First off- long-time Civ player (from the first Civ through Civ4) *AND* longtime console player (Xbox and Xbox360).
Basically, I love both PC strategy games and console "twitch" games.
My initial verdict on CivRev? I like it, very much. As a console port, it's outstanding. I doubt I'd enjoy it so much on the PC, but it's not on the PC-- I'm happy accepting the game for what it is. I don't think it's "dumbed down"-- it's streamlined for its environment. Surely, we'll continue to get the more in-depth "Cadillac" versions of Civ for the PC.
Anyway, that said, there are a number of issues I have with CivRev. Even excusing it as a console game, there are areas where it lacks polish, to the extent that one wonders whether a better objective final "walkthrough" from an experienced fanbase would have caught these issues beforehand.
I'm realistic about console games-- even with online capabilities, they rarely get "patched" the way PC games do. Fixes for crashes, sure; but adding/changing functionality is rare-to-nonexistent. Now, one could argue in favor of that attitude-- nobody likes to play a broken PC game where the lazy developer says "we'll fix it in the patching!", and that attitude is NOT to be encouraged with console games.
That said, some of these items are pretty basic, and if you *can* patch, there's no reason to argue against it. After-market support gets you loyal customers.
Here's my list:
1. Stacking units. Basic UI function, completely absent. Unfortunately, with timed MP turns it's *essential* to have this ability in order to properly play the game.
2. Option to play beyond 2100. CivRev is wonderfully designed and balanced-- most every game I've played turns into a serious slugfest by the time you hit the 1900s. I have yet to play a game, SP or MP, that doesn't feature a victory of some kind by 2100. That said, an option to play beyond 2100 would be ideal, especially in single player where one can save the game. Even in MP this could be good-- have the winner "win" and get to leave the game while the others play on, or have everyone stay and play on, or everyone but one player bail and suddenly it's a human vs. AI SP game-- leave it up to the customer to decide. Perhaps allow it as an option only in custom "player matches" while keeping the ranked matches ruthless.
3. Set custom victory conditions. While defining a custom game, allow the option to set and limit what constitutes "victory" for the game-- cultural win, economic win, conquest win, etc., and perhaps a combination of more than one win. Combined that with #2 above, and you have infinite replayability (e.g. game doesn't win until a Civ builds a spaceship, until a Civ conquers every other Civ, until a Civ builds the World Bank, etc.). The designers get to do this-- it's called scenarios, and the GOTW. Why can't the customer?
4. Full map view. Why can't we zoom out and see the whole map? Or select a whole map view?
5. Timer for ranked matches. *Especially* given MP hiccups.
6. Diplomatic options. Can we get options for alliances with AI (and a diplomatic request for such in human-to-human MP)? Given the AI's insane aggressiveness (which by and large I'm fine with-- remember, fast-paced console game, not a days-long PC strategy game), this should be an option. Oh, and one other thing-- diplomacy needs to be extremely streamlined in MP, as the back-and-forth takes up valuable turn time, to the point I don't even bother talking to other civs in the late game simply because it eats up too much time. I doubt that's how it is supposed to work.
---
Okay, those are my basics. Here are some "it'll never happen" wishlist ideas, just because I like to gripe (I use the internet, after all!).
7. Variable timer. 30 second turns in the early game is perfect, but after a certain point, it's too short. Perhaps an option to go to 1 minute (or longer) turns after a certain date/conditon is met? (Possible condition: one civ reaches modern age? Others?).
8. Naval units get benefits. Right now, they're vanilla-- they don't gain elite status, they don't get any special perks like land units. 'Tis a shame.
9. Caravans are pointless. Who builds them? I get them from developing tech, and they get me some nice money, but it seems to me a waste of production and clicking. Would be nice if they could be tweaked to be effective-- more money given, trade routes established, etc. Again, I know it's a simple console game, and I'm okay with no changes whatsoever-- just don't really see these as useful for anyone.
10. Nukes. Unless I'm wrong, the only way you get them is by building the Manhattan Project wonder, and then you only get one, and no more. That nuke is awfully helpful in the end game-- I've used it to take out both a big money-making city to take an economic victory-charging Civ down a peg; ditto a cultural-city. But it's only one nuke, and once I have it, there's no point in worrying about other civs. Which of course makes SDI defense pretty pointless, too (okay, it's helpful for your cities if the bad guy has a nuke, but again-- one nuke).
Anyway, pardon the long posting, but those are my impressions. Really enjoying the game, it's a fun change of pace from the older Civ games. Still looking forward to a new PC Civ game in the next few years, however!
