RSS Feeds
editorial
Civilization Revolution Review: Compromise, Or Compromised?
Posted by Luke Plunkett at 1:20 PM on June 21, 2008
Trying to shoehorn an RTS like Command & Conquer onto a console is one thing, but Civilisation? The fanciest bottle of good booze on PC strategy gaming's top shelf? It's an impossible task, some will say. Or one that even if it is possible, just shouldn't be done. Under any circumstances. Lest the ensuing offspring (see Civ II on the PS1) be such a crime of nature, such an abomination, that the good Lord himself descend from the heavens and strike down all involved in its creation.
That's what die-hard, myopic fans of the PC series will tell you, at any rate. And as one of those myself - having lost what must be thousands of hours to the series over the years - when a copy of Civilization Revolution for the PlayStation 3 turned up at my door, I greeted it with not just a signature, but a healthy dose of scepticism.
Loved:
It Works: Yes. Civilization on a console works. Nearly everything about the game - from controls to tech tree progression to unit and building production has seen radical changes (more on that to come), but at its heart, this is still Civilization. It still feels like Civilization, it still plays like Civilization.
Charm: This is a charming game. Not since the full-screen portraits of the very first Civilization has the game managed to present your opponents and advisors as actual, in-game characters as opposed to AI mouthpieces. Makes for a pleasant break from all the menu-clicking and world-gazing.
Streamlining: Many aspects of the game have been trimmed to work better on console, but turn out to be beneficial to the series as a whole. The tech tree and city building options have both been shrunk to more sensible, manageable sizes, while certain technologies and rewards are offered via in-game achievements (amassing a certain amount of gold, etc) instead of having to research/build them.
Controls/Menus: Wisely, 2K decided against simply mapping keyboard commands to the control pad. Instead, the game's menu and command system have been completely overhauled, and while it'll take a few hours for Civ veterans to come to grips with it, it suits the simplified, pared-down tone of the game well.
Hated:
Whoops: Some minor, yet necessary elements of the game seem to have been overlooked during the overhaul, such as the ability to auto-assign building orders in a city (meaning an endless crawl through build screens at the beginning of each turn towards the end of a game). Other parts seem downright wrong, particularly progression through the eras, which can have you entering modernity without having discovered the printing press.
Too Small: Concessions obviously had to be made considering the control scheme. One of the biggest is that the size of the world is locked. The map is tiny, and you only ever compete against five civilizations. Obviously this decision was made with the simpler control scheme (and console gaming habits) in mind, but at least some map customisation options would have been nice.
Too Fast: Because the map is so small, games are played out very quickly. Expect to play a full game in around 2-3 hours. It's great having that option, but I think a lot of people (and this goes back to "Too Small") would have preferred the option of a longer, more drawn-out experience.
Little Rough: Maybe the framerate's better on 360, but the PS3 version I played often slows to a crawl, something I would not expect of a game that looks worse than Civ IV (a game from 2005). As such, some of the most important parts of the game - like navigating the camera around the globe - are a lot slower than it should be.
Successfully porting the Civilization experience from the PC to consoles was always going to be an exercise in compromise. The entire package was never going to make the jump, so Firaxis' development has basically boiled down to the unenviable task of deciding which parts of the PC game got to stay, and which parts of the game had to either be modified or be thrown out entirely.
For the most part, they've made the right calls. Sure, the game can be too short, and too small, and in some cases a little rough, but what Firaxis needed to do if this game was to ultimately succeed was take that core Civilization experience - the discovery, the advancement, the combat, the diplomacy - and ensure that even a streamlined version of the game still had you up at 3 in the morning, telling yourself you'll just have "one more turn". Which it does.
Civilization Revolution was developed by Firaxis, published by 2K. Available on July 8 in the US on PlayStation 3 (version played), Xbox 360, Nintendo DS. Played 5 single player games to completion (one on each difficulty). Unable to test multiplayer due to connection issues/lack of players.
Comments (AU Comments · US Comments)
Chib
Posted June 22, 2008 12:32 PM
All sounds very disappointing to me, the fun I had with Civ was mostly because the game was so large and complex and even then I still wanted more techs, buildings, units and much bigger maps.
