The Best Video Game Ever: “Civilization IV”
By Don Zeko
Note: This post is part of our League Symposium on the Best Video Games Ever. To see a list of all posts in the Symposium so far, please click here.
Before I sat down to write this, I had a look at my steam account information to see how many hours it had recorded me playing Civilization V.
The result?
196 hours played, or over a month of full-time work. Civilization V was released in 2010 and is, if you ask me, a clearly inferior game to its predecessor, Civilization IV. Civ IV, as it’s commonly called, was released in 2005. My time with the game has been spread over multiple computers and platforms, so there’s no way to know definitively how long I’ve spent playing it, but I wouldn’t bat an eye if someone told me the number was in the thousands.
The key to understanding Civ IV’s greatness is understanding why, after thousands of hours playing it, there are still new aspects of the game to enjoy.
First, the basics.
Civ IV is a turn-based grand strategy game. It begins in 4000 BC, with the player in control of a tribe of stone age hunter gatherers as they create their first permanent settlement. From that starting point, the player directs this new civilization’s development: you settle new territory, research new technologies, establish trade and diplomatic relations with other civilizations, levy armies, explore new lands, found religions, and fight wars. All of this happens through a lovely interface that allows the player to delve into the minutia of settlement management or stick to big-picture decisions, with landscapes and units that still look respectable eight years after initial release.
The game brims with personality and attention to detail. Your units will respond to you in the language (and accent!) that corresponds to the culture you are playing as. When you research, say, gunpowder, Leonard Fishing Nemoy will read to you a relevant quotation or literary passage (“You can get more of what you want with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word” -Al Capone”). The game’s title song, Baba Yetu, won a Grammy. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is phoned in or sub par.
Now the basics are good, but they don’t rise above simple effective game design. What makes Civ IV stand out is its sheer open-endedness.
The end goal of all of that development, diplomacy, and warfare I described is up to the player. You can win by conquering the world, by amassing a sufficient level of cultural influence, by scientific mastery, or through diplomacy. And to reach those victory conditions, you can select from dozens of different civilizations and leaders, each with their own particular strengths and personalities. The game supports both single player and multiplayer play, with each rewarding dramatically different strategies and playstyles.
Each time you play, the world map and the other civilizations you compete with are randomly generated. Within the core game, the mechanics are specific enough to include nearly every facet of the history it mimics, from religion to espionage to economics to political institutions, while also being broad enough to support thousands of different permutations. Modern combined arms, invading hordes of horse archers, the industrial revolution, multinational corporate expansion and global warming all fit comfortably together within the same game mechanics.
But while the core game aims to capture the breadth and depth of human history, the developers built the game to easily accommodate mods. In eight years of fanatical effort, fans have taken the core game’s engine and applied it to interstellar space, fantasy realms with dragons and wizards, RPG systems that change the game’s genre entirely, and dozens more that I’m not even aware of.
That’s the genius of it. Civ is a game with a basic game mechanic that is absolutely enthralling, and it gives that mechanism the freedom to apply itself to all of human history and every alternate universe that the fanbase can imagine. It allows for a diversity of experience that gives it simply unparallelled replay value.
This sort of ubiquity is something special, and it’s what sets this game apart from even the most outstanding offerings found in other genres.
I’m going to write my own essay for this series tonight. But Civ IV is a very strong candidate for the absolute best game ever. I still would rather play it than Civ V.
Nuke the Zulus!Report
Yeah, Civ V was broken. Like, irretreviably so.
(not buggy broken like Master of Magic. Logic broken).
Multiple reasons why I can’t choose Civ IV as my favorite game…
But I’m really glad someone did a strategy game.
And I’m looking forward to your post, Burt.
Maybe I will do one… if only because there are so many great games out there.Report
Eh, it’s more or less fixed now. Unless you’re really fond of Stacks of Doom. The combat takes a bit of getting used to, though.
Nothing beats Alpha Centauri though. 🙂Report
This is why the world needs Alpha Centauri II.Report
Damn Monty. You can work with all of the other warmongers: Isabella, Ghengis, Tokugawa. But Montezuma? Montezuma just wants to watch the world burn.Report
i would like to quibble with that. the only way to work with isabella is to adopt her religion and foe’s or have no religion. otherwise she always go’s all holy war on me.Report
well yeah, but how hard is it to adopt her religion or go with no state religion? if Montezuma could be placated so easily, that would change things pretty dramatically.Report
monty can be reasoned with if you both have someone you both hate. it does result in more or less constant war, but sometimes monty will even go for the permanent ally thing. and if he does backstab you, at least your army is well trained and large.Report
Montezuma is a real fright if he’s the first guy you encounter. He will try and kill you, for no other reason than he can.Report
Civ IV was a very significant part of the how I chose my current personal computer – an under-powered netbook.
Civ V wasn’t out yet, but it was important to me that when it did come out, my computer at that time should be incapable of playing it – lest I spend further months chronically sleep-deprived, as I did under the influence of Civ IV.Report
You are obviously wrong. Civ II is the best Civ. Take Civ II, add Civ IV’s borders and Civ V’s hexes and lack of stacks of death and you have the perfect game.Report
I loved Civ II too, but come on now, Civ IV added so much more than borders. You got a revamped combat system, revamped civics system, revamped happiness and corruption, religions, strategic resources, differentiated civs and leaders, etc. etc. etc.. Civ IV is obviously the high point of the series.Report
Can you do this in Civ IV? 🙂
http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/uxpil/ive_been_playing_the_same_game_of_civilization_ii/Report
Probably, but why would you?Report
I liked Brian Reynold’s game better.
