Your Thoughts Exactly

So, I'm probably like the millionth person to review this game, but I have been playing it a lot (in fact all of us have), and I think it's only fair to give it the full treatment. Here's a one-line review: it's great.

Now that we have that out of the way, let's go over the short list of positives. Why is it short, if it's such a great game? Well, really, there's nothing that new in this game. If you've played Civilization 1, 2, or 3, it's pretty much the same thing. Sure, there are a few tweaks here and there, but by and large, it's still the same turn-based game of world domination. Of course, the earlier Civs are considered some of the greatest games of all time, so it's good that they didn't change it too much. But basically, for a complex version of a game of risk, there's nothing that even really falls into Civ 4's genre.

And that's what this really has turned into with the advent of multiplayer in Civ 4. Sure, multiplayer had been available in add-ons for the earlier civs, but it never worked quite right, because turns took an ungodly amount of time and you were always stuck waiting for other people. They've eliminated this in Civ 4 with the concept of simultaneous turns. This presents its own problem- when two people are attacking, who gets to go first? Basically, the person who can click on their guy fastest. Not a huge deal- but I feel like it could actually make a difference. You know the old adage: a few battles can change a war. But multiplayer is what makes this game shine. Playing singleplayer is great, but it's just not the same as actually making Derek your bitch with a battalion of knights sieging his puny Mongolian cities.

By really, this is mostly just an update of Civ 3. Not one of those "let's just slap new graphics" on it update. Actually, the designers actually rebuilt the entire game from scratch, which allowed them to reexamine what was actually fun and good about their game and what wasn't. The result is that Civ 4 is probably the cleanest game yet, with the least frustration of all the games, and probably the best feeling of control of your mini-empire.

But still, there are a lot of little nitpicks. The game runs pretty slowly for what it is. The graphics aren't that spectacular, and at the end of the game on a large map, things can get really slow. Unacceptably slow, even. And there are just a lot of little things that probably would have been changed if they hadn't rushed it out the door. But then, everyone would have been deprived of Civ for a few more weeks or months and the world would be an unhappier place.

Anyway, the way the Civ cycle has always been for me, is that every few years, they release a new version, I get addicted, play until I can't remember my friends' names, and then quit when I get sick of it. Because Civ is the only game out there like it, they could probably re-release the same game every year and I would buy it and get re-addicted. But thankfully, they haven't rested on their loads and loads of cash, and actually improved the game.

In any case, it seems that 2005 was a down year for games- Nothing spectacular was released, and so I'm actually going to have to declare Civ 4 the game of the year. Hopefully 2006, with the Xbox 360, PS3, and the Nintendo Revolution(Smash Brothers Revolution, anyone?) being released, will be a banner year.