First off, let me say I was never into RTS games. I was put off by the thought of waiting for things to happen. Recently, I purchased Civ Rev for the 360 and was blown away. It was great, and was very rewarding. The multiplayer in that game was superb, although it moved at a horrendously slow pace.
My question is, how does this game compare? Barely anyone plays on the 360, and I could use a competitive PC game. I hear there is a lot more depth in the PC versions, and that the 360 version is basically a stripped down version for mostly newcomers to the franchise. Would it be hard to learn for a noob to the PC? The 360 game took me a while to figure out, but once I did, it was great.
How similar is the 360 game to the PC games? I'm not limiting my options to buying Colonization, because it sounds kind of shallow only being set in the set era. Which is the most accessible Civ game for the PC? If a Civilization vet can help me out here, I'd truly appreciate it.
Thanks!

depends not played the 360 games but on the PC and its so much easier to play and I think a lot more in-depth

The PC games involve a LOT of micro-management...and it's not a RTS.  It's a TBS...turn-based strategy.

"The PC games involve a LOT of micro-management...and it's not a RTS.  It's a TBS...turn-based strategy.

It's not impossible for someone new to the franchise to learn how to PLAY the PC game...on single-player...with low AI adjusted.  If you are looking to do multiplayer on the PC, better be good...because those guys are brutal.

Also, hope you aren't planning on spamming all the Civ forums with this same comment.  =  /

"

Do I seriously have to look up the definition of micro-management for you?

micro-management is this:  all the tasks in the civ rev (360) version plus a ton more.  You handle everything.  If you think Civ Rev was a bunch to handle well strap your seatbelt.  People that play the PC version (not all, but some) were complaining about how civ rev was a step down.  It wasn't at all, for reasons I think the OP already understands.   I'd give any of the PC versions  a shot, with the understanding you have of civrev the learning curve won't be bad at all.

"Do I seriously have to look up the definition of micro-management for you?

As far as how long it will take to learn the PC game...here's a comparison I can give to you:  Civ Revolution is to Civ PC games : Viva Pinata is to Black & White

In other words, it's not easily accessible to everyone, and if you plan on getting good at it and really enjoying it, then you need to really be up for quite a few hours and a lot of micro-management.  Plus, while Civ Rev games will typically last about 3-4 hours (if you drag them out), a Civ IV game can take a couple days.  If you get really hardcore and go back to Civ III or Civ II, then you are talking about a week or two.  If you want to go back to when I started the franchise, back on Windows 3.x in the middle school library...it would definitely take me a while to beat a game.

"

"micro-management is this:  all the tasks in the civ rev (360) version plus a ton more.  You handle everything.  If you think Civ Rev was a bunch to handle well strap your seatbelt.  People that play the PC version (not all, but some) were complaining about how civ rev was a step down.  It wasn't at all, for reasons I think the OP already understands.   I'd give any of the PC versions  a shot, with the understanding you have of civrev the learning curve won't be bad at all."

Multiplayer games can typically be saved and players come back to them later on.  The single player, you can drag it out forever.

"Multiplayer games can typically be saved and players come back to them later on.  The single player, you can drag it out forever.

I think Out On Bail gave a good description.  It's very much about handling every little thing.  It's really something you just have to give a shot, which is why Civ on PC has always been a very hardcore fanbase.  It doesn't really allow much room for new folks to come into it.  Civ Rev did that.

By the way...I loved Civ Rev just as much as I loved the Civ games.  I thought they did a fan-fucking-tastic job of bringing Civ over to the consoles in the proper fashion that it deserved.

" I was initially expecting the same kind of multiplayer thats on Civ Rev (just the same as single player). The way you described it, I'm a bit unclear on how it works. How do turns work if the players aren't always playing at the same times?
I was hoping for the same kind of multiplayer, sit down for 3-4 hours on a boring day and cram a game in. Is it like that?
"

"whackmypinata said:

" I was initially expecting the same kind of multiplayer thats on Civ Rev (just the same as single player). The way you described it, I'm a bit unclear on how it works. How do turns work if the players aren't always playing at the same times?
I was hoping for the same kind of multiplayer, sit down for 3-4 hours on a boring day and cram a game in. Is it like that?
"

It's unclear because there isn't really a way of describing it without filling about seven pages with random crap that, unless you've played the games, will make absolutely no sense.

If you are this confused or unsure from just a forum thread, I would suggest sticking with Civ Rev.  That alone is a fun-as-hell game that still holds a good level of depth to it.  The only reason you need to move up to the PC games is if you are trying to upgrade from pot to heroin.

"

"First off, let me say I was never into RTS games. I was put off by the thought of waiting for things to happen. Recently, I purchased Civ Rev for the 360 and was blown away. It was great, and was very rewarding. The multiplayer in that game was superb, although it moved at a horrendously slow pace.
My question is, how does this game compare? Barely anyone plays on the 360, and I could use a competitive PC game. I hear there is a lot more depth in the PC versions, and that the 360 version is basically a stripped down version for mostly newcomers to the franchise. Would it be hard to learn for a noob to the PC? The 360 game took me a while to figure out, but once I did, it was great.
How similar is the 360 game to the PC games? I'm not limiting my options to buying Colonization, because it sounds kind of shallow only being set in the set era. Which is the most accessible Civ game for the PC? If a Civilization vet can help me out here, I'd truly appreciate it.
Thanks!"

I came to the franchise in 2002 with civ 3 and have gone on to play civ 4 plus expansions If these ar your 2 choices go with civ 4 definetly it allows much more auto managing for the new player and has the same kind of graphics style to civ rev. Also in the civ games for the pc you might be able to win games on any difficulty and still go online and be crushed civ online = Civ Crazy Hard.

The AI cheats far more in the PC versions of 3 and 4 than in Civ Rev.  To me the gameplay isn't fun at all there at anything but the lower difficulties because of the way the game cheats.  CivRev's AI cheats, but it's much more manageable.  I really like the religion system in 4, and the theme and style is also better in 4.  Diplomacy is a little too simple in CivRev IMO.  Also levels can be much bigger in the PC versions of the game, they really should have given that option in CivRev.

There's a lot more detail and depth in the PC version. I also find it easier to control.