Metareview - CivCity: Rome
by Alan Rose 
{ Jul 29th 2006 at 2:35PM }
What do you get when you combine the Roman Empire building of Caesar, the city planning of SimCity, and the wonders and tech trees of the ever popular Civilization? It would probably look something like CivCity: Rome, developed by Firefly Studios (Stronghold, Space Colony), where your task is to create and manage the economy of ancient Rome, collect taxes, and keep your citizens happy. The critics have been all over the map so far, but there is an alternative right around the corner for aspiring urban planners. VU Games plans to release the long-awaited Caesar IV in September, which should provide a basis for comparison -- and give Firefly some time to patch the buggy CivCity.
- IGN (82/100) appreciates the attention to detail: "CivCity: Rome is definitely full of Roman flavor. Not only are the structures and commodities designed to heighten your appreciation and understanding of Roman life, but even your citizens will give you insight into topics as diverse as makeup and warfare. If you crave more information, the Civilopedia and the manual offer some interesting commentaries on the buildings and activities of a Roman's daily life."
- GameSpot (66/100) has issues with CivCity's look and feel: "For starters, the game is ugly. Although it is nifty how roofs peel back to show you citizens going about their daily lives, and how clicking on homes and businesses create arrows connecting them to their wandering citizens, the jagged visuals are three years out of date."
- 1UP (50/100) isn't bullish on the game's combat system: "Once you've struggled with troop facing, watched them surround and ignore an invader, and shrieked as enemies walk right through closed city gates, you'll convert entirely to the boring (but less troublesome) map-level warfare. You can also opt to entirely skip this disappointing tradeoff by sticking to the peaceful game, though at a cost of about one-third of the game's content."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
K1ller 1nst1nct @ Jul 29th 2006 4:03PM
gamespots reviews are generally pretty fair, they were the only site to not give doom a 90+ review. Most other sites probably would rate doom below 90 if they rated it again 1yr later.
Risse @ Jul 29th 2006 4:03PM
Is it just me, or is the game industry losing it's imagination in naming?
This game is part Civilization, part SimCity and part Caesar. And what to call it? CivCity: Rome!
Just a little bit from every name.
This is getting ridiculous.
baberg @ Jul 29th 2006 4:10PM
Risse, I doubt that it's a lack of creativity but more of an attempt at getting their title more impulse buys.
Somebody who doesn't know about the game or who doesn't follow the Internet closely might think that this game was somehow related to SimCity or Civilization (or even Rome: Total War) and buy it on impulse without checking.
From what Gamerankings says (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/932339.asp butwhy doesn't Joystiq just link to this?) IGN is the only review site which is even giving this a second glance. Given IGN's track record, I'm betting that CivCity's publishers have bought a lot of advertising on IGN recently. It certainly wouldn't be the first time IGN bowed to the almighty dollar.
Josh @ Jul 29th 2006 5:08PM
baberg, can you show me where you got that information?
Anthriel @ Jul 29th 2006 9:25PM
To baberg:
Well, most gamesites bow to the dollar, it's just a question of how much.
If a site gets an exclusive demo, or a lot of ads for a game, they generally give it above average reviews.
Somewhat sad, but smart people take all reviews with a grain of salt anyway.
Snap @ Jul 29th 2006 10:06PM
I'm happy to hear this game turned into a turd. Bring on the real city builder; Caeser IV! Tilted Mill (ol' school Impressions Games) knows how to make a city builder.
soapfoam @ Jul 30th 2006 4:21AM
Not only will you have Firefly to thank for producing another horrible (or great) game, but Firaxis is also playing a part (hence the Civ branding).