Civilization Revolution

Aside from providing a satisfying outlet for my megalomania, I think the biggest strength of Sid Meier's Civilization series is how well the games balance their massive amount of material. They're so rich and varied that no two people have the same experience.

I'm not saying this format is the pinnacle of gaming or anything. There is a place for the chaotic, fast-paced action game as well, it's a matter of personal preference. The point is that as long as we're talking about the extremely complex and consequently extraordinarily time-consuming simulation/strategy games, I don't think any series has done it better than Civilization.

Although I know others disagree with me, I think that the fourth installment really is the best thus far. Each edition introduced new layers of complexity to the format, but it was always integrated logically. A game of Civ IV, even on the biggest map on epic length, is manageable. This is the great success of the franchise. They manage to fill it to the brim with choices, but they stop just short of overflowing.

Sadly, no one can resist all those console gaming dollars, so Meier and Firaxis watered-down the concept and shoved it into a format that is far from friendly to the strategy genre. The result is Civilization Revolution, a sad shadow of the game I love.

I played the Xbox 360 demos for both Halo Wars and Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3. I was actually going to review them along with the new Civ game, but all I would be able to muster in the way of commentary would be placing my hand over my mouth to generate farting sounds while I bash my own forehead with a claw hammer. Seeing as how that is neither pleasant nor easily translated into blog format, I decided against it.

What the hell happened to PC gaming? I've never been able to keep up with computer technology. It's expensive and time-consuming. I have never owned a machine capable of playing the newest PC titles, and I don't have one that can today. That's what console gaming is for, in my opinion. It is suited for action and spectacle because with a few exceptions (screw you, N64 expansion pack), you buy the console, and you can play all the games associated with that console.

On the PC, you need to constantly be aware of the specifications of games, and you will be required to upgrade your hardware to keep up with new releases. This is not usually the case with strategy games. They are graphically simpler than top of the line action games, but they rely upon the more adaptable control options the PC provides. Thus, I've found it useful to get my action and adventure on the console and my strategy on PC, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

You can see where this is going. Hardcore gamers insist that first-person shooters need to use mouse and keyboard controls to compete at high levels. Maybe they're right. I don't actually care. Strategy games, on the other hand, rely upon the mouse and keyboard to function at all. No dual analog setup is precise enough to manage all the settlements, units, and minutiae that make a good strategy title. The crossover must, therefore, choose between complexity and playability. Of course, in a perfect world, they'd choose not to make these abominations in the first place.

Civilization Revolution comes out a little better than the train wrecks I mentioned earlier because its turn-based system and grid map are a little better suited for console controls. Rather than wrangling of a mass of blobs you assume are infantry, you select a unit and move it from one territory to another. What ends up a complete disaster elsewhere is reduced to a simple mess.

Congratulations, I guess.

The real problem comes with the other adaptation Civilization had to make in order to become a console title. I'm talking about the target audience. Now this is where I'd usually make generalized disparaging comments about the intelligence level of a group of people. However, I won't do that today because Civilization Revolution beat me to it.

It's Baby's First Civilization. It's short and it's simple and I can't help but wonder why they bothered. Ostensibly, to introduce the series to new players. That's all well and good in theory, but there's absolutely no reason it needs to be a simple as it is. They don't even trust console gamers to adjust the game speed or world size. On top of that, while the player has a few different victory conditions, there are essentially two games you can play: You can either conquer the world or defend yourself until you build your way to one of the other victory conditions. Oh, and if you thought you'd try a balanced game that relies on culture and diplomacy instead of war, you'd better think again. Even on low difficulty settings, the AI opponents are so aggressive you will have to appease their outrageous demands every turn lest you provoke a war.

So, it's an introduction to a series that boasts superbly-balanced micromanagement, a plethora of viable strategies, and loads of customization options? And it's doing this by removing all that good stuff from the game?

Yeah, that'll work.