PDA

View Full Version : X360A Review


Murakaless
06-18-2008, 03:02 PM
I noticed something interesting that caught my eye in the review.

It was mentioned that the game is "light" and "not for hardcore fans."

That is what I was afraid of.

Opinions, anyone else?

ThunderStorm101
06-18-2008, 04:58 PM
there where quite a few points that i didnt agree with in the review,

The game has been made for a console, its not a PC game. but there is no reason that hardcore civ fans wont like it.

secondly, the sound is awesome, and yet it only got like 75, the sounds are top notch they nailled it all brilliant, if you think this game isnt for Hardcore civ players then get them to play the games on the hardest difficulty, they will probly get rapped the first few times at least

there is alot in this game, and are very few bad things about it, its easilly and 9 / 9.7 game

Murakaless
06-18-2008, 05:28 PM
I see what your saying.

I thought it wasn't for hardcore fans because it was "light." I'm asuming that means there isn't enough in the game for real strategy which is what I'm worried about.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Webb
06-18-2008, 05:37 PM
9 / 9.7 game

I think that's going a bit far :p

Good game granted, but after you've had a few games, there really isn't much else to do. I'm still loving it though :D

First time playing the series tbh and I'm still a little puzzled on a few things, I just guess :p

JustCommunication
06-18-2008, 06:29 PM
Hey Thunder,

It was me who wrote the review, so i would be interested in hearing your thoughts :) drop me a pm or something.

As for the sound score...I may have been a bit harsh, in hindsight, but the gibberish that the advisor's spout can get annoying lol. I don't know what you mean my 'nailed' it though...there wasn't anything brilliant in the sound track as far as i could see...or hear.

And what i meant by 'light' was that Meier had gotten rid of all of the micro-management, so there isn't really much depth to it. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, because i do enjoy the game, but die-hard Civ fans my not like it, and it does seem to drain the game slightly of it's...'essence'.

Pointless Dan
06-18-2008, 06:37 PM
As for the sound score...I may have been a bit harsh, in hindsight, but the gibberish that the advisor's spout can get annoying lol. I don't know what you mean my 'nailed' it though...there wasn't anything brilliant in the sound track as far as i could see...or hear.

I agree with you on the sound. I would say it was good, but nothing special, and the advisors are so so annoying!

Overall I do agree with the review. I think the game is almost fantastic, but I think they have taken away too much of the depth. I would have like a little more especially in diplomacy and management of cities, and a wider variety of units.

tastefulmrship
06-18-2008, 08:19 PM
As for the sound score...I may have been a bit harsh, in hindsight, but the gibberish that the advisor's spout can get annoying lol. I don't know what you mean my 'nailed' it though...there wasn't anything brilliant in the sound track as far as i could see...or hear.


I usually play games with my own music track, but I found the music in this game was (no pun intended) in-tune with the gameplay. You're right about the advisor chat, but that's how they sound in all Sid Meier games; so us veterans have learned over the years to ignore it!

Thanks for the review!

ThunderStorm101
06-19-2008, 08:56 AM
lol am i the only one who thinks the advisor sounds is brilliant ?:P

its really well done, to me everyone sounds like they do if you dont know the language, they nailed the french perfectly :P

As you get futher into the games (modern era) the numbers do start to mean less :P

Sometimes there is a general logic and others its abit like WTF?how did i lose

What i mean by general logic is that, a tank on its own with 50 attack, againt an army of say artrillery with a defence of 30, and the artillery wins

Now that really could go either way, 1 tank has the attack number on its side, but its also only 1, where as defending as 3, so if all 3 artillery attack at the same time then they might win, who attacks first can play a major role in the outcome

from what i see if your defending with a bigger number than there attack, your 97% gonna win, if its the other way round tho, that percentage seems to decrease :P

Nether the less, its still a awesome game :P

jackanape
06-19-2008, 10:44 AM
I used to play the old Civ games and I do agree that this is a lighter version, as it just seems much easier to pick up and play. Which for me is a good thing.

Gotta question the idea that this game is worth 9.7 though, that would make it pretty much better than anything released on the 360 so far. Ha ha ha, surely you're not saying that's the case.

Hammer24
06-19-2008, 12:06 PM
Well, reviews are opinion pieces that I donŽt necessarily have to agree with to respect them. :p

And what i meant by 'light' was that Meier had gotten rid of all of the micro-management, so there isn't really much depth to it.

I for one am glad he did - it makes it much more accessible to pick up and give it a go. And youŽll get enough of depth as soon as you go to "deity"... :woop:

ThunderStorm101
06-19-2008, 04:58 PM
I used to play the old Civ games and I do agree that this is a lighter version, as it just seems much easier to pick up and play. Which for me is a good thing.

Gotta question the idea that this game is worth 9.7 though, that would make it pretty much better than anything released on the 360 so far. Ha ha ha, surely you're not saying that's the case.


Best Strategy game on the xbox so far, i think that should deserve a high score :P

if i had to score it i would give it a 9.0

Webb
06-19-2008, 05:41 PM
A 90... How can you give 90 to a game that after you've played it for 5-10 hours, you've experienced the whole game?

ThunderStorm101
06-19-2008, 05:51 PM
A 90... How can you give 90 to a game that after you've played it for 5-10 hours, you've experienced the whole game?


you have no idea ;)

Webb
06-19-2008, 06:01 PM
I'm fairly sure you're being a little biased ;)

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/civilizationrevolution

ZING!!!!

ThunderStorm101
06-19-2008, 06:25 PM
Gameplanet and GameInformer seem to agree with me :P


And i dont see how i could really be biased, biased to what?

