Sid Meier's Civilization Revolution

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 04:58:55 GMT, James McTavish
<james.TakeThisOut@noemail.invalid> wrote:

>Tom <Vader0954.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in news:9c042c92-f68f-47c2-b2bb-
>c8f61772839c@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> This game is amazing! It's so fun and I can Play for hours.
>>
>> Choose from several Civilizations like the mongols, americans, aztecs,
>> romans, greeks, and more, each with their own benefits. The Perfect
>> strategy game, there are several ways to win
>>
>> MAKE PEACE AND SPREAD CULTURE and gain the worlds trust
>>
>> TAKE IT BY FORCE and eliminate your opponents
>>
>> WIN IT THROUGH WEALTH and build the worlds largest bank
>>
>> EXPAND IT WITH TECHNOLOGY and be super smart!
>>
>> Xbox and PS3 versions are Identical, and a DS version exists also,
>> with few changes to the interface.
>> A Wii version is to come, mimicking the other Console versions.
>>
>
>This group is for PC Games only and not console weeny games. That's why it
>is called 'comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic'. Both 360 and PS3 have their
>own groups. Like I really want to play a dumbed down version of Civ4 anyway
>when I already have the real deal PC version.

The original post also sounds remarkably like an advertisment.

It's one thing to share your opinions on the announcement of a game
that interests you (e.g., "Oh, hey, did you hear they are making Doom
XVIII? There won't be any AI; all the monsters will be individually
controlled by iD employees to tailor the game to your playing style!
Isn't that neat?") but just pasting in the box-copy is even more
offensive to me than posting to an inappropriate group. There;s enough
advertisment on the Internet; it has *never* been welcome on Usenet.

Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> The original post also sounds remarkably like an advertisment.

Yeah. The only way I could see CivRev being relevant here would be if
someone were trying to contrast gameplay issues or something like that.

David Alex Lamb <dalamb.DeleteThis@cs.queensu.ca> writes:

>> The original post also sounds remarkably like an advertisment.

> Yeah. The only way I could see CivRev being relevant here would be if
> someone were trying to contrast gameplay issues or something like that.

It's no Civilization, that's for sure.

- Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@killfile.org)
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/friends/ Skirv's Friends

Well, I'm SORRY for the inconvenience, but for all I know, it COULD be
coming to PC's soon.

BTW: The first message was by me and me alone. I did no copying or
pasting whatsoever.

On 4 Aug, 04:21, Tom <Vader0....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I'm SORRY for the inconvenience, but for all I know, it COULD be
> coming to PC's soon.
>
> BTW: The first message was by me and me alone. I did no copying or
> pasting whatsoever.

Well the observation still stands: Civ4 and it's expansions make
Civilization Revolution redundant for PC.

Tom <Vader0954.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in news:99ccb15d-d773-419c-acc1-
a25e34b5fa40.TakeThisOut@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

> Well, I'm SORRY for the inconvenience, but for all I know, it COULD be
> coming to PC's soon.

Could, but why would any PC Gamer want to buy a gutted out version of Civ4?
They wouldn't.

Basil wrote:
> Tom <Vader0954 DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in news:99ccb15d-d773-419c-acc1-
> a25e34b5fa40 DeleteThis @e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Well, I'm SORRY for the inconvenience, but for all I know, it COULD be
>> coming to PC's soon.
>
> Could, but why would any PC Gamer want to buy a gutted out version of Civ4?
> They wouldn't.

Especially since you could probably mod out any stuff you didn't really
want.

Basil <b.fawlty.DeleteThis@noemail.invalid> writes:

> Could, but why would any PC Gamer want to buy a gutted out version of Civ4?
> They wouldn't.

The two games really don't have the same feel at all. Civ
Revolutions is a lot different than just a "lite" Civ IV; it's a "lite"
version of the entire Civ line, with perhaps more of the core concepts
kept than Rise of Nations but, well, not a whole lot more.

I bought a copy for DS with the hope that I'd have a good portable
Civ. That's not what I got.

- Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@killfile.org)
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/pics/ Skirv's Pictures

On 2008-08-04, Basil <b.fawlty RemoveThis @noemail.invalid> wrote:
> Tom <Vader0954 RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in news:99ccb15d-d773-419c-acc1-
>> Well, I'm SORRY for the inconvenience, but for all I know, it COULD be
>> coming to PC's soon.
> Could, but why would any PC Gamer want to buy a gutted out version of Civ4?
> They wouldn't.

