Sorry Sid, but it's not as good as Civ IV/III

[Tommy Sieve]

Pros

Short

Quite Easy(coming from a 13 year old)

Very Good graphics

Ships go round the land not through it like they did in III. They do <>) instead of <>|

Cons

No Variables about the game, eg how big, how many civs, type of landscape.

Too short. I completed 1 game in an hour by conquest and I spent a day on Civ 3 sized medium pangea.

Few units.

Workers don't exist. They were part of the fun.

And much much more...

And i have been playing for 20hrs exactly

 

[lucifer316]

personally i dont buy the whole too short complaint

too short is a valid complaint for a game with little to no replay value

but a game with replay value doesnt have to be long in order to be enjoyable

while similar to other civ games it is not the same game and not meant to provide the same exact experience when playing

we already have a civ iii and a civ iv and this game was never meant to be civ iii or civ iv

they made that quite clear from the outset and yet people still complain that its different

 

[erislover]

I've never played Civ IV. I was busy still with III until Rev came out.

CivIII has a slight edge for the reasons you mention, but I have to say that I after playing CivRev, I'm not sure I picture myself dedicating a huge swath of time again to play CivIII. What Rev lacks is not length, as I vastly prefer a shorter game that feels just as challenging (I work full time and go to school full time), but like you say, the configuration options. I'd like to pick 1) world style, 2) world size, and 3) enemies.

 

[eightohfive]

this isn't Civ V, my friend wouldn't go near any of the PC versions but he's addicted to Revolution

 

[thelibra]

Civ 4 remains my favorite, but that doesn't mean I think CivRev isn't good. I think of it as a completely separate game with it's own excellent points about it that Civ4 doesn't exhibit.

 

[VirtualMark]

Pros:
Civ on a console!
Good simplified controls
Addictive & fun gameplay

Cons:
Too simplified, not enough configuration options on the single player
Buggy(hopefully fixed with a patch)
Lame graphics
Single player way too easy
Seriously dumb AI
Doesn't use full potential of 360/PS3's power

 

[Archbob]

For those of you old enough to remember 2, its was awesome.

 

[Sirp]

Civ 4 remains my favorite, but that doesn't mean I think CivRev isn't good. I think of it as a completely separate game with it's own excellent points about it that Civ4 doesn't exhibit.

Exactly. It's a different game, and a different experience.

Personally I love the approach. "The designer knows he has achieved perfection not when he has nothing left to add, but when he has nothing left to take away."

 

[Reds4ever]

I think at the time of release Civ 2 impressed me the most. I'm loving CivRev though, I havn't got enough time spend days playing PC Civ anymore, I just want a couple of hours fun.

 

[Lachlan]

+1 with you

Ditto !

I loved Civ 2 which remain my prefered game in terms of pleasure !
Though i have played it during 5 years !

 

[AznWarlord]

I can't play 4 on my computer, I only had fun with 3, and 2. I'd have to say that 4 would probably be the best, though I haven't played it, cause in 3 and Rev, I still end up using the stack of doom. I like 3 better than Rev, mainly cause of the Slider - you can choose how much Gold and Science you want.

 

[PeteAtoms]

I like 3 better than Rev, mainly cause of the Slider - you can choose how much Gold and Science you want.

OMG, I totally forgot about that slider thing. I wish there was a little more micromanagement, but that's the price to make it streamlined.

 

[Sirp]

I like 3 better than Rev, mainly cause of the Slider - you can choose how much Gold and Science you want.

You can do something similar in Rev: you can go to each city and choose if that city should produce science or gold.

This still gives you a good deal of control over how much gold vs science you have.

 

[CrimsonEdge]

I prefer to play Civ Rev because, if I make a major mistake, I won't have wasted 4-5 hours playing through a thousand years of history only to realize that the mistake cost me my game. In Civ Rev, that 4-5 hours is about one hour tops.

My biggest complaint about Civ 4 is the combat though. This factor alone makes me not want to play the game. Ever. I do play it, but I prefer to never get into combat because of how poorly it was done in Civ 4. Spears can beat my tanks? Consistently? :| I don't like that. Some of the choices they made to get around coding upgrades to units was rather poor. As a result, spears can beat tanks.

The things I do like about Civ 4 are the win conditions and tech trees. To a lesser extent, city management.

But, really, comparing the two isn't really the right thing to do since they are a lot different. Specifically in the combat part of the game.

 

[Apolex]

I liked Civ 2 the best. It was such a huge leap from Civ 1, had great wonders with movies as a reward, and its replay-ability lasted for years.

I'm enjoying Civ Rev a lot, but my biggest problem with it is how dumb the AI is. This must be the dumbest AI of all the Civs. I've won every single time I've tried Diety, and I don't think the AI has ever even taken one of my cities. It's incapable of mounting an offense with a legitimate chance of success. Why it uses ships with infinite carrying capacity to dump off armies one at a time on my shores is beyond me.

 

[Shackel]

It's streamlined, and made for people who haven't played the PC version. In fact, it's Revolution that got me started on Civ4(which I really enjoy.) Also, Alexander is gay in Revolution. XD

 

[777]

At the moment I prefer Civ Rev most. There are so many things that I like more than previous civs.

Altough I'd like to have something in between of cIV and Rev. Every civ had it's own special units at every era. Slight corruption system, so you don't get 5k gold per turn. And something to prevent city spawn. Worker system is fabulous in Rev, never change that. I don't also like the idea that you can construct all the buildings in every city with no penalties.

E: I forgot to mention that Rev favors too much war mongering. That's not too cool.

 

[TheTopCat]

I don't think you can really compare any of the previous Civs to CivRev... It's designed solely for console gamers and it's repeatedly said that CivRev won't come to PC either.

Sid's already got a huge following in PC gamers (evident enough, looking around the forum), and this is the perfect game for branching out into the console market.

I've been a huge fan of Civ I/II (I actually voted for Civ II in this poll), I wasn't so much for III and never really played IV, but CivRev is a breath of fresh air on my 360... the fact that the right trigger is used to pull up a box of stats on your own Civ rather than to fire a gun is a blissful change in itself!!!

This is why I can't understand how I can read reviews on the likes of here where people are saying "it's not as good as Civ IV." [Edit: This chalk isn't cheese!!!] It was never meant to be! It's meant to get Civ across into a new market!

I just hope this is the first of many console Civ games...

 

[777]

I don't think you can really compare any of the previous Civs to CivRev... It's designed solely for console gamers and it's repeatedly said that CivRev won't come to PC either.

I don't think it's anymore console game than PC game. It's just light version of regular civ. No matter what platform is.

Whole idea in Rev is just so much more different than in "regular" civs.

 

[Dr.Mindbender]

I don't think you can really compare any of the previous Civs to CivRev... It's designed solely for console gamers and it's repeatedly said that CivRev won't come to PC either.

Sid's already got a huge following in PC gamers (evident enough, looking around the forum), and this is the perfect game for branching out into the console market.

I've been a huge fan of Civ I/II (I actually voted for Civ II in this poll), I wasn't so much for III and never really played IV, but CivRev is a breath of fresh air on my 360... the fact that the right trigger is used to pull up a box of stats on your own Civ rather than to fire a gun is a blissful change in itself!!!

This is why I can't understand how I can read reviews on the likes of here where people are saying "it's not as good as Civ IV." [Edit: This chalk isn't cheese!!!] It was never meant to be! It's meant to get Civ across into a new market!

I just hope this is the first of many console Civ games...

If it was meant to get gamers who are specifically only console gamers, then they had failed on attracting them to the PC versions.