*screams* NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTF, civilisation revolutions on hold, that's the worst news I've for hours. I'm gonna cry now 
| Kasz216 said: Basically, though I pretty much figured the game would be dumbed down from the start in the first place. If not a completely different style of game all together. I wonder why they are having problems on the wii version...
|
Probably one of the challenges with the Wii is crunching the game down to fit 88mb of ram compared to Xbox360 512mb of ram and still get it to run and look descent. Firaxis did crunched civ2 down to run on PS years back but when you got around the modern age in the game the wait between turns got unbearable.
This maybe why there was no hint so far if Wii version could be played online. The idea of Revolution was to ability to get through a game within 3-5 hour span instead 20+ hour civ4 games, thus more multiplayer friendly.
Smidlee said:
Probably one of the challenges with the Wii is crunching the game down to fit 88mb of ram compared to Xbox360 512mb of ram and still get it to run and look descent. Firaxis did crunched civ2 down to run on PS years back but when you got around the modern age in the game the wait between turns got unbearable. This maybe why there was no hint so far if Wii version could be played online. The idea of Revolution was to ability to get through a game within 3-5 hour span instead 20+ hour civ4 games, thus more multiplayer friendly.
|
Screw that then. The only games of Civilization for me are the 18 man Huge map games. Wipe out all other civs down to the last unit only.
The good 40+ hour games tht your just as likely to get sick of when you have half the world than beat.
| Entroper said: What was so wrong with Civ 3? I thought culture and borders were pretty sweet, and they vastly improved the negotiations and treaties over Civ 2. I also liked the changes to combat regarding unit experience and hp, artillery units, and so forth. What did Civ 4 do besides refine the government system and go back to a square grid? (I admit, the square grid is worth it all by itself, I've hated isometric view with a passion since it was born. Also, I don't own Civ 4, so this is an honest question, not a rhetorical one.) |
I was going to post this news today, if it wasn't already up. If you've ever looked at my profile, you'll know I'm a huge Civilization fan, and in fact, I worked on the development team for Civ4. Some of your unkind comments make Sulla cry. (Seriously, Civ2 better than Civ4?! Don't make me type 3000 words explaining how silly that is. 
)
Needless to say, I'm extremely bummed out about this annoucement. This was pretty much a guaranteed day one purchase for me. I'd be happy to get it for the 360 or PS3, but I don't own either of those platforms, and the game's not worth $300+ to me. Financially speaking, I simply don't understand what Take-Two is thinking here. The Wii audience seemed like the best fit for a turn-based strategy game, the Wii's controller can be used as a mouse-pointer, and the Wii has the largest, fastest-growing install base. Even if you argue that the 360 has more consoles in America, the Civ series has always been extremely popular in Europe, where the Wii sells much better. And if Take-Two is willing to make a DS port (a freakin' DS port!), why can't they make a Wii version? It boggles the mind. As several others posted, Take-Two must not like making money...
Entroper, to get a good look at a typical Civ4 game, I'll link you to my Walkthrough. It should give you a fair idea of whether the game would appeal to you or not. 
End of 2008 totals: Wii 42m, 360 24m, PS3 18.5m (made Jan. 4, 2008)
I doubt Civilization will do well on any console. I think Wii was the only one that had the potential to make the control scheme less obnoxious. Oh well.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