I did.
A lot of what has been removed (such as manually building roads and managing
workers) greatly speeds the game up without (for me) decreasing the strategy
aspects.

On Aug 7, 8:48 am, Paul Murray <p....TakeThisOut@murray.net> wrote:
> On 2008-08-04, Basil <b.faw....TakeThisOut@noemail.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Tom <Vader0....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in news:99ccb15d-d773-419c-acc1-
> >> Well, I'm SORRY for the inconvenience, but for all I know, it COULD be
> >> coming to PC's soon.
> > Could, but why would any PC Gamer want to buy a gutted out version of Civ4?
> > They wouldn't.
>
> I did.
> A lot of what has been removed (such as manually building roads and managing
> workers) greatly speeds the game up without (for me) decreasing the strategy
> aspects.

Which exactly proves my point. Thank you, Paul!

On Aug 8, 10:30 pm, "Jeremy Reaban" <jeremy_rea....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Tom" <Vader0....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dd8c037c-8e4a-4026-b1e8-963858d8683e@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 7, 8:48 am, Paul Murray <p....RemoveThis@murray.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2008-08-04, Basil <b.faw....RemoveThis@noemail.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > Tom <Vader0....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in news:99ccb15d-d773-419c-acc1-
> > >> Well, I'm SORRY for the inconvenience, but for all I know, it COULD be
> > >> coming to PC's soon.
> > > Could, but why would any PC Gamer want to buy a gutted out version of
> > > Civ4?
> > > They wouldn't.
>
> > I did.
> > A lot of what has been removed (such as manually building roads and
> > managing
> > workers) greatly speeds the game up without (for me) decreasing the
> > strategy
> > aspects.
>
> >Which exactly proves my point. Thank you, Paul!
>
> I can see eliminating a lot of the busywork (like the roading building,
> which was sped up, anyway), but what alarmed me about the game (I bought the
> DS version) was how quickly the pace of the game was sped up.  Or maybe
> slowed down.  Time moves like 3-4x faster than in the original Civ. Yeah,
> it's offset by having smaller worlds and fewer technologies, but it's just
> so short.
>
> I guess that's the point, but the end result to me was like having an
> abridged version of Civ.  Maybe you can get through it quicker, like an
> abridged book, and maybe it's still good, but you miss a lot of the fun that
> way.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And it's perfectly fine to think that. The First Civilization Game I
played was Revolution on the 360. Then I bought it on DS, and then I
downloaded a demo of Civilization IV.

I would see why you guys feel that way: Rev. and IV are DIF-FUR-ENT!!

I'm already used to Rev, which is why I feel IV to have what I feel
are unneccesary elements.

"Tom" <Vader0954.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dd8c037c-8e4a-4026-b1e8-963858d8683e@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 7, 8:48 am, Paul Murray <p....TakeThisOut@murray.net> wrote:
> On 2008-08-04, Basil <b.faw....TakeThisOut@noemail.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Tom <Vader0....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in news:99ccb15d-d773-419c-acc1-
> >> Well, I'm SORRY for the inconvenience, but for all I know, it COULD be
> >> coming to PC's soon.
> > Could, but why would any PC Gamer want to buy a gutted out version of
> > Civ4?
> > They wouldn't.
>
> I did.
> A lot of what has been removed (such as manually building roads and
> managing
> workers) greatly speeds the game up without (for me) decreasing the
> strategy
> aspects.
>
>Which exactly proves my point. Thank you, Paul!

I can see eliminating a lot of the busywork (like the roading building,
which was sped up, anyway), but what alarmed me about the game (I bought the
DS version) was how quickly the pace of the game was sped up. Or maybe
slowed down. Time moves like 3-4x faster than in the original Civ. Yeah,
it's offset by having smaller worlds and fewer technologies, but it's just
so short.

I guess that's the point, but the end result to me was like having an
abridged version of Civ. Maybe you can get through it quicker, like an
abridged book, and maybe it's still good, but you miss a lot of the fun that
way.

Paul Murray <paul.TakeThisOut@murray.net> wrote in
news:489aef33$0$6414$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com:

> I did.
> A lot of what has been removed (such as manually building roads and
> managing workers) greatly speeds the game up without (for me)
> decreasing the strategy aspects.

In the PC version you can choose auto or manual for those aspects. Did you
not read the manual for the PC version?