This game sucks!!

[rabidveggie]

I'm sure I'd enjoy the multiplayer, I do when it works for the first 40 minutes of the game, it just does not work for too many people.

 

[BOSS NASTi]

Civ Revolutions is by far the most unaccurate and frustrating nonsense I have ever played. That is really saying a lot considering I have been playing since the introduction of Civ I for the IBM running on an old 486 IBM PC. Since when can you take a city under a Democracy with a higher cultural value than most capitals in the game with a great person. Not to mention all the errors and miscues that have slowed any really mutiplayer function. How disappointing for a Civ junky to endour such a losy game for the console. Don't even get me started on Nukes, WTH?

Moderator Action: Inappropriate language removed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Justicex]

I like it. But having played the pc versions first, I do feel it was a little too "dumbed down for console players". I mean, I got a domination victory by 1600 AD and I know I screwed up. I should have gotten it faster than that. It's fun, it's fast, it's entertaining like a console game needs to be.

The AI just gets cranky cuz they know they're about to get pwned

 

[KingDerfliw]

The game is not like PC civ but its not meant to be... the aggressive AI sucks at first, but it teaches you to build good defenses, plus the AI is not that threatening, they have no idea how to orchestrate a good attack. So at first you might feel beat down but once you get used to it you just play and it probably better prepares you for Multiplayer where everyone is going to attack you, and most of them are a lot smarter than the AI. I like the game because it is a civ game and they managed to make it faster and more streamlined (I don't always have 12-16 hours to invest; and when I do I'll play civ4).

Now I had my first Multiplayer experience yesterday, and it was not so great... The gameplay was fine but it was very slow (on 360). And when you have a lot of cities and units to look after it makes it very difficult to finish your turn before it automatically finishes it for you... but again this was my first experience and it will probably get better after I adjust my strategies to cope with these problems... all in all I think they did a decent job. It could have been better, but the game is still fun.

 

[KingDerfliw]

As far as the AI goes, Sid Meier said in an interview by Apolyton.net, that they designed the AI to be aggressive and annoying on purpose, so that the players would get more satisfaction from beating them in the end. Kind of like getting revenge in high school on an elementary school bully. It kind of makes sense....

 

[Aleenik]

I see much Bias due to the OP...He played Civ on PC
That is all I needed to know
Civ Rev is ment to be different then the PC versions to accomodate Casual Gamers on Consoles while trying to hold the 1 more turn feel
Simply put, if you are a PC gamer to begin with, chances are youll like the PC versions more then the console casual version

 

[Randomrandy]

I've been playing since civ 3. I play civ 4 now and I also think rev sucks. Rev wasn't designed for old civ players it was designed for new civ players. With that in mind it serves it's purpose. What I don't like is how simple it is. There are too few options in my opinion. The animations and graphics are good though, and I still play it once in a wile. I was seriously disappointed by the lack of a hotseat mode. So when I say it sucks I mean it sucks to me. It's still at least worth a try.

 

[VirtualMark]

To be honest, i am disappointed with civ rev for a number of reasons. Firstly, the one player game is very shallow. I've had my tanks vs archers a few times, which would never happen. I've lost bombers to pikemen(WTH, how would a pikeman kill an aeroplane?), and i've beaten the game on deity. I have never beaten civ 4 on even emperor, i'm currently trying to beat monarch regularly. So as far as the one player on civ rev goes, i had beaten it and fully explored all options within a few days. There are no options for a custom game type, which is also disappointing.

I'd also like to be able to turn off the silly animations, and shut the stupid advisors up. It annoys me that they don't speak a proper language, they talk like idiots. To me this says that sid meier wanted to cut corners and didn't want to spend out money on voice actors. I am not a 5 year old child, i don't want to hear the same stupid nonsense phrases over and over again. The fmv advisors from civ 2 were better. And it annoys me running out of time on multiplayer, just because the camera wants to show me every single unit movement. I don't want to watch 5 turns of my tank that i sent across the map. Just show me when it arrives. And why on earth can i not select multiple units?

As far as game of the week goes, people are beating it in a few turns. I've been on the top ten a few times now, and haven't found it particularly hard. Just rush horsemen, try a few different ways to attack until i find a really good time. 2900bc is just silly to beat a civ game. They should either make it harder to beat, or as others have suggested have different victory types each week.

The multiplayer could be the best bit about this game, if it WORKED. However, it is very unreliable and crashes frequently. This is not good enough. I don't expect to buy a console game just to have it freeze up all the time. Juse because they can release updates, doesn't mean they can release an unfinished product. Its very frustrating when i feel that i'm playing a good game, just to have it freeze after a couple of hours. And with no option to rejoin the game, this just sucks.

And why can't i play split screen? I'm sure this feature wouldn't be hard to implement.

Overall i'd give civ rev 6/10, as it feels unfinished and shallow. The xbox 360 and ps3 have a lot of processing power, they could have done something more with the game mechanics. I appreciate that the game should feel fast paced, but there should at least be a few more options for a decent single player game. And they could at least have had a little bit of AI. All the computer seems to do is throw random units at you. A decent human player will attack with a stack of units, knowing they have enough to take your city and defend it afterwards. They would not attack a pikeman army with a single catapult, all this does is give you free promotions. The computer would, and there really is no excuse for this lazy implementatioin of AI. I don't know about the ds, but i'm certain the 360 and ps3 could handle a lot more.

