DS Version Impressions and Q&A

[Lucidphoole]

Really, you should focus one city on science and one on gold. Build science related buildings in one (Library), and gold related buildings in another (Market). Later in the game, my cities seem to generate lots of gold even if I don't designate any to gold production.

That is my strategy for late game but early game when I don't have many cities the ability to split the trade across gold and science would be a handy ability.
Late game science cities can generate gold by building markets and banks because of their doubling effect. Apparently the game counts zero gold as one for their multiplying bonuses.

Try manually adjusting your workers. Bottom icon on the right column of the city screen.

I know how to manually adjust workers what I said was as far as I can tell there is no way outside of setting you city to all gold to switch the trade resources your workers collect from science to gold.

 

[bamf226]

The only way I have seen to collect gold is to work a gem resource.

 

[fishlore]

In any given city, all of the trade you're able to generate goes to science or all of the trade goes to gold. Best I can tell you can't split them up in one particular city. Different cities can focus on different types of trade. You may get a few points of the trade type you're not focused on due to bonuses and multipliers.

 

[Lucidphoole]

I'm suprised no playtesters thought of that as a problem. I've played alot of civ players and leaving out the ability to arrange where you trade goes is a big disappointment among many of them, including me.

I understand changing culture to purely building based for balance but why take away our choice of gold and science.

 

[dexters]

its a game design issue not a playtest issue and I have no problem with it.

 

[Bahmo]

Can I upgrade my units? I can't seem to find any way to.

 

[shadowplay]

Normally no, only with Leonardo's Workshop wonder or if you're German and your unit reaches "elite".

 

[OliverFA]

I got civ rev for the DS and xbox and played on game on each yesterday.
I was actually surprised how well the gameplay held up on the little ds. It really is like playing the console version...just with 1995 graphics. Which really are not that bad. I found myself getting sucked in and not even noticing the graphics after the second turn or so.

My major complaint echos the one mentioned above- the AI is all about war. They always want to fight.

If someone is on the fence though with buying this game- if you like Civ at all, this is a suitable portable version.

IMHO the problem is that DS graphics are much better than old 1995 graphics. The same could be say about the interface. The DS version has an ugly interface. And don't tell me it due to DS limitations, because Age of Empires and Advance Wars did it a lot better.

 

[dexters]

It's probably due to cartridge size limitations. 2K sprung for reaosnably sized save feature (5 saves) I'd assume each map is 100k size so a 500k flash rom is one of the largest save chips you can include on the DS.

The downside is though that the visuals/presentation did suffer. The leaderheads are in low color mode (why!) and it would be nice to have some added animations/effects/ or maybe even an intro movie. and of course no Civilopeida.

But that's the problem with 3rd party software on the DS. They're all about maximizing profit and it usually means a trade off somewhere for games like these. 2K games also decided to sell the game as a normal priced software $29.99 instead of some of the bigger budget DS titles which go for as much as $40 (Square-Enix final Fnatasy games)

I don't blame Firaxis though, they've done a banged up job and I realtl really hope we se another game on the DS.

 

[Maquiladora]

IMHO the problem is that DS graphics are much better than old 1995 graphics. The same could be say about the interface. The DS version has an ugly interface. And don't tell me it due to DS limitations, because Age of Empires and Advance Wars did it a lot better.

For a first try it's not bad. The game is quite different to AW or AoK though, so we can't just expect the same graphics from one game in another without knowing the system requirements for each game. I would assume CivRev asks for far more resources than a simple tactical game on a small map like AW for example.

Obviously the graphics do lack polish but they are functional and support the solid game play well enough. If it sells enough perhaps with a sequel we can see what they can do with more time to polish up the game.

 

[OliverFA]

Ok... I understand they cannot place amazing 3D graphics. But don't tell me that Advance Wars or Panzer Tactics DS do not have a ton of options (units, scenarios, campaign, music and movies) and they have simple but decent graphics.

Age of Empires also has a full campaign and a full civilopedia, but just 2 savegame slots.

About save game slots, I would happily go with only 2 or 3 in exchange for a better game. Specially if they really take so much space in the cartridge.

 

[Maquiladora]

For AW at least, they have far greater experience with handhelds and have had much more time to tweak through each game.

Panzer Tactics and AoK aren't great either, both suffer from worse slowdowns than CivRev. But I agree, if removing a couple of save slots will free up space for better graphics then they should do it.