Basically, I love both PC strategy games and console "twitch" games.
My initial verdict on CivRev? I like it, very much. As a console port, it's outstanding. I doubt I'd enjoy it so much on the PC, but it's not on the PC-- I'm happy accepting the game for what it is. I don't think it's "dumbed down"-- it's streamlined for its environment. Surely, we'll continue to get the more in-depth "Cadillac" versions of Civ for the PC.
Anyway, that said, there are a number of issues I have with CivRev. Even excusing it as a console game, there are areas where it lacks polish, to the extent that one wonders whether a better objective final "walkthrough" from an experienced fanbase would have caught these issues beforehand.
I'm realistic about console games-- even with online capabilities, they rarely get "patched" the way PC games do. Fixes for crashes, sure; but adding/changing functionality is rare-to-nonexistent. Now, one could argue in favor of that attitude-- nobody likes to play a broken PC game where the lazy developer says "we'll fix it in the patching!", and that attitude is NOT to be encouraged with console games.
That said, some of these items are pretty basic, and if you *can* patch, there's no reason to argue against it. After-market support gets you loyal customers.
Here's my list:
1. Stacking units. Basic UI function, completely absent. Unfortunately, with timed MP turns it's *essential* to have this ability in order to properly play the game.
2. Option to play beyond 2100. CivRev is wonderfully designed and balanced-- most every game I've played turns into a serious slugfest by the time you hit the 1900s. I have yet to play a game, SP or MP, that doesn't feature a victory of some kind by 2100. That said, an option to play beyond 2100 would be ideal, especially in single player where one can save the game. Even in MP this could be good-- have the winner "win" and get to leave the game while the others play on, or have everyone stay and play on, or everyone but one player bail and suddenly it's a human vs. AI SP game-- leave it up to the customer to decide. Perhaps allow it as an option only in custom "player matches" while keeping the ranked matches ruthless.
3. Set custom victory conditions. While defining a custom game, allow the option to set and limit what constitutes "victory" for the game-- cultural win, economic win, conquest win, etc., and perhaps a combination of more than one win. Combined that with #2 above, and you have infinite replayability (e.g. game doesn't win until a Civ builds a spaceship, until a Civ conquers every other Civ, until a Civ builds the World Bank, etc.). The designers get to do this-- it's called scenarios, and the GOTW. Why can't the customer?
4. Full map view. Why can't we zoom out and see the whole map? Or select a whole map view?
5. Timer for ranked matches. *Especially* given MP hiccups.
6. Diplomatic options. Can we get options for alliances with AI (and a diplomatic request for such in human-to-human MP)? Given the AI's insane aggressiveness (which by and large I'm fine with-- remember, fast-paced console game, not a days-long PC strategy game), this should be an option. Oh, and one other thing-- diplomacy needs to be extremely streamlined in MP, as the back-and-forth takes up valuable turn time, to the point I don't even bother talking to other civs in the late game simply because it eats up too much time. I doubt that's how it is supposed to work.
---
Okay, those are my basics. Here are some "it'll never happen" wishlist ideas, just because I like to gripe (I use the internet, after all!).
7. Variable timer. 30 second turns in the early game is perfect, but after a certain point, it's too short. Perhaps an option to go to 1 minute (or longer) turns after a certain date/conditon is met? (Possible condition: one civ reaches modern age? Others?).
8. Naval units get benefits. Right now, they're vanilla-- they don't gain elite status, they don't get any special perks like land units. 'Tis a shame.
9. Caravans are pointless. Who builds them? I get them from developing tech, and they get me some nice money, but it seems to me a waste of production and clicking. Would be nice if they could be tweaked to be effective-- more money given, trade routes established, etc. Again, I know it's a simple console game, and I'm okay with no changes whatsoever-- just don't really see these as useful for anyone.
10. Nukes. Unless I'm wrong, the only way you get them is by building the Manhattan Project wonder, and then you only get one, and no more. That nuke is awfully helpful in the end game-- I've used it to take out both a big money-making city to take an economic victory-charging Civ down a peg; ditto a cultural-city. But it's only one nuke, and once I have it, there's no point in worrying about other civs. Which of course makes SDI defense pretty pointless, too (okay, it's helpful for your cities if the bad guy has a nuke, but again-- one nuke).
Anyway, pardon the long posting, but those are my impressions. Really enjoying the game, it's a fun change of pace from the older Civ games. Still looking forward to a new PC Civ game in the next few years, however!