(yup, he’s such a nice guy, he let them put Sid’s name on the cover…)
But I think I would actually give money to watch your advisor’s head explode.
Anyone got the youtube?Report
I loved Civ 2 and played it for hours and hours. But Civ 4 is better, just by improving on the original. Better graphics, more features and Spock!
The only strategy game I’ve loved as much as the Civ games (except 3, of course) was Total War: RomeReport
I’m a huge fan of the Total War series, and Rome is the best of those games to date.Report
The big problem with the Total War series was that as the games got more complicated, the AI got worse at adapting.
In Medieval 1 the Risk Style map and the harsher fatigue penalties meant you would suffer considerable attrition trying to beat an AI of about equal strength. From Rome onward it gets much easier to outmanuever the AI and flatten them with minor casualties.Report
I’m never going to knock Civ II, but c’mon, there’s no shame in being the second greatest game of all time. Civ IV didn’t merely improve on Civ II, it damn near perfected it.
As wonderful as Civ II was, every game pretty much followed the same linear progression. It was a fantastically fun and replayable progression, and the slope of that line could vary quite a bit, but ultimately the diplomacy was predictable (in single player mode, at least), and your goal was always an extraordinarily high degree of military conquest and domination – even if you won by winning the space race, the fastest and easiest way to do so usually involved an absurd amount of conquest and war.
Civ IV’s use of culture and religion, leadership and national characteristics and personalities, and more complex diplomacy (including the whole permanent alliance and vassal state thing), combined with the wide array of victory possibilities meant that every time you played, you could use a completely different strategy and style. I’ve never played a game that managed to have such an absurd amount of depth yet be so simple to understand and keep track of.
The biggest flaw in both Civ II and Civ IV was the whole problem of the Stack of Death, but the variety of victory conditions in Civ IV, as well as its more complex diplomatic options, meant that you could do quite a bit to mitigate that problem.Report
But mainly, having a bigger Stack of Death was the way to go. Modern Armor FTW.Report
Civ III: Conquest, it’s *ALL* about the Armies, baby.Report
I dunno. I’ve become convinced that Curtis Lemay was a time traveller who played Civ IV too much, and THAT was why he liked strategic air power.Report
This was one of my favorite updates in Civ V. One unit per square and adding bombardment (not to mention, base defense for cities). This made combat much more strategically rich, forced you to property use terrain and made the usage of chokepoints much more useful.Report
At the cost of breaking the game if you (or, more often, the computer) ever got too many units. Particularly with railroads, you turn the whole thing into a stupid shuffling game. That goes on forever.
Civ V is a broken game if you let it get anywhere near the endgame. It may have doomed the franchise.Report
My only complaint against Civ IV (and indeed all the Civs) was the combat system. Something the Total War series did better, but I like Civ IV for the superior grand-strategy play.
I’m also pretty sure I easily logged 4-digit hours on Civ IV. Pretty much had a game constantly up and running throughout college. (Frederick the Great was my go to leader. Org-Phil ftw.)Report
Nonsense! Willem van Orange is the leader to end all leaders*
*on high-difficulty single player.Report
Fin is a crutch!
Also, much less useful on the highest difficulty levels.Report
Hey, at least they fixed spearman defeats tank. That alone puts it ahead of Civ II in my book.Report
I still lost Panzers to heavily entrenched longbowmen with disturbing regularity. Even after artillery bombardment.
“A longbowman with stren-3, city-3, and fs-2? Better send in a few meat shield modern infantry to soften it up.”Report
Do you check the odds before you attack?Report
Yep. 🙂 My motto was: “when playing the computer on high levels, 90% actually means 50%.”Report
Yup, and it’s not even close. My hours played is easily in the thousands. Two expansion packs, many, many user-created mods… it’s a fantastic game. Well-balanced and fun at the same time.
Unfortunately, Civ 5 was pretty bad.
Re: Civ II, look, it was a very good game for its time, but it had major holes. There were severely overpowered units, crazy battle outcomes, exploits galore, and the AI really, really cheated (Civ IV’s AI is not cheat-free, but it’s a damn sight better).Report
You people speak as if Civ IV improved upon Civ II.
Perhaps it did.
But I maintain that it took away from Civ III: Conquests.
Those are my guns and I’m stickin’ to ’em.Report
But Civ III had the absurd corruption mechanic, which makes it worse than Civ II or Civ IV right there.Report
Corruption is awesome.
(Albeit not done entirely properly, but the idea is great)Report
It’s basically still in Civ IV, just relabelled as upkeep. The difference is that it only affects gold, not production, and it’s aggregated across your empire rather than done on a city-by-city basis. Trust me, it works way better while still getting across the point that large empires, as well as certain government types, give you clunky and inefficient finances.Report
I’m going to take that out of context.Report
While Civ IV is a fine game indeed, I will defend Civ V. The introduction of hexes, elimination of the tedious Stack of Doom, and the somewhat more developed and diverse resource system make it a better game in my opinion. Although of course the soundtrack and Nimoy count in Civ IV’s favour.Report
I always get shirty in Civ 5 about the fact that I’m pretty sure the AI somehow screws me with revealed resources — there always seems to be something I can’t get my hands on — and the mid-game backstabbing attack.
It’s funny on lower difficulty levels, as a Civ attacks you, gets utterly thrashed, often offers up one of it’s own cities as a peace offering, then backstabs you again later for the same results.Report
Alas the Artificial is more in evidence than the Intelligence.Report
Logtime lurker, brought out of hiding to say that CivIV is, IMHO, hands down the best of the series, and possibly my favorite game. I’ve found CivV so utterly uninteresting and overly easy (exploitable), that I only got two games out of my copy before it got relegated to the dust bin – a waste of my money.Report