I will still break out Civ IV and go on long playing sprees every few months or so because it's definitely the one that *overall* has been done the best. That being said, I think Civilization Call to Power and Call to Power 2 had a bucket-load of better content such as a tech tree that went past the modern day and into the realm of sci-fi, underwater cities and the like.
arazzor
Posted 2:03 PM 21/6/08
@JustThisGuy: .....I'm sorry, what I mean to say was that I don't really use my computers to play games. Hope that helps clear things up.
arazzor
slomo788
Posted 1:59 PM 21/6/08
Thanks for the review! Think I'll stick with PC for strategy games, until devs start looking at PS3 seriously. I mean, the thing allows use of m/k for a reason!
slomo788
karnsatron
Posted 1:56 PM 21/6/08
The thing I'll always remember about Civilization is one particular game I played. (Can't remember if it was I or II) There I was picking off the last Greek units, surrounding their last city with battleships....
all to have global warming raise the sea level and destroy their last city stealing my glory.
karnsatron
notoriousEIC
Posted 1:42 PM 21/6/08
Enjoyed the demo on 360 and will definitely be picking this up. Never played any of the Civ games on PC before, but I've enjoyed several RTS games in the past. Since RTS games have never really worked on consoles (at least for me) the turn-based nature of this game and the streamlining really make it work.
notoriousEIC
the-hypnotoad
Posted 1:42 PM 21/6/08
This (and Fallout 3) are my two most anticipated titles this year. Sad to hear about some of the limitations; I assumed the number of civs and size of the world could be bumped up in the full version of the game.
I did really enjoy the demo (although even in the demo the lack of a build queue was pretty annoying).
Glad to hear more positive than negative; in fact, the biggest negative is that we want more, MORE, [B]MORE[/B] (civs and map size)! Still anxiously awaiting CivRev and wasting quite a bit of time with it.
the-hypnotoad
XbhaskarX
Posted 1:40 PM 21/6/08
@themadman123:
RTS = REAL TIME Strategy. Civ games are turn based.
XbhaskarX
jp182
Posted 1:39 PM 21/6/08
@Gitaroo_Dude: awesome name but i wouldn't say it's dumbed down. it seems they ported over the good things but left the rest of the good things out
jp182
JustThisGuy
Posted 1:38 PM 21/6/08
@arazzor: Are you serious? Do you do all your work on an Apple IIe or something? Civs 1-3 were all very light on resources and didn't require a dedicated graphics card. Seriously: Civ III required a PII 300mhz processor and 32 MB of RAM. That might have been top of the line back in 1997, but Civ III was released in 2001, when budget systems were packing PIII 1000s and the PIV 1.5s were brand spankin' new.
In any case, this sounds a bit like Civ Lite. While I'm sure that Firaxis did an excellent job (as always, as it seems), I'll stick to my PC Civs, thankyouverymuch.
JustThisGuy
Mister Adequate
Posted 1:37 PM 21/6/08
I played the demo on 360 last week and I just can't agree. It was just not compelling, and didn't feel at all right to me. And that's from someone whose formative experience with Civ was in fact Civ II on the PS1.
Mister Adequate
arazzor
Posted 1:36 PM 21/6/08
@Sentientv2: Ack, forgot about the demo.... /facepalm.
Thanks though.
arazzor
Bleentastic sees bandwagon and jumps
Posted 1:34 PM 21/6/08
the demo made me want to play it but i realize it doesn't come out for awhile so i'm not gonna bother to buy it and got a SimCity game on the PC instead ^_^ but yea the camera moving so slow sucked and it being too small caused a somewhat slow building
Bleentastic sees bandwagon and jumps
themadman123
Posted 1:33 PM 21/6/08
I played the 360 demo the other night...
Wow, I hate with a passion RTS games, but this had me playing the demo a few times in a row.... I'm totally buying this game. Its just what I need in an RTS. Shorter and more to the point, without micromanaging every single little thing.
themadman123
Sentientv2
Posted 1:31 PM 21/6/08
@arazzor: I think it is a good starting point. The ability, especially with the simplistic tutorial in the demo, is a great way to get familiar with the way the game plays. The console version definitely feels more accessible.
Thanks for the review Luke. My fiance has been dying to get her hands on this. She'll continually play the demo knowing that it is turn limited, :).
Sentientv2
TheGuero
Posted 1:30 PM 21/6/08
I think you hit the nail right on the head with this one Luke. But what do I know? I only played the demo.
