Sid Meier's Civilization Revolution

We'll be first against the shop wall.

I was initially a bit surly when I sat down to play Civ Rev (or Civilizution, as I like to call it). People kept telling me what to do. Get away from me, I gestured with dismissive hand-flaps. I may even have hissed, like an angry cat. I know how to play Civ, thank you very much. Or so I thought. Yes, I knew perfectly well what everything was, and exactly what I was trying to achieve. I didn't, however, know how to make it happen in this new, console-specific remake. This was because it was simpler, more obvious - because it wasn't expecting me to already comprehend Civ's elaborate mechanisms. I had to unlearn hard in order to learn easy. I felt a little like I'd spent years diligently crushing and fermenting grapes whenever I fancied a tipple, only for some passing helpful soul to observe that they sell wine for four quid a bottle in Tesco's. Oh. Right. Yes, that does make more sense.

It's very much still Civilization - don't worry about that. Most of the strategy stalwart's organs have survived their next-gen transplant intact (360 code was on offer at the event we attended, but it's also on PS3), and yet it immediately seems more amicable and manageable than its PC predecessor. Civ 4 did wonders for a series previously in danger of death by feature creep, but it was still a little daunting to entirely novice eyes. With a worry-disarming cartoonish graphical style - The Sims is a clear influence, even down to characters' nonsense-speak - and large, friendly menus distilled into the bare essentials rather than the stat-attack of yesteryear, this is genuinely a new Civ for a new audience.

'Sid Meier's Civilization Revolution' Screenshot 1

Cities visibly swell and change as you add buildings to them. It's very obvious when a metropolis is doing well for itself.

While prior console versions have simply seen the PC's mouse controls and itty-bitty icons mapped wretchedly onto a d-pad, this really is a fresh start. One thumbstick orders, the other stick looks, and suddenly navigating a vast worldmap seems no trouble at all. Granted, it eats all the controller buttons it can, but subtly retains brief legends of what does what throughout the game, so memorisation isn't a problem. Nor is pressure - this is turn-based strategy, not real-time warmongering. Though there are new checks and balances to ensure you're not sat around for bloody ages while the AI or opposing players take their turns, you're not ever going to lose because you're weeping and mashing buttons at random in a desperate attempt to make something happen before it's too late.

With apologies to the old hands, let's have a quick recap of what Civ (and Civ Rev) is for anyone new to it - or who's shunned it purely because it's turn-based, historical and usually on PC. Those things are not going to be a problem for you here. It's about conquering the world - by military might, by democracy, by culture or by technology. You build cities, which in turn build armies and structures to aid your nation's growth, and generate research to advance you through the ages of humanity. Then you fight everyone, or impress everyone, or build a bloody great space rocket to spread your civ to a new planet. As your technology advances, so too does the look and feel of Civ Rev. So, at the start of the game, you'll be clobbering your neighbours with pointy sticks; by the end you might be dropping nukes on 'em.

'Sid Meier's Civilization Revolution' Screenshot 2

Your advisors regularly pop up to spout Civlish and offer advice. They also change appearance over time - that moustache is much more restrained come the modern age.

In single-player, you're up against a world full of AI-controlled nations, but the finest thrills are likely to come from multiplayer, where you're up against despicable human beings and all their lies. While alliances are easily declared, betrayal is expected - so you'd better do the betraying first. Interestingly, Civ Rev positively eggs you on to military skulduggery - defeating a hostile barbarian tribe might see their leader spill the beans about how another player's city is undefended, or an AI nation might drop vital gossip when you ask them for their thoughts on a rival civ. Co-op play is in there too, and I rather suspect that's going to prove the biggest draw - teaming up with a chum you know you can trust to seize the planet from a host of aggressive AI civs. There's also some fascinating tech that lets players drop in and out of games without ending the session - if someone quits, the AI will coolly take control of their civ, while a new player can step into an AI nation's shoes. It's obvious, but it's super-smart - as it's an awful feeling to not get to finish your match because one player has to go and salve his mother's verruca.

