Civ Rev demo: First impressions.

[reds4ever]

The Xbox demo is a 1.3 gig download that allows you to play both single and multiplayer games as Caesar or Cleopatra. The demo ends at 1250 AD.

I know people have seen the graphics and read the gameplay specs, so I'll try to describe how the game actually plays.

The game is very easy to pick up even without the tutorial, the control system is extremely easy to use and logically set out. I soon found myself whizzing around giving orders and managing cities. The screen is neat and uncluttered and everything in your empire is only a couple of button presses away. The maps although small seem large enough to give a ~2 hour game and don't feel constricting.

TBH I'm pretty impressed with the few games I played so far, the game def. has that "one more turn" appeal that the Civ series is known for.

[Maquiladora]

Have you got a sense for how difficult the game is? Does the game have plenty of strategy etc.

[UnOrthOdOx]

PSN wasn't updated when I checked last night. I'll check again today. Might get around to playing a bit this weekend.

If not, I know the kids will, and I'll happily post their thoughts. (6 and 10)

[AoA]

I was disappointed....well, I guess not really disappointed because I had low hopes. Every game since Alpha Centauri has seemed dumbed down to me and this was just another case.

The game's made to move fast. Be the first to research something and you get a bonus with EVERY tech. First to research Engineering, BOOM a free factory in a city. First to get Chivalry, BOOM a free knight. A knight? I didn't even research Horseback Riding yet.

Have 50 gold in the back, hey, here's the Banking tech for free. Got 20 Great Leaders? You win the game.

It feels like Civ-lite. I'll have to see what difficulty settings or speed setting are available in the full game.

[reds4ever]

Its supposed to be CivLite, its a console game. If you're looking for Civ4 on Xbox/ PS3 then you'll be disappointed but I think theres enough scope for strategy and planning for it to be a very good game. My biggest concern before hand was the control system but they've really nailed that on the Xbox at least.

[AoA]

I found the control system to be good enough on the PS3 version as well.
To me, Civ4 seems like Civ-lite. I'm just hoping that there will be options to adjust the experience.

[snoopy369]

I certainly expect it to be civ-lite; but I don't have a problem with that. NFL Blitz was NFL lite (like 5 players on each side or something), but it was also fun. Not in the same deep, complex way Civ is fun, but in the quick-game smash your oppenent kind of fun.

[UnOrthOdOx]

My oldest LOVES the game.

I managed to play twice. Neither time for the full demo length.

No full civilopedia, but what's there is pretty cool. However, as I played with Cleo both times, I still don't know what the colossus does in Civ Rev because there was nothing to tell me what the buildings in the city do. And, since she got it every time, I'm guessing no one else will ever get it?

Took me a while to figure out controls as I jumped right into Warlord instead of looking through the tutorial or Chieftan. Once I did, I have a few comments on some interface:

City Screens are well done. The AI seems fairly smart enough when you tell them to focus on one kind of tile. Rarely did I need to customize.

Choosing a tech from the popup, and being able to use the arrows (ps3) to highlight the little things it did was nice.

The Tech tree, however, did not have that functionality, and I'll be damned if I know what the icons mean. We need to be able to click on a tech in there and see the things it unlocks like in the popup tech chooser. Also would be nice to be able to select a tech in there to beeline, ala CIV. I didn't like having to check it for every tech just to beeline to catapults.

Diplomacy...WTF with tech trading? Or lack thereof. I can buy a tech, can sell a tech, but cannot trade one for another. Yet, I DID have the AI ask me to trade one for another? Often, I'ld end up buying a tech just to get that money back in a sell when it should have just been one transaction for the tech.

Monty cracked me up every time I saw him with that stupid expression on his face.

It's hard to make a definitive observation on the gameplay being stuck on Warlord. Of course we can crush all opponents with the 50% combat bonus. (and who knows what else?)

However, the combat gave me LOTS of cause for concern.

Is there a mechanic for upgrading units that I am just missing? If not, where's the fun supposed to be in being forced to build all those warriors at the start?

Yes, that catapult army under my theocracy (pyramids do the governments again) utterly destroyed everything in it's path with it's strength of 30. However, if I'm understanding the % right, I would have been more like 21-23 strength on monarch or whatever is even. And, those cheap archer armies were getting strength 27.5 on defense behind a wall. 15 + without a wall. (also the advisor said something about cats being able to attack without advancing, but I'll be damned if I could figure out how)

Whether bug or not, I did notice you get a bonus when attacking from a hill, not just defending on a hill...

