Revolution feels Real

[Tigernose]

Even though it was way less detailed and hardcore, Revolution felt and looked way more realistic. I had so much more fun playing Revolution than IV for some reason, it was just easy to pick up and play, yet felt immersive with great graphics. I mean that was on consoles. Why can't they replicate that on PC when PC has better graphics! V looks worse than Rev in some respects.

For me, Rev gameplay wise was worse, but was more fun. And for me it's about the fun and immersion than the hard thinking.

But that's just my opinion, and I'm writing this very quickly and simply because it was a thought that popped into my head. I wish I could elaborate and be more accurate, but I can't at the moment.

 

[Mercade]

Wrong forum? I've got no clue what this OP tries to say.

 

[Tylerryan79]

The color scheme of rev looked really..... Neon. I've only seen picks. Civ iv vanilla wasn't anything special, but after blue marble and some other mods it looked great. V is shaping up to look good IMO, and everything we have seen so far isn't finished product. I don't want a civ rev look though, from what I've seen it looks real cartoony.

 

[mechaerik]

I think he's saying Civ5 should be like CivRev.

EDIT: Xpost, talking to Mercade.

 

[Davor]

This is the correct forum. See how he says V looks worse than Revolution. This is his opinion and he could be right. He also can be wrong.

Civ V is not out yet so we can't say for shure. I do agree as of right now, Revolution does look prettier a bit than the first screen shots that we have seen at a quick glance. But to be fair, I have been playing Revolution alot and taking a quick glance Civ V does look bad. But if you take the time to look at Civ V, it is beautiful. It's different, something we will get use to.

Don't forget OP Revolution didn't look so good at quick glance either, but once getting use to, it is a good game.

We just have to give Civ V some time before we can compare. You can't compare a game you have played to a game that is not even out yet. Once the game is out, then we can compare.

 

[Tylerryan79]

Civ rev was built using the same engine? as they used for civ iv. After looking at rev I see a lot of similarities. As for one looking better than another, it all depends on ones point of view, the pc they are running it on, and the moniter. Even if the game doesn't look good it still can be fun to play.

 

[Davor]

I got to say though, the more I look, the better and better Civ V looks graphicaly. But I want to coment, I don't really care about graphics. I don't want OH MY GOD yes beautiful graphics. I want game play. So I hope Civ V has great game play.

I still play Call 2 Power 2, because I find the game play (with the Apolyton patch) so enjoyable. Yes Civ IV had better graphics but I thought the game play was better in CtP2.

But to each our own. We all have our own opnions.

 

[Tigernose]

Yes that's what I'm trying to say, in response to the post on the main page about Rev.

 

[Tigernose]

This is the correct forum. See how he says V looks worse than Revolution. This is his opinion and he could be right. He also can be wrong.

Civ V is not out yet so we can't say for shure. I do agree as of right now, Revolution does look prettier a bit than the first screen shots that we have seen at a quick glance. But to be fair, I have been playing Revolution alot and taking a quick glance Civ V does look bad. But if you take the time to look at Civ V, it is beautiful. It's different, something we will get use to.

Don't forget OP Revolution didn't look so good at quick glance either, but once getting use to, it is a good game.

We just have to give Civ V some time before we can compare. You can't compare a game you have played to a game that is not even out yet. Once the game is out, then we can compare.

I totally agree. Thanks for elaborating what I was trying to say.

 

[Tigernose]

Civ rev was built using the same engine? as they used for civ iv. After looking at rev I see a lot of similarities. As for one looking better than another, it all depends on ones point of view, the pc they are running it on, and the moniter. Even if the game doesn't look good it still can be fun to play.

This is the thing though, Revolution was more fun for me.

 

[Mango Elephant]

I prefered Revolution to IV too, and I had it on the DS. I liked civ 3 better than both of them, though. I think I just like 2D graphics better, thats why the Strategy View is the best news about CivV for me.

 

[Tylerryan79]

This is the thing though, Revolution was more fun for me.

