Civ 4 for the PS3

[binhthuy71]

Seriously, I think that there's a difference between console gamers and strat sim players. Neither is "better" in my opinion. It's more of a difference in the gaming experience. Most console games are fast-paced, immersive and require a lot of reflexes. Almost all strat sims are slow-paced, immersive and require a lot of pondering. The pace of strat sims is completely the opposite of most console games. Most console games require no micromanagement, most strat sims require a lot of it.

I've spent many hours on everything from Mario Brothers to Tekken to Scarface - they're excellent. I've also spent tons of hours on Master of Magic to Age of... and every Civ from the first release - they're excellent too. So I don't have any platform bias, just a feeling that consoles and strat sims are two very different worlds.

I would note in passing that Microsoft never ported any of its Age of... games to the XBox. If M$ doesn't think that it'll make money for them then it probably won't for anyone else.

 

[SG-17]

i would play it if it ever came out for the PS3 (as soon as i can get a ps3). and since it is a comp with internet, we could dl mods, units, etc. to play.
and in the consoles sold race, the 360 should be disqualified because it was out a year earlier and was super buggy.

 

[azzaman333]

i would play it if it ever came out for the PS3 (as soon as i can get a ps3). and since it is a comp with internet, we could dl mods, units, etc. to play.
and in the consoles sold race, the 360 should be disqualified because it was out a year earlier and was super buggy.

So, the Wii wins?

 

[Rule Brittania]

ye but i'd much rather be a sony fanboy than bein a microsoft fanboy with their crock of crap Xbox360

 

[Rule Brittania]

and anyone that thinks the Wii is better than the PS3 then they need to be carted off to an insane asylum because the graphics on the wii are rubbish the games are gimiky and childish. the only ppl hu shud buy it are little kids hu's parents won't pay the Xbox360's and PS3's price tag and 21-25 year old women hu play it wit their "girlfreinds" wen they r completly pissed

 

[spammikone]

If you ask me, Civ 4 looks like it was developed for consoles.

 

[Strato]

For an epic game such as Civ IV, I can not see it being ported across to a console. For a start, too much reading of text on a screen that can be metres away will cause excessive eye strain. Couple that with a need for useful peripheral devices. Also, it is not action by the milisecond, so having friends around watching a TV screen that appears to be doing nothing doesn't really serve as entertainment value. No, that sort of domain of showing off to friends is good with those games requiring manual skill, not thinking skill. And finally, there would need further work to port it across to the console system, which has to tie in with:
1. other projects planned by Firaxis
2. Hardware specifications of the PS3 (or other console for that matter).

And finally, lets face it, porting games from one system to another is a hit and miss affair. I think there have been some that have worked, but there were a lot that failed.

On a quick side note too: Rule Brittania, emotive arguments serve no purpose other than to demonstrate personal opinion which may be considered incorrect/biased/ridiculous from other people's viewpoint. Rather than bashing the other systems on the market, be aware that they are selling, in fact selling quite well. They are indeed centred toward their niche target groups if you will, but there is no doubt people like to sit down and be entertained by them. It's not like there are games buried in the middle of the desert because no one wanted to buy one. Of course, it would be pretty funny if someone ported E.T to the PS3 or X-Box. Heh, E.T 3D, still as lame as ever...

That said, I fail to see Civ IV being ported (albeit sucessfully if anything) because the niche market for turn based strategy games is on the PC system. Worse is the RTS genre, if they go to the console market, but that's life.

 

[Rule Brittania]

Also, it is not action by the milisecond, so having friends around watching a TV screen that appears to be doing nothing doesn't really serve as entertainment value. No, that sort of domain of showing off to friends is good with those games requiring manual skill, not thinking skill.

Who said you HAVE to have a friend with you watchin you, which i have noticed that watching anyone play any sort of game while you just sit and watch is boring so it nothing new, hence the "can i have a go now" situation and you can always just move closer to the TV if you are having trouble reading the text

 

[The Lance]

I do my best to totally avoid the dork wars; mac vs. pc, ps vs xbox vs nintendo. They just seem so absurd to me.
That being said, I think it should be on the PS3 because I think people should have the choice to play the games they want to play how they want to play them.

 

[Mikau_Schekzen]

Who said you HAVE to have a friend with you watchin you, which i have noticed that watching anyone play any sort of game while you just sit and watch is boring so it nothing new, hence the "can i have a go now" situation and you can always just move closer to the TV if you are having trouble reading the text

I recently did a test on my school on which gaming platforms they favor(because of a school project that might just get me in the game industry later). It seems that the lower classes(thus being 'dumber') favor the Sony consoles most, and the higher classes(thus being 'smarter') favor the PC most. And now here you are, proving that theory right. PS# gamers are pretty darn stupid. Heheh!

 

[azzaman333]

and anyone that thinks the Wii is better than the PS3 then they need to be carted off to an insane asylum because the graphics on the wii are rubbish the games are gimiky and childish. the only ppl hu shud buy it are little kids hu's parents won't pay the Xbox360's and PS3's price tag and 21-25 year old women hu play it wit their "girlfreinds" wen they r completly pissed

The Wii is a much better console than you give it credit for. If you took off your sony-fanboy-goggles and looked at all the consoles with an unbiased view, the Wii and the X-Box 360 have sold much better than the PS3. $1000AU for a console is rediculous, and the way people are buying is proving that.

