This Game Is Way To Short

[mashymashy]

Not being able to continue a game past 2100 is pretty lame.
From CIV, CIV2, CIV3, CIV 4, and CIV Call to Power, this is definately going to be played the least out of all of them, even CIV4 where my laptop had problems with the amount of time before turns, so I could never play a long game.

 

[bonafide11]

In the other Civ games, the game ended at 2050. And I don't get why you want to continue beyond 2100, the point of the game is to WIN and you definitely should have won the game by then. Stop trying to compare the game to the PC version, it's made for the consoles, if you want to play the PC version then stick to the PC!

 

[mashymashy]

JUST because it is a console game, doesn't mean that games are short. Look at the FRANCHISE modes in sporting games. Its not over until my tanks have overrun every single last enemy city.

 

[ydejin]

I agree with bonafide11. One of the points of having CivRev is that it is shorter and more appropriate for multiplayer. If you're happy with Civ4 and don't like the changes, then stick with Civ4. CivRev is its own game with its own advantages and disadvantages -- simpler model (easier for non-expert strategy gamers), faster, easier to play multiplayer on. If you want a longer, more complex game play Civ4.

 

[bonafide11]

Yeah but in franchise mode in sports games you still play a game that last no more than an hour! There's other stuff to do between games but the game itself only lasts at most an hour because people generally don't like to play a console for much longer than that.

 

[dc82]

I don't disagree with the 2100 AD end date, but it would've been nice to be able to continue to game even after a victory. So even if you get the U.N. or World Bank, you're still able to wipe out your enemies post-win.

 

[mashymashy]

I disagree (With bonafide). What you do between the games counts a lot, trading, siging free agents, tinkering with your line up, salary cap management, minor league management, and in the offseason, drafting, contract negotiations, etc. its a very long process.

For example, NCAA, I play the same franchise mode for 11-12 seasons, NHL 2k8, I am on my 4th season (it would be 6-7th, if stupid 2K could issue major bug free games).

In games like NCAA, I play the season games, but have more fun with the offseason recruiting. Same thing in NHL. Managing is a lot more fun - which is what CIV is like, except that you don't actually control the fighting when you battle.

 

[fishlore]

I agree for the most part with bonafide. But at the same time, options are everything. While I personally wouldn't play past the point of vicotry or defeat, I understand that others may enjoy doing that. I don't see how providing that option would break the game or lengthen the development time, but what do I know. I think this game is great, but with a few more options here and there this game could be spectacular.

 

[mashymashy]

I don't disagree with the 2100 AD end date, but it would've been nice to be able to continue to game even after a victory. So even if you get the U.N. or World Bank, you're still able to wipe out your enemies post-win.

Thats my point. I don't care of who wins, so what you build the world bank. For me the games over when the fighting is over. When the game ends at 2100 or when a victory condition is met, I feel very cheated.

 

[shadowplay]

I'm enjoying Civ Rev, but I think it will have the lowest replay value of pretty much any Civ game. The AI lacks diversity in it's strategy and you can't customize maps.

 

[ydejin]

While I personally wouldn't play past the point of vicotry or defeat, I understand that others may enjoy doing that. I don't see how providing that option would break the game or lengthen the development time, but what do I know. I think this game is great, but with a few more options here and there this game could be spectacular.

Yeah, I'm actually a bit surprised the option isn't there. As far as I can recall, every Civ since Civ1 has let you play after the game is officially over. Maybe it's something to do with making things simple for supporting multiplayer?

 

[bonafide11]

I disagree (With bonafide). What you do between the games counts a lot, trading, siging free agents, tinkering with your line up, salary cap management, minor league management, and in the offseason, drafting, contract negotiations, etc. its a very long process.

For example, NCAA, I play the same franchise mode for 11-12 seasons, NHL 2k8, I am on my 4th season (it would be 6-7th, if stupid 2K could issue major bug free games).

In games like NCAA, I play the season games, but have more fun with the offseason recruiting. Same thing in NHL. Managing is a lot more fun - which is what CIV is like, except that you don't actually control the fighting when you battle.

Of course it counts a lot, that's not my point. My point is that if you're looking to play a game, it's not going to last more than an hour. You can do everything you want in between games and yes it's fun and yes it impacts your team, but when you play the actual game, it won't last for more than an hour because people don't have the patience to sit through much longer than that, especially on multiplayer.

 

[mashymashy]

your forgetting that people SAVE the game, and continue it later. You consider every season game as being independant, I take the view that each game are just steps to the overall goal, which is to win the championship. Your looking as the game is a single pea, while I look at the game being the entire string bean.

