backward step?

"In addition, Civ 4 has vassal states - this is one of the biggest additions.
I have Civ Revolution on my X360, played through the first tutorial level and it really wasn't what civ4 used to be.

Too childish, very little complexity, etc. For me, Civ4 is the best one atm."

Yeh i agree,i hope they dont make civ5 as goofy. I wonder if they did try could civ4 actually be ported to the 360 or ps3 maybe with smaller maps?
 
how hard is it to remember that CivRev != Civ5?

It is an entirely different game, and is meant to be a completely different type of game. It is TBS, but it isn't meant to be as deep or huge as Civ3 or Civ4 were.

Perhaps CivRev2 will be more complex, but for now, CivRev was as much a proof of concept, as it was an attempt to reproduce Civ on consoles.
 
I thought I was the only one that has been playing civ 2 on ps1 for a decade! Ha!

The game was irritating to play once you had a ton of cities later in the game because the poster wasn't exaggerating when he said there was a 5-10 minute wait in between turns. However, when played on ps2 there wasn't much of a wait at all.

I have never had a good pc so I couldn't play any of the other civs but I have been playing the demo on xbox non stop for a couple weeks now.

The game IS CIV 2 streamlined. It is a bit simpler but I sort of thought the whole point of this was to allow for multiplayer to be feasible. The excessive necessary micromanagement (most especially going around clicking on every square to irrigate, build roads on it) of civ 2 was one of the most obnoxious things about it, especially later in the game. This did of course build a bit more 'pride' for your cities because of the 'work' you put into them but it would be entirely unfeasible to wait 20 minutes a turn while a dude took every one of his settlers around to build irrigation and roads on every square in his civ.
While I could've done with just a bit more 'newness' (culture doesn't count as far as im concerned. The UN cultural victory or even the process of flipping cities is far too ineffective to make it a balanced strategy as far as I have seen) I am still thrilled they made the game playable with a human which adds a huge boost to strategic replay value while still keeping the rest of the thrills and strategy that was the whole source of fun and addiction in civ 2.

If your disappointed that they didn't make Civ: rev a much more complex game than civ 2 (I would've loved that just as much as this streamlined-so-its-playable-online version) thats fine, but you only have yourself to blame for buying the game before doing any research on it or simply playing the demo.

I also wish the graphics werent QUITE so cartoonish, especially with the units that I hoped would look badass like bombers and battleships but this doesn't affect gameplay so it doesn't hurt the meat of where the fun is at in CIV.
 
Yes, I also agree. I was somewhat letdown after being excited about CIV:Rev after playing the demo on PS3 made me question whether or not I will buy, probably not, unless I get used to it more and more so if they come out with an actual replica earth map.

Too cartoonish and as Blunt3d mentioned, too childish
Wish they had more Civilizations as well..
 
The target market isn't hardcore strat people.

It's for those that want to knock out a game in 1-3 hours (also why the turn cap is there).

If you're looking for in-depth play and details, stick to the computer.

Civ: Rev is supposed to be very simple to pick up and play for the average gamer. And in case anyone hasn't noticed by the current console game lineup, "thinking" and "patience" isn't on the menu. :)

I'm buying it, because when I'm playing on the console, I'd like a short game and perhaps some multiplayer action.
 
I'm wondering what is so childish about it? Are you just talking about the cartoonish visuals and how the leaders talk sim-speak or whatever?
Other than that it really is nothing more than a faster moving, less micromanagement heavy much better looking civ 2. Going around and telling your settlers/engineers to build roads and irrigation on every square and having to manually pull people out of the fields (/put them back in) when people got pissed were the only thing different in civ 2 from civ: rev outside of slightly less techs, city improvements and wonders, many of which remain the exact same as civ 2. Of course the other additions of culture and great people are obvious.
I'm assuming you mean childish in relation to the complexity (i.e. greater number of technologies, city improvements, wonders) of civ 4, 5 which I would know nothing about.
By the way, was a full game (not half-assing it or anything) of civ 4 or 5 able to be played online against someone in about 30-60 minutes (assuming you reached the end of the tech tree or whatever other end goals of victory there were in those games)? If the answer is no (I honestly dont know) than the identity and goal of civ: revolution couldn't really be more clear. Likewise, calling it too simplistic would then be missing the point that it was made that way with the goal for it to be playable in one sitting in a reasonable amount of time for an online multiplayer match.
 
I'm wondering what is so childish about it? Are you just talking about the cartoonish visuals and how the leaders talk sim-speak or whatever?
Other than that it really is nothing more than a faster moving, less micromanagement heavy much better looking civ 2. Going around and telling your settlers/engineers to build roads and irrigation on every square and having to manually pull people out of the fields (/put them back in) when people got pissed were the only thing different in civ 2 from civ: rev outside of slightly less techs, city improvements and wonders, many of which remain the exact same as civ 2. Of course the other additions of culture and great people are obvious.
I'm assuming you mean childish in relation to the complexity (i.e. greater number of technologies, city improvements, wonders) of civ 4, 5 which I would know nothing about.
By the way, was a full game (not half-assing it or anything) of civ 4 or 5 able to be played online against someone in about 30-60 minutes (assuming you reached the end of the tech tree or whatever other end goals of victory there were in those games)? If the answer is no (I honestly dont know) than the identity and goal of civ: revolution couldn't really be more clear. Likewise, calling it too simplistic would then be missing the point that it was made that way with the goal for it to be playable in one sitting in a reasonable amount of time for an online multiplayer match.


