This game SUCKS

[Boomsie]

New here and...
I have Civ2: Multiplayer Gold and CivRev... I suck at Civ2, and am pretty good at CivRev...
I enjoy both a lot, but I prefer CivRev cause I don't have to manage whether my people are happy or if they'll starve and stuff, and then there's a bunch of stuff you gotta look after n Civ2, I mean, it's like having total management over your empire, and I'm not exactly too good at managing full empires like that. Basically, it's a good game if you don't want too much responsibility...

Civ2 is fun for me, but I suck complete ass at it... I can't even beat it on warlord, and I barely pass on Chieftain. I barely survive let alone win on Prince Level.
On Civrev, I clear King too easy, and emperor is only a bit harder. Deity tho... I don't know, it beats me quickly.
But yea, the game only sucks if you're a diehard fan of the civ franchise. If you're casual, suck, or are new to it, the game will be fun.

And also... The game isn't racist if every race in it is stereotyped, it'd be racist if say, the Americans were shown as normal people, or the romans were shown as high and mighty (without being humorous) and the rest were simply huge stereotypes, or if they basically made Civ A look, be, and act awesome/normal while Civs B-Z looked and acted like racist stereotypes. And of course they'd give them an accent, it'd only be fitting. Could you see Mao talking like a redneck and that being called normal?

 

[Endwar 005]

We've got a casualty! Someone call the whaam-bulance!

Needs more aaaaa's.

Did that actually come from within the depths of Bungie, or is it just cooincidentally used on the forums there alot?

 

[Ecofarm]

... corny animated characters and design, which I found childish and silly compared to the realistic graphics and design I am used to with the computer versions.

Scene: Friends come over for a few drinks and to watch a football game. You're like "yea, I got the new civ game for xbox. It's pretty lame but check it out... You play a little while and discover writing first, thus receiving a free spy. You move the spy. Well, if your friends do not beat you for playing a game meant for 10 year olds, they aren't real friends. I was embarrassed by the spy sound and I was alone.

I found almost all the "jokes" and attempts at humor in the game to be annoying, stupid, and unfunny. The sense of "whimsy" that permeates the whole misguided project is off-putting and, well, no other word for it, dumb.

Like a kid turning in a paper who really does not care.

The Advisors look imbecilic and speak in a very grating and annoying "Civ-Glish" gibberish that borders on the offensive.

It offends me as a semi-intelligent person. Perhaps if I was a drooling idiot, I would want to see it again and again.

The racial stereotyping in the different nations...esp. the pygmy ("spear-chuckers") barbarian races, coupled with Civ-Glish...dangerously totters close to being racially insensitive,

I agree.

gibberish versions of their own language bastardized by the imaginations of the game's creators at some misguided attempt at "humor".

I hear this might be a reference to sims, where they have gibberish. I can understand for that game, where millions of conversations are simulated, that using gibberish is a technical necessity (who's going to write a million conversations for sims?). But in civ, how is this necessary? Is it a joke? If someone talks at me like that IRL (and it's not just a language I don't recognize, but actual gibberish) I'll smack them. It really pisses me off.

The advisors will litter the screen with silly buffoonish drivel as you play sub-par strategy on poorly designed maps with goofy looking units which shall drive you to distraction and annoyance.

Sad but true.

Redeeming qualities...

To bring new civ players, but the gamespy lobby is not exactly peaking. At least now I know that it is not because of competition with civrev, as any half-brained civ player would never convert to the "civ for idiots" version of the game.

Maybe kids will like it and they will play civ instead of some gruesome shooter...

I'm glad I only played it at a friend's house for a few days. Consoles suck.