The numbers all round tend to favor defense. Archers are available before legions, and always get the bonus to defense (terrain, fortification, etc), thus should always have the advantage. Kyle was successfully defending against legion armies with single archers on Warlord.

Maybe there are windows where attackers come prior to defenders as well? But, as it stands, good luck attacking Monty. Because against him, you can't suicide units to weaken his defense with his auto-healing units. (that bonus needs to be changed to on attack only, IMO)

That's ok, though, I can adjust to defense-centric tactics. You can totally shut down enemy cities by camping archers in the tiles surrounding their city. Total lockdown. No gold, food, or production. Just ignore them and sprawl all over. Choke the next person. Not a damn thing they can do about it. (not all that fun, either)

On the surface, it seems ICS is back. Enjoy. Build gold, build some warriors to explore, free settler at 100, buy bronze working, buy another settler, start pumping archers and settlers seemed to work wonders.

I did get some message that I needed to build culture because the borders were shrinking, but I saw no ill effects myself. All the cities still worked their tiles, and that's the only 'border' I ever saw, so uh

[RobC]

Yeah, ICS is back. They are trying to limit it with somewhat smaller/more crowded maps than the typical Civ3/4 maps, with settlers costing pop, and with AIs that may be more aggressive, but I still think ICS will be an unbalanced strategy. And while the AI civs do tend to dogpile, you will likely be far enough ahead to not be threatened by it when they do (or you can bribe them not to)

[Wiglaf]

This game sucks. It is Civ 4 with even more cartoony graphics, worse controls, arbitrary rule changes to confuse series veterans, and missing several key features. I can honestly say I would rather have my leg amputated than play this demo for another thirty minutes. If this is the game Sid Meier 'always wanted to make' -- a half assed version of four games he's already made -- then it is safe to say that his ego has finally levelled up to dangerous levels. I only hope no one else drowns in the buckets of smug satisfaction billowing from Firaxis headquarters as we speak. This game is easily the most disgusting thing I have ever seen.

[UnOrthOdOx]

See, I've seen a couple say it's Civ IV with dumbed down this or that.

Actually feels more like a throwback to Civ III than a dumbed down Civ IV to me. Seperate attack and defense combat. Forming of armies, ICS, simplified culture system, etc. But then, Artillery combat seems more like it's from Civ II, which also had ICS... Eh, call it Civ 2.5 throwback. I actually like the cartoony graphics for the most part, but those leaders speaking gibberish would likely get old.

I don't know, my 10 year old has played it at least a dozen times now, and is excited he can "win" (what he calls being in first place by end of demo) Warlord difficulty.

[Wiglaf]

When I was 10 I would lose it in my pants if I saw nice cartoon people telling me I was taking over the world.

However I am not 10 and cannot understand why any adult would find this game's atrociously cartoony graphics and simplified gameplay to be appealing. There is probably a gas leak in Firaxis Headquarters that has lowered their IQ 50 points over the last 10 years. I can see Sid laughing and tickling himself while he plays CivRev, as mental health professionals grimace and inform Mrs. Meier that there is simply nothing more that can be done.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Personally, I happen to like the graphics.

For a change, my colorblind ass can actually distinguish both the map features and the different armies without modifying the graphics. Who cares if they're cartoony, at least they WORK for me for a change.

WoW is atrociously cartoony, and plenty of 'adults' seem to like it.

Complaining about an artistic STYLE is a pretty weak argument anyway. It either is to your taste or not.

As for the gameplay, I'm guessing it will make for a fine DS game where the simplified playing makes the most sense. Probably let my 10 year old buy it, and borrow his DS a time or two to play it, but nothing more. Kinda like I did with Advance Wars. I'm certainly not buying a DS to play it, and am not likely getting the ps3 version either.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
This game is easily the most disgusting thing I have ever seen.

Are you sure?

[Wiglaf]

Yes.

It is beyond my comprehension how such an abomination could be approved by rational individuals. It is my diagnosis that Sid Meier suffers from delusions of grandeur brought on by a carbon monoxide leak in his home or Firaxis Headquarters. Actually, since he never shows up to work except to put his name on other people's games, then it's probably in his home. Someone in Bethesda please call 911 to report this. The first hours of carbon monoxide exposure are the most dangerous.