Webb
06-19-2008, 06:55 PM
Well, obviously, you like the game, but can't see past its short comings.

ThunderStorm101
06-19-2008, 07:43 PM
Hey i know what things are wrong with it, but those things are so small compared to things that are right with it :P

Mustkill9
06-20-2008, 06:48 AM
I think they've improved the game so much by removing the micromanagement. I think this version of the game represents 15 years plus of developing the Civilization idea. I think this game is super addictive. Like any game, you will get sick of it eventually, but this game just makes me want to play turn after turn, until I HAVE to turn the xbox off finally.

It's hard to criticise the soundtrack. I mean, it's on you if you're sitting there with the volume up getting annoyed at it- turn it down. I have a subwoofer here, and the dramatic monotone bass is a little excessive when you meet barbarians, and during fights, but I like it.

You can't compare this game to hockey, or GTA, or Gran Turismo, but for what it is, it's an amazing strategy game.

JustCommunication
06-20-2008, 12:13 PM
You can't compare this game to hockey, or GTA, or Gran Turismo, but for what it is, it's an amazing strategy gameNot that i did any of that, and as far as the soundtrack is concerned, if you feel you have to turn it down, then there's obviously something wrong.

But hey, each to their own. As i said many times in the review, it's a fun game to play, and addictive, there's just not much too it, you know?

In terms of pure strategy, i found Universe at War more challenging, but that's just me. This is a perfectly good game, might not suit those who liked Civ's micromanagement, but very accessible to console owners.

Now obviously I'm not* talking rubbish in my opinions, because there's several other people who agree with me, and your obviously not talking rubbish, because several other people agree with you, so lets agree to disagree shall we? :)

tastefulmrship
06-20-2008, 02:55 PM
I would like to compare Civ:Rev to Space Giraffe. And, despite many calls to my increasing insanity, I have to give it to Civ:Rev by the smallest of margins!

I know! I know! Let the flaming, begin! But your words are mere dust, your anger mere specks of nothingness in an empty void! You CANNOT change my view, my opinion, my ideals. Now, let's sit back and discuss this like responsible adults.

Thank you in advance!

chrisie81
06-20-2008, 04:38 PM
As a die hard Civ fan I was looking forward to Civ Rev but I wasn't sure how they would handle the micro management. I didn't realise that they would virtually get rid of it. After playing a few games now I think its great if you want a quick game, you don't get the number of hours in one game that you can with the PC versions, it almost doesn't feel like your taken the game through the years because it can be so short.

I haven't played it online yet but I will be interested to see what its like to really be able to finish a game with someone instead of having to quit because I have been playing for hours!

Sound wise I do think that the sound track on Civ 4 is better more variety. The graphics are nice as expected with the 360.

All of that said I think that all versions are great in there own way and you can get different game play from them. If you want a short game or can't be bothered with management then play Civ Rev, if you want the opposite then go for the PC.

Mustkill9
06-20-2008, 05:20 PM
Not that i did any of that, and as far as the soundtrack is concerned, if you feel you have to turn it down, then there's obviously something wrong.

But hey, each to their own. As i said many times in the review, it's a fun game to play, and addictive, there's just not much too it, you know?

In terms of pure strategy, i found Universe at War more challenging, but that's just me. This is a perfectly good game, might not suit those who liked Civ's micromanagement, but very accessible to console owners.

Now obviously I'm talking rubbish in my opinions, because there's several other people who agree with me, and your obviously not talking rubbish, because several other people agree with you, so lets agree to disagree shall we? :)

I wasn't talking to you. I would have quoted you if I was, or mentioned your name. I didn't even read your review. But I did read every post on this thread before posting.

I don't have a problem with someone disliking something I like, or the other way around. I dislike a lot of games that people like. I'm a jaded gamer who seriously has played about 80% of all video games ever made. So actually most of them bore me at this point. I think my xbox360 list is close to 200 games now, and notice how low the gamerscore is for 200 games.

When I saw this site gave KungFu Panda an 84, I was like- I guess if you smoke crack while you play it, then it's about an 84. There's actually people who dislike GTA4. We'll never get everybody to agree on a review for anything artisic like video games.

JustCommunication
06-20-2008, 08:27 PM
I didn't even read your review.

Neither did I ;)

Mustkill9
06-20-2008, 10:02 PM
Neither did I ;)

Well that's a lot better than the response I was expecting. Cool. Let's drop it.

Blue Radium
06-21-2008, 07:33 AM
As I played the demo, there is one main thing that I noticed, and missed from the computer civs. This game has every single material being universal in use, with you needing different technologies to use the resource. For example, you need the automobile to harvest plastic. But, you don't specifically need plastic to build things "automobile" related. In the other games, I would find myself practically going to war over precious recourses. Now all I have to do is plant a few cities by mountains for cash, some by water for science, and some on plains for culture, then I'm set.

This could be seen as a good and a bad thing, as to build super powerful armies all you have to do is group a good 6 cities together, get the population up, then have each city toss out a unit every turn. Once cities get large enough, powerful units are a breeze to make. This keeps things fast paced, causing giant wars, which are usually decided by who has the muskets and who has the tanks. This is what makes the game difficult on the harder difficulties, as the computers are quite good at building up a lot of technology very quickly when the AI tells them to. Micro-management is gone, as the city planners do a good job (surprisingly) of ordering your minions around for you.

But as I think I saw before, if you say that this game is wimpy and easy in comparison to the computer civs, try out deity, remove your state of utter shock at how quickly your face was owned, then talk to me.

JustCommunication
06-21-2008, 11:32 AM
I'll admit, i never tried it on Diety so maybe i did miss something there. But then again, every game with difficulty levels is going to be more challenging the harder it is.