TheGuero
PhiCancri
Posted 1:29 PM 21/6/08
I hadn't played Civilization since the game first came out in '91 and was pleasantly surprised when I played the demo yesterday on the PS3. What I picked up on in the demo was reiterated here to the T. It was Civilization through and through, no question, but seemed dumbed down somehow. It's a little disappointing to discover that each play will only run a couple of hours. One of my fondest memories of when I played were the grand play sessions that spanned days. But then again, this is a console version and sacrifices no doubt needed to be made. This isn't necessarily a bad thing.
PhiCancri
Gitaroo_Dude
Posted 1:27 PM 21/6/08
Awesome!
Another seminal PC series dumbed down for the "hardcore" console crowd.
Gitaroo_Dude
arazzor
Posted 1:27 PM 21/6/08
Always wanted to try out a Civilization game, but they always seemed a bit daunting, plus I never had a good enough computer to run one. Is this a good entry point for people playing the series for the first time Luke?
arazzor
XbhaskarX
Posted 1:27 PM 21/6/08
Damn, my biggest worry after playing the demo was that the maps would be too small and there would not be enough map customization options.
I don't understand why the size of the world must be locked.
Not giving hardcore players the option to use larger maps just seems inexcusable.
XbhaskarX
Snukadaman_
Posted 2:14 PM 21/6/08
The demo was quite fun and like others I tried it more then once..I Played pc civ and I do agree it is sort of dumbed down but thats what I expect from console games. Will indeed be purchasing this game when released.
Snukadaman_
Maximus9
Posted 2:12 PM 21/6/08
Meh...can't stand frame rate problems on a system as powerful as the PS3 running a game that my 9800pro could run without breaking a sweat, its just painful...
Maximus9
Prime-Omega
Posted 2:12 PM 21/6/08
I actually enjoyed the demo, it brought back the feelling of the good ol' Civilization days. Maybe I'll buy this one because the thing you hate most is actually the thing I love most. I never had time to play through a full PC Civilization game, I'm glad they fixed that for the console.
Prime-Omega
the-hypnotoad
Posted 2:08 PM 21/6/08
@karnsatron: You know you're old school if you've lost a battleship to an enemy phalanx ;)
the-hypnotoad
azninflamation
Posted 2:56 PM 21/6/08
So.. when's Alpha Centauri Revolution coming?
azninflamation
etho
Posted 2:54 PM 21/6/08
@arazzor: Civ IV was actually my introduction to the series, and that worked pretty well for me, not being much of a strategy gamer. You could customize your options and simplify the game a great deal to start. The first few times I played the game, I turned off the combat, so I could focus on learning the research and resource management bits. It worked quite well for me.
I played the demo for this one and had fun with it. It sounds like there's not so much customization in this one, but it also felt like it had a more forgiving learning curve, so that might be okay for newcomers.
I'll probably pick it up.
etho
TheHun
Posted 2:52 PM 21/6/08
@Luke Plunkett: ooo demo, might as well give it a shot.
TheHun
TheHun
Posted 2:52 PM 21/6/08
So is this worth getting if you already have civ4? Or is it more of a downgrade?
TheHun
Luke Plunkett
Posted 2:51 PM 21/6/08
@Gitaroo_Dude: There's nothing "dumbed down" about this. You'd know that if you played it. There's a demo out there for a reason!
Luke Plunkett
ArmiMaan
Posted 2:35 PM 21/6/08
I loved the original Civ and the follow-ups, but I find CivRev's reduction in play time to be a big positive. I just don't have the time, or the inclination, to spend days and even weeks playing through a typical 4x game session. Though I suppose having the option to play longer games would be nice. Maybe they'll add more options as DLC at a later date.
ArmiMaan
sir_carrot
Posted 3:13 PM 21/6/08
I have already pre-ordered this. For me, it has been a 'must-buy' since it was announced, and one of my most anticipated games of the year.
It's a shame there's no customization options - that is a huge overlook, for any game - but especially the Civ series, since that has always been a huge part.
Still, it sounds like most of the gameplay changes will be good for someone like me, who can never seem to get all the way through a game. I will admit it - though I am an avid gamer, I am not 'hardcore' enough to ever get truly good at any one game.
And as far, at least as the 360 demo goes, there's not really slow down as I noticed, but the game does seem to chug in general, especially noticeable when moving around the map - it doesn't feel very smooth, which is something I was hoping for, considering how chuggy Civ IV plays on my outdated computer. I always look to consoles for framerates when my computer is old.
sir_carrot
phantam
Posted 3:02 PM 21/6/08
oh and Reviewer... from my time with the demo, the 360 verison has no frame drops at all, or slow downs, i navigate the map easily throughout the demo the 7 times i've played it....
and i really truely dispise the developers for triggering that "10 turns left" crap at the most evil of moments right as it starts getting awesome.
phantam
phantam
Posted 3:01 PM 21/6/08
every review and person i've talked to on xbox forums has LOVED the demo even people i know localy that hate RTS's have fallen for CR ...
