Well, it looks like CivCity:Rome tanked

[MBJODET]

I was looking forward to that game so much I bought a copy the day it came out. I'm glad I didn't open it, because after reading the reviews I'm returning it and waiting for Caesar 4. It's a shame. This was the first attempt to turn the 'civ' label into a brand. And apparently it's tanked pretty hard. 1280x1024 max graphics....do they think this is 1999?

A pity.

-M

 

[viz]

I was looking forward to that game so much I bought a copy the day it came out. I'm glad I didn't open it, because after reading the reviews I'm returning it and waiting for Caesar 4. It's a shame. This was the first attempt to turn the 'civ' label into a brand. And apparently it's tanked pretty hard. 1280x1024 max graphics....do they think this is 1999?

A pity.

-M

I would imagine that the majority of players don't use a higher resolution anyway so that's not really a big deal. Also the 'Civilization' brand has been 'exploited' before (call to power) it just so happens that the games without Sid and his team are never as good, he is the man.

for what it's worth here is the developers site: http://www.fireflyworlds.com/

 

[Dearmad]

Firefly does expansions that are pretty good, do they not?

 

[The Thracian]

Where are the bad reviews exactly?

This review rates it well- http://pc.ign.com/articles/720/720932p1.html

 

[FuRRie]

Reviews should never be your main guidline to buy a game.
Play the demo and then make your conclusions.
I really enjoy the game and have been playing it almost as much as i'm playing Civ4.

 

[The Thracian]

What's it like Furrie?

 

[FuRRie]

I's basicly just the same as Ceasar (and all the other ones), the same city building concept...
Not much to say about it, if you enjoyed Ceasar3 for example you should really try it.

 

[Dairuka]

It's pretty much a small-scale version of Caeser 3.

It's not very fun in comparison to it however. The building aspects are very simple minded as if this game was made for a ten year old child; but at the same time, the 'sphere of influence' for the peoples needs is much smaller than it was with Caeser.

There is FAR LESS building space than with Caeser.

The game is choppy and it runs poorly even on an extremely high quality machine. Even at the highest resolution it's not a very pretty game. It's kind of sad if you think about it, although I really don't see much potential in this game anyways. Theres already been about fourty of these types of games out, and only Zeus and Caeser were any good.

This is just a money-grubber game. It was shoddily made.

I'd suggest you save your money, or that you download Zeus or Caeser III if you want to play "CivCity." (More like a bad version of Caeser.) They have better graphics even if they're 2D and not craptastically 3D, they are more diverse in their gameplay, they run better, they crash less, and they're more fun overall.

 

[Tycoon101]

I was looking forward to that game so much I bought a copy the day it came out. I'm glad I didn't open it, because after reading the reviews I'm returning it and waiting for Caesar 4. It's a shame. This was the first attempt to turn the 'civ' label into a brand. And apparently it's tanked pretty hard. 1280x1024 max graphics....do they think this is 1999?

A pity.

-M

What are you talking about? It's a beautiful game that is extremely tough and has a very slick system. I'm curious about why you think that the reviewers are right? Look to your fellow CFCer's and ask them if they find it good.

In my opinion, it is a very cool game.

 

[Maniacal]

Oh my, it looks like we have several conflicting opinions on the game...

 

[odintheking]

Eh, I'm waiting for Caesar IV.

 

[p dandy]

Where are the bad reviews exactly?

This review rates it well- http://pc.ign.com/articles/720/720932p1.html

well a 6.6 from Gamespot would be considered bad for any game. That's "Bet on Soldier" territory. My wallet is still stinging from that purchase.