Civ IV's Baba Yetu Wins First Grammy For Video Game 88
quantumstream writes "Christopher Tin made video game history yesterday by winning a Grammy for Best Instrumental Arrangement Accompanying Vocalist(s) for his song, Baba Yetu, featured prominently as the main theme song of Civilization IV. The composer, who wrote the song for his former Stanford University roommate Soren Johnson, has also seen the work featured at the largest choreographed water fountain in the world at the Burj Khalifa tower in Dubai."
Civ seems to be an "even number" series (Score:5, Interesting)
So far we've had 5 games and all have been worth playing. None of them have been a "Oh my god, this is crap, why'd they release it?" sort of thing, but as you'd expect some are better than others. Those are the even numbered ones so far.
Civ 1 was a good game, but a little simplistic and suffered from some bad design decisions, such as a civ being able to steal Automobile and instantly build tanks, regardless of other tech levels.
Civ 2 was just an amazingly solid game. Detailed, yet pretty easy to play over all, no real design flaws, just a real top notch title, to the point is still one that people pine over (see things like Freeciv).
Civ 3 was kinda meh. Not a bad game, but it seemed like a step back from Civ 2 in many ways. The graphics were better but the game play got way too much on the micromanagement, and the AIs didn't seem to be as good. All in all it was ok, but many people stuck with Civ 2.
Civ 4 was just legendary. Best Civ ever. Beautiful graphics, solid game play, extremely flexible expansion system, etc, etc. Just a home run all around. Extremely popular, many expansions, many more mods, just Civ as it should be done.
Civ 5 seems to again be a step back. Beautiful graphics and a solid engine behind everything, but a rather crappy AI and some questionable design decisions (like non-stacking units which lead to massive sprawl late game). Not a horrible game, but in more than a few ways one that doesn't measure up to Civ 4.
That just seems to be the pattern. Hopefully this means that Civ 6 will once again be an amazing game.
I should note that I don't hate Civ 5 (or Civ 3), just that I do feel it doesn't measure up to Civ 4. I also feel it was an overrated game. Most review sites gave it a 9-10 score. I think had it been from another studio, just a 4x game and not "Civ" it would have been 7-8 more realistically. Not poorly done, but some real room for improvement in a number of areas, particularly when evaluated against its predecessor.
Re:Definitely deserved (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Definitely deserved (Score:4, Interesting)
- The really bad happiness mechanic.
- Having more of a luxury resource was pointless after the first one.
- Easily exploited city-states. To the point where they imbalanced the game.
- Poor game balance at release. Just absolutely horrid game balance.
- Really *realy* poor AI at release.
- 1 unit/tile stacking sounds neat, until you try and work with it in the ancient era.
- Game board is way too small. If you're going to do 1/tile unit limits, then you need 4x to 6x more tiles for the same area. So if the hexes had been divided up into 6 smaller hexes, it might have actually been viable.
- Mass simplification of so many attributes of the previous game.
- There was way too much "throw the baby out with the bath water" to the design of Civ5. The young hot-shot developers were given too much free reign to put their "stamp" on the franchise, rather then keeping them in check and developing a better Civ4.
I played about 40-60 hours worth in the first few weeks. Wanting to like it, trying hard to like it, but ultimately it was a severely flawed Civ release. I'm not surprised that it got really shitty reviews on Amazon (last check, almost 600 reviews and it barely averages a 2.3 out of 5.0). Hell, there are 593 reviews and 279 of them are 1-star reviews.
They need to fire the lead designer who did Civ5 and look long and hard at what people liked about Civ4 and work that into the next revision of Civ5.