Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by C~G, Oct 23, 2010.
Sure did, and do.
Voted for Civ V as the worst. Never bothered with CivRev on the PS3.
Beware of anyone telling you that something is improved by "streamlining" it.
What is it about civrev that you enjoy?
(Oh, and which console, by the way?)
I voted for Civ Rev- bought it for ps3, played it for about 20 minutes and turned it off. Tried it again the next day, another 20 minutes past.... worst game i ever played.
I play it on the mac tablet while flying, excelent way to spend 16+ hours on an airplane(Not that it can hold the battery that long)
my kids enjoy civ-rev so it gets a sort-of pass mark for a ds game.
but Civ-V? hmm. I've enjoyed all the initial releases (including 3) cos I can see through the bugs to the game, but CiV just has no fun to it.
Haven't even rerun V for the patch yet, just not interested any more.
I was pretty torn between Civ Rev, Civ III and Civ V. But i thought that: Civ Rev was especially designed for console players, so it may be a letdown only for a seasoned PC Civ player; Civ III was no so good for some instance, but the ganes was working at that time and it was challanging; Civ V introduced few good mechanics, but has worsened the other features to make the strategic possibilities very small and the worst part of it is that the two major innovation, Diplomacy and combat, are not working because of errors in design and the awful programming work on the AI, that can't grasp the complexity of 1UPT... So i voted V, evaluating even the fact that it was the first time that i won on Emperor level after a week of playing and that it's the first civ game that get me bored after two...
But V comes close.
I wonder why Civ1 has received so much anger, it is better than Rev and V in every aspect. Those two even combined.
Sorry, I meant what is it about the game that you enjoy? What you just said would be true of a tic-tac-toe program as well, if one was into that sort of thing.
I know that it's portable, and it might be nice for killing time or whatever, but why is the game itself enjoyable to play?
Maybe people don't consider CivRev to be part of the main Civ series.
Kind of like most people don't talk about Final Fantasy Tactics when discussing the main Final Fantasy series. (Though some obviously due because that game was awesome).
I voted for Civ Rev. It's just too simple game.
Well, Rev isn't part of PC-series, so many of us haven't even played it.
Ok, so you're saying that some (note to other readers: I say some, not all) people are not voting for civrev because it's not part of the civ series and therefore shouldn't be in the poll, even though if they had played they would probably consider it worse than all the main 5 civ games.
I've got nothing against people who like civrev, and nothing against people who don't like civ5, but it is the thought that civ5, even with its flaws, is a worse game than civrev that I struggle with. I think I said it in another post, and you speak of it as well, but it's more about whether a game lived up to expectations than how good the game is. Ironically, this means that the more a game is hyped up before release, the more likely it is to be a 'bad' game to players who think that way.
Meng, want to change my vote from civ-rev to civ 4.
Civ1 , Civ 2, Civ 3 , Rev - Design inferior to civ5, Implementation better.
Civ 4 - Design inferior to civ5, implementation as bad as civ5.
It is Civ 5 after all; of course I expected it to be a good game, at least as good as Civ3.
And I did play Civ Rev, fortunately I didn't pay for it thanks to a link Thunderfall posted. During a couple of days it was possible to download it for free, so I've played it on my IPhone. It isn't a game I will pay for if they release a Civ Rev II in the future.
I voted for Civ5. The reason is simply. If I run it in DX10 mode it simply crashes. In DX9 mode performance is horrible and there are ugly red paintings every now and then. All my friends have similar issues.
I am sure someday Firaxis will release a patch to fix all of this. But unfinished games at release aren't popular for a good reason.
A close call between 3 and 5. Hated the corruption, but the lack of Spies, Religion, The Dutch, Permanent Alliances, Diplomacy, Fear of AI SOD's, Spagetti roads really made me vote for 5. It should have been BTS + plus hexes + all the different things you can do during the game but better. At least give Civ5 a 5UPT or something.
Civ 5 is nothing. Ranged attack plus hexes plus the option to politely wave away ai request's is the only thing BTS lacked and would have made it even more fun to play.
I will stop playing Civ 5 for now. Maybe ill pick it up after i finally read something good about it here.
I voted for Civilization 3.
I don't know Civ Rev and CiV as well as I know the rest of the franchise, but they seem mostly fine if you're looking for a more casual experience (not appealing to me but still). While I don't like many of CiV's design decisions and think the designers have made it unnecessarily hard for themselves, I also see potential for it as a serious game even if a lot still needs to be done for it to work.
Civ3, however, felt very artificial and rather dull to me. I also go the impression many features didn't work as intended and, meaning the game we ended up playing was something completely different from what the designers had thought they made.
You really can't expect polls on forums like these to mean anything. All it does is to prove that people are idiots.
CivRev was made for XBox and PS3 in the first place, an IMHO on these systems the game shines because of the personality it produces from of the great human animations. The later console versions for DS and iPhone (not having the animations) are missing much. Even though the CivRev gameplay is pretty simple, I like it, because it is fast and can entertain you nicely for an evening. For a game that usually goes for about 3 hours, the simple rules and AI are fine, and I recommend CivRev to most of my PS3 friends.
However, for a PC game that can easily go for about 3 days or even weeks, the CivRev rules would be too simple to sustain the interest. And IMHO here is the current problem with CivV. It plays a lot like CivRev, and a new game can entertain you nicely for about 3 hours. Then this usually is it for me. Neither the board game rules nor the warmonger AI is giving me a sense of real history or being a real ruler. Even though the resulting gameplay is competitive, it rather feels like a kind of CivRev or CivChess to me. The next day I usually have no desire to continue my Civ V savegames.
If they would market CivV as CivRev 2.0 for consoles, I would praise it for the enhancements. As successor for Civ III, Civ V probably also would have been fine. But as successor for Civ IV IMHO it fails, because it cuts too much from the achievements, especially interesting gameplay for builders, and brings too little in in return, especially interesting gameplay for warmongers. So even though I think Civ V is better that Civ III, I voted for Civ V being worse, because Civ III was right in its time, but Civ V is probably not, at least not on PC. On console, with fast settings, it could be another great game for an evening though.
I love Civ IV for the inspiring gameplay, and I like Civ V for the inspiring graphics. If Firaxis would give me a Civ PC game with deep Civ IV gameplay and the beautiful Civ V graphics, I could be a happy PC Civer again...
Separate names with a comma.