[Munkey Boy]

Please vote if you've played enough of Civilisation Revolution to judge, but feel free to leave comments about your feel for the game.

Top marks should only be given for a landmark game that sets new rules and an average game that does things right but nothing special should get an average (not a good like some media would have you believe).

[gingin]

love it, strategy games get a bad press on consoles because the controls are so bad. This one does not suffer frm this at all.

really good fun and easy to get into. graphics are good too and really addictive

[Bean84]

The game gets my vote. Transfered very well to console play along with a little dumbing down!!

[kopchoir]

Originally Posted by Munkey Boy

Please vote if you've played enough of Battlefield Bad Company to judge

havent played any battlefield bad company but palyed plenty of civ rev lawrence mate

[Munkey Boy]

Originally Posted by kopchoir

havent played any battlefield bad company but palyed plenty of civ rev lawrence mate

Corrected by the punctuation king Cheers!

[kopchoir]

Originally Posted by Munkey Boy

Corrected by the punctuation king Cheers!

[Bald Monkey]

I voted 'Very good' as I believe in leaving room for better titles..

However I am very pleased with the game. I'm a bit of a stategy fan, not obsessive or particularly good, it's just a genre I've enjoyed over many years and platforms.

I'd also thought it impossible to get the level of usability that they have with such a game on a console. I usually found the PC (or even the Ipaq ) based strategy games to be far better, so much of it because of the controls. I usually treated console strategy games as gap fillers, that I would buy and play to simply feed my craving, whilst waiting for the next decent PC version.. But I've found it difficult to stop playing this Game.

I 'm not sure I'd say it was the best Strategy game ever, (in some ways it might be) but IMO it's certainly the best strategy game I've played on the Xbox360, or any console. It does eat up your life so be warned.. a quick play can turn into 2-3 hours before you know it and some games can be a lot longer..

They have simplified the Micro management of cities and the population, so some hard core Civ fans will no doubt find it a little simplistic, but IMO this has in noway adversely affected the playability. The game probably plays so well and is so addictive as it is quick to pick up and doesn't require the level of micro management that some games do. And although Turn based, it never seems slow or static, of course it's not got the frenetic pace of Dawn of War for example but I enjoy the variation and the pressure can still mount and you can still be 'rushing' to defend or attack.

I almost resent it being so good as I've been missing out on some great COD4 LIVE matches, but I'll be back to that, for now I simply can't put Civ Revolutions Down.

[kopchoir]

gave it a 9 purely on the basis that i have fired up the 360 to have a quick hour which then in turn led to around 4 or 5 hour sessions i dont really go for this kind of game but it was a refreshing piece of gaming that had me hooked and kept reeling in me in for more
quality game

[jonnydynamite]

I gave this a 9, primarily for the fact that since I bought my 360 no other game has managed to command the time I've spent playing this and it's all flown by.

First the negatives.

- Graphics - They aren't quite at the level that I might have expected and there are a number of occassions where it chugs a bit and some graphical glitches occur during battles.
- Sound - Some of the samples are starting to grate a bit, especially some of the gibberish speaking advisor. I wish they had left you an option so you could dictate which alerts you wanted to know and which to ignore.
- Addictiveness - I've left this as a negative but some could see it as a positive! I can't stop playing this game and it's making me late for things all the time!

...and now the positives.

- Gameplay - Easy to pick up, hard to put down. I've not managed to play another game and lose track of time by 4 hours before. On the surface it is fairly simple but there is more and more depth to it as you start to play it more. I've never played another Civ game before so I can't comment on the 'dumbing down' for consoles but I think it strikes a nice balence between accessibility and depth. As you start to uncover the intricacies in the game you improve slowly and difficulties which seemed near impossible at first become a breeze. The subtle management of your civilization makes you think tactically about every decision - do prioritise military tech at the start to make yourself strong or take another route to try for a cultural or economic win? The way the game plays out often means you have to take a reasonably balenced development or you'll end up comepletely overpowered by a civilaztion taking a different route.
- Actually I can't think of anything else to put in the positives as it is all about the gameplay!

Anyway, enough writing about how good it is - I'm off to think up some more tactics!

[zinger5]

I thought Civ Rev was good but (very) slightly too limited. I wouldn't have wanted the full Civ experience on the 360 as the controls just aren't up to it, but I found myself wishing there was a little more there after a while.