Whether on or offline, there's more focus on combat than in Civ 4 - though it remains just one way to rule the world. While there was something grudging about Civ 4's giant marionette warriors swiping mechanically at each other, in Civ Rev the game zooms in to show a proper energetic fight, with a clear sense of who's winning. Underlying statistics inform it, but now shown as big friendly icons rather than teeny tooltips. Think something like Advance Wars - an ever-present numbered sword icon for attack, a shield for defend. It's a language anyone can grasp. Modifiers such as terrain type and veterancy (a unit gets a stat boost after three and six victories, plus a special power at the latter, like doubled movement) are essential to gaining the upper hand, but again it's all incorporated into those two big, friendly numbers. The affecting modifiers are shown too, in case you do want to know the maths, but essentially it's Me = Bigger Than You.

The same decluttering applies to city management. I've just compared Civ Rev's city screen with Civ 4's, and I started laughing at how cold and fussy the once-lauded latter seems now. Sure, some of the fine control is sacrificed and the truly devoted will lament the simplification, but it's immediately obvious what's going on - a picture of an apple with a big number next to it means this city is making a ton of food, while a shiny bar of gold with a low number means cashflow is poor. Two button-clicks have the city prioritising gold, not food, and you're sorted. In Civ 4, you have to squint just to tell the difference between the happiness and the revenue icons. Yes, some stuff - city hygiene, for instance - is gone, or streamlined as I'm sure 2K would rather say, but mostly it's just a matter of presentation, identifying how to make the most salient facts evident in a single glance.

'Sid Meier's Civilization Revolution' Screenshot 3

Here's the city screen. You can bring up more detail if you want, but really this is as intense as the number bumrush gets.

The tech-tree too is stripped of some arguable deadwood, compositing multiple related inventions into one - bronze-working and archery, or animal husbandry and horseback riding, for instance. Religion is no longer a bewildering spread of different faiths, but rather one unified element affecting your cities' overall culture [oh if only - Ed]. If you're a long-term Civ player thinking this all sounds like a terrible sacrifice, you're not thinking bigger-picture, about how that crafts a faster game full of frequent thrills and new toys, not one that requires 40 turns and half an hour before you can make a bloke ride a horse. It's one much more suited to a couple of hours of sofa play than simply porting Civ 4's hunched-over, marathon sessions to a social circumstance they just weren't made for. This is, after all, an alternative to, not a replacement for, Civ 4.

Civ Rev has much in common with Catan, if you've played that. Both feel not like the cold hexes and hotkeys of PC strategy, but like social boardgames re-imagined expertly for console, replete with a chummy, toy-like physicality that belies the satisfying complexity underneath. It's Civ made simpler and quicker, but no stupider. Most of all, it's Civ made specifically with multiplayer in mind - a key difference from merely a Civ game with a multiplayer mode. While the build I saw suggests there's a lot of code-buffing to go before the June release, I'm pretty confident Civilization Revolution will prove a online megahit. If it isn't, then clearly the people don't desire freedom from the tyranny of dodgy strategy ports and look-alike shooters after all.

Comments (34) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Kryon #1 4 years ago

    Nominated for the 'Worst picture of Gandhi EVER' award.
  • Fixxxer #2 4 years ago

    If moustache restraint is what the developers consider progress then I won't be going anywhere near this.

    A fancy, lavish moustache is be the best way to represent progress.
  • TheDudesRug #3 4 years ago

    You capture an entire city and you get eight gold pieces? Those conquerer's need a raise.
  • RedPanda #4 4 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012
  • Zomoniac #5 4 years ago

    But your opinion is of no consequence at all.
  • DoKtoR #6 4 years ago

  • Mr_Bison #7 4 years ago

  • Quint2020 #8 4 years ago

    Never played a Civ game before, always seemed a bit too slow and complicated for me but this sounds really good, i bet it would be great in co op, teaming up with your mate to take over the world!
  • gringohairpiece #9 4 years ago

    I am very disappointed that they haven't managed to make this into an FPS, surely they realise that this is all us 360 owners want to play ;)
  • Les #10 4 years ago

    Am interested. Love the Civ series. In fact, it's my all time favourite. The only drawback was that a simple campaing on a big map could take well over a week to complete. But when it comes to strategy, turn based is the only way to go. RTS has nothing to do with strategy, it has some tactics at best.
  • Dizzy #11 4 years ago

    Ghandi looks like Bruce Lee in that picture, just before he jumps in and breaks your neck.
  • UncleLou #12 4 years ago

    What's with all the comments that Civ IV takes too long? Set your custom game to "quick", and you're sorted. :-)

    Anyway, doesn't sound too bad. I don't suppose you had a chance to look at the DS version, Alec?
  • w00t #13 4 years ago

    Oh please let the DS version have online multiplayer. PLEASE.

