a game offers massive amounts of strategy - chess is also a relatively 'shallow' game. You can learn the rules in an hour. There are countless strategies for chess.

I can't understand the thinking that some people have with regards to this game. Somehow, people have it in their minds that since CivRev has less "stuff" in it, that must mean that it's less "deep" than Civ IV or III.

That pure elitism. Your chess analogy is a great one. Chess is considered one of the most deep and strategic games people play along with Go and Backgammon. The thing that unites them is that the rules are relatively simple and the game "pieces" are few in number, yet somehow the games have endured throughout the centuries.

Depth and strategy != amount of "stuff" in the game.

CivRev may not be for some of you, just as Chess or Go isn't played or mastered by everyone, but dismissing it as "shallow", "simple", or "dumbed-down" based only on the amount of features or the average length of the game is very shortsighted.
 
CivRev may not be for some of you, just as Chess or Go isn't played or mastered by everyone, but dismissing it as "shallow", "simple", or "dumbed-down" based only on the amount of features or the average length of the game is very shortsighted.

Actually, Civilization Revolution isn't as deep as Civ IV. Civ IV isn't just about more micromanaging (i.e., more "stuff"); it's about having more avenues for victory.

I agree that Civilization Revolution is deep; it's just not as deep as Civ IV; and that's okay. It's still Sid Meier and it's still awesome.
 
Actually, Civilization Revolution isn't as deep as Civ IV. Civ IV isn't just about more micromanaging (i.e., more "stuff"); it's about having more avenues for victory.

I agree that Civilization Revolution is deep; it's just not as deep as Civ IV; and that's okay. It's still Sid Meier and it's still awesome.

Let's go back to other games for a minute. Are there other ways to win Chess or Go besides the equivalent of a domination victory?
 
Why are you hung up on Chess?

Are you arguing that Civ Revolution is as deep or deeper than Civ IV? Because if you are, I'd be very interested in hearing how you would argue such a view.

Chess is fine. Strategic? Sure, but it's all forward thinking. Civ contains adaptive strategies that involve more than just forward thinking. It involves a level of manipulation that chess does not have.

Also, I think you're forgetting that calling a game "deep" does not refer merely to the strategies within it. An all-out action game can be deep, even though there's little to no strategy involved. Deep refers also to options for victory, customization options and longevity.

To say that Civilization Revolution is as deep as Civ IV would be an error in wording. To say that there is a large amount of strategy (perhaps not quite as much as Civ IV, but still) would be a better choice of words.

Don't get me wrong. I'm loving Civilization Revolution. I just know that Civ IV offers the deeper Civilization experience.

Does that mean Civ IV is better than Revolution? That depends. I believe Sid Meier has said Revolution is the Civ game he has always wanted to make. I take that to mean it's fun, it's easy to get into, and it's hard to put down.

No matter what your preference is, Civ IV and Civilization Revolution are both fantastic games that just prove that Sid Meier really doesn't miss. Even Railroads! is a fantastic game and that was the one that I was most cautious about!
 
Top Bottom