Review of Civilization IV

Strategy computer games designer, Sid Meier has always made some of the best and popular strategy & simulation video games to ever hit the computer game market. His most famous work was with the successful turn-based strategy game in which players start a civilization, develop it through the ages, interacting with neighboring civilization, hoping one day to eventually rule the world, call 'Sid Meier's Civilization' (1991), which became a huge franchise. Since then, each game, expansion pack, spin-off in the series developed by his company, Firaxis Games has gotten better with improvement. 'Civilization IV' is just one such example. It follows the '4X' model very closely: which states that a good strategy game must have the elements of explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate to be playable. Because of this, 'Civilization IV' finally offers up a 3D map that worthy of the gameplay due to how convenient, it show the information. The world is still viewed from a 3/4 perspective, but the game does let you zoom in/out and move the camera around. Yet, I wish the interface elements could had been refined a little more to ease access and readability. It was very hard to move my units, at times. The game mechanics is still a bit jerky. Still, most of the aspects of what makes a civilization is still, under the control of the player, including exploration, technological advancement, expansion, material production, culture, religion, military development and deployment, foreign negotiations, trade and others. There is more to do, like using culture and religion to sway nearby neighbors to join your empire, or using great artist to create a great work for a boost in technology. In addition to that, adding a lot of variety to substantial bonus to the combat system such as specializations & experience points that can be used to buy promotions. While, the game still suffers from the spearman-defeats-tank combats, it's not as common as other plays. If it does, it's unavoidable like the fact that some nations never co-existed together at the time, the game has given, or have the resources; the nations would never have, in real-life. Despite that, this said oddness is a major source of the game's charm, after all, where on earth, would you see American Civilization in BC times, China with Eiffel Tower and Gandhi wanting to nuke everybody. It's also acceptable to forget that some nations weren't really create until 20th century, and leaders are not immortal. I'm willing to accept the recipe of oddness of this game. The game's open-ended play, and the multiple settings (involving world size, terrain, opposing civilizations, multiple victory scenarios, game play speed and difficulty) mean also that every game can be different from the previous one. Also, I love how this game can be played online. While, you'll still find yourself waiting for your friends to move all their units every now and then, but you'll still be able to put tinker with your cities while they're putting the final touches on their turns. Plus, you can put time-limits. It's might as time-consuming as it used to be. Its gives the player, a large amount of material to make gameplay, range from downright enjoyable to highly challenging, each time, you start a new game. Thank God, the game has nothing in the game that was too stressful. Many of the more obnoxious or troublesome elements from the previous games such civil disorder, predictable tech paths, pollution and the creeping pace of the late game have been greatly improved upon. It's more manageable. Yet, there were some parts, I wish the game would improve on. For example the announcements that your rivals have completed a mission should be more alarming. While I understand, why some players might find pop-ups obnoxious, it would certainly help me stay oriented to what's going on, by other players during the game. Another is how cartoony, everything look. It would look more historic. Another is the limiting choice of having to choice from 34 civilizations and 52 leaders. While, I can understand why the game doesn't feature thousands of historical civilizations. I do kinda wish, they offer more nations. How cool, would it be, playing as a city-state, barbarian nation and other some micro-colony. Thank God, for mods. While, 2009's Sid Meier's Civilization IV: The Complete Edition (with expansion packs like 2006's 'Civilization IV: Warlords' & 2007's 'Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword' & 2008's 'Civilization IV: Colonization") did serve some of that problem, it definitely not perfect. Other computer games series at the time, feature more nation building, such as 'Crusader Kings' & 'Europa Universalis' series than 'Civilization' ever gave. Everything here seem a little too dry & standard. This might be the main crux of the Civilization franchise, mainly, that it wants to celebrate humanity's existence and invite us to gawk at our achievements as a collective species, but that it tries to do that through a mechanical and theoretical lens that inherently dehumanizes a huge part of it that doesn't belong to those main nations, feature. Yet, it does feature most of the emblematic of what the civilizations feature in the game, does. It kinda works as a little bit of a history lesson. Historical quotes are scattered throughout the game, and an interactive Civilpedia defines various civil and government structures really help to connect the progress you're making in the game to our own history. Leonard Nimoy's voice readings add to the appeal. A wealth of fantastic music highlights the entire experience as well. From the opening choral piece of 'Baba Yetu' by composer Christopher Tin to the subtle nation-specific diplomacy music of middle era to the apocalyptic brooding and ominous end of the modern/contemporary era, by composer, John Coolidge Adams. It was nearly perfect. It also cool to hear that "Baba Yetu" became the first song from a video game to ever win a Grammy Award. Overall: "Civilization IV' is still compelling to play over the years. So, check it out! It's worth your time.