Game is terrible

[goofyballer]

You really delved into the complexities of the game of the game there goofy. I guess it also resembles tetris and gyromite in that the game is a video game.

Yeah and you're really delving into the complexities of the game with your trollish replies. You just came here to bash the game and it's obvious nobody gives a . .. .. .. . about your opinion, so why would we actually waste time trying to present reasonable arguments to someone who won't listen?

 

[shadowplay]

I don't see why so many have to pounce on someone just because they don't like the game. People have different opinions. Not everyone can download the demo. If you really don't like him that much, best thing is to ignore him instead of insult his opinion.

 

[Red Viking]

shadow is right, i wont bash people for expressing their opinion, but seriously how can one compare Civ REv to Tetris? Anyway I bought the game and thought it was worth the money, a new look on Civ for sure, but I think of it a just a new flavor of Civ

 

[goofyballer]

They're not pouncing on him because he doesn't like the game, they're pouncing because he's an idiot who just came here to troll. If someone made a thread saying they didn't like it for suchandsuch reasons instead of making ludicrous statements like "lol this game shouldn't even have Civilization in the title it's such a disgrace to the series" then I'm sure people would be more willing to have reasonable discourse on the subject.

 

[brooklynkobe]

That donkey said this game was the same as Civilization I because, get this, you still have a settler that creates cities. I guess I foolishly hoped for a little more sophisticated of a comparison from someone claiming Revolutions is your typical Civilization game.

So yes, in mocking his bovine, torpid, blockheaded analysis, I saracastically said Revolutions must also resemble Tetris in that they are both video games.

And who still uses the word troll? You still in dungens and dragons camp huh?

 

[mrt144]

this is like complaining that a hamburger stand doesnt sell steaks.

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

Good lord people, calm down.

If you don't like the game, don't play it. A forum dedicated to CivRev is probably not the best place to trash it unless you're looking for a flame war. Let's put the nerdrage aside and act Civilized (Get it? Witty, isn't it?). The atmosphere of respect on this website is something that keeps me coming back. I'd hate to see it evaporate over something as petty as videogame arguments.

 

[Copywriter]

Well hell.

I just bought a Geo Metro and was expecting a Ferrari experience.

 

[goofyballer]

And who still uses the word troll? You still in dungens and dragons camp huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Never played D&D, sorry. gtfo now plz.

 

[Smidlee]

In case some here doesn't know , When civ3 first came out some civ2 fans complain about the changes as well as some civ3 fans complain about civ4. I have no doubt when civ5 eventually appears there will be those who will be unhappy with it as well.

 

[Psyringe]

I wasn't looking for an extension of civilization IV, I was looking for an extension of Civilization, which this is not.

Exactly.

Nor was CivRev ever meant to be an extension of Civ4, and nor should it be one, regarding its target market and objective. CivRev is a lightweight Civ game designed to broaden the user base of the franchise and to bring turn-based strategy to a crowd that isn't really used to that kind of gaming. If it works out, then the franchise will be even healthier than before, which means that Firaxis can develop Civ5, as a worthy and complex successor of Civ4, in a calm and confident way, with little pressure. So what's so bad about that?

What makes me wonder, though, is how you managed to miss all the information that was available about CivRev and that clearly stated that this game isn't what you expected it to be. I mean, it seems that you and I like the same things about the Civ franchise, but that's exactly why I'm not particularly interested in CivRev - it's not made for the complexity enthusiasts, it's got another mission to fulfill. I can't understand how you missed all that information and actually managed to buy that game with an expectation that it would be an *extension* of Civ4. Imho, you're blaming the game but there actually isn't anybody to blame but yourself (or whoever gave you these strange ideas about CivRev).

 

[Mr. Keith]

I can't say much in favor of this game. I bought the game on the 360 due entirely because I loved Civ III. I played the demo and didn't like it, but I couldn't help myself and I bought the game anyway.

It simply has failed to capture my imagination.

That's the only way to describe my Civ Rev experience so far.

I am still hoping that it grows on me. I haven't played multiplayer yet, so there is that.

 

[Someuberdude]

I'm loving this game right now. If I want to play a quick, fast game, then I can play Civ Rev. If I want to play a long, complex game, then I'll play civ4. Another thing is, I believe that CivRev is getting newer players into the Civ universe. After playing the demo of Rev, i went out and bought Civ4, BtS and rev.

 

[Thracius]

I agree with you, Mr. Keith. I rented the PS3 version today hoping that it would have much more content than the demo displayed. After playing for a few hours, I can actually say that I found the game to be quite boring! Hopefully, it will grow on me as well.

I understand that Firaxis/2K is trying to grow their franchise into the console segment of the gaming industry, but do any other experienced Civ players feel a little let down?

Just my thoughts...