Its not a matter of accomodating 'shorter' console games, its a matter of allowing the game to go on until you call it quits. You end up being stuck in the modern age, researching future tech 1, 2, 3 etc., who cares. I am not advocating a more deeper version of CIV for the console, having less units, techs, etc. is fine by me. Just don't force my couple of hours of building up what I started to end until I get sick of the current game.

 

[NikNak]

your forgetting that people SAVE the game, and continue it later. You consider every season game as being independant, I take the view that each game are just steps to the overall goal, which is to win the championship. Your looking as the game is a single pea, while I look at the game being the entire string bean.

Its not a matter of accomodating 'shorter' console games, its a matter of allowing the game to go on until you call it quits. You end up being stuck in the modern age, researching future tech 1, 2, 3 etc., who cares. I am not advocating a more deeper version of CIV for the console, having less units, techs, etc. is fine by me. Just don't force my couple of hours of building up what I started to end until I get sick of the current game.

I don't think any game designer has ever been lauded for game design that encouraged the player to "get sick of the current game". I would imagine that competent game design leaves the player wanting more every time.

 

[shadowplay]

Well, I'm still on my first game of civ rev, and I got it yesterday. I mutli-task when civing

 

[JimKazmire]

I agree 100% with MashyMashy. I don't care all that much who "wins" a game (though it is nice to win : ). Where I get the most enjoyment out of the Civ games is playing FAR past the victory conditions, setting up a bullet-proof system of defenses and watching wave after wave of enemy armies commit suicide trying to break through to my cities. I can play a single game for 40+ hours slowly engulfing a map and if, in the end, I conquer the world and have done so with as few losses as possible I consider it a game well played. I see the need to shorten the game for multi-play, but I dont see why they couldn't have incorporated Future Tech 1,2,3 etc into the single player mode to please the Civ addicts like me! I look forward to a patch that addresses this (and hopefully some other places where options are lacking)!

 

[Double Barrel]

I agree with mashymashy, as well. I completely understand what Fireaxis was aiming for, but it's not like console gamers all have OCD. Just look at a game like Oblivion, which literally can absorb 100+ hours of your gaming time to finish.

They should have the 'default' for the console, but just give us options. Many folks playing Civ:Rev are long-time Civ fans (like me, since Civ II!), so it's not too much to ask for a few simple options.

And I agree with shadowplay. This is not a shoddy product, but it will quickly grow boring if it is simply Civ-lite. It's too limited without any custom options.

 

[kingoftroy33]

Well actually the game does go longer than the PC versions. I see what you mean by the game being short. The turns take up more time (or it at least seems like it), the AI is far more aggressive, and everything as a whole is much quicker. While it is still fun to have epic multiple day games when I play on Civ 4 or Civ 3, it is still a fresh of breath air to have a fun Civ experience and be able to finish it in maybe 3 hours at most.

 

[bonafide11]

The reason Civ Revolution is so amazing is because the end of the game is actually EXCITING now! In Civ IV, the game would get so boring by the end that I'd lose all interest in it. You'd know you have the game won but would still have to play hundreds of extra turns just to wrap it up. It was redundant and boring; the end of the game was the least suspenseful of the entire game. Civ Rev is different; in multiplayer especially, you often have exciting endings where the winner may not be determined until the very last turn. I had a great game yesterday against someone who was turns away from winning the space race when I finished the World Bank. That never happened in Civ IV, someone would always be way further ahead and was clearly going to win but it still took them hours to finally win it.

 

[JimKazmire]

"Well actually the game does go longer than the PC versions. I see what you mean by the game being short."

Kingoftroy33... you lost me...

Bonafide:
You do make a good point bonafide. The end could get a little too stretched out, but there were still victory conditions that were ussualy met long before you reached that point, at which time you could just be happy with your victory and start a new game. Removing the time limit in Civ: Rev would not change that. I would also suggest that the new quicker game style would fix the problem you are talking about. After you've had your fun and accomplished whatever it is you set out to do, you could achieve a much quicker domination given the speed of the game and the smaller map sizes. Also you are right in saying that Civ Rev is more exciting because your enemies are ussually right on your heels as far as progress goes. An awesome game, the point is just that letting you play past the time limit (or prior victory) would not change the game AT ALL for those who'd rather quit at victory and would let players who have a different play style do their thing.

I started a Biltzkrieg scenario today... A GREAT game style for those who love combat!! (just a side-note)