    Sounds interesting (as a confirmed Civ 4 addict). I shall not sneer at it.
  • killest #14 4 years ago

    Mahatmahatmahatmahatmahatmahatmahatmahatmahatmahatmahatmahat mahatmahatmahatmahatma......
  • Lutz #15 4 years ago

    Any word on a date yet?
  • marilena #16 4 years ago

    Some very good interface design there, by the looks of it. I are impressed.

    The only change I mind a bit is the simplified tech tree. Choosing what to research was a very interesting side of the game, I hope it wasn't simplified too much.

    Multiplayer sounds great. The seamless drop-in, drop-out functionality isn't new, though, it's what Civ IV does too, if I remember correctly.
  • Marvinator #17 4 years ago

  • Bertie Verified Senior Staff Writer, Eurogamer.net #18 4 years ago

    I'm very excited about this. So excited I forgot to put my trousers on this morning.
  • Andy247 #19 4 years ago

    I thought Civ IV made the whole thing a bit too easy and you could fly through a game in a few hours. I quite liked having to devote a bit of time to it. That said, I think the online sounds greaty for this and i'll still be buying it.
  • alco75 #20 4 years ago

  • groovychainsaw #21 4 years ago

    Co-op - Sold! (Is it same room, hot-seat based? - Probably not...)
  • alco75 #22 4 years ago

    Why they've reintroduced separate attack and defense values (Civ4's units have an overall 'strength' rating) when the general trend has been to dumb dow- sorry streamline, I have no idea. It's a little disappointing as I love the Civ4 'strength' mechanism.
  • mexalen #23 4 years ago

    It got CIV tagged on it .. where can I buy?
  • Drpwnage #24 4 years ago

    The biggest gaming regret I have is never picking up the first Civ and getting stuck into the series. Civ Rev looks like being an excellent introduction to the Civ world.
  • UncleLou #25 4 years ago

    The biggest gaming regret I have is never picking up the first Civ and getting stuck into the series. Civ Rev looks like being an excellent introduction to the Civ world.


    Heh, it's not like the'y telling a consecutive story which you will have missed, they're remakes more than sequels. :)

    Civ IV, with all its complexity, is pretty accesible, more so than the predecessors.
  • jachap #26 4 years ago

    Sounds awesome. I hadn't played the series since Civ II and 4 just bewildered me for weeks until I entirely gave up on it. This more simplif- ahem - streamlined version sounds ideal for my tiny brain.
  • symmetry #27 4 years ago

  • darc #28 4 years ago

    This sounds great. I feel like I've kind of missed the boat on an entire PC genre (or two: real time strategy and turn based strategy), and all but a few of the most recent titles present learning curves that are a little too much like work for me. This could be the perfect gateway drug. :)
  • Waffleaber #29 4 years ago

    "a faster game full of frequent thrills and new toys, not one that requires 40 turns and half an hour before you can make a bloke ride a horse"

    No thanks, I prefer the creeping progress of the old civ games. DS version may be worth a look though.
  • Scimarad #30 4 years ago

    Much as I like CIV4 it does seem to have crossed the line into becoming a bit of a chore, especially when it comes to the military stuff. Actually, I think that happened quite a while a go...

    This, however, sounds quite fresh and interesting.
  • DodgyPast #31 4 years ago

    Civ IV is definitely the true successor to the crown of Civ II.

    I do think they're smart since they've opened their market up to everyone who can't be arsed with the real thing, and maybe some of us will be tempted to play this when we want a quick game.

    I'll wait for the review though to see if I end up with a copy of this on my PS3.
  • MGG #32 4 years ago

    Am I alone in really liking Civ3 then? Anyone?

    Got Civ4, but never got into it. Maybe I just didnt have the time to commit to it or something - still a series I love though.

    *Wishes for some sort of time machine.....*
  • Les #33 4 years ago

    "Am I alone in really liking Civ3 then? Anyone?"

    I love Civ III as well. Haven't even played IV yet, because I'm still enjoying III so much.
  • Nero85 #34 4 years ago

    Anyone remembers Colonization?
    It must be the one game i was never tired of beating..