Why couldn't Civ IV have the fun nature of Civ Rev?

[Sultan_of_ATL]

I have Civ IV BTS with patches and the Demo for Civ Rev. I'm sorry, Civ Rev is so much more fun. Armies, the worker system, the interface, even the Diplomacy seems so much more entertaining. Hell, popping a barbarian camp is even more fun. Why can't the PC games be built like this?

[Kesshi]

Sultan_of_ATL,

What if I asked: "Why couldn't chess have the fun nature of checkers?"

The answer is based on the individual answering. Personally I dislike checkers because it is far too simple, where as I love chess because of its complexity and dynamic nature. Did you know that in the first 6 moves of chess there are over 9 million different end results! In checkers, there are far far fewer.

Personally, I enjoy CivIV because of how complicated it is. Where as I don't like Civ Rev because of its simplistic nature. Many people tend to favor Civ Rev because of simplicity, just as many people favor checkers over chess. To each their own.

[Napalm102]

Because it is streamlined to the point that after playing a few games Civ Rev becomes boring. The scope of the game is smaller, meaning less options. Armies is just a way to reduce a number of units playing on the field, trying to go through a stack of 50 units with console controller would be major PITA. Generally Civ IV is aimed at a more mature audience hence the more somber diplomacy and graphics and alot more going on for it. Civ Rev is quick console title meant to be played fast. Saying all that I will still be buing Civ Rev for my DS when it comes out

[Sultan_of_ATL]

Originally Posted by Kesshi

Sultan_of_ATL,

What if I asked: "Why couldn't chess have the fun nature of checkers?"

The answer is based on the individual answering. Personally I dislike checkers because it is far too simple, where as I love chess because of its complexity and dynamic nature. Did you know that in the first 6 moves of chess there are over 9 million different end results! In checkers, there are far far fewer.

Personally, I enjoy CivIV because of how complicated it is. Where as I don't like Civ Rev because of its simplistic nature. Many people tend to favor Civ Rev because of simplicity, just as many people favor checkers over chess. To each their own.

I think you misunderstand my point....Civ IV like chess is the better game......but unlike Chess Civ IV doesn't use its grander scale to it's benefit. Armies, Barbarians, and worker interface are all things I feel Civ Rev presents better than Civ IV. All I'm saying is why would the Chef provide the best garnishments for a Hamburger and not the steak?

[Kesshi]

Originally Posted by Sultan_of_ATL

I think you misunderstand my point....Civ IV like chess is the better game......but unlike Chess Civ IV doesn't use its grander scale to it's benefit. Armies, Barbarians, and worker interface are all things I feel Civ Rev presents better than Civ IV. All I'm saying is why would the Chef provide the best garnishments for a Hamburger and not the steak?

Sultan_of_ATL,

You are talking about feelings. And I can't argue with that. Nor can I agree. Because your feelings about something or somethings will be different than mine. I feel that CivIV is better than Civ Rev. While you feel that Civ Rev is better than CivIV.

To each their own.

[Horizons]

I thought Xbox 360 and PS3 were supposed to be super-advanced consoles. Then how come CivRev looks like a dinky little kid's game designed for Nintendo Wii?

[grommit5]

some of the "dinky little kid games" can be the most fun to play for a quick fix if not the most challenging. imo i like both.

[Balderstrom]

I like a number of the concepts Civ:Rev brings to the table, some are reworkings of previous CIV incarnations and some are new.

Like some of the Wonders are "sites" that you can discover, thats a pretty cool idea.
The army system is a welcome change as well.
Hopefully some of the interesting aspects of CIV:Rev will find their way into the next incarnation of Civilization. Though if you listen to Sid, he makes it sound like they haven't even started on that.
It's definitely possible to bring in those interesting pieces of Civ:Rev without /dumbing down/simplifying/ the PC experience.

[Sultan_of_ATL]

Originally Posted by Balderstrom

I like a number of the concepts Civ:Rev brings to the table, some are reworkings of previous CIV incarnations and some are new.

Like some of the Wonders are "sites" that you can discover, thats a pretty cool idea.
The army system is a welcome change as well.
Hopefully some of the interesting aspects of CIV:Rev will find their way into the next incarnation of Civilization. Though if you listen to Sid, he makes it sound like they haven't even started on that.
It's definitely possible to bring in those interesting pieces of Civ:Rev without /dumbing down/simplifying/ the PC experience.

yes the finding and naming wonders is great.

[troytheface]

its more modern, ergo they could streamline it out of necessity as well as reviewing three million four hundred thirty seven thousand games of civ4. Anything that reduces the number of units is smart. (of course they could just increase the cost of units, but civ3 armies were a good idea -until conquests made it so that the ai did not know how to deal with them.

[GIDS888]

I like the Chess 'n' Checkers analogy.

I also like both games...........