For the sake of time played, yes I agree and with the game. Although im new with CIV in multiplayer im pretty sure they take well over 60 min so theres that to help you point also.

My thing is that from being so used to the complexity of the game and feeling of accomplishment in CIV 3&4, to me its a let down. But I understand its aim more so now as well. But it lost all hope in me when I found out there will be no earth maps..:shake:
 
Yah, I remember that being a big desire of mine when I first started civ 2. Eventually I lost that desire in recognition of the increased depth that was added to the game by randomly generated maps. I recognized that they necessitated and made more realistic the need to 'explore' in the hopes you would find gold and other rewards; the same kind of chance/danger/reward scenario that was present for all explorers and their home civs throughout history. I also suddenly understood that the success of the real world's civs really have largely come down to how many resources they suddenly realize they had been sitting on or that they randomly stumble upon and claim, and their ability to grow unimpeded by neighboring societies. These realistic aspects were (and are) made dynamic and unpredictable by randomly generated maps and add a ton to the fun, personality and uniqueness of every game session in my opinion.
 
actually Civ 1 had Attack/Defense... what it didn't have was hp
Civ IV was the first to get rid of Attack/Defense
which illustrates that getting rid of a concept isn't necessarily a step back

Civ Rev has a REALLY big thing Civ I and II didn't, Civilization bonuses (not present until III... I remember the outcry over that being added)

Civ Rev has Treasury bonuses (never seen in any other civ)

Civ Rev has 'first discovery bonuses' definitely not in I or II, in ?III?
Yup, you're right Krikitone. How could I forget those 1/2/1 Phalanx units in Civ 1 that would defeat my cannons so regularly. :) Good point about Civilization traits/bonuses too; definitely an added dimension.
 
so my 10 year old playstation version of civ2 is more in depth than my shiny new ps3 version of civ rev...
i was really excited about a next gen console version of civ...

i was hoping/expecting something that playd similar to civ2, but looked really sexy.

buy civ 4 then.

Civ Rev is all about streamlining, having workers to terraform the world is cool, but time consuming if you do it yourself, and jsut inconvientient if autoiung everything. I like the simplification of having no workers running around doing everything, but im still gonna want to play civ 4 though, remember civ rev is in no way a replacement for current civing.
 
i have stopped playing rev, gone back to civ4. I thought i would get used to a streamlined version but cannot. If you r up 4 quick and basic strategy game loosly moddled on the earlier civs its a great game. But i cannot live with that, i enjoy the complexity and involved diplomacy too much on civ4. Im trading it in , plus hate the way you cant get a good look at the world, or easily select units. I think P.C's will always have the monoply on decent dtrategy games.
 
I just registered to comment on this thread. I've owned every civilization since I'm a great fan of the saga. I bought this Civilization Rev for the PS3 too (60€/94$!) thinking that it would be just as good as the other ones, and I really feel swidnled, it's like a game for idiots and that's how I feel for having bought it before making some research; idiot.

Next time I'll not trust so blindly on this Firaxis people before expending my money on their games.

The world is tiny and you can change the size by default (only for or five other civs). I always played huge worlds on other civs.
You can't define victory conditions.
You can't define the kind of terrain.
You can't continue playing once you or other civilization meet any victory condition. In other game you were given the option to continue playing; not here.
Two to four hours of gameplay at most.
 
I would have been annoyed at this game if this was called Civilization V. But it’s not, it’s a sideward step, not a backwards one as it tries something new. Yes its more streamlined, yes games are faster and yes it’s easier than the main series. But its got the magic and charm Civ 2 had, its got the addictiveness all Civ games have and it’s got the tension. Since buying it I can’t drag myself away. I go to bed later than normal and wake up an hour earlier to play more. Once one game is finished, I switch right on to another (just like I do with Civ IV). Even with all the achievement points earned I’m still playing it.

For me, this is a brilliant game Sid has made here and complements Civ IV nicely. It doesn’t replace it but it was never trying too.
 
For me it doesn't have the magic of Civ2 not it's 10% as addictive. I've played two games on this CivRev and it already bores me, which doesn't happens with Civ IV that I'm still playing after three years. It would be not bad if it was a 15$ playstation store game, but for a supposedly full 90$ title for third generation consoles, it's just ridiculous, even at graphic level which is by no way up to nowadays standarts and lags like a beast when you rotate the globe which for some odd reason you don't have a map, not even the option to have one. That's what really kills me, the lack of stupidly simple to implement options like map size, victory conditions, number of civilizations or terrain options.

Just my opinion.
 
The one thing I like most is that Civ Rev Catherine of Russia is probably the hottest video game character ever to be converted into ones and zeros.
 
Find an old broken computer, and go use the computer you use to make these posts, and get Civ3 off of Steam or something, and download mods from here. If there are no computers nearby, perhaps you have a friend that travels to a city on occasion? You could go dumpster hunting.

Or if your not isolated, maybe you just like the feel of a console better. You could spend some money, get a computer, hook it up to the TV, and get a PS2/3 USB controller adapter, and bind the keys. :goodjob:

As for civ4, there mods to make it pretty good looking and to let you terraform....
Yeah, Catherine indeed.
 
I also played all civilization games starting with Civ 1 and I like CivRev on iPhone/iPad a lot. I do not like CivRev on PS3 - fog of war or 3d projection confuses me.
 
Top Bottom