I HATE the original civ it's just too much i mean i hate when a f*cking map takes days to complete... i mean 2-3 hours for a map doesnt seem like a bad thing for a console at all...
I hate to tell the writer, but generally people down like drawn out games, hell 2-3 hours is pretty much longer than most people will deal with an RTS in general, hell could you imagine a 3 hour starcraft fight?
Civ IV was... umm... work LOL, i dunno i personally found it intriguing and deep but not, Fun ... Civ Rev i actually found fun
phantam
Bort617
Posted 3:32 PM 21/6/08
Meh. This doesn't seem like nearly a big enough step up from Civ 4 to justify the cost. If it's not some kind of evolution of the series, why bother? It seems like Firaxis just wants us to think "look, you can play Civ on a console!" and hope that's enough for a sale. There doesn't seem to be nearly enough for me to jump from Civ 4, especially considering I got a new computer less than a week ago.
I'll pass... but this is making me even more desperate for Civ 4: Colonization!
Bort617
deathtastic
Posted 3:30 PM 21/6/08
who wants to bet they will patch in bigger maps?
deathtastic
Barl
Posted 4:18 PM 21/6/08
I dont think Civilization Revolution was made for "us", it was made for "them".
With "us" being anyone who played any of the other games in series and with "them" being all those people who would like to play it but got a bit scared by the complexity of the pc version.
And for that i think the game works perfectly, but I am fine with my Civ 4, thank you very much. And that i also how i think fireaxis intended it.
Barl
kajillion
Posted 4:06 PM 21/6/08
No map customization at all? That's awful.
kajillion
Mr_Ed
Posted 4:55 PM 21/6/08
I played the demo, and got very similar impressions. All i could think about was the bits missing.
Wasn't going to buy the game, but when i saw it cheap i couldn't resist.
I think i was stuck in the thinking that this was the old PC game, and thus was always set up for disappointment.
Once i stopped thinking of everything thats missing, and started getting into what i was doing, i realised an hour or so had gone in no time. Which is what the PC version used to achieve.
To be honest, now i've played it a number of times, im hooked. All the different opponents have their own characters, and seek different victories, so no 2 games are ever the same.
I look at this as Civilisation on speed, which in my mind at least isn't a bad thing. Its great being able to load the game, and complete it that evening, without having to fight yourself to bed at 4am, then stay awake worrying about strategys.
For me, this is without doubt the best game this year. I'll still be playing this next year, where games like GTA4 were completed and sold within 2 weeks.
Mr_Ed
Samos42
Posted 5:42 PM 21/6/08
That's a bit unfortunate about the small maps which is something I was worried about. But everything else sounds great about the game so I'm sure I'll be at least renting it.
Samos42
EvilAng3la
Posted 5:23 PM 21/6/08
I really enjoyed the demo, and was planning on getting the game.
Then I read this review, and the part about the world sizes being locked to small. And that right there is sufficient for me to decide not to bother with it. Large worlds is a crucial feature for me, and if that's not possible, then I'm spending my time and money on other games instead.
EvilAng3la
Geraldo
Posted 5:17 PM 21/6/08
@azninflamation: @azninflamation:
When is Alpha Centauri _anything_ coming? :-) I love that game.
Geraldo
koji
Posted 5:11 PM 21/6/08
I've picked up the 360 version, also lags like a beast when the map gets a bit crowded
koji
syl1985
Posted 6:37 PM 21/6/08
@Gitaroo_Dude: Give it a go first.
It's a great game and MY GIRLFRIEND has finished rounds of it - which is a big win in my books.
But still, Civ II GOTY is my favourite of the series.
Fantasy mode anyone?!
syl1985
XbhaskarX
Posted 6:17 PM 21/6/08
@Geraldo:
Yeah, Alpha Centauri 2 should be the next game they do.
XbhaskarX
Thorax
Posted 7:08 PM 21/6/08
@Gitaroo_Dude: Play the game, then whine.
