Civilization "light"

I read through the Civ IV thread, but thought this might deserve its own. In case you didn’t know about it---a Sid Meier’s “Civilization” game was released for the console market last month for both the Xbox 360 and PS3

I will admit that I have never played any of the Sid Meier's Civ games. I have always been tempted, but the micro-management that usually goes along with such games both bores and overwhelms me. In a weak moment I actually bought Empire Earth when it came out, but never made it past the tutorial for just the reason stated. I also tried the demo for at least one other--I think one of the earlier Civ games, but the result was the same.

I much prefer the Total War style of strategy game and I put up with it's resource building and micro management just so I can get to the field battles--and by that I mean field battles where my skill in tactics on the field can make a difference, and not the "roll the dice" battles that one usually encounters in standard Civ type RTS's.

However, a few months ago I joined the dark side and purchased a Playstation 3. I held off purchasing a next gen console simply because of the HD format war, but when it appeared that Blu-ray was the clear winner, the choice was easier.

I ‘m still mainly a PC gamer, but I do like the idea a Hi-def DVD player that also plays games and of course the fact that unlike a PC, I don't constantly have to fret with or upgrade just to play the latest and greatest. (I'm sure I will have to buy a new PC just for Empires)

Anyway, a few weeks ago I downloaded the PS 3 demo for Sid Meier's new console based game called Civilization Revolution. I just knew that like all the other RTS's I've tried I would dislike it, but I was pleasantly surprised. Because Firaxis had to really streamline the game simply to fit the limited command options of the standard console controller, the game was really easy to pick up and play.

The demo only allowed me to play as two of the sixteen rulers in the game for only a limited number of turns on the easy difficulty, but it was just enough for me to sink my teeth into and get a pretty good feel for the gameplay. The easy difficulty level is really the tutorial for the game, but It got me hooked just enough that I went out and purchase the full game. The nice thing is that on the lower difficulty levels (there are 5) one can complete a campaign in a long evening. At the higher levels, it’s probably going to take a couple of evenings.

I have found the game so damn addictive that it’s about all I’ve played since I got it, and that “just one more turn” syndrome has kept me up past 3 AM on several occasions. Fortunately, I don’t have to get up and go to work anymore since I retired this past November. (That’s right, I’m a man of leisure now, and I just bust out laughing about it daily).

The graphic style is that of an animated Disney film similar to Sid’s “Pirates” remake, but I actually like that style for this type of game. Obviously the game is not as deep as the PC versions due to the limited command nature of the console controller, so a lot of micro management features are automated. This is a big plus for me and really and lets me concentrate more on the fun stuff. As I indicated you can play as one of 16 historical rulers and there are 5 difficulty levels. Besides the normal campaign for single player there are also 8specialty campaign scenarios that have different parameters and rules for winning than the normal campaign. These can all be played at the various difficulty levels and have enticing names like Blitzkrieg, Attack of the Huns, or Chariots of the Gods.

There is also a single player game of the week if one is signed up for network play, and finally there is also network multiplayer. I have not tried either of these, but then I’m not into multiplayer.

I worked my way pretty handily through several level 3 campaigns, but when I moved up to level 4 (King) , I got my butt handed to me on a platter. I have finally won a couple at this level, but I’m hesitant to even attempt a level 5 (Deity) game, but as I indicated—since the campaigns are fairly quick, you just don’t mind re-starting if things go bad. You can also save as often as you like, if don’t want to play by “iron man” rules.

The game still has “roll the dice” battles---even though the type of unit, their experience, rank, and the terrain are all factored in. It still irritates me when my unit has a ranking factor that is double that of the opposition and I get trounced, but then it works both ways. It is kind of funny that as you work your way through the ages you will sometimes have anachronistic battles between catapults and tanks. And of course they have these humorous animations when the opposition rulers come on the screen to bargain for technology, or demand it with a threat of war. I always get tickled when India’s little Gandhi character comes on the screen to tell me that my nation must be eliminated in his quest for world domination.

It’s been getting fairly high marks by the on-line reviewers—averaging 80 to 90%, and as of now that’s the range I would personally rate it in. In fact I have enjoyed it so, that it has sorely tempted me to maybe even give Civ IV for the PC a try.

Cheers

Kek and I have both been playing for a while. Our comments on it are in the "What are you playing?" topic.

Here's a copy and paste of my two comments:

I've given Civilisation: Revolution a go at long, long last - I got my copy delivered the day before launch and had nothing to play it on. I won a space race game as the English, far too easily. I should have ignored the game's insistence that I start on chieftain for the 'benefit' of the 'tutorial'. The inverted commas are there by virtue of the fact having an advisor tell me every 5 turns that I should consider building settlers or meeting other civs is not my idea of a tutorial. Especially when I've met all the other civs and own half the map. There wasn't much else in the way of 'advice'. I haven't seriously played Civ since a bit before Warlord's release and Civ: Rev is a very different beast to the sprawling behemoth that is the current PC incarnation, so I thought playing the tutorial would be wise. Oh well.

