Why couldn't Civ IV have the fun nature of Civ Rev?

[The Almighty dF]

Beh, I can't see it as fun. It seems too much like Sid just trying to earn a quick buck by releasing a simplistic game for people who either haven't played a video game since pong or are too busy trying to get ahold of Hannah Montana tickets to play a video game.
It bugs me too because Civ4 feels like one of the last video games for hardcore gamers. Seeing a crappy child/senior-citizen version of it makes me worry for the game industry.

 

[Balderstrom]

What I have found curious w/ Firaxis compared to so many other developers I've followed over the years. They keep stuff under really tight wraps. They announced Revolutions only a few months before release, and now Colonization... 2, maybe 3 months prior to its intended release date.

Most other devs advertise (hype?) their products year(s) prior; release demos/betas; interview w/ the gaming sites, etc. Maybe their IP has a strong enough Branding?

 

[The Almighty dF]

What I have found curious w/ Firaxis compared to so many other developers I've followed over the years. They keep stuff under really tight wraps. They announced Revolutions only a few months before release, and now Colonization... 2, maybe 3 months prior to its intended release date.

Most other devs advertise (hype?) their products year(s) prior; release demos/betas; interview w/ the gaming sites, etc. Maybe their IP has a strong enough Branding?

Actually Civ Rev was announced a good long while before release.

 

[frekk]

I must be doing a terrible job of communicating my thoughts. When I say "FUN" its not the cartoon like graphics, but the concepts and presentation. Much of Civ IV feels too much like work. There is no reason we can't have caravans, trade routs, barbarian personalities instead of just units running around. Civ IV is a good game. But, after seeing the creativity they put into civ rev I feel almost cheated that we have some of the same dull concepts carried over from Civ III, Or exciting ones they excluded from Civ IV.

I've been playing the civ franchise practically since its inception, and I can tell you that it has always been a rather plodding game ... that's sort of always been its appeal to a certain crowd. It is to other video games what a box of crackers or a bag of popcorn is to a chocolate bar. Duller, less rich and exciting, but somehow more satisfying in the end.

 

[PieceOfMind]

It is to other video games what a box of crackers or a bag of popcorn is to a chocolate bar. Duller, less rich and exciting, but somehow more satisfying in the end.

That's one of the strangest analogies I've ever heard. I like it!

A chocolate bar is finished fairly quickly. With popcorn it's a case of "just one more...".

 

[Balderstrom]

Yeah but that begs the question, which one is better with peanut butter ;-)

 

[TheBladeRoden]

<--- likes chocolate better than crackers and popcorn

 

[Cstasny]

Since I have fresh eyes on this series I will through in my 2cents, I played the Civ Rev demo a week ago which lead the the purchase of Civ4.

CivRev takes out almost all of the micromanaging and leaves you with the core concepts and getting right into the meat of the game. Within 20 turns you can already have an army ready to take down the first civilization. Expansion comes very quickly, as does everything else. What i think he means by the fun nature of the game, is that everything considered fun in the traditional sense of video games is present in Rev, but the hardcore elements are not.

This is why the game is not being received so well by this community. While the micromanaging, long games, and and going through great lengths to build up a civilization may not be considered fun to most, and more like work, it obviously is fun for most in the community. I dont think these games are meant to be equals, they each have their place and excel at them with a different player base in mind.

 

[The Almighty dF]

. I dont think these games are meant to be equals, they each have their place and excel at them with a different player base in mind.

That player base being gamers with ADD or people who wouldn't normally be into gaming.
For this reason, I doubt it's going to sell well. It would have been a -hit- on the Wii, though. DS version will probably sell well also.

CivRev is to the Civilization series what the cellphone Elder Scrolls games are to the actual Elder Scrolls series, or what the console/handheld-device Sims games are to the actual Sims series.
Cheap simplistic knock-offs for people who are too busy or not interested enough to get into a full scale game.

 

[frekk]

This is why the game is not being received so well by this community. While the micromanaging, long games, and and going through great lengths to build up a civilization may not be considered fun to most, and more like work, it obviously is fun for most in the community. I dont think these games are meant to be equals, they each have their place and excel at them with a different player base in mind.

I haven't played CivRev, and I'm not likely to, but judging from reviews it does seem to be aimed at an entirely different sort of audience.

But I don't feel cheated. Firaxis did a good job of communicating their intent to make a game for a different audience, so I don't feel like they're pulling one over on us - they were pretty clear that this edition wasn't for my crowd. I'm also optimistic that it is not any sort of sign of the future of the franchise, it seems clear that this is a side project. They followed up by fulfilling a long-standing dream of the community, the announcement of a new Colonization, so I do not feel abandoned as a fan.

It's just a non-issue that doesn't really concern me. If it makes the franchise more money to support development of Colonization and perhaps the next incarnation of "proper" civ, I'm happy. I really don't mind my hobby being translated into a format for people of a different persuasion, so long as it's not at the expense of the traditional form.

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

Civ Rev was also made years after Civ 4. Lessons have been learned.

 

[Cstasny]

That player base being gamers with ADD or people who wouldn't normally be into gaming.
For this reason, I doubt it's going to sell well. It would have been a -hit- on the Wii, though. DS version will probably sell well also.

CivRev is to the Civilization series what the cellphone Elder Scrolls games are to the actual Elder Scrolls series, or what the console/handheld-device Sims games are to the actual Sims series.
Cheap simplistic knock-offs for people who are too busy or not interested enough to get into a full scale game.

