Originally posted by: BoberFett
Single player: Meh. Civ 4 is 10x the game Civ Rev is for single player. So much more depth, so many more options. Better tech tree, better combat units, more customizability, bigger world, better terrain generation, better resource management. The list goes on.
Originally posted by: Queasy
As a Civ player, I enjoyed it. I think alot of people get jaded by it because it isn't meant to be as deep or as expansive as any of the PC versions of Civ. It is an extremely stream-lined and focused version. However, it still has the addictive "one more turn" quality that the others have just without all the micromanagement.
If you play it while constantly comparing it to Civ IV or II (the two best IMHO) then you're not going to enjoy it. If you throw out everything you expect from Civ II or Civ IV, then you can find it to be enjoyable.
Originally posted by: GG02
Wow...I think its freakin' awesome. I cant get enough of it.
But then again, I have never played any of the previous versions. So it sounds like I would go nuts on the PC, based on the fact that everyone says the previous versions are more robust.
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: GG02
Wow...I think its freakin' awesome. I cant get enough of it.
But then again, I have never played any of the previous versions. So it sounds like I would go nuts on the PC, based on the fact that everyone says the previous versions are more robust.
You might not like Civ IV. They're two very different approaches to the same concept, and the console version might be the one you prefer.
Originally posted by: GG02
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: GG02
Wow...I think its freakin' awesome. I cant get enough of it.
But then again, I have never played any of the previous versions. So it sounds like I would go nuts on the PC, based on the fact that everyone says the previous versions are more robust.
You might not like Civ IV. They're two very different approaches to the same concept, and the console version might be the one you prefer.
Well, its been a very long time since I have played any type of RTS game (if you want to call it that), so I guess I could consider this my 'training wheels' to get back into it.
The last game similiar to this that I played was Warcraft 3. Which I thought was great. I recently picked up C&C 3, but haven't gotten a chance to try it. It seems like, from watching others play it, that it would be close to the same thing.
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: GG02
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: GG02
Wow...I think its freakin' awesome. I cant get enough of it.
But then again, I have never played any of the previous versions. So it sounds like I would go nuts on the PC, based on the fact that everyone says the previous versions are more robust.
You might not like Civ IV. They're two very different approaches to the same concept, and the console version might be the one you prefer.
Well, its been a very long time since I have played any type of RTS game (if you want to call it that), so I guess I could consider this my 'training wheels' to get back into it.
The last game similiar to this that I played was Warcraft 3. Which I thought was great. I recently picked up C&C 3, but haven't gotten a chance to try it. It seems like, from watching others play it, that it would be close to the same thing.
Considering that the RT in RTS stands for real-time, I definitely wouldn't call any of the Civ games RTSes.
Maybe you would like Civ IV, can't hurt to give it a try.