I'll try another game a few difficulties up before I cry.



Further thoughts on Civ: Rev: Civ 4 is a 3 course roast chicken dinner complete with wine. Civ: Rev is a freshly made chicken and stuffing sandwich prepared in your favourite way. Similar core, very different end product. Both nice in their own ways. One is not a replacement for the other, and both have their place in life.

One could put the comparison another way: Civ: Rev is closer to Civ 2 than Civ 4. It has some of the features from the more recent Civs, such as great people and unit promotions, but it keeps the gameplay more focused and less sprawling.

I bumped the difficulty up a few levels. Ouch. I got spammed with demands from all of the AIs, threatened, attacked, battered, and left behind. The small game world, more focused gameplay and faster tech pace allow the AI to play a mean game.

The lack of options hurts it. You must always have 4 opponents, always play on the same size and type of world, and always have all the victory conditions enabled. You can't pick your opponents, or block one from the random selection. There are only 5 difficulty levels, and the jump between them seems harsh.

I wish there was an option to disable the advisors. I know I can build the UN. I don't want to. Stop popping up and spamming with me a reminder that I can build it at the start of every turn!

The pace itself is fast. I'm finishing games is 3 hours or less. I'm in the modern age before I know it in most games, because era is tied to number of techs researched. That means it's not unusual for me to wage war in the modern age with knights and catapults.

I think I like the unique civilisation traits better in Civ: Rev than Civ 4. Instead of having a pair of generic boosts each civ gets 4, one for each of the eras. They stack, meaning in the late game you have all 4 in play. The bonuses do more to personalise a civ, and so they all play differently and lend themselves to certain strategies. Bonuses include things like starting with an advanced government type, cheaper settlers, free promotions for certain unit types, a boost to culture growth, a free technology or building at the start of a certain era, extra food/gold/resources from set tile types, and half price roads.

It does play nicely. That's the thing - when I look back on it I find lots to criticise. When I play it it's good fun. It's a good game ... when you want a chicken sandwich instead of a 3 course meal.



That's a while ago. I now have all 4 victory types on king, and eco and tech on deity.

The AI is not that hard once you learn you can refuse to give in to the repeated threats your enemies send without war being guaranteed. If you have a strong enough position relative to theirs they will mutter and back down. Giving in quickly puts them ahead of you and then your doom is sealed because they will declare war and from a position of strength. That was my initial mistake; when I refused demands I got crushed so I gave in in the next game, and that's how I set myself up to be crushed again. It was only on my third game, one which I was irritated with and didn't care about, where I discovered that refusing didn't automatically mean war. At that point king became far easier. A couple more games along and it was cake.

I find that the game has been hurt by a small handful of issues I have little patience for. The AI cheats heavily, which I don't like in any game. The game is strongly focused on conflict; I'm a builder frog and find that gets old very quickly. The computer characters spam, spam, spam with pointless and irritating messages whichever difficulty you are on and there's no option to shut them up. Civ: rev feels repetitive due to its lack of options and game types. It's always the same world type, the same number of randomly selected opponents, the same 4 victory conditions, the same map size.

I have found that despite the faster pace and increased focus I'm still abandoning a lot of my games midway through. The modern eras and end game are less enjoyable than the opening phases, just like all the other civ games. The speed means the parts of the game I like best pass in half an hour.

I only need domination and culture wins on deity and 3 more great people before I have the full 1000/1000 achievements for the game. Once I've won those it's going back on the shelf; I may play it again in a few months, I may not. I expect I shall. Right now I'm a tad sick of it, and it's only the close proximity of 'completion' which keeps me at it. I'm more of a 3 course roast chicken dinner frog

Quote:

---

I worked my way pretty handily through several level 3 campaigns, but when I moved up to level 4 (King) , I got my butt handed to me on a platter. I have finally won a couple at this level, but I’m hesitant to even attempt a level 5 (Deity) game

---

King is level 3. Emperor is level 4.

What in particular are you having trouble with?

Quote:

---

it has sorely tempted me to maybe ever give Civ IV for the PC a try.

---

Get the pack which has the original game plus the warlords and beyond the sword expansions. It's a mighty fine game, and the expansions add a lot to it.

Out of interest is it a smoother run than civ 4 for the pc?

The late game was a hell of a hog on any machine and turn rates got slow I rarley ever played past the 1950's..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

Out of interest is it a smoother run than civ 4 for the pc?

The late game was a hell of a hog on any machine and turn rates got slow I rarley ever played past the 1950's..