 

[Nylan]

Nobody will "win" this "war" because that's just not how things go down historically. As I recall Nintendo never got a monopoly on the gaming market, and there never will be one. too much competition

Also, those statistics are off because the 360 has been around a lot longer than the other two and has had time for great games to develop (as I recall their launch titles were just as if not more pathetic than the PS3). Furthermore, the PS3 did not have (possibly still does not) a lot of units out for purchase

until you can avoid being a fanboy, I suggest you keep from accusing others of such

 

[azzaman333]

Nobody will "win" this "war" because that's just not how things go down

Also, those statistics are off because the 360 has been around a lot longer than the other two and has had time for great games to develop (as I recall their launch titles were just as if not more pathetic than the PS3). Furthermore, the PS3 did not have (possibly still does not) a lot of units out for purchase

until you can avoid being a fanboy, I suggest you keep from accusing others of such

I know they are out of whack, but up until the horrible PS3 I was for Sony. I'm not spending $1000AU for something which is marginally better graphically (from what I've heard) than the X-Box 360, at roughly $600AU. And I don't really care too much about graphics, which is why I bought a Wii for $400AU.

 

[Großstadt]

I dont think it should, mainly because i prefer games be on the computer.
And i won`t be getting a PS3 anytime soon.

 

[Nylan]

I know they are out of whack, but up until the horrible PS3 I was for Sony. I'm not spending $1000AU for something which is marginally better graphically (from what I've heard) than the X-Box 360, at roughly $600AU. And I don't really care too much about graphics, which is why I bought a Wii for $400AU.

A lot of that comes from difficulties with development kits, they will get better

but I do see your point

 

[Mercenary82]

Civ2 worked out ok on ps2, I don't see why it wouldn't work out on Ps3.
Most people probably won't play it any time soon though, the Ps3's $750 price tag is a hard sell.

 

[Atol]

Civ 4 a memory Hog. It not a high end Grapics. The one thing ps3 lacks is Cache and memory. The only way it would really work is the hard drive had virtual ram.

 

[Rule Brittania]

The Wii is a much better console than you give it credit for. If you took off your sony-fanboy-goggles and looked at all the consoles with an unbiased view, the Wii and the X-Box 360 have sold much better than the PS3. $1000AU for a console is rediculous, and the way people are buying is proving that.

No. It really isn't any better than i give it credit for, putting my liking of the PS3 aside for the second, and i AM approaching this from (IMO) a non-fanboy way. but the Wii is really just a gimik. wow it has a motion sensor controller but it has hardly anything to back that up. Its games have are just childish (Example: that Wii sports with that rubbish tennis thing), their graphics are backwards and personaly i would not pay £170 ($340) for it,(now bringing my liking of the PS3 back into the equation i have this to say) i would much rather pay £430 ($860) more and go for the PS3 becuase its like 8x more powerful, its games aren't great rite now but it has huge potential, it has a blue-ray player. IMO it is a great peice of kit and is priced accordingly and so too is the Xbox360 (which is why i'm getting that as well) but i wouldn't pay any more than £50 ($100) for the Wii.

 

[GFletch]

I think it's a little early in the whole PS3/360 battle. The "consoles sold" diagram someone put up early, as has been pointed out is WAAAY skewed, because the 360 is on "second gen" games for their system, whereas the PS3 is only on initial release.

Yes, the price is high, and people are complaining about the price being so high (due to the Blu-Ray Drive), but I remember the EXACT same arguments when the PS2 came out and they inserted a DVD drive into it ($300 was too high for a console game, no one will buy it to watch movies, DVDs aren't main market, less expensive alternatives, a game system that's already out with a group of games (Dreamcast), and we all know how that went. Time will tell.

Blu-Ray is very clearly winning the battle against HD-DVD (Blu-Ray has 6 studios that are exclusive, including Disney, HD-DVD has one).

As for Civ on the PS3, I don't think it'll work. The sales for Civ2 for PS2 wasn't there, which is why they never made Civ3 for the console. The core group of people who play Civ are PC gamers, and a surprisingly large number of PC gamers who play these kind of games are not active in consoles.

There's room for good strategy games for consoles, to be sure, but Civ is, and should remain a PC game.

 

[Arminius]

I own a 360. My roommate owns a 360 and a Wii. We bought a PS3 together. If you care to remember 360's launch wasn't very good. In fact, neither was XBOX or PS2's launch. Why would you expect the PS3 to have an amazing launch? Because the Wii did? That's absurd; the Wii is pretty much nearing the height of its limits. The PS3 (and the 360) has tons of potential yet to be harnessed. You'll see the market shares even out once games like Metal Gear hit for the PS3. However, it is up to Sony to keep the PS3 competitive with the 360 until the great games come. I would advise them to drop the price in May (graduation presents!!!).

As for CIV on a next-gen, I would vote Wii. You could make a few changes in the graphics and allow for much larger writing. Unfortunately, I don't think the Wii could run CIV.