Thorax
Pombar
Posted 7:35 PM 21/6/08
It's basically Civ 2. A few tweaks there to downgrade it from that, a few elsewhere to upgrade it from that, but it all balances out to one awesome nostalgic package. Civ 2: Retro Evolved.
Pombar
BigBadBee
Posted 7:28 PM 21/6/08
This Civ kept me up to 2am with it's one-more-go-ness; though saying that once upon a time I skipped a whole nights sleep on that Civ, you know, that one with the underwater cities. But then I'm older now and in need of a duvet.
My first impression was that it had been simplified... but I may have been wrong; you can now play with aces up your sleeve. Things like making lots of cheap warriors, waiting and judging the other civs, and then spending cash to instantly build Leonardo's Workshop to change them all into tanks. Mwah-ha-hah. And I'm sure there are others. Cascade strategies to test your bottle and lie in wait... so you have to take that one-more-go.
BigBadBee
Clockw0rk
Posted 8:04 PM 21/6/08
I enjoyed the demo. I'm disappointed they've decided not to bring it to PC, as the 'streamlined' Civ is much more palatable to me than then 10 hour games my geekier friends assure me are 'compelling'.
Clockw0rk
Kensei
Posted 8:48 PM 21/6/08
I think both the PC and Console versions are most certainly palatable, and very much different. Simply put, the focused nature of CivRev is helpful for an online game that doesn't require serious micro-management. Whereas, for such micro-managment and incredulous amounts of time expenditure, Civ/2/3/4 are all you need.
If anything, buy this if you have a prior Civ to compliment it's grandiose with the focused nature of Revolution. Saying that, I know several people who've bought and enjoyed Rev without having played a previous Civ game. In general then, buy it :D
Kensei
Khab
Posted 8:40 PM 21/6/08
I love it as well! I just don't have 15 hours to spend on a game these days, and I've missed Civving for a while now, but this brings back playing a game to the end within the realms of possibility, which can only be a good thing. And the leaders are indeed great.
Khab
Dijkie1337
Posted 8:25 PM 21/6/08
I love this game.
Dijkie1337
Eltigro
Posted 9:09 PM 21/6/08
"CAN YOU SMELL WHAT THE NAPOLEON IS COOKING?"
Eltigro
Internetorz
Posted 9:51 PM 21/6/08
Civilization is not an RTS you dumbasses. Its an TBS (turn based strategy)
Internetorz
bosintang
Posted 10:42 PM 21/6/08
WHY ?!?
I'm sure most ppl own a computer, so WHY would anyone choose to play an RTS on a console over a PC/Mac?
bosintang
The_World
Posted 4:56 PM 21/6/08
Everyone who says Civilization Revolution is just a scaled down version of Civ 4 are utterly wrong. This is no scaled down version. This is, as the name implies, a revolution!
Ok, so you can't play a drawn out game that lasts for a few weeks (and even if you could, would you want to?). And you can't even micromanage every single aspect of your civilization (but again, is that something you like to do?). But still, you have more options than ANY man alive could consider and then say they played it at 100%! The game is still larger than the comprehensive abilities of the human brain! But still ... that's not the point I'm trying to make.
The ultimate point of Civilization Revolution is ONLINE PLAY! Games last 2-5 hours, which is just about right for a "quick" game with your friends. And guess what, if you failed bitterly, you can still get another go. And another one. And another one. And many years from now, you will be looking back at your pretty blue Civilization Revolution box and think - "Oh my god, did I have some EPIC moments with this game or what? Well, actually I had many, many, many EPIC moments..."
And that's it. I doubt you could play Civ 4 online, I really do. Sure, there probably are some people out there willing to plug themselves into the "matrix" for the next few weeks, but why bother when you can just grab this revolutionary console version and play as many games as you like, trying out as many weird approaches as you wish.
People, don't let some random PC cynics or some reviewers who didn't try the game's MAIN FEATURE (online) tell you that this game doesn't deserve your attention. They are wrong. This is the best strategy game ever made (console or pc), and definitely the best online multiplayer game up to date!
The_World
jBusiness
Posted 11:08 PM 21/6/08
I think I at least have spent one entire year of my life in Civ II: Test of Time
(@syl1985: Fantasy Mode here.)
and I have loved Civilization games since they've been making them. And I loved this demo. I had been keeping up on the site since I had heard about it and I have been playing the demo for weeks now, both on PS3 and 360.
(@The_World: Congratulations, btw, on actually playing someone else in a demo version....?)