---

Yes. Micromanagement is almost non-existent except for what your cities are building and how to assign citizens (which can also be done automatically). Turns are much quicker than previous Civ games since you don't need to deal with things like workers, building mines, constructing fortresses, etc. As long as you have the required tech, any citizen you assign to a special resource will allow you to reap the full benefits (the Indians start the game with the ability to use all resources without the needed tech), and military units auto-construct fortresses after being placed on Defend for two turns (even in cities). Many notable units from previous Civ games are gone, such as AA Soldiers, Helicopters, and Aircraft Carriers. Some of the unique units in the game feel redundant (Greek Hoplites are exactly the same as English Longbowmen), and one does nothing special at all (Aztec Jaguar Warriors). Many civilizations don't even HAVE unique units, and some civilizations completely dominate the game with their uniques (Americans and Germans, specifically).

All in all, it really looks and feels like a dumbed down version of Civ IV, but the gameplay is so smooth and fast, that it fits the console perfectly. It's great for any casual or hardcore Civ player, though the lack of proper AA units is disappointing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

Out of interest is it a smoother run than civ 4 for the pc?

The late game was a hell of a hog on any machine and turn rates got slow I rarley ever played past the 1950's..

---

I have the game for the PS 3 and on my unit the game does not run as smoothly in late game when there is a lot of activity on screen. It is not a constant frame rate slow down, but instead more like brief graphic hang-ups. It usually manifests itself during the battles when later gunpowder units are fighting. It only hangs up for a moment or two, but it is a bit irritating since one does not expect this on a console.

My system is one of the older 60 GB models that has the all of the PS 2 backward compatible hardware. I have been told that the newer 40 GB (not backward compatible) models actually perform better because they run cooler than the 60 GB versions.

At first I thought maybe my particular console was acting up, but this is the only game of about 5 that I have that does this. I also discussed this on-line at another site and at least one other person said they had the same issues on their PS 3.

Still, as I said it only appears to happen at the start of battles and for me it's not enough of a problem to keep me from playing and enjoying the game.

I do not know if the X-box version has any of these issues.

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forward Observer

I have the game for the PS 3 [...] I do not know if the X-box version has any of these issues.

---

My xbox version has a few problems. The game slows and chugs along during the later phases if the camera is required to move quickly from one side of the map to the other, as is often the case when scrolling between the cities of a large empire.

The engine wheezes if one advisor/AI character quickly comes up on screen to replace another. That was possibly my own fault for hammering the B button to get rid of them as quickly as possible, and so forcing the game to display the characters while it was still loading the resources for them.

In a few battles the men which make up the two battling units stumbled around and refused to fight for a long time. That meant the game was trapped in the battle. The worst example lasted for around a minute; the men started to attack each other as I got up to reset the console.

Quote:

---

My system is one of the older 60 GB models that has the all of the PS 2 backward compatible hardware. I have been told that the newer 40 GB (not backward compatible) models actually perform better because they run cooler than the 60 GB versions.

---

That's one I haven't heard before. I have one of the original, backward compatible PAL models and it's rare that I hear the fans kick in to give it more cooling than it gets while idling. As a general observation, it's DVD playback rather than gaming which places more stress on my PS3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg

My xbox version has a few problems. The game slows and chugs along during the later phases if the camera is required to move quickly from one side of the map to the other, as is often the case when scrolling between the cities of a large empire.

The engine wheezes if one advisor/AI character quickly comes up on screen to replace another. That was possibly my own fault for hammering the B button to get rid of them as quickly as possible, and so forcing the game to display the characters while it was still loading the resources for them.

In a few battles the men which make up the two battling units stumbled around and refused to fight for a long time. That meant the game was trapped in the battle. The worst example lasted for around a minute; the men started to attack each other as I got up to reset the console.

That's one I haven't heard before. I have one of the original, backward compatible PAL models and it's rare that I hear the fans kick in to give it more cooling than it gets while idling. As a general observation, it's DVD playback rather than gaming which places more stress on my PS3.

---

I've also experienced most of what you describe at some point. The game obviously is not optimized for either console, and it may just be one of the examples why true RTS's are simply more suited for the PC.

As far as the statement about the 60GB system versus the other models, I read it in an on-line review of the 40GB model after the discontinuance of the 60 GB model was announced. I still have quite a few PS 2 games I play occasionally, and that was my logic for getting the 60GB model. The only place I could locate one by the time I decided to buy was in used condition on EBay. The few new ones that were listed were and still are selling for over $600. I ended up buying a used model for $450.

My logic turned out to be both faulty---and costly when you consider that I still have a perfectly good PS 2 that I couldn't sell for the extra I spent just to get a 60GB model PS 3. On top of that, the used PS 3 I bought only lasted about 6 weeks before the graphics card in it fried. Since it was not under warranty, I had to send it off to the Sony service center for repairs. They charged me a flat fee of $160 including shipping for this.

The service was quick and actually instead of repairing it, they just sent me what appeared to be a brand new 60GB model since it still had the plastic film coating on all the shiny surfaces. However, it was listed a refurbished, so I only got a 90 day warranty.

As a result of my misguided purchase, I ended up spending $610 when I could have simply bought a 40GB model at Amazon for $400 and gotten a free game or Blu-ray movie to boot.

I usually try to make smart, well researched purchases, but this certainly was not one of them---LOL!