Emperor_Seth Emperor_Seth

2k's excuss for not having Civilization Revolution on PC, total BS?

2k's excuss for not having Civilization Revolution on PC, total BS?

I read this on MTV Multiplayer, and i read this blog,

I own a PC. I like PC games. But as I said yesterday, the “Civilization” series simply isn’t up my alley. It’s why “Civilization Revolution”’s streamlined approach clicks.

But what if I’ve tired of the players in the lobbies of Xbox Live and PlayStation Network. We’ve heard the complaints before. What if I want “Civilization Revolution” on my PC? Unfortunately, a producer at 2K Games says it’s “never” going to happen.

He repeated the word “never” twice when I asked, actually.

They must really mean it. But why?

“This is not a PC game,” said producer Jason Bergman to Multiplayer. “It’s been designed as a console game. It’s very, very different from ‘Civ[ilization] 4′ and we don’t want it to be looked at as ‘Civ[ilization] 5.’ We don’t want people to think that this is meant to replace the existing ‘Civ’ games. This is a totally different game, created exclusively for consoles. It is never coming to PC.”

And it’s not because Firaxis don’t have the manpower or technical hang-ups. The prototype for “Civilization Revolution” originated on the PC, but the interface was created from day one to be manipulated with a gamepad in the player’s hands. “There was never a mouse interface; it was always designed around a controller,” continued Bergman.

Last week, 2K showed “Civilization Revolution” to the San Francisco-based media (we had a separate demo a few days later at 2K’s offices). Bergman said a common question was over enabling keyboard and mouse support in the PlayStation 3 version. Microsoft doesn’t allow the feature, but Sony’s had no problem with it; look at “Unreal Tournament 3,” for example.

Bergman’s rationale is simple. “…the answer is no, because why would you need to? The game has not been designed for that [controller]; we would have to make a new interface for that. People sort of assume it’s the other way around, like it is with the PC RTSs that are ported. This is not a port, this is an entirely new game.”

While “Civilization Revolution” on the PC appears to be out, reading between the lines, Bergman seems to be suggesting a “Civilization 5″ is in the cards, as well. 

Is it just me or is 2k making up some BS excuess just Lucas Arts because they didn't want their game to get pirated?

101,023 views 31 replies
Reply #26 Top
I'm sure the game is good for consoles, but I'm not sure why anyone would want a conzolized version of Civ4 ported back to the PC.


/thread
no seriously.
/thread

I am playing Civ'Rev as i type this. And its fun and works perfect for the quick in and out console game play. But i also have Civ4 on my comp for the times when i want depth.

long story short, play Civ4 its the same game but with more options.
Reply #27 Top
I can assure you this many others you're literally assuming is just a small minority among the Civilization fan base


Perhaps it is. "Many", however, does not equate to "most". Many of the world's people are rich, for example, but most are poor. "Many" relates to absolute values, while "most" or "few" relate to relative values. You'll notice that despite my reference to the stated "many" others, I also disagree with the implications made by the OP, because I believe them to be unreasonable. Note also that the "many others" referred to in my post applies to PC gamers in general, not just to the Civ fan base (I understand it may not be "most" - I don't have enough information to clarify that, nor do, I imagine, you. I just know enough people for it to qualify as the absolute form "many". Perhaps I should have clarified this at the beginning :) ).
Pardon me if I'm over-reacting to your post, but I just wanted to make this clear. I agree with you, and I can understand how in a game series like that of Civ, a successful port between PC and console and vice versa would just be unfeasible. In my view, it's one or another.
The point of my post was that, regardless of this unfeasibility, it is unreasonable to force a reason on the lack of a port.
Whoa! Diatribe! My bad :P Apologies for what may seem like hostility in this post - I assure you it is merely a qualification :)
Reply #28 Top
I'm not sure why you would want Civ Revolution on your pc, no offence. It's a watered down version of an amazing game. I think people who buy it for their console buy it because theyre missing out on Civ, or simply don't know about it. I think most(if not all) hardcore Civ players wouldnt give it more than 5 minutes. Civ 4 is simply too complete.
Reply #29 Top
I'm not sure why you would want Civ Revolution on your pc, no offence. It's a watered down version of an amazing game. I think people who buy it for their console buy it because theyre missing out on Civ, or simply don't know about it. I think most(if not all) hardcore Civ players wouldnt give it more than 5 minutes. Civ 4 is simply too complete.


Oh come on now I love Civ4 but CivRev isn't that bad. I sometimes just wanna pump out armies in 20min and take over a civilization. Of course Civ4 is a fully complete game and awesome in every way, but there are some people who can't grasp so much of the intricacies of it. This is a good alternative, and consoles are mainly for the casual gamer so the watered down version works to that end.
Reply #30 Top
As a genuine liberal Democrat (which Obama ain't), I don't like Obama much and am uncertain I can even bring myself to vote for him. Nonetheless, when your hypothetical John (McCain) citizen questions his experience. eight time out of ten (charitably) it's because he's black.


You're overcomplicating the situation. When your hypothetical John Citizen qustions Obama's experience, it's because John Citizen is a Republican, Obama is a Democrat, and Obama's got a short track record in politics. Period, full stop, end of discussion. Race is utterly irrelevant, *ANYBODY* with Barack Obama's level of experience, running for POTUS, would have his experience questioned by members of the opposing party.
Reply #31 Top
Race is utterly irrelevant, *ANYBODY* with Barack Obama's level of experience, running for POTUS, would have his experience questioned by members of the opposing party.


Yes - my point was to say that it is automatically because of racism, simply because he's black, is wrong, and that seems to be the sort of attitude that the OP had (no offence meant to him) - to exaggerate: "Oh, it's not coming to PC. The only possible reason for this, regardless of what the producer says, is because they don't want their game pirated, so are deliberately neglecting the PC market".
As a final example, it's a bit like an extreme feminist saying that the only possible reason that more men than women play rugby is sexism.