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

InFeRnOgTiTaN

Chieftain
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
57
I have Civ 4 but I'm wondering if I should get this as well.

I love Civ 4 I think it's great. Does Civ Revolution complement Civ 4 or is it likely that I'll find it too 'shallow' or 'easy' or whatever you want to call it as I've read in some reviews?

If you've got some advice let me know. I have a feeling I'll get many "Civ Revolution rocks" responses!

Do any of you play Civ 4 and Revolution?

Thanks!
 
i played civ 4 for the longest time and to me civ rev is a great addition to the series.

dont expect the same style as it is a much more arcade style, which to me works really really well.

having playing civ since 1991 i can safely say this is a good addition and a new style for the series, well worth a look.

having said that if they do not fix the multiplayer bugs soon i shall no longer be promoting the game and ill be telling people not to get it :p
 
Multiplayer bugs? Which version are you playing? I'd be getting the PS3 version (if I got it).

Your endorsement is valuable since you've been around Civ for a long time - I appreciate it.

I played the demo but only briefly to check it out.

I noticed a post about no health, no religions, no corporations, etc. Is this the case? I thought one of the infinite number of cool things about Civ 4 was religious takeovers and the Apostolic Palace - nothing like a good old Holy War to cleanse the infidels lol

I realize Revolution is a different type of experience - I'll have to try the demo a few times and see if I like it I guess.

Any more tips or advice?
 
@ Infernogtitan
The last patch has a bug in the PS3 version so that the only way to play online is to invite friends in the game. There are a few lists around you can add players to your friend list so you'll get invited to games. So right now the PS3 online is more buggy than 360 version.
 
InFeRnOgTiTaN: If you enjoy the complexity of Civ4, then CivRev may not be for you. Think of it, perhaps, as "Civ-Lite". ;) Play the demo to get an idea of how/where it has been "simplified".

And the PS3 multiplayer has been seriously bugged by the latest patch. Many report being unable to play MP at all, since. Hopefully, patch 1.20 (due out within a couple weeks) will fix these issues. (It will bring the European and US versions back in line, re: the Settler/MegaCity change. ;))
 
If you enjoyed the complexity of civ 4, you probably won't like how civ rev has been simplified.

I've been a long time player of civ (since civ 2) and personally I'm not a very big fan of civ rev. I picked a copy up for my DS because it's portable civ anywhere, anytime, but I would not pick it up for my xbox 360. The game itself feels very lacking to me, and over simplified. If I'm at home and feel the urge to play civ, I'd much rather just play civ 4.
 
If you planing to play this one the same way you play civ 3, maybe you are not going to like it. You need to have you mind out of the box. I'm a veteran for every civilization game and I love this one too.
 
. You need to have you mind out of the box.

While it's true that it's not the same game as earlier versions of civs, a comment like this makes it sound like if you don't like civ rev, it's simply because your not approaching it the right way.

Thats simply not the case. I personally find civ rev to be lacking and I'm not a very big fan of it. I'd rate it personally about a 6 out of 10, where as civ 4 would still rank as a 9/10 for me. I just enjoy the complexity and more options you have in civ 4 as opposed to revolutions.
 
I'll have to really sink my teeth into the demo.

I do love Civ 4 and I might find Revolution lacking in certain areas, or maybe I'll love the different streamlined Civ experience - I'll have to check it out and decide.

I know I want to like Revolutions (especially since my current schedule doesn't allow me to have those 8 hour Civ 4 sessions anymore).
 
I know I want to like Revolutions (especially since my current schedule doesn't allow me to have those 8 hour Civ 4 sessions anymore).

That is exactly what happen to me.
 
Yes I'm hoping that if I do get into Revolution, I'll see it as my "Civ fix" to tide me over until I play Civ 4.

So while it might be lacking in some details of Civ 4, I'm hoping (really hoping because Civ is amazing) that I'll like it as a different experience that will allow me to have the Civ fun in smaller doses so that my mental health maintains until I can time to do an 8 hour Civ 4 session...Just...one...more...turn lol
 
Really? I never had any problems with MP in Civ 4; then again I only play with friends so maybe that has something to do with it.
 
Civ 4 doesnt crash or anything. Civ Rev is quicker and voice chat changes the experience. Playing with strangers is more worthwhile. The endgame gets intense and ruthless because alot of times there is that one guy going for a world bank or one of the other victories. Sometimes there is that one guy getting too strong from taking over some of the other player's cities so the remaining two players team up to get the beast, but since it isn't a team game they will eventaully turn on eachother. Quitting is a problem in Civ Rev though.
 
The CivRev Demo brought me to Civ4, Civ4 Brought me here.
Civ: Rev is out,played it, I'm sticking with Civ Rev, and I'm still here.
I can finish games quickly, GOTW provides me a weekly puzzle, my xbox mates see me back online, and understand what the hell I've been talking about for the past month or so.

I have Civ 4 but I'm wondering if I should get this as well.
Do any of you play Civ 4 and Revolution?
Thanks!

If you have a 360 or a ps3 by all means rent it!If your a Pc gamer at heart, I honestly don't think this is a system seller. Plus, there's those colonies coming right?

Money doesn't buy happiness, but damn I gotta a lot of games.
 
I really like Civ Rev because it is streamlined. I'm finding I'm actually happy NOT to be micromanaging as much as I did for Civ IV. I thought I'd miss the religion aspect and other Civ IV elements more, but I guess I'm liking the fact that I'm going to bed at a somewhat decent hour is worth it.

I really believe the correct word is "streamlined" because to me, it's still intense and thought-provoking, so I wouldn't call it "simplified". It flows very nicely.

I really like it to the extent of thinking of buying the DS and I've been playing since the original Civ came out.
 
I know I want to like Revolutions (especially since my current schedule doesn't allow me to have those 8 hour Civ 4 sessions anymore).

Tiny maps + 10+ civs = 2-3 hour game with 10x the depth of CivRev.

I just tried to start a new game in CivRev and ten minutes into I gave up in disgust. Its just not fun to me. There is no diplomacy, the AI is ******ed, and the interface is lacking (on the DS at least).
 
Civ Rev feels much more like a boardgame than a sim. They basically removed all the 'negative' stuff like pollution, corruption, hunger, etc. And most of the micromanagement (no workers!).
But I really like it and think it is the perfect approach for a console civ game.
 
I've been playing Civ since Civ 2 in 1997. I have never been able to get even a bit near deity on any of the civs, because I don't want to micromanage every single thing. I do acknowledge the charm it has for people, but it doesn't do it for me. To me, Civ Rev focuses on the fun aspects of the game and I'm getting some nice challenging gameplay on deity level.

The whole armies thing and getting a 'first to discover tech'-bonus are nice additions to the core game. I hope a lot of these features are going to be included in Civ5.
 
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.
 
Top Bottom