11/14/05 >> Civilization 4 (PC)
Genre: Turn-based Strategy
Some 'reinvention' of the series this turned out to be.
Civilization 4 is simply a blending of Civilization 3's worst traits made worse with its good traits made better. It still follows the same Civ-type 4X formula. You build cities. Cities make stuff. Etc. And it is not a bad game. Let me go ahead and say that again. Civilization 4 is not a bad game. It just simply doesn't live up to its pedigree.
The basic interface is very nice as you can read most of what's happening to a city without having to open up the city and look. That you can control a city's production without having to open its screen is an added bonus. With one glance at the screen you can see whether a city is growing, stagnant, or starving, what it's producing and how soon it'll be done, whether it's happy or not, what religions are present, what the defense bonus for defenders is. The interface is very streamlined, fairly intuitive, and good looking. The interface changes are probably the biggest improvement to the series and genre that Civilization 4 brings to the table.
Religion is a pretty nifty addition, and a good way to manage unhappiness in your cities. Multiple religions in one city lets you build extra temples and such, so that unhappiness can decrease further. And the Free Religion Civic later on further accentuates the benefit of multiple religions in a city.
The Civics are a nice touch. They're similar to the Social Engineering choices you can make in Alpha Centauri. They affect everything from how much upkeep you pay in your cities and for troops, to whether you can hurry production, on to what bonuses religion has for you. Civics replace the much simpler Government model of earlier Civilization games and let you customize how your state operates further.
Upkeep is different from previous games. Instead of paying per-building, you pay per city. The more cities you have, the more upkeep you pay. Certain Civics and buildings can help lower these costs. In essence, upkeep is supposed to combine the building and unit upkeep costs and corruption into a single system. I'm not too sure it was all that successful, because I never had much financial trouble sprawling out everywhere.
Once again, as in Civilization 3, defense is vastly overpowering against offense. I found myself losing Modern Armor units to Spearman and Archer units on a fairly consistent basis simply because the defenders could rack up such massive bonuses. The unit upgrades do compensate for that somewhat, but I couldn't shake the feeling that the effects of experience were far less than the effects of the similar Morale system in Alpha Centauri. A +40% Keshik unit just didn't seem to fare that much better in combat than its un-upgraded peers. And really, the unit upgrades aren't anything all that new. People that played Alpha Centauri have already seen how units can be specialized in the context of a Civ-type game.
The more open technology tree allows the player to be more free-wheeling with the choices made, though there are often some interesting consequences. I always seem to end up with Cavalry and Musketmen before I get Knights, for example. As to whether it makes for more trade with other players... well, I can't say as I really saw that. At the point in time I would have liked to do the most trading (early on), the technology for tech trading (Alphabet) usually hasn't been discovered by anyone. Later in the game, the AI usually doesn't have anything I can't research in 2-3 turns anyway. So, whether this change to the game was a good one or not depends on personal taste, I think.
There's really not a whole lot to say here. If you've played a Civilization game before, you have a pretty fair idea of what to expect. The base system, controls, and mechanics are not substantially different here.
Gameplay
It's the same basic game as other Civ-types. The interface is a little better organized, but I question very strongly many of the balance choices made in the development process. The ability to turn on a tile grid does help, though, because sometimes it is hard to tell where a square ends and the next begins when planning military moves. Diplomacy is better than Civilization 2 and 3. In fact, I'd say that the fact that the AI doesn't get locked into a cycle of permanently hating you, as always seemed to happen in Civilization 3, and isn't so easy to manipulate, as in Civilization 2, are both good, if subtle, improvements to the series.
Graphics
For a turn-based strategy game, Civilization 4 is absolutely gorgeous. The animations of the animal units are superb, and though the human units sometimes looks silly (a Spearman running up and stabbing a Helicopter) they are also well done. The models are detailed, the textures good looking. I suppose the map is plain looking, but the things that happen on top of it are good looking and fun to watch - unlike say the boring Campaign map in Rome: Total War.
Sound
The music is excellent and fits with the era the game is in rather well. Tribal music early on, classical later. The sound effects are good and show some character. I have no idea what my Keshik were yelling at me when I ordered them around, but I liked it anyway.
Replay
Like all Civ-type games, there is lots of replayability here. Between the ability to customize the kind of map you're playing on and the variety of leaders/nationalities to pick from, and the multiple strategies to beat the game in different ways, there are a vast number of ways to play here.
To be honest, while Civilization 4 is a good game, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri is still the king of the Civ-type genre. In a game like this, gameplay is the most important factor. And it's merely 'good'. There's not that much here that really improves over its predecessors in the gameplay department. Civilization 4 seems to be more about the presentation, the style rather than the substance. I'm sure two or three expansion packs down the road it'll be a much improved experience....
------------------------------------------------------------
Game Score: 7.6