 

[OliverFA]

I am afraid we disagree ;-)

For my Age of Empires is my favourite DS game. The only flaw that I have found is that the AI is not that great, but all the other aspects of the game are excellent, including the "civ-like" feeling.

 

[bamf226]

I don't see why everyone has to be smacking down the visuals. I think the graphics are great, a nice cell shading approach with units that are easy to distinguish. I do find the omission of a civilopedia to be boggling. The lack of that plus a nearly worthless instruction manual will likely deter people from buying a sequel on the DS platform. Had I not played a Civ game before, I would have no clue what I am supposed to do. Even with that background knowledge, I'm having a difficult time adjusting.

 

[dexters]

bamf226 that's all cost constraints, not firaxis' fault. Like I said before somewhere in this forum, 2k spring for a large save feature allowing us to save 5 full maps in the game, that must have gimped the size of the cartridge they could afford for their budget.

DS cards come in 8M, 16MB, 32MB, 64, 128MB, 256MB (MB = megabyte) formats.

Most DS games are 32-64 MB but I'd venture to guess this game is either 8MB or 16MB. It does feel unfinished too. The UI is missing chunks of screens which is present in the console version, like a meter showing when your the next GP will pop.

I love that Firaxis kept the game core unchanged for the DS version so they we can basically be playing the same maps and GOTW as the 360/PS3,but somehow they fell for the same 'handhelds are 2nd class' type crap that I've had to put up with for years. The DS is the most successful gaming platform on this planet right now and it will probably sell alot, it sucks to see financial decisions and late starts sink the chance to get a great Civ experience on a portable.

Don't get me wrong though. I love CivRev for DS, it's a great game. But it could have been better with more polish.

 

[bamf226]

Then I disagree with their decision to have 5 saves. Ax a save and add the civilopedia, a critical necessity of a civ game. Like the game and all, but just wish I had some of that info that is missing from the game and the manual.

 

[dexters]

Iagree, or have both. DS cards, as far as I understand are not expensive to make, not like the old N64 game cartridges.

But they're not 'free' and larger memory sizes cost more. There are so many DS games from 3rd parties that skimped on memory for profitability it makes me sick sometimes. Sad it had to happen to CivRev too.

 

[OliverFA]

bamf226 that's all cost constraints, not firaxis' fault. Like I said before somewhere in this forum, 2k spring for a large save feature allowing us to save 5 full maps in the game, that must have gimped the size of the cartridge they could afford for their budget.

DS cards come in 8M, 16MB, 32MB, 64, 128MB, 256MB (MB = megabyte) formats.

Most DS games are 32-64 MB but I'd venture to guess this game is either 8MB or 16MB. It does feel unfinished too. The UI is missing chunks of screens which is present in the console version, like a meter showing when your the next GP will pop.

How can you tell from the cartridge if it is one format or the other? I am curious about it.

I love that Firaxis kept the game core unchanged for the DS version so they we can basically be playing the same maps and GOTW as the 360/PS3,but somehow they fell for the same 'handhelds are 2nd class' type crap that I've had to put up with for years.

Yes it looks like they believe so. Sid said in the interviews that they were aiming for a simpler game. And problably it is like that in design. But unfortunatelly looks like someone decided it would be not just a simpler game, but a second class game. The civilization franchise certainly does not deserve a second class game.

I think I understand why they didn't make a PSP version. They believed DS players can stand low quality graphics, but not PSP players. Looks like no one told them that DS players also like good graphics! Yes. There is a difference between having super-high-quality graphics and having super-low-quality ones! something in the middle would have worked.

The DS is the most successful gaming platform on this planet right now and it will probably sell alot, it sucks to see financial decisions and late starts sink the chance to get a great Civ experience on a portable.

I agree. DS is the best platform gaming platform right now. Even better than PC. And it means that if you are developing something for DS you have to do it well.

Don't get me wrong though. I love CivRev for DS, it's a great game. But it could have been better with more polish.

I love Civ, but I think that CivRev DS doesn't deserve to be part of the franchise :-(

 

[XxtraLarGe]

I love Civ, but I think that CivRev DS doesn't deserve to be part of the franchise :-(

I think this game would have more properly been labeled "Civ Lite", but I don't think with a name like that it would have sold as well.

 

[dexters]

OliverFA that's a brash statement considering it has the same features and gameplay elements, more or less, as the console versions.

Should all of them not be deserving to be part of the franchise?