I am as disappointed as the rest of you PC Civ fans at the length but I still love this game and can't wait. I'm always faithful for patches and updates too, so fingers crossed.
jBusiness
bsjezz
Posted 11:55 PM 21/6/08
mondogg - it's not, really. i've finished two greatly satisfying rounds tonight, which is not something i could ever have said of civ iv. if i want to invest in a civ iv game it'll take a couple of days at least. while rev lacks in the epic scope and unbound potential of the pc version, it makes up for it with pacing; there's always a cracking whip or a dangling carrot.
it's an afternoon beer game, rather than a red-eyed all-nighter, and it certainly has its place. unless you're stubbornly inflexible with your videogames you can find a lot to appreciate in it
bsjezz
ZombieAlmeida
Posted 11:52 PM 21/6/08
@Geraldo: Apparently EA have the rights to Alpha Centauri.
As for Civ:Rev, I don't understand the criticism of the maps being "tiny" they're the perfect size imo. I have played Civ since 2 (loved Civ 4), but the end game was always a nightmare of micromanagement. As The_World said above, who does want to spend 20+ hours on one game (which is what happens when playing on larger maps).
All the annoying things like pollution, corruption, worker units. have been removed so now you are freed up to think more about your opponents (which are also a more manageable number) than your civ. So it is not "dumbed down" but funed up!!
There are bad points, no build queues, no graphic options ie. no skipping your own battle animations (its annoying to get dragged away from what you are doing because an opponent is attacking you, which is annoying in multiplayer as turns happen simultaneously), no skip Alpha Centauri animations), frame rate drops near the end game with large batttles(360).
I guess there are a lot of Civ players out there (like Luke) that enjoy the epic, 10+ hour games and relish all the headaches that go with it (if that's the case stick with Civ 4) but, if you want a game you can start and finish in an evening and love Civ ('cause it stil is Civ at its heart) then I really recommend it!
ZombieAlmeida
mondog
Posted 11:37 PM 21/6/08
Its a poor mans Civ. Civ IV is far superior in almost every way.
mondog
arstal
Posted 11:29 PM 21/6/08
Civ IV just patched over the weekend (Well BTS) but like all other patches, their QC has gotten so bad that the community has to patch their patches. (look up Bhruic's Patch and Solver's Patch- the fact that the community considered massive modding for their previous two patches isn't a good thing- but Firaxis deserves a D not an F because at least they made that possible) I really think the Civ series in general has jumped the shark now- Civ V is no longer a must buy for me (and if it ends up in EA's hands, a must avoid)
Also, companies like Stardock and Paradox are making quality games in the genre- so Firaxis aren't the only ones around anymore.
arstal
Shteve
Posted 11:19 PM 21/6/08
I tried the demo and couldn't get into it, Civilization IV is simply too good to justify spending 60$ on a stripped down version. I'd recommend buying Civ IV instead of Revolution to anyone since it's not hard on computer specs.
Shteve
Krondonian
Posted 12:47 AM 22/6/08
Civ IV is/was my first Civilization game, and I'm loving it. It looks nice, there's tons of customisation, it looks nice, and runs smoothly on my toaster of a PC. I'd definitely recommend it if you think that the PC versions would be too 'hardcore'.
I won't be getting Revolution what with IV being very similiar/more in depth, but sounds like a good game also.
Krondonian
salaminizer
Posted 12:32 AM 22/6/08
I don't get it, you're not restricted to epic+huge games in CivIV, being allowed to play tiny-quick games shouldn't be an excuse.
using that MS crap, if there's one series in which people would "graduate" to the better version, it would be from CivRev to CivIV.
lack of tutorial shouldn't be an excuse too, and anyway there are LOADS of articles with tips everywhere, and especially in civfanatics and apolyton
salaminizer
Pyrthas
Posted 12:56 AM 22/6/08
This sounds like a perfectly good game that does most everything it's setting out to do. But like salaminizer said, you shouldn't prefer it just because of the length of the games, unless you never bothered tinkering with the game settings of CivIV (and that's your fault, not the game's). I've played lots of CivIV games that only took a few hours. In fact, the majority of them are that short. I enjoy long games, but I don't have the time for them. So I play small maps and 4ish hours later at the most I'm done (and that's on normal speed; change it to quick and you're done even faster). Of course, the length will depend on how much you micromanage things and what victory you're going for (usually going culture probably lets me move more quickly, for instance). But it's perfectly possible to end games quickly.