+1 waaambulance, plz

 

[Smirk]

My 5 year old did like the spy sound. But this game as with most Civ games I turn off most sound and music so it doesnt bother me.
The gibberish I put down to volumn 0 in Options after about 5 seconds, and I agree its lame. Its the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in any game. I only wish I could turn the advisors off altogether, they block the very information text they are giibbering, and their loading strategy sucks, it always halts the game while they load. And why on earth would I want to look at what is basically an ugly women (domestic advisor) with multiple chins, sexist or not the computer animation has no redeeming qualities but their visual presence so I would replace her.

 

[PrinceofEggplant]

I love CIV4 but find myself playing this game more since I suck so bad at Civ4 lol.

 

[PrinceofEggplant]

Since the first place many will go before they purchase a game is a forum which discusses a game, I think it is a good idea for those who dislike a game to post the reasons for their dislike. There are other places where people praise the game. Let the readers decide whether they want to throw $60 into a game or not based upon what they read about the game. Why quash dissent?

I personally too agree this game isn't anywhere as close to being as good as Civ4 but I play this game now because I'm A. Lazy and B. Suck at civ4 even though a victory in civ4 is more rewarding. All praise and demerits deserve to be posted. I don't get any money from criticizing or lauding this game. If anything, I hope it may help a single person in a purchase or if they pirate the game at least in their time. For the record, I have bought civ4 and civ rev for ps3 and pc.

 

[PrinceofEggplant]

I am a first time Civ player, CivRev being my introduction to the series. Since I haven't played prior installments of the series I guess I am not as disappointed as many of you seem to be. For me the game is really interesting, however it does also have some annoying parts. I would also like to try the PC or Mac version to get a sense of what it is you guys feel you are missing in CivRev.

To the guy complaining about racial stereotypes... get a grip.

This is why this game was made. For people who have no introduction into the civ series or who MAY (keyword may) not know a whole bunch about computers or are kids. I will continue to play Rev until I feel confident enough to take on the real civ 4 challenges.

 

[Boomsie]

I love CIV4 but find myself playing this game more since I suck so bad at Civ4 lol.

That's me, I'm horrible at Civ2, I like it, but suck at it, so instead I play CivRev. Altho, recently, I cleared Chieftain. Yay me =]

 

[alamo]

This is disappointing. I was hoping there was some actual use of action in the game.

Civ4 wears thin after awhile because you have to premeditate everything, especially war.
It would be nice if there was some tactical aspect, instead of a million little strategic steps that cannot be corrected when you get suprised 10 turns later.

Checklist for war includes: build a huge army, balance unit types, scope out the enemy deployments, plan your stack advancements, prepare naval and air forces, secure alliances, switch civics for ww, hoard cash for upgrades or rush, set up spy-net to catch sabateurs, and have a nuke first-strike ready if necessary. After all that, conducting the war is either boring or a rebuke for your lack of planning.

 

[Shackel]

errr... so on the other extreme end, it's ok for game magazines reviews to ALWAYS say good things about games because their advertisers paid them to do so?!?

you guys are starting to sound too much like the nationalism civic.

I'm putting that in the 1000 clues you play Civ too much thread.

It's also fail that there is only ONE nuke. ONE? There were TWO in WWII!

I really don't like CivRev, and I transferred from it to Civ4. Much better.

 

[LordGek]

I'm a long time Civ PC player (although not a very good one, admittedly) and am having fun with the game so far.

While it is Civ Lite (is there a term for even LESS than Lite?) there are a few clever innovations here via the way the different Civs are handled (not unique units but unique rule tweaks rolled out slowly over the eras), artifacts, and the scenarios (almost all random map games with clever rule tweaks to make it a very different experience from the standard game).

 

[dio3d]

I'm computer-literate, not a kid, a decent gamer, and STILL enjoy CivRev. It is my first foray into the Civilization franchise, so perhaps that's why I'm not as jaded as a number of Civ4 ---> CivRev players seem to be.

If you prefer Civ4, that's great, but why harp on those who enjoy the relatively immediate satisfaction brought about by the conclusion of a two hour CivRev game as opposed to a multi-day Civ4 game? Nuance and attention to details aren't always a good thing.