Game is terrible

[GodFearingPimp]

I like the game, specifically online. It's a bit more condensed so I can finish it and work the next day. I'm sure a lot of you don't have that problem.

 

[Mivo]

It's a bit more condensed so I can finish it and work the next day. I'm sure a lot of you don't have that problem.

Well, I can tell you why I don't have that problem. I play marathon speed offline, so I never expect to finish my games in one evening. Some last two days, others three or four. When I play online, I play on epic speed, so games don't finish in one sitting either, but I play with co-workers and friends only, per direct IP, and we save the game and continue the next time when it gets late. So the way I play off- and online doesn't require any condensing or dumbing down. I don't aim to finish entire games on one day.

By the way, I don't have any issues with people enjoying Civ Rev. Choice is a good thing. As long as it doesn't affect Civ 5 in any way, it's good that a simplified versions for consoles is available (as someone else said above already). It may even bring some new people to the PC version, and offer an alternative to those who feel overwhelmed by the computer version or lack the time for it. It's a win-win situation.

 

[Mr. Keith]

I agree with you, Mr. Keith. I rented the PS3 version today hoping that it would have much more content than the demo displayed. After playing for a few hours, I can actually say that I found the game to be quite boring! Hopefully, it will grow on me as well.

I understand that Firaxis/2K is trying to grow their franchise into the console segment of the gaming industry, but do any other experienced Civ players feel a little let down?

Just my thoughts...

I feel a little "let down". It's not specifically due to the PC vs. Console thing either. I believe you can create a compelling turn based strategy for a console. They just didn't accomplish that here. Or so it seems after only an hour or two of play time.

 

[Mr. Keith]

One more quick side note. I bought the game yesterday evening. When I went into Gamestop and asked the dude if their were any copies of Civ Rev left, he told me they had one left. I said something to the effect of "wow, the game must be generating some interest huh?". Nope. They were only shipped two copies. There is obviously not much interest in this game outside of the Civilization community.

I don't think all you hard core Civers have to worry about consoles taking over the franchise. Mkay?

 

[brooklynkobe]

I have no problem with the smaller word, faster gameplay, expedited production or less AI civilizations on each world map. Those alterations were geared towards the console and are effective.

I have owned a gaming console for 10 years, so since I am a member of the target audience, please tell me how ATROCIOUS diplomacy is what a console gamer (like myself) was looking for? Or pathetic trading (if you can call it that) between civilizations? Or illogical war/peace AI?

I dont care who you gear a game for, a bad game is a bad game. They could have shortened and speed-up the game without sacrificing the resources, city building, terrain cultivating and diplomatic aspects that make the game so great.

There is just nothing to this game.

 

[bonafide11]

I love Civ Revolution and think all you PC diehards who feel betrayed need to get a life. You don't have to like the game, but for those of us who don't want to spend a week of our lives playing a game, it's awesome.

 

[goofyballer]

I dont care who you gear a game for, a bad game is a bad game. They could have shortened and speed-up the game without sacrificing the resources, city building, terrain cultivating and diplomatic aspects that make the game so great.

Man, it's a good thing you weren't born yet when Civ I came out cause you would have HATED it!

 

[Psyringe]

I have owned a gaming console for 10 years, so since I am a member of the target audience

That's your basic misunderstanding. From the description you gave so far, it's pretty clear that you're not part of the target audience. CivRev is geared toward players who are either new to the franchise, or like a less complex, lightweight version of the game. You don't. I don't either. Lots of other people do. So let them have their fun.

Like I said, it seems as if you didn't use the information available and bought the game under wrong expectations. Blaming that on the game instead of your lack of preparation might be easier on your ego, but isn't actually warranted. If you had looked for a bit of information, you would've realized within a couple of minutes that CivRev is not what you want and that you'd be better off playing Civ4.

Anyway, no harm done. You said you can return the game, so there's no loss for you - and the complex Civ game that you *like* doesn't have changed at all from this release of a spinoff, so just keep playing it. Nobody's forcing you to play something that doesn't suit your taste.

 

[donpost]

3 pages


Top windup, brooklynkobe

 

[brooklynkobe]

The fact that you would consider someone's ego would be affected by a video game says oodles about how sweet you must be in person.

I have no problem with civ rev being different; I have a problem with it being bad. I love how all you civ rev guardians constantly dismiss the opinions of those who dislike the game by insinuating that those people must not understand it wasn't meant to be civ IV.

Newsflash donkey - I get it. So does everyone else who criticizes the game, it isnt a complicated concept you are pushing. What YOU dont understand is that a game can be different than civ 4 and still be good. This one is not. Its just a bad game, period.

 

[Psyringe]

Ah, okay. So when you complained about the features that CivRev lacks in comparison to Civ4, you weren't actually demonstrating that you didn't get the difference in target group and objective of the project, you were ... hmmm ... well, I'm afraid there's no other good explanation really. The fact that you keep comparing the games and complaining about the simplification speaks for itself.

That you claim to be able to read everybody's mind and lower yourself to ad hominem arguments doesn't bolster your arguments either. But I'll take your disappointment as an excuse for it.

Anyway, feel free to bash CivRev further - it's not as if it's hurting or even annoying me, as I'm not really interested in a lightweight Civ game. Once you got the disappointment out of your system, just re-read this thread, and perhaps you'll then see a bit clearer.

Cheers.

 

[bonafide11]

The fact that you would consider someone's ego would be affected by a video game says oodles about how sweet you must be in person.

I have no problem with civ rev being different; I have a problem with it being bad. I love how all you civ rev guardians constantly dismiss the opinions of those who dislike the game by insinuating that those people must not understand it wasn't meant to be civ IV.

Newsflash donkey - I get it. So does everyone else who criticizes the game, it isnt a complicated concept you are pushing. What YOU dont understand is that a game can be different than civ 4 and still be good. This one is not. Its just a bad game, period.

Umm... what YOU don't get is that just because you say a game is a bad game, doesn't make it a bad game or mean that everyone has to think it's a bad game. Some people can still think it's a good game and enjoy it, and it seems plenty of people do.

Besides, why do you bother coming here if you feel so strongly about it being a bad game? I don't waste my time on the forums for games I think are terrible.

 

[Padma]

brooklynkobe is entitled to his opinion. He is entitled to express that opinion here. I am reasonably certain he expected the response he received. I, however, find the level of discourse in this thread far too low. This site is for Civilized discussion, not flaming and trolling.

Therefore, Moderator Action: thread closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889