Pyrthas
deathtastic
Posted 1:44 AM 22/6/08
Ok enough of this, this game was made for people that play Cod-4 and halo3 every time they start up their console. But it is always fun to destroy fps nubs in rts games.
deathtastic
The_nub_next_door
Posted 2:10 AM 22/6/08
@Abishai: Well browsing through the empire-tree in SoASE pretty frustrating without a mouse don't you think? But yeah TBS games shouldn't be hard to manage with a pad.
The_nub_next_door
The_nub_next_door
Posted 2:06 AM 22/6/08
There's RTS (real-time-strategy) and TBS (turn-based-strategy) Civ belongs to the later, just wanted to clear that up.
@Pyrthas: Ye playing in "blazing" mode on a fairly small map and you can finnish a game in around 4 hrs.
The_nub_next_door
Abishai
Posted 1:56 AM 22/6/08
I've never understood why people say it would be hard to port Civ to the console. It should be one of the easiest ports you can do it's a turn based strategy game for gods sake. Just put a bar on the side with the ability to quickly go to units and cities like Sins of a Solar Empire and you're done. RTS games require a lot faster pace and that's why they've always had trouble, but Civ? Really?
Abishai
screamingslave
Posted 3:02 AM 22/6/08
Not to take the wind out of your "Civ on a console?!" sails, the first time I PLAYED Civilization was actually the Civ II PSone port (which I sold ages ago for a small fortune). It was absolutely fantastic and the rest, as they saw, was history.
screamingslave
zluzlutt
Posted 4:51 AM 22/6/08
So, does noone else mind the "low-def" UI?
It really bothers me that this appears to have been made for an old TV. Not even a new NTSC/standard-definition TV (480 lines); this would be playable on QVGA resolutions (ie, PDA)..
The 360 and the PS3 are certainly capable of HD/720P+, and this game is turn-based: even if it were to drop in frames it wouldn't impact your game performance.
Shrink down that text and those icons. Give me a wider view of the map.
Imagine trying to play this on a big screen. I mean, a big (120") screen. It's so low-resolution it's almost unplayable.
Good job C&C: use those pixels. Don't be afraid to put words on the screen; we can all read, and we want to know what's going on. Let me see more of whats going on on the battlefield.
CivRev: The game looks very nice. A+ job simplifying what was tedious in previous Civs, and preserving a fun, satisfying game.
But its 2008. HDTV is in peoples homes. This generation of consoles is High-Definition. Why dumb down the UI so much that text is actually hard to read on a huge screen.
BTW, I do realize that this game is probably putting out at least 1280x720.. I'm not talking about the actual number of pixels, I'm talking about the minimum playable display. This could be scaled to QVGA and still be playable. I cannot think of any other current strategy game (not designed for a mobile device) that can say that. And, no: that's not a good thing.
I'm definitely going to buy this, but I hope we're all not paying a price because they're designing for the lowest-common-denominator (Wii or DS or something).
zluzlutt
stetsonblade
Posted 4:50 AM 22/6/08
I think this game will be like civ 2 for the PS1. I played it, and enjoyed it. It was my gateway into the Civ world. I think civ rev is aimed at those who never played civ, and it will pull those people into the world. I, for one, am not going to get civ rev based on the demo. I did not enjoy it after civ 3 and 4. It is missing something from the PC games. Also, why is Cleopatra an Ethiopian? I mean jeeze she wasn't even really Egyptian, but if they would have matched her skin color with an Eygptian I'd been more happy. She should look like Alexander. Sometimes game designers make me want to slam my head into a wall. Little things like that drive me crazy.
stetsonblade
airmaster360
Posted 5:16 AM 22/6/08
alexander the great isnt greek.....
airmaster360
gblock
Posted 5:03 AM 22/6/08
I bought it the day it came out, opposite MGS4.
Now I'm going to say something out loud that I'll probably regret, one of those "omgwtfbbq" moments.
I haven't actually started playing MGS4, because every time I turn on the console CivRev is in, and I think ooh, actually, I fancy a bit of that. Because it *is* easily digestible, bite-size, and damn good.
On resolution: Doesn't bug me. 40" HDTV, and you know what? It's pretty uncluttered-looking. Civilization, rendered in crayon instead of fine ink, some will say, but it's low-res in the same way that World of Warcraft is low -res: in a way that is both stunningly effectively and hugely efficient.