 

[ydejin]

I understand that Firaxis/2K is trying to grow their franchise into the console segment of the gaming industry, but do any other experienced Civ players feel a little let down?

I'm pretty sure Firaxis announced Civ4: Colonization right before the CivRev launch specifically to reassure PC Civ gamers that they haven't been abandoned. I'm certainly a bit sad to see so much of the industry focused on action games on the consoles instead of deep strategy games on the PC, so I was certainly happy to see the Colonization announcement.

 

[dexters]

In case some here doesn't know , When civ3 first came out some civ2 fans complain about the changes as well as some civ3 fans complain about civ4. I have no doubt when civ5 eventually appears there will be those who will be unhappy with it as well.

Slight different re: civ3/civ4 relationship. Civ4 is basically a version of Civ3. Soren designed and had a huge hand in both games, he did the AI for both. A lot of criticisms from Civ3 fans aimed at Civ4 is that though it plays and feels like Civ3, a lot of the stuff found in Civ3 got cut out of nerfed entirely.

The trading thing is probably my biggest gripe. Trading in Civ4 is extremely restrictive, and instead of making the AI compete or smarter or just better, they 'fixed' a lot of gameplay elements by simply making them unavailable.

I upgraded from Civ2 to 3 just fine. And I'm glad to put Civ4 behind me and move to CivRev which i enjoy tremendously as a casual Civ experience. Civ4 just felt off on its own orbit. That's fine, I enjoy it, just not as much.

 

[ydejin]

Slight different re: civ3/civ4 relationship. Civ4 is basically a version of Civ3. Soren designed and had a huge hand in both games, he did the AI for both. A lot of criticisms from Civ3 fans aimed at Civ4 is that though it plays and feels like Civ3, a lot of the stuff found in Civ3 got cut out of nerfed entirely.

I remember a lot of Civ3 hate when it came out. Particularly there was an intense dislike for the new resources system and a lot of griping about not being able to build units without particular resources. I feel like Civ4 was much better received than Civ3. I personally agree that Civ4 is a much nicer design and has a lot of the Civ3 advances cleaned up and designed in more elegantly. However, I never understood where all the Civ3 resource hate went, since Civ4 had many similar mechanisms and in fact extended resources to cover health and happiness (which I don't recall in Civ3, although it's been a while since I played Civ3).

The trading thing is probably my biggest gripe. Trading in Civ4 is extremely restrictive, and instead of making the AI compete or smarter or just better, they 'fixed' a lot of gameplay elements by simply making them unavailable.

If you mean trading of resources, I don't think they did it because of AI issues. If you look over the CivRev design, they basically cut out as much as possible while still maintaining the core of the Civ concepts. Resources, while elegant and "realistic" and providing a nice strategic element added a lot of complexity and would probably be confusing to knew strategy gamers. For example you can imagine someone not understanding why a particular unit couldn't be built even though they had the tech for it. Also once you add in resources and trading of resources then you need to explain trading networks.

I would say pretty much all the elements cut weren't to make things simpler for the AI, but attempts to simplify the game for new strategy players and console players. I really think they view CivRev as a gentle introduction to Civ for those put off by Civ4's complexity, and a way of drawing more gamers in to the Civ fold. I'm expecting there's going to be a fair number of people who play CivRev and then decide to move up to the big leagues and start playing Civ4. I'm betting that some of them wouldn't have been able to handle the complexity of Civ4 straight from the start (or at least wouldn't have had the patience for it straight-off), but with CivRev experience they'll be able to work up to Civ4.

 

[Mivo]

Someone is afraid of change...

Change? I certainly hope Rev is no indication to where the series is going. I only played the DS version, and well, it's war-centric, with poor AI, and incredibly dumbed down in comparison to the Civ we know. Rev is like a snack. Fun for inbetween, but not a replacement for a proper meal.

Now, I'm not worried. It's a spin-off, not a continuation of the PC series. I however am concerned that Firaxis, like so many other studios, may see their future in the console market, where pirating is less common and the audience larger. Then again, that concern is already set off by the fact that we get Colonization in a few months, so all seems well.

 

[apenpaap]

Though I don't like civrev, I think it's good the game was made. PCphobic people now have their own, extremely simplified, version of civ. As long as Civ 5 won't bear any resemblance to it, the game's okay with me.

 

[Joester]

Gimme a break. It is "the next in the series of Sid Meier Civilization games" and couldn't be worse.

No it's not. It's pretty much Civ4 with some additions and streamlined to not take so damn long.

If it were the next in series it would have been called "Civilization 5" or "Civilization the Next Generation" or "Civilization Next"

It's called Civilization Revolution for a reason, because it is Civilization reborn or revolutionized for (Consoles/Portable Markets.) Quit being such a fanboy.