I wouldn't go that far, based off what the Europeans(who have the game) are saying most of them love it and the demo got a lot of people excited. The demo was great fun, its just a different kind of fun. Also, if you think about it, consoles would have a really hard time pulling off Civ4 do to the limitations of the controller. The controls for the 360 are great but if you started to need to micromanage a giant empire it simply would take forever.

I don't know if your played Rev at all, but to call it a cheap and simplistic knock-off is a big overstatement. You can tell by playing it that there was a clear goal in mind for the game to streamline it for the consoles and it was executed brilliantly. It is Civ Lite I guess you can say, however it still is a full game with a lot to offer, maybe not for most of the PC crowed. Not saying you have to like it, I suspect most wont that want the deep gameplay, but it still is a game that is complete and wasnt made to just make some money of the simpler console crowd.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Civ Rev is streamlined and improved on civ IV

and when Civ V comes around it will probably have some of the improvements of Civ Rev (although not the streamlining)

But ideas like combining culture and GPP to make them more significant are good.

Right now I am planning on probably putting off CivRev because I have done the demo and the 'almost certainly last' patch for Civ4 is out so I can restart into some of those games later when things get less busy. Civ Rev I anticipate for spending 1/2 a day on a game instead of 1/2 a week... back when things get busy again.

 

[SwordofStriker]

I've played the Civ Rev demo and it's not bad. People stuck on the micro-management and level of detail/control in empire building may not care for it so much.

I have to agree though that it is only a shadow of the Civ gaming experience we here are all accustomed to. However, that doesn't make it a bad game. If you are really into the level of control you get with PC based Civ, then Rev probably isn't for you, but the demo is at least worth a try before passing judgement.

My biggest gripe is that it appears that you can't play multiplayer with only one game and one XBOX 360. Apparently Firaxis is now succumbing to the sad trend of making every player have a console, a copy of the game, and an XBOX Live subscription. I won't buy a console game I can't share with my friends without having to pay a monthly fee to play it.

 

[Rusty Edge]

I must be doing a terrible job of communicating my thoughts. When I say "FUN" its not the cartoon like graphics, but the concepts and presentation. Much of Civ IV feels too much like work. There is no reason we can't have caravans, trade routs, barbarian personalities instead of just units running around. Civ IV is a good game. But, after seeing the creativity they put into civ rev I feel almost cheated that we have some of the same dull concepts carried over from Civ III, Or exciting ones they excluded from Civ IV.

Well, for the benefit of people such as myself who have no console or desire for one, why don't you explain the new and improved features of which you speak? Maybe if I knew what you were talking about I would agree with you.

Is this return to Civ I style caravans? Build a camel in one city, move it to another far away, to establish a trade route, find out how much it's worth?

Can you negotiate with barbs in Civ Rev? Can you bribe them to leave you alone or to attack your enemies?

Do the armies have size limits, zones of control, and do they distribute the damage and experience equally?

 

[Genv [FP]]

Thanks Alot Rusty Edge By Head Exploded

 

[Sultan_of_ATL]

Well, for the benefit of people such as myself who have no console or desire for one, why don't you explain the new and improved features of which you speak? Maybe if I knew what you were talking about I would agree with you.

Is this return to Civ I style caravans? Build a camel in one city, move it to another far away, to establish a trade route, find out how much it's worth?

Can you negotiate with barbs in Civ Rev? Can you bribe them to leave you alone or to attack your enemies?

Do the armies have size limits, zones of control, and do they distribute the damage and experience equally?

Yes, the Caravans operate very much like you described. And they can be captured by enemy Civs. Your advisor tells you how much a caravan to a certain city will Yield. It maps the path and then you send it on its way.

You can't negotiate with Barbs(great idea though. Loved that concept in 1402 A.D.) But, the Barbs have leaders who will give you gold and info about there next closest city.

The armies are very much like the Civ III armies except you can't mix units as far as I can tell. In essence they are really more of a combined arms stack that share attack and damage. The units fight together.

someone has already mentioned that you can use gold to build roads.

Exploration allows you not only to reveal the map, but also find and name land wonders like great lakes, deserts, or mountains.


There are a few more.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Yes, the Caravans operate very much like you described. And they can be captured by enemy Civs. Your advisor tells you how much a caravan to a certain city will Yield. It maps the path and then you send it on its way.

You can't negotiate with Barbs(great idea though. Loved that concept in 1402 A.D.) But, the Barbs have leaders who will give you gold and info about there next closest city.

The armies are very much like the Civ III armies except you can't mix units as far as I can tell. In essence they are really more of a combined arms stack that share attack and damage. The units fight together.

someone has already mentioned that you can use gold to build roads.

Exploration allows you not only to reveal the map, but also find and name land wonders like great lakes, deserts, or mountains.


There are a few more.

OK. So they revived Civ I caravans and Civ III armies in some form or fashion. The barbs deal in information, kinda like the mysterious stranger in Sid's Pirates!

They've enhanced exploration with a discover and name feature


MY CAPS LOCK IS STUCK GRRR!

I NOW HAVE A BETTER OPINION OF THE GAME< AND MIGHT CONSIDER IT IF COLONIZATION WEREN"T COMING OUT> THANKS!

 

[kazapp]

I agree with the OP: Civ IV might have a decent enough user interface (especially for being such a complex game), but it is still far from being excellent.

The UI could be improved and upgraded and tuned in massive ways to reduce completely unneeded manual labor from the player, and hopefully CivRev's main contribution will be its legacy to future Civ titles.

It seems thinking out of the (PC) box did the Civ devs good, and I hope and expect they will integrate back what they learned into the main game series!

 

[SenhorDaGuerra]

Onum gro! Fallum fallum!