There are consequences to which sort of economy, government, technology, and religion you choose. But in the end all these choices are yours, and you are free to use whichever combination you find to be most expedient. The variety of game-ending scenarios, including world domination, UN diplomacy, and space-race technology races (which may indeed teach us something we need to know), mean that you don't have to simply hack and slash your way to victory. But make no mistake about it, you are out to conquer your opponents, by any means necessary.
The popularity of the game, which has won numerous awards and spawned successful expansions, is well deserved. It taps in to a fundamental human drive for dominance in a way that promotes critical thinking, problem solving, and creativity.
The revisionist history that is possible to reenact with the game is one of its greatest attractions. While it may cause some cognitive dissonance to see Mohandas Ghandi order an nuclear ICBM attack on an opponent's city, it is also reassuring to know that Genghis Khan can expand his empire by means of free trade and cultural suasion rather than force of arms (although in some cases "revisionist" history ends up corresponding better to reality than accepted theories).
The game's interface is straightforward and intuitive. One drawback of the game's emphasis on strategy over action is that the conflict sequences are repetitive and buggy. The graphics when units are in battle leave much to be desired.
These tactical criticisms aside, however, Civ IV is a superb game. But the adeptness with which it meets the deepest human desires for power and control teaches us as much about ourselves as it does about the progressive unfolding of history.
Article comments
1 - Toni
I don't think you'll be too happy when Civ IV: Colonization is re-released.
2 - Devin Cutler
The writer flatly asserts that despite all of these non-military ways to win the game that the game is still about domination and tyranny and then fails to explain why this is so.
How exactly is UN diplomacy, a cultural victory, or a space victory domination? In all three cases you can win by having a tiny, isolated civ with no military goals, no wars fought, and a completely defensive mindset. Furthermore, there is also the point victory, where the game simply finishes and you have the most points.
If your definition of domination is that you win the game and the AI doesn't...then you have a very warped view of domination (and a self-defeating definition of same).
Furthermore, to equate domination and tyranny with the fact that the player has to make decisions about his civilization is also ridiculous. The game could, I suppose, simply let you type in orders and then ignore them and play on autopilot as it sees best...but that wouldn't be much fun would it?
The fact is that the system doesn't make you a complete autocrat. You always have to cater somewhat to the masses in Civ, and it's these competing pressures that make the game interesting.
You want to take over the world? Your people may prevent it from happening (via war weariness). Want to build a new city right on the border of another civ? The people may decide they like that civ better than you and defect.
Yes, in some sense you have to have some level of control, otherwise you aren't really playing a game are you? You are just watching a game being played in front of you.
And by the same token, in some sense you have to be able to win. Otherwise, well you are just clicking keys to no purpose.
3 - cephalo
Keep in mind that history is shaped almost entirely by the struggle for political control. War is it's substance, and everything else is icing on the cake.
4 - Jordan
Devin, thanks for your comments.
My working definition of tyranny isn't simply identical to imperial expansion by means of war, but it certainly includes it. What I mean to point to in part is the instrumentalization of religion, diplomacy, and so on, legitimate and autonomous spheres in their own right that are subsumed under what is essentially political economy in CivIV. This doesn't make it a bad game...in fact, as I state in the piece, this is in great part what makes it so successful. But what I also mean to point out is that it's popularity and success tell us something about ourselves, the nature of human nature, so to say.
There's a good discussion going on here regarding some of the more technical aspects of gameplay.
5 - Cerber
"For the first time, religion plays an important part in the strategic game play." -this is lie.
In Europa Universalis game series religion and culture play keyrole. A huge country with many religions will fall sooner or later, while in Civ IV it will just decrease overall country effectines.
If You really want see a game where culture and religion play great role, You should try one of the Europa Universalis games.
6 - Jon
Whilst it is true that in Civ IV religion is no more or less a tool for domination of the planet than the establishment of corporations I feel you perhaps are missing the real point. Religion was, is and always will be a tool employed by world leaders to gain an edge over their rivals. This is not to deny that for many world leaders, particularly in the past, their religious or philosophical beliefs were very genuine, if misguided, and they did believe that they were saving souls by their actions. I would have suggested that the depiction of corporations is rather more open to your form of criticism in that they are loyal to none, care nothing for 'civilisation' and span national boundaries without any care for the mother country or its' fortunes. The system of taxation changes and the corporation simply relocates its' HQ to a more favourable location. It is a quaint but false idea to see such things as US, UK, German, Japanese, etc corporations and to believe that they could be twisted to the individual whim of any world leader. It may be that BAE will build a fine weapon system for the British government but that does not mean that it is in any way unhappy to supply that same system to anyone else with the money to pay for it regardless of that other regime's dubious social or moral policies.
7 - Carl
"Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means" I wish history was about creating sanity, instead of murder and scapegoating, but it is. "Culture" in civ is generally about expanding borders, another method of domination. Religion is done well, in the game it's a social club as well as an excuse to implement policies. The developers probably did the right thing by making religions generic, instead of making one religion the warmongers and creating friction over whether the Crusaders, Macabbees, or Sucide Bombers typified the real religion of war.
8 - katie
just disable the combat animation--problem solved.