On the performance problems: Oh, yeah, does it stutter. I'm hoping they patch soon, because it does get a bit frustrating, especially when you've got a lot of moving around to do; get spread out in any way, and 'whizzing across the map' quickly devolves into a sputter and grind.
But the game is good. They've removed quite a bit of the complexity, to be sure - you can change your government type but not all of the rest, and the number of things you have to manage has been drastically reduced. But it all has the effect of feeling that you move away from directly controlling every action into one of a deft puppetmaster; you provide lots of direction but the *specifics* are out of your control.
Really, it's all good.
I sometimes wanted for better statistical information; I think the stats available mid-game on towns and stuff isn't up to scratch, and I think it's really unfortunate that they've chosen the end-of-game stats presentation in the way that they did without also providing the rest...
But I love it.
gblock
Kensei
Posted 5:50 AM 22/6/08
@airmaster360: LOL, Macedon was part of Greece.
Kensei
smuckersisgood
Posted 5:37 AM 22/6/08
I loved the demo. I might be one of those "console tards", but ive tried civ 4 a few times and really could not get into it. It just seemed way too daunting. Im looking forward to this game and probably will pick it up in the future.
Personally im glad for the "low def" ui. im one of those people who still play their games on a standard def tv and its nice too see developers have not forgotten about us.
smuckersisgood
Atomicvege
Posted 7:58 AM 22/6/08
that core Civilization experience - the discovery, the advancement, the combat, the diplomacy - and ensure that even a streamlined version of the game still had you up at 3 in the morning, telling yourself you'll just have "one more turn".
This is why i have not touched my copy of CivIV for PC yet even though i bought it last year. I lost MONTHS to the original game back in the early to mid nineties. MONTHS!
Atomicvege
adumbguy
Posted 1:21 PM 22/6/08
@Gitaroo_Dude: I've played both versions, and I can tell you there's nothing at all dumb about the console version. It's apples and oranges, both of which are delicious.
What the console version brings is the ability to play a game of Civ and know that you'll finish it in a few hours. The PC version could go on for days ... and nights ... and could be daunting as a result. The idea of having the very best aspects of the game distilled into a 2-3 hour experience is sheer delight, and one that is every bit as heady and intellectual as ever.
adumbguy
tcolberg
Posted 5:44 PM 22/6/08
@airmaster360: Alexander the Great was part of a Greek dynasty in the kingdom of Macedonia. One piece of evidence is that the members of his royal house were able to participate in the Olympic Games, which were only open to Greeks.
tcolberg
Lukehmuse
Posted 9:56 PM 22/6/08
Did anyone get an update for this this morning on the360?
Put my game in and I got told about an update to download, yet I can't find any info on it :(
Lukehmuse
Lukehmuse
Posted 11:00 PM 22/6/08
Ah, apparently it was a fix for the leaderboards glitch.
Lukehmuse
deathtastic
Posted 11:14 PM 22/6/08
@mondog:
yea but its also clunkier, takes way to long for each game.
Civ 4 in general is a very niche game that is so extensive that it almost makes the game tedious. At least that have been able to streamline the game and get rid of all the crap. Maybe a map customization option would have been nice.
deathtastic
dowingba
Posted 12:46 AM 23/6/08
I played the 360 demo and I couldn't get past the incredibly annoying cartoon characters that kept popping up on screen and ruining the flow of the game. Yes I know there's options to turn off their voices but wow.
The map limits are really what unsell this game for me, though. I only ever like to play Civ games on the largest possible maps.
dowingba
Abishai
Posted 3:13 AM 23/6/08
@The_nub_next_door: I've played plenty of games with a targeting reticle going all over the screen just change it to a pointer and voila, a mouse.
Abishai
FunkyJ
Posted 2:55 PM 23/6/08
The animated models in this game scream "console gamer" to me...
Yes, I'm aware that Cleopatra was apparently one of the most beautiful women on Earth, but Catherine the Great wasn't called that because of the size of her rack...
FunkyJ
Ghinn
Posted 12:19 AM 24/6/08
Whycome all powerful figures from history have to have one eyebrow raised? Does it matter which one is raised and how, like the horse statues?
Ghinn
KeeganTheBrain
Posted 2:52 AM 24/6/08
Demo was fun. Plays well, looks great. But I just can't bring myself to pay $60 for yet another Civ game. And the limited map size is a bit of downer.
And guys.. The battle cry of "It's dumbed down for consoles!" is about as worn out as "a slap in the face".
KeeganTheBrain