Having never played it, I couldn't say. If it's anything like civ rev for the iPhone, then I wouldn't like it. I just read a review at gamespot and it is definetly geared to consoles, which is great, but seems to have some stuff left out. I don't own any consoles, so I'm stuck with what I can get, and I'm fine with it. Chances are if you like rev over iv then you will still like V. They have said it's even more user friendly. Chances are if you like IV over rev, you'll like V, because the depth is still there if you want it. Sounds to me you can take control of everything, or only certain aspects you like, and leave the rest on auto pilot without any worries of loosing the gameplay experiance. Civ Iv had a lot of that, but it seems it will be more obvious or simple, for lack of a better word.

 

[Davor]

I prefered Revolution to IV too, and I had it on the DS. I liked civ 3 better than both of them, though. I think I just like 2D graphics better, thats why the Strategy View is the best news about CivV for me.

I just have read that Civ V can be played like this in 2D. We have the option to play the game flat, or a hex board like setting. I believe this is done if your computer can't handle the 3D mode and it will take less resources for the PC to run.

It will be intersting. I wonder if this is done like how the Original Civilization Board Game was.

 

[Tylerryan79]

Hopefully you'll be able to turn the strategy view on before you start playing, it would suck if your pc was unable to even load the map, and your unable to toggle it on.

 

[12agnar0k]

nah civ rev was not realistic, it was cartoony and simplified, It wasnt a bad game, but it wasnt as depth filled as the other civs and as complex as civ5 will be. They have took the idea's behind CivRev's "simplifed UI" theme, so that civ5 will not less complicated without actually taking away any depth, simply by removing details you dont need till you need them.

 

[PieceOfMind]

It might be because I played it on the DS, but civrev definitely did not look or feel more realistic. It also posed no challenge. After playing through one game and then reading the manual, the next was a Deity win.

The gibberish they speak in diplomacy is a feature that by itself completely kills any feeling of it being realistic.

Compared to other console games in the same genre (on the DS at least, Advance Wars games are still far superior to civ rev), civ might look respectable, but to civ4 and probably civ5, civ rev is a waste of time. The only people I'd even think about recommending it (civ rev) to would be people completely new to the series.

 

[Carver]

Even though it was way less detailed and hardcore, Revolution felt and looked way more realistic. I had so much more fun playing Revolution than IV for some reason, it was just easy to pick up and play, yet felt immersive with great graphics. I mean that was on consoles. Why can't they replicate that on PC when PC has better graphics! V looks worse than Rev in some respects.

For me, Rev gameplay wise was worse, but was more fun. And for me it's about the fun and immersion than the hard thinking.

But that's just my opinion, and I'm writing this very quickly and simply because it was a thought that popped into my head. I wish I could elaborate and be more accurate, but I can't at the moment.

Kids these days.

The bolded part is exactly what Civ SHOULD NOT BE!

Civ is about thinking and good gameplay; this involves a learning curve. The graphics have always been a minor factor in Civ.

Civ 4 BTS remains the apex of 4x turn-based strategy gaming.

 

[CoolLizy]

The bolded part is exactly what Civ SHOULD NOT BE!

Actually, I'd argue that it's what the Civ series has been from the beginning (with the possible exception of CivII's graphics). Really, it's pretty easy to get into a game of Civ; that's why it's so addictive.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, I'd argue that it's what the Civ series has been from the beginning (with the possible exception of CivII's graphics). Really, it's pretty easy to get into a game of Civ; that's why it's so addictive.

Are we talking about the same game series? Civ1, Civ2 & Civ3 all had really *awful* graphics-but we didn't care because the game-play was so much FUN-& the game had massive re playability. Civ4 was the first in the series to have any really *decent* graphics, but even that-I felt-didn't come at the expense of good game-play. I certainly hope that Civ5 will continue in this vein-nice to look at, but with game-play that far surpasses the graphics. Its a bit like movies these days. Star Wars IV to VI might not have *looked* amazing, but the story was far more engaging than the crappy-but visually spectacular-Star Wars I to III.

Aussie.

 

[Tee Kay]

You young'ins and your false idols (CivRev) worshipping.