How many stars to you give civ rev

[remake20]

How many stars do you give civ rev.

This is my first poll, so don't laugh if it sucks.

 

[GarretSidzaka]

i liked what i saw and im seeing alot of people that i couldnt get to play civ coz they werent computer types, now playing civ for the first time.

and guess what! they like it

 

[frank_littleff]

4/5 for the PS3 version when it worked.
1/5 after patch 1.10

3/5 for the 360 version (doesn't seem quite as nice to play)
4/5 for it's multiplayer (it works)

 

[shadowplay]

I thought the PS3 and Xbox 360 version were identical (sans patch)?

What's better about it on the PS3 that it gets an extra star?

 

[_kittyhawk]

5 for the DS version.

My husband and I played into the wee hours of the morning without realizing how much time had passed. Although I love Civ IV, we haven't lost track of time since our very first exposure to Civ I (we stopped for bedtime only to find out that it was nearly time to 'wake up' and get ready for work!).

 

[dennis580]

I decided to only give it 2 stars which is average on my scale because I am starting to get very bored of the game.

My scale.

*****- Killer App
****- Great
***- Good
**- Average
*- Waste of Time

 

[NikNak]

I still like it a lot. Four stars from me.

 

[XxtraLarGe]

5 for the DS version.

My husband and I played into the wee hours of the morning without realizing how much time had passed. Although I love Civ IV, we haven't lost track of time since our very first exposure to Civ I (we stopped for bedtime only to find out that it was nearly time to 'wake up' and get ready for work!).

That's because Civ IV has a clock on the interface!

Staying up too late playing Civ? Been there, done that. In fact, some times me and my friends would end up taking Civ days, days when we'd call in sick to work because we stayed up too late playing Civ. We'd say "I'm calling in Civ today!"

Anyway, I give Civ Rev DS 3 stars. I'd give it 3.5, but that's not an option. The DS interface leaves a lot to be desired, as do the graphics. I know graphics don't make or break a game, but the art work could have been much better. Compare any of the leaders heads in Civ Rev DS to the leaders in Advance Wars:





I know it's not an exact apples to apples comparison, but the fact of the matter is the DS is capable of much better graphics than what Civ Rev gives us. Look at how grainy the Civ graphics are compared to the Advance Wars graphics. It's like Civ Rev DS used a 256 color template for the images.

There are also many quirks in the DS interface that drive me crazy. For instance, you can't distinguish one artifact from another, which I think is something you can do in Civ Rev for the consoles. Also, your unit's stats don't show up when they are selected. Why not? I'd like to be able to see how many moves a unit has without having to try and drag the actual unit. It's a no-brainer, and I'm sorely disappointed that it's not in there.

Now, despite all my ranting, I still do really enjoy this game, so don't read too much into my complaining.

 

[shadowplay]

Look at how grainy the Civ graphics are compared to the Advance Wars graphics

Agreed. It's terribly fuzzy.

 

[806slidingdoors]

Ha! I, too, have take many Civ days from work because I have been up all night fighting Mongols. This game takes over your mind.

Looking at the graphics from XXtra, I don't even recognise CivRev. Is it the top graphic? PS3 graphics are very different. They are sharp & beautiful. It gets 5 stars from me.

 

[criminiminal]

3 stars. passes the time but it feels like a tofu hot dog...they've taken all the good stuff out.

 

[KingDerfliw]

I gave it 4 stars, I think it's a great addition to the civ family of games, but it loses a star because the game has many little flaws that probably won't be fixed because this is a console game...

 

[CrimsonEdge]

4/5 for me.

The combat is done right and is a vast improvement from Civ 4 (would be nice to see counters to units in place without over complicating things... for example, swords are better than axes in attacking ) but the AI seems lacking. Of course, the Civ AI has always been fairly bad, but that doesn't excuse some of the things that happens with the AI.

For example, the early game AI is terribad in Civ Rev. They don't seem to have much of a strategy. They also have personalities (do they even have them?) that conflict with what the civ is built for. For example, The Mongols don't seem to take out Barbarian cities or spark combat, Ghandi is usually the first to declare war... and some other odd things.

There are some other quips I have with the game as well. The lack of city upkeep as well as a lack of unit upkeep means that you can win by ICS with every civ without much thought. There isn't a real need to build AMAZING cities. Just go for an early Republic, churn out tons of cities, and build nothing but military units while teching straight for military units. You can win any kind of game like this without issue due to the number of 'good' cities you'll have taken over.

The lack of civics means there's less to worry about, but this is one area I wish was equal in Civ 4.

Everything else I love. The combat is a vast vast improvement, the speed is perfect, and the viability of cultural, tech, and economic victories is a nice change. Also, the different ways you can go about each victory (compared to Civ 4 where each victory was a pretty rigid path) is something I wish Civ 4 had.

Speaking of Civ 4, I hate cultural victories in that game. Hate. Absolutely hate.

 

[SVPM]

I would have put more than three but there's too many MP problems

 

[Dr.Mindbender]

I give it a microscopic dot of a lone star. So you can't see my contempt that I have about this game.

 

[Smirk]

I gave it 2 stars, because I only rented it so do not feel personally slighted that I cannot play any sort of multiplayer. I can't even have a friend over to play hotseat. And this is pretty important because Deity is more on a par with average or slightly higher than average difficulty in previous Civs.

I think the revolutionary aspects are a great step forward but as others have mentioned it does become fairly predictable and it was simplified too much. The surest path to any victory is early warring, unlike previous Civs where a speedy win required specialized strategies.

 

[Kadazzle]

I gave it 4. I liked everything about the game from the: graphics, combat, gameplay but like Smirk said, I didn't like how simplified it was compared to all the other Civilization games. Early war is an auto-win, where as in the other civs if you had good trade relation you could win specifically off of that. I don't like how one-minded the AI/Game is, as I would like to see more trading if I wanted to go a peaceful route to victory.

 

[Killer of Hopes]

I give it 3.5, but I'm rounding up.

I HATE the AI so MUCH! All they do is war war WAR! And there is no use for diplomacy! All you can use it for is buying techs at extremely high prices and sell them at extremely low prices!

And I HATE the Combat so MUCH! It's 80 to 2 and you still somehow lose the battle!

But the multipayer almost makes up for it, but too many freeze ups.

 

[Slobberface]

I'll give it 5 stars in that it makes me hungry for MORE

but, it gets 3 stars if this is where CIV ends on console.

 

[Revan1000]

4 out of 5.

Much quicker game, better animations, and still fun to play. IMO