Revolution feels Real

[Schuesseled]

civ rev is beautiful (if a little cartoony and that jibberish is enough to make me wish to be deaf) but its gameplay falls flat on its face.

> attack and defense value rather than strength, backwards
> smaller maps, quicker play times, not for me

Although I did like the civlopedia, videos!, awesome.

Some things civ rev can teach civ V, but gameplay really aint one of them.

 

[CoolLizy]

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.

Actually, Civ I had pretty good graphics for 1991. Were they cutting edge? No. But they were more than comparable to what else was out there. Civ III's graphics were good as well; hardly "awful" by any means, and I'd argue they still stand up decently even today. The only real ugly game in the main series would be Civ II, but then again you have to keep in mind that Civ II came out when everyone was beginning the migration to Windows 95 and gaming was transitioning from MS-DOS to Windows. Artists didn't seem to know what to do with the extra resolution and programmings were still fighting with the standard Windows interface in the days before DirectX really came into its own. Practically everything looked horridly ugly there for a couple years.

And that's not even taking into account the original Colonization, which I'd argue is one of the best looking 320x200 PC games of all time.

(Granted, this is coming from someone who preferred Episode I of Star Wars to most of the original trilogy, but I digress.)

 

[Tigernose]

No, the way it made it easy to pick up and play was because of the look and feel. I don't want the gameplay to change, I just want it to be supplemented with great visuals, so you don't feel bored when you're figuring out a strategy.

----
I'm not saying Civilization should be all fun, I understand it's a thinking game, but it should be a fun thinking game where you actually want to think of a strategy.

civ rev is beautiful (if a little cartoony and that jibberish is enough to make me wish to be deaf) but its gameplay falls flat on its face.

> attack and defense value rather than strength, backwards
> smaller maps, quicker play times, not for me

Although I did like the civlopedia, videos!, awesome.

Some things civ rev can teach civ V, but gameplay really aint one of them.

That's what I'm trying to say.

And no, the gibberish isn't actually fun to hear, but we hear actual language now.

One of the things I did like about the characters, though, were the detailed leaders and their movements. Yes they looked cartoony, but they looked a helluva lot better (and that was on consoles). All CiV needed to do was to translate the better graphics into a realistic view, and I still think they failed with detail.

 

[Tylerryan79]

Well I like that new interview where Shafer says that Civ Rev is for consoles, and Civ V is a big sloppy kiss/love letter to the Pc civ fans. That quote right there made me smile, and made me that much more excited.

You think the new leaders aren't detailed?? Did you watch those videos HD? The look like real people this time around. A lot of them they are still working on, and took down, after showing us the videos. I think these will be the most detailed leaders yet.

 

[ukcivfan]

I played Civ Rev once and HATED IT!

I really really hope that the mods of Civ 5 allow the game to become far far more complex than it will be with vanilla

 

[Schuesseled]

No, the way it made it easy to pick up and play was because of the look and feel. I don't want the gameplay to change, I just want it to be supplemented with great visuals, so you don't feel bored when you're figuring out a strategy.

----
I'm not saying Civilization should be all fun, I understand it's a thinking game, but it should be a fun thinking game where you actually want to think of a strategy.



That's what I'm trying to say.

And no, the gibberish isn't actually fun to hear, but we hear actual language now.

One of the things I did like about the characters, though, were the detailed leaders and their movements. Yes they looked cartoony, but they looked a helluva lot better (and that was on consoles). All CiV needed to do was to translate the better graphics into a realistic view, and I still think they failed with detail.

they've done a much better job of making the game look realisitic than civ rev did.

 

[Ddude97]

I played Civ Rev 3 times (Second 2 because can you really judge something first time round?)
and I also hated it all 3 times.

 

[timtofly]

Since I have not seen the "console" version, I can only compare with the DS version. Having played the PC versions for 8,000 hours on a screen larger than 15 inches, looking at the game in a 2 inch window really ruined it for me. Now if they (in V) could show the battles scenes on a different screen.. or a pop up window with CGI Reality.

I prefer the TOT graphics over any just because they seem to portray a world map the best. While the graphics look great in IV and V, you would have to have a very huge map to get the same perspective.

Hopefully what they have shown us are just mockups, and the maps will be really spectacullar.

 

[Schuesseled]

I would really like a battle isle type of pop up movie.

 

[kaltorak]

CivRev is like 1/10 of civ4

 

[Jimdigriz]

Ive played Civ since Civ 1 on the Amiga many moons ago. My dad is the same and my brother has always liked the look of Civ but never actually played it.

Anyway, I got my dad and brother Civ Rev on the Xbox 360 last Xmas (I hadnt played Civ Rev myself at this point). A few weeks later I asked them what it was like. My dad (civ veteran like me) said it was nice-looking and all but he just couldnt get on with it as it was too limited and too "kiddie-ish" and gave up after a while (by the way he loves Modern Warfare 2 and Birds of Prey on the 360 and Civ 4 on the PC of course!). My brother said it was not bad but he knew that he was essentially playing a very
"dumbed-down" version of "real civ" and had also given up on it. Both mentioned it was way too easy.

My PC was knackered for a week recently so I gave Civ Rev on my 360 a go. It was quite addictive and kept me occupied for a couple of hours. Then I gave up. Too frustrating! Far too easy, far too limited, far too "fast" and far too, for want of a better word, dumb!

I think its possibly good as an introduction to turn based strategy games but nothing much more than that. Id much rather play Civ II for instance than Civ Rev!

Oh yes just remembered - the constant jibberish from the advisors was very annoying! That might have been the final nail in the coffin actually.

 

[Naokaukodem]

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.

I don't think Rev can be qualified by "more realistic", because it is very, very abstracted just like IV was. I don't think the word "realistic" fits to those games. However, I think that "fun" can fit, although CivRev was too badly made regarfull of the difficulty levels. On the 2 first, you simply can't loose when you are a Civ experienced player, and the 2 last make you being at war with every civ because of their insane and stupid demands that end up to war anyway. In those last two difficulty levels, CivRev is simply unplayable. Now there's the average difficulty level, but, King IIRC, but it is kinda random and anyway you end up being at war with everyone and win a conquest victory if you play rightfully.