Has anyone noticed that when you have 20 cities and tanks, and the AI has one city and pikemen, that they STILL try to demand stuff from you? They threaten your civ with their puny catapults? In civ 4 they would cower and give in to your demands, if they hadn't already capitulated.

I hope they release a patch that addresses these issues, as the game definitely has potential. I just feel they've left out the people who've been playing civ for years when they designed this game.

 

[bonafide11]

Stop comparing this game to Civ IV, it's not Civ IV! Who cares how the AI acts in Civ IV, it's a different game and the AI was programmed different in Civ IV. Plus it's really annoying when people keep complaining about pikemen killing tanks or whatever, that's the way Civ's combat works, there's chance involved in it, and it always has worked like that so get over it.

 

[Quotey]

Pikes killing tanks is fine, but pikes killing bombers is wierd. Funny though.

It's still a civ game, though and should be compared to other civ games.

Civ4 AI acts rationally. By the time I leave the BCs every AI is at war with me throwing legion armies hoplessly at my engineer loyal archer armies. And they STILL demand thinsgs. Don't say the AI is different and that's okay- the AI is suicidal, and avoids key techs seemingly (I'm always first to writing on Deity even if I got BW, Pottery, Alpha, Ceremonial Burial and Masonry first...)

 

[wbdigi.com]

At least bring me a good argument to believe you.

 

[Snovvdog]

It's a fact it's been dumbed down for console kiddies, I've played this on my mates 360 and got bored within 30 mins, civ4 is far superior...
Loooking forward to Colonization and/or civ5 or any future civ expansions for pc...

 

[Smidlee]

Stop comparing this game to Civ IV, it's not Civ IV! Who cares how the AI acts in Civ IV, it's a different game and the AI was programmed different in Civ IV. Plus it's really annoying when people keep complaining about pikemen killing tanks or whatever, that's the way Civ's combat works, there's chance involved in it, and it always has worked like that so get over it.

I have no problem with upgraded pikemen defeating tanks but the I'm very disappointed with Rev very cheesy AI while civ4 has a lot more depth yet has a lot better AI. IMO They should have got Blake to program Rev AI.
By the way I expected Rev AI to be more aggressive than civ4. What I didn't expect was Rev AI to play more like civ4 barbs including popping up in the fog. (they also continue to send out endless amount of armies from their ship until it's destroyed. Again acting more like barbs)

 

[VirtualMark]

I think my girlfriend put it right when she said civ 4 looks more classy. Civ rev looks like it was designed for children. I do still enjoy the multiplayer(when it works), but i find the single player to be a hollow experience. Once you've completed it, it becomes very boring. I've owned civ 4 for years(since it came out), and i'm still playing the single player and enjoying it. I don't see myself playing civ rev in a couple of years time.

As for the AI, i'm sure that if programs like chessmaster think so well, they could have done a better job with civ rev. And it annoys me that you can declare war on the AI with no penalty, and stay at war for the whole game. If you have a ceasefire, they won't be angry at you! Which means every time you see an enemy unit, you can just attack it then declare peace again. Seems a bit silly.

I also didn't have a problem with pikemen vs tanks, although it seems a bit odd. That wasn't the point i was making. I find that if i stay at war with the AI, they seem to focus on producing units and throwing them at me, while i can just defend and research new techs. So they stagnate while i advance. The game just seems a bit easy to beat. Like i said, i've never beaten civ 4 on deity, and have only beaten it on monarch. And thats with reloads! People are beating civ rev on deity in 3000bc, that says it all. I'd like to see someone try that on civ 4!

I do like some of the ideas on civ rev, like getting bonuses for being the first to research a new tech and finding the ancient wonders. It would just have been nice if they'd added more customisation, depth and a split screen option.

Oh, and am i the only person who thinks colonization looks boring?

Can't wait for civ 5 tho! Will be time to get a new pc...

 

[Shackel]

I played it a few times, which was alright for the most part but after playing Civ4 I noticed a few VERY stupid things.

1. You can not go past units that are not your own. W. T. H.

2. Armies beaten by ONE, NORMAL, UNIT.

3. Not much variety in the AI, but I am quite sure Alex is gay and the Zulu are insane.

4. Too easy.

5. Too cheesy.

6. Drifting too far into the Sim's territory.

7. Spearmen beats Tank situations, a LOT of them.

8. It feels so... Empty compared to Civ4, which I played afterwards and learned how to play in one game on Settler, and won after having my capital at Population 1 for almost the entire game.

9. A bit too cartoonish

10. For god's sake you have only one nuke, even in WWII there were TWO nukes used!

 

[CrimsonEdge]

I played it a few times, which was alright for the most part but after playing Civ4 I noticed a few VERY stupid things.

7. Spearmen beats Tank situations, a LOT of them.

You mean you've never had that happen to you in Civ 4? I mean, this board has it's own little smiley JUST because it's such a common occurance.

 

[VirtualMark]

Lol! Nice smiley.

 

[Shackel]

It has happened... Five times in Civ 4, same amount of games in Rev, around 20.

 

[Quotey]

Spearmen vs Tank is a reference to Civ3 IIRC, where everything was done on hitpoints, and a spear had about 4% chance every battle to do 1HP of damage to a Tank. It only had to do that 4 times.

It's NOT a reference to Civ4, where it's less common because Tank attacking Spear is 99.9% to win. With enough battles it'll happen.