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

[NapoleonBlownApart]

Pros.
-Civ on a console.
-Addictive gameplay.
-Potential for downloadable content.
-Shorter online matches that don't take forever.
-Ancient artifacts spice up gameplay.

Cons.
-Too short.
-UUs are the same as base units but with different stats.
-Some Civs don't have UUs (Egypt).
-Can't really choose any game options such as map type and rivals.

 

[CharlieM]

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

This comment makes no sense. Are you saying that Sid "failed" because people who might pick up CivRev (console gamers looking for a bit more strategy and a bit less shoot-em-up then your typical console game) were not previously playing Civ I-II-III-IV?

If your answer is "yes," then .... well, yeah, that's why they developed Civ Rev.... because there are people out there who would never-in-a-million-years buy the PC games, but would pick up the console game. He didn't "fail" ... he just evaluated the market and made a rational decision to go for a new market.

You might want to explain your comment further.