[Kesshi]

GIDS888,

Ex-member of the chess club in my Jr High. *dons a "I'm a nerd" hat*

Strangely also, I was playing the original Civ around that time, too. I think I've been playing Civ games for upwards of 16-17 years now. Although I skipped CivIII, I did play CivII up until even last year. I didn't get CivIV until September of last year, but it only took me about 8 or 9 months so until I beat a Deity game, so all that experience paid off.

Oy, I'm getting off track. When describing CivIV to my non-Civ playing friends, I usually describe it as "Chess squared." Because in the first 3 moves of Civ, there are about 9,000,000 ^ 9,000,000 different results.

[kazapp]

Why couldn't Civ IV have the fun nature of Civ Rev?

Because it has the fun nature of Civ IV instead!

[Bigfoot3814]

Originally Posted by Sultan_of_ATL

Why can't the PC games be built like this?

Civilization was not built to be an arcadey game the way civrev is. I am slightly confused as to how you describe "more fun." Is it more fun because there's less strategy and more ass-kicking involved?

I have a feeling you probably like civrev better because it's a console game. Because your friends can whoop and cheer behind you while you plow over somebody, which is just fine, but it's not what civ is about to me. That's what halo is for (I don't have an xbox, but I play at parties and such).

[Sultan_of_ATL]

Originally Posted by Bigfoot3814

Civilization was not built to be an arcadey game the way civrev is. I am slightly confused as to how you describe "more fun." Is it more fun because there's less strategy and more ass-kicking involved?

I have a feeling you probably like civrev better because it's a console game. Because your friends can whoop and cheer behind you while you plow over somebody, which is just fine, but it's not what civ is about to me. That's what halo is for (I don't have an xbox, but I play at parties and such).

I must be doing a terrible job of communicating my thoughts. When I say "FUN" its not the cartoon like graphics, but the concepts and presentation. Much of Civ IV feels too much like work. There is no reason we can't have caravans, trade routs, barbarian personalities instead of just units running around. Civ IV is a good game. But, after seeing the creativity they put into civ rev I feel almost cheated that we have some of the same dull concepts carried over from Civ III, Or exciting ones they excluded from Civ IV.

[r_rolo1]

There is no reason we can't have caravans, trade routs, barbarian personalities instead of just units running around

For the first two ones there is a good reason : boring micromanagement ( and we have trade routes in Civ IV, remember? )

And you're the first people in here that I heard complaining about Civ IV being too serious. Normally I hear complaints of how Civ IV is a "playskool and dumbed down" game ( I'm quoting... ) .

[Lexicus]

...9,000,000 ^ 9,000,000 different results.

In that case, Civ IV would be like chess to the power of nine million.

[Sultan_of_ATL]

Originally Posted by r_rolo1

For the first two ones there is a good reason : boring micromanagement ( and we have trade routes in Civ IV, remember? )

And you're the first people in here that I heard complaining about Civ IV being too serious. Normally I hear complaints of how Civ IV is a "playskool and dumbed down" game ( I'm quoting... ) .

Well maybe I'm just a dumbass then . And trade routes are not boring. I'm talking real trade routes as in Call to Power. Caravans are somewhat represented by the great merchant mission, but its too far in between.

[King Flevance]

I have always wished there was a more interactive trade system in CIv 4. I know the dev team is was really excited and proud of this auto trade route system and it isn't a bad idea but it only feels like 1 component of a trade system rather than the whole ball of wax. I think there should be more to it that leads to interaction with the player myself.

I am one of the people that feel Civ 4 could use a dose of atmosphere due to its antics. A reason I am not interested in Civ Rev. But if there are some mechanics that may add to the core game, I am not opposed to them. SO long as the developers remember that the goal is not to turn the base game into revolutions.

[PieceOfMind]

Originally Posted by Sultan_of_ATL

I must be doing a terrible job of communicating my thoughts. When I say "FUN" its not the cartoon like graphics, but the concepts and presentation. Much of Civ IV feels too much like work. There is no reason we can't have caravans, trade routs, barbarian personalities instead of just units running around. Civ IV is a good game. But, after seeing the creativity they put into civ rev I feel almost cheated that we have some of the same dull concepts carried over from Civ III, Or exciting ones they excluded from Civ IV.

Well for one Civ IV did come before Civ Rev so naturally the designers had learned what was and wasn't fun in Civ IV. I would expect CivRev to be more fun in many ways, but there are some ways I suspect it won't challenge Civ IV. I don't have CivRev but it sounds like it will be impossible to ever get a game of the epic scale possible in Civ IV, for example.

Some features sound really great like the improved worker management and army creation (I honestly don't know why they didn't think of armies for CivIV - they had them for Civ3 even) but there is also the fact that the game is still relatively new and none of the novelty would have worn off for many players yet. The novelty of CivIV has probably well and truly worn off now!

In CivIV they made some attempts to remove micromanagement and "unfun" features from the game. But after the dust settled there were many more ways micromanagemen popped up. I suspect for CivRev they had to try even harder to remove tedious features because it was actually necessary this time.