korossyl
Vajda
So, the number one complaint about CivRev is simplicity. There are some others, about being restricted in game length, map size and makeup, AI behavior, etc. But basically, "the game's too easy/short/simple/not micromanageable/for kids." I understand that it's not CivIV, but it was never meant to be: there's a difference between saying "it's not for me" and "this game's stupid and Sid is stupid for making it and everyone who plays it is stupid for playing it." Well, you're stupid. So there.
First, I've only played the DS version, and despite the game's obvious technical shortcomings (no civlopedia, no movies... and really? the intro screen animation skips because they didn't put in enough frames?), I feel like the game is inherently sort of a handheld game: easy to pick up and put down, simple enough that it doesn't require all your attention every second, etc. But I digress.
What I think is the real problem with CivRev is not substantial, but a failure to accurately communicate the true nature of the game. What I think is: CivRev is nothing else than a remake of Civilization, that is, Civ1.
Consider:
- This is the first game that Sid himself has been at the helm of since Civ1.
- Every game since Civ1 has been increasing in complexity. There are attempts to streamline aspects of micromanagement, but only so that the game's complexity has room to expand elsewhere. This is the first that actually cuts back.
- Sid says, "this is the game I always wanted to make," i.e., "this is the game that I tried to make earlier" -- and remember, he didn't actually himself make Civs2-4.
And also the similarities:
- 2-3 hour game length
- Randomized maps with minimal customization possible
- Set number of civs per game
- Treacherous, warmongering AI
- The POWERgraph and the Game Replay
...all of which had been phased out by Civ2.
So what? These aren't "features," they're shortcomings! Well, maybe: the move to Civ2 was a move toward greater player control, a more in-depth game. Civ2's new features were all meant to make the game more realistic, more immersive, and draw the player in for a longer amount of time. The set game length, lack of customizability, and constant action (warmongering) of Civ1 also imbued the game with a distinct simplicity that Civ2 deliberately (and rightly) did away with. And so on, until we're at the behemoth that Civ4 is.
Not that behemoth's a bad thing; there are many who consider Civ4 to be the pinnacle of the series (Personally, I'd vote for Civ3). But maybe Sid thinks that this particular path of Civilization, while great, has gone as far as it can go, and he wants to try a new direction.
But maybe immersiveness can be achieved by other means than complexity? Ah, now there's a thought! Take back the options ceded to player over time, and get back to the blank slate of Civ1. Now, make the advisors and the foreign leaders both actually talk to the player -- and to each other -- as if we're all in the same room. Let the units get upgrades, so that you care about each one individually -- and then let the player see his beloved units actually do battle against the enemy, rather than just have Unit A move into the same tile as Unit B, and have them both play animation C. Toss in culture, because it was a great idea. Add a plethora of actual and specific historical figures as Great Leaders, so the player cares about his cities. Expand the Civlopedia with historical articles and multimedia. Aaaaand, CivRev achieves an immersiveness, completely divorced from complexity, on a whole new level.
That's what I think. But many, many Civ players have never played CivI, so they can't see the similarities, or appreciate the full arc of the whole series. Moreover, increased complexity over Civ2-4 draws in a number of uniquely mechanical players, who are most interested in gaming the system, "solving" the game as if it were a puzzle. For them, every step toward complexity is good, and every step away is a step backward. So CivRev becomes a game only made for the kiddies/unwashed masses.
The target audience for CivRev is people who enjoyed Civ1, or people who would have enjoyed Civ1. It's really more the Civ2 that never was.
I think.
First, I've only played the DS version, and despite the game's obvious technical shortcomings (no civlopedia, no movies... and really? the intro screen animation skips because they didn't put in enough frames?), I feel like the game is inherently sort of a handheld game: easy to pick up and put down, simple enough that it doesn't require all your attention every second, etc. But I digress.
What I think is the real problem with CivRev is not substantial, but a failure to accurately communicate the true nature of the game. What I think is: CivRev is nothing else than a remake of Civilization, that is, Civ1.
Consider:
- This is the first game that Sid himself has been at the helm of since Civ1.
- Every game since Civ1 has been increasing in complexity. There are attempts to streamline aspects of micromanagement, but only so that the game's complexity has room to expand elsewhere. This is the first that actually cuts back.
- Sid says, "this is the game I always wanted to make," i.e., "this is the game that I tried to make earlier" -- and remember, he didn't actually himself make Civs2-4.
And also the similarities:
- 2-3 hour game length
- Randomized maps with minimal customization possible
- Set number of civs per game
- Treacherous, warmongering AI
- The POWERgraph and the Game Replay
...all of which had been phased out by Civ2.
So what? These aren't "features," they're shortcomings! Well, maybe: the move to Civ2 was a move toward greater player control, a more in-depth game. Civ2's new features were all meant to make the game more realistic, more immersive, and draw the player in for a longer amount of time. The set game length, lack of customizability, and constant action (warmongering) of Civ1 also imbued the game with a distinct simplicity that Civ2 deliberately (and rightly) did away with. And so on, until we're at the behemoth that Civ4 is.
Not that behemoth's a bad thing; there are many who consider Civ4 to be the pinnacle of the series (Personally, I'd vote for Civ3). But maybe Sid thinks that this particular path of Civilization, while great, has gone as far as it can go, and he wants to try a new direction.
But maybe immersiveness can be achieved by other means than complexity? Ah, now there's a thought! Take back the options ceded to player over time, and get back to the blank slate of Civ1. Now, make the advisors and the foreign leaders both actually talk to the player -- and to each other -- as if we're all in the same room. Let the units get upgrades, so that you care about each one individually -- and then let the player see his beloved units actually do battle against the enemy, rather than just have Unit A move into the same tile as Unit B, and have them both play animation C. Toss in culture, because it was a great idea. Add a plethora of actual and specific historical figures as Great Leaders, so the player cares about his cities. Expand the Civlopedia with historical articles and multimedia. Aaaaand, CivRev achieves an immersiveness, completely divorced from complexity, on a whole new level.
That's what I think. But many, many Civ players have never played CivI, so they can't see the similarities, or appreciate the full arc of the whole series. Moreover, increased complexity over Civ2-4 draws in a number of uniquely mechanical players, who are most interested in gaming the system, "solving" the game as if it were a puzzle. For them, every step toward complexity is good, and every step away is a step backward. So CivRev becomes a game only made for the kiddies/unwashed masses.
The target audience for CivRev is people who enjoyed Civ1, or people who would have enjoyed Civ1. It's really more the Civ2 that never was.
I think.
