Civilization IV

"Civ 1 started it. Civ 2 and Civ 3 had flaws but added well. Civ 4 has some flaws, but a much more agonizing system, and is an overall disappointment."

Sure, the game looks cool. Workers have 2 movement, thats a plus. No more loss of production from waste.... Civics are nice... Uhh... what else... Corruption was recalculated... but in a user-unfriendly way... and uhhh religions... No wait religion adds an extremely annoying and time consuming bore to the game... Well, you get the idea.

GAMEPLAY (7/10): The game is less user friendly than the previous ones when it comes to finding information from the get-go and starting your game. It takes much longer than it should to get into the game. It gets a lot more friendly after that, though.

The maps are tiny and are completely undersized for the amount of players on it. In most of my games it was a struggle just to get up to 10 cities without cultural conversions (Some of them I couldn't). Managing cities has its higher and lower points. Specialists can do a lot more now, but for some reason the game will occasionally turn a spot on a large city into a specialist randomly, which can end up totally screwing the city. If you switch productions, the work no longer carries over, but it saves the progress on the previous product. Any production thats extra and unneeded for the current task becomes "overflow" and goes into the next build, which is nice. Food works the same way, which is actually another plus for the game. Also, NO MORE OF THAT DAMNED WASTE.

Industrious doesn't have the same bonuses as in Civ 3 but it is still ridiculously overpowered for single human games. Industrious Nations with resources and Forges are wonder rushing monsters. I got all the wonders in the game my first time playing in Noble mode with Roosevelt. The game was also insanely easy as I just culture rushed 4 Cities up and I'm not even sure if that one lasted into the 1900s. The medium mode is supposed to have a degree of difficulty to it, isn't it?

War (2/10): War is weak to the point where practically all HITS LANDED IN A BATTLE are predetermined. If your 5 power unit bounces off a 10 power unit without landing a hit (Takes 5 hits in a row and dies), chances are your 15 power unit will be hit 5 times in a row and nearly die instantly. War weariness is better in this game and your people don't go nuts in 3 turns like they did with Civ 3's Democracy. Overall, war is horrible, incredibly time consuming, and nearly useless.

Trade: (5/10): Bah... Its the same at heart but its different in almost all bad ways. You still only talk to one ruler at a time. A ruler who starts negative towards everyone will pretty much never trade anything all game, especially not to you (A.K.A. the Ghandi in one of my games, who hated everyone, whilst everyone hated him). If a country like that founds a religion, your hope of getting it is very small (More on religions later). Theres also no way to know how to balance your trades, either. I found myself hardly ever trading in the game and certainly much less than in Civ 3. The only positive side is some Civs will be friendlier and easier to trade certain things with, although its very hard to actually get one to trade you a Science for anything. Some enemy Civs will also be easier to please, except when they get pissed at you when you refuse to get dragged into war with a friend, or "demand" you stop trading with a friend. Theres just not much to do in a trade window at all even if you're not massacring opponents in every single way. Huge downgrade from Civ 3.

Civics: (9/10) Civics aren't bad actually. They do an GOOD job of replacing governments and allow the player more customization that before. This power can be manipulated quite easily to suit the player's needs and makes the game overall friendlier in the late run.

Religion: (1/*******10) Religion is the most G-ddamn annoying thing I have ever seen in a Civ game hands down. The stupid Missionaries can fail and completely waste your time and production. (Especially later in the game), and getting every religion to every city is nothing but an extremely boring and agonizing chore, especially if some backwater town in the middle of nowhere founds a religion, or you lose one to an enemy. (There is practically no way for one Civ to found both Hinduism and Buddhism, so you're not getting them all). Missionaries DO affect coding CAN screw with battle results in wars, and thats one of only two things that ever made me respect Religion's influence in the game. (Besides the Organized Religion Civic which kicks ass, and is the only reason I gave Religion a 1/10).

Overall: (6/10), -1 For making War so pathetic and incredibly boring. -1 For adding those G-d awful religions (I do believe in G-d, but the pun is too nice to avoid). -1 because the game got boring way too quickly both times I played it, -1 because Civ 2 and Civ 3 totally kick this game's ass). Yes I know my points average to less than a 5, but I don't feel giving it an overall 5 is Justified. A 7 suits the game well, but the disappointment factor deserves to be credited.

This game just isn't as good as Civ 2 or Civ 3. It's relatively lackluster and it definitely shows later in the game. It happened again though: Developers were so busy turning a game from 2D to 3D, that they didn't pay enough attention to the game itself and they made a completely inferior product, compared to its predecessors, at the end of development.

Reviewer's Score: 6/10, Originally Posted: 01/23/06