Reason why Civilization: Revolution does absolutely nothing for me.
“…its injection of pace makes for a more exciting – if marginally less cerebral – strategy game.” – X360 Magazine UK
As I wrote a while ago, it’s basically a kid’s gloves version for the console crowd, which is both insulting and self-defeating. Insulting because it assumes all console fans want ADD-fueled gameplay requiring minimal thought, and self-defeating because Civ is all about the cerebral. The more automated you make it, the more it becomes a slideshow rather than a challenging game.
Yes Civ games have a steep learning curve, at least in terms of understanding all the game mechanics. Almost anyone can actually win a game on the lower difficulty levels, even if you don’t know half of what is going on behind the scenes. The beauty of the game is that as you learn more, you up the difficulty level, which in turn forces you to dig deeper and deeper into the behind the scenes strategy aspects. By removing the underlying mechanics and making them all automated, you gain a slight reduction in the initial shock, and completely discard the entire ‘end game’ of the higher difficulty levels.
All that said, it might work for the ‘pick up and space out’ console crowd, but then if that is your target, why market a turn based strategy game in the first place?
Hardcore Casual 
It’s not for you, fair enough. But even as a die-hard fan of the series and all Sid Meier, makes… it is for me.
Why? BECAUSE of the dumbed down version it is. I look forward to a portable and casual Civ game, and one I can play while dinner cooks on my couch, and not feel the need to get so heavily invested in each game I begin as we all know happens with Civ far too often.
I’ll divulge exactly how it plays after I’ve gotten my copy for the DS hopefully tonight. We’ll see if it retains any of the depth, and I’m assuming it will. From what I understand it’s only the agriculture and other monotonous aspects that have been automated, not the real strategy of warfare and science, location, diplomacy, etc.
Here is how I look at it, if you already own Civ4 on the PC, and actually like it for the reasons most people like it (the depth), the stripped down version on a console adds nothing but cutesy graphics while removing the most appealing part (the depth).
If you are console-only, and interested in turn based strategy games, would you not want a full version of a classic, rather then a trimmed ‘easy mode’ one? You don’t have a choice now, and slim Civ is better than no Civ, but still.
Granted the DS version could be a fun diversion for when you can’t game on the PC, but I don’t get why any fan of Civ would pick playing an edited version on a couch over the full version on his PC.
Or rather, I could see why playing a slim version of Civ would be a fun diversion, but after a game or two, would you not want to take it to the next level and actually get into the gritty details? City management is a pain when you don’t fully understand it, but then become critical once you start specializing cities and your overall economy. On Prince or below, you can get away with automated cities, but on the top difficulty levels, you need to know the exact purpose of each city. It’s those details that for me, make Civ what it is.
I totally get what you’re saying. But I still WANT that streamlined experience for when I do want to chill out on my couch (or at work with the DS). That’s why it serves a purpose for me. I work at a desk all day, the allure of CivRev is that I can prop my feet up and sit on the couch even with a stripped down version of the game (as long as it’s still fun which it seems from all the reviews that is).
You dig, homeslice? :)
haven’t tried it yet but I hear where you’re coming from. There aren’t enough turn based games out there though so I almost welcome any entry into the market. My dad loves em, they are the only video games he will play.
I will have to take a look at Revolution. I still play Civ2 because I like the simplicity of it. Civ3 and Civ4, to me, were over complications of a good game. I bought them, played them, then went back to Civ2. What I really want is a Civ2.5, with a few of the new features, like territorial control, but not much else.
So, if they have managed to strip back some of the serious over-complication of the game, I’d be happy.
And Bildo, remind me to stay off your couch, I wouldn’t want to sit in your dinner as it cooks there.
I have never been one for RTS games, so this is game is going to be my foray into that. I’m really looking forward to getting my hands on this, as it will help me get a feel for it without making me feel as overwhelmed as a lot of other games might, even if it is TOO easy. I have it pre-ordered and I’m going to go pick it up tomorrow. Can’t wait!
I’ll have to agree with this, but my bent on strategy games in general is that more depth = better. The more complex, the more I’m involved.
Kanthalos, Civ is not an RTS, it’s turn based.
And in a lot of ways, Civ 4 is a streamlined version of Civ 3. The difference though is they just moved a lot of the complexity to the background, and if a players wishes, he never has to touch some aspects. For instance, all cities start on auto-manage now, and will adjust as they expand. You only have to pick production. However this is not the same as REMOVING city management. You can, and must at the higher levels, manage your cities and make smart decisions with specialization. With CivRev it just sounds like they put a lot of that stuff on forced auto, without options.
Just seems like a more limited version of a game that already adjusts well to a players style of play. The whole ‘console friendly’ aspect of it is what I find a bit insulting.
Couch Stir-Fry FTW, Wilhelm. You’d love it.
Ok, well I’ve never really done turn-based, either. Final Fantasy, WarCraft, StarCraft, C&C, Civ: I’ve never played any of these types of games. I just like the idea of this game and enjoy the somewhat cartoony elements to it. In any case, your point that it might be dumbed down is probably accurate, but in my case, that’s a very good thing.
I never thought I’d say this, but I’m coming to the defense of syncaine on this topic.
I’m a die-hard Civ fan. I can’t remember how many hours of my life has been lost to the series and to see it dumbed down in any way is just disheartening and wrong.
There’s no need for a slimmed-down version of Civilization.
If you trim too much, you’re gonna remove the good fatty parts that make the game great.
Wait a minute… what’s so wrong with agreeing with me…?
I think my point got a little sidetracked. I’m not saying CivRev won’t be a fun game. Actually I would bet money it will be fun. It just sounds like it won’t be what Civ fans consider a Civ game. If it was called anything but Civ, it would be a non-issue.
How much that actually matters is up for debate of course. A fun game is a fun game after all, right?
Nothing wrong with agreeing with you syncaine. It’s just a rare event in my case. :)
CivRev may be a fun game, but not for the gamer who knows what the series is all about.
If you go into the store expecting a true Civilization game experience for your console, you’re going to be horribly disappointed.