Article: Civilization 4 Review by "Yin26" (Part 1/3)

[Robert]

The rating system is broken.
The score you give to several items are not right.
And a lot of the important parts of the game aren't mentioned at all. To make manual, tutorial and civilopedia 30% responsible for 30% of the score.

Great idea to come with this system. It makes it possible to debate it!

1) OVERALL EXPECTATIONS
1. [-1] I want CivIV to revolutionize the genre.
2. [0] I want CivIV to revolutionize itself.
3. [+1] I want CivIV to improve some old stuff, add some good new stuff and get rid of some bad old stuff.
4. [+2] I just want CivIV.

I am with you that cIV should revolutionize itself.
And I think it did more or less. Perhaps no [+2] But certainly [+1]
The combat system is revolutionair for civ.
The great persons system is revolutionair for civ.
The civics system is revolutionair for civ. (eventhough it must be expanded a lot to make it more state-running!)
The health/hapyness/trade/resources system is revolutionairy.

Perhaps it's not as revolutionairy as you want, or perhaps it's not revolutionairy in YOUR way with your pre-described ideas about how the revolution should be.

But cIV is the biggest step in the civ-history.
civ1-civ2: +1 (on scale +1-+10)
civ2-civ3: +4
civ3-civ4: +8

Conclusion: I disagree with the pionts you give in this category.

2) THE MANUAL


1. [-1] The manual should explain all important concepts in detail. Also, I need an index (or searchable PDF version).
2. [0] I think a manual should be thorough, accurate and stuffed with vital information about the main aspects of gameplay. An index or PDF is great but makes no difference to me.
3. [+1] I'm just glad to get a printed manual these days, especially one that's spiral bound!
4. [+2] I don't ever read manuals.

I think I agree with you on this.
Though I do surely disagree with the fact that this counts for 10% in the end result. That makes no sence.

The manual isn't any good, that's true though.

3) TUTORIAL


1. [-1] Considering that the tutorial can form your first impression of the game, it should be helpful and inspiring.
2. [0] It's a tutorial. Who cares?
3. [+1] A tutorial that covers some basic concepts so I can at least start the game with some momentum is good enough.
4. [+2] There's a tutorial!?

Same as with the manual

4) GRAPHICS and SOUNDS


1. [-1] Good graphics and sounds in a strategy game should never come at the expense of computer performance from beginning to end.
2. [0] I appreciate good graphics and music, but if not implemented well (stuttering video or music that hardly plays), then it's kind of a wash.
3. [+1] I think good graphics and sounds are important parts of the game and will put up with some performance issues while patches further optimize the code.
4. [+2] I have waited years for CivIV to make the leap to 3D!

I vote for option 1.
And I think [+2] points should be granted for this.
The graphics are very well implemented and add a lot to the game and gameplay. It doesn't do that at the expense of more important game issues.

If you have an old computer, you won't be able to play the game, obviously. Blame your computer for that, not the game. Of course it's debatable if Firaxis should release a game that needs such a huge computer to run. Though that doesn't mean the game is inferior or something.

my comp: PIV 3,2Ghz, 1Ghz RAM, NVidea 6600 256MB

5) THE INTERFACE


1. [-1] I think the interface should make my attempt to do or find something effortless and intuitive.
2. [0] I think an interface can be greatly improved with player feedback and know that a patch will likely make things better.
3. [+1] I think the interface is good enough if I can learn it rather quickly, even if it's quirky.
4. [+2] I used keyboard shortcuts and/or have a high tolerance for these issues anyway.

I chose .1 and think [+2] points should be granted for that. The interface is really good. It's better than all the other civ-game interfaces, and in fact it's quiet easy to learn.

The mouse-over stuff, the visible on the map stuff, the information it gives, the message log (control-tab) makes this game really an improvement.

If you give -1 for the interface you clearly either have to get used to it (you're old, it's normal that you can't easily get used to it :P) or you just plainly don't understand it.

6) UNDERSTANDING GAME CONCEPTS


1. [-1] I want all game concepts to be readily understandable and open to strategic manipulation in a clear and intuitive way.
2. [0] I do not expect to understand everything all at once, but between the manual, forum discussions, and feedback from Firaxis, I hope eventually to understand everything in detail.
3. [+1] I don't mind having a bit of mystery behind some game elements and even enjoy coming up with odd or counter-intuitive solutions on my own if need be.
4. [+2] I only need some basic idea of what's going on and will simply just ignore things that I don't like or don't readily understand.

It's a civ game.
Game concepts have never been easy to learn, which is only because it's a complex game.
You can apply such a system as you describe above to doom3 or the sims2. Not to any civilization game.

7) ARITIFICAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)


1. [-1] I like an AI that, if it has an advantage, always presses it.
2. [0] I like an AI that presses its advantage only when its chances of success are high.
3. [+1] I like an AI that abides by friendships earned over the course of the game in understandable ways, even if this means games can end up being very friendly. The reverse should also be true: enemies should stay enemies.
4. [+2] As long as there is MP and varying levels of difficulty in SP, I'll find the challenge I need anyway.

I'm not an AI expert, so I'll believe that you're right here.
I'm not sure if the AI is an improvement to the civ3 AI.

I think that the AI has too much bonusses and too peacefull. This must be so, because an AI with a lot of bonusses which is aggressive as well (like humans) is too strong. I wonder if you need to give bonusses at all if you make the AI more aggressive, since that forces the humanp layer to focus more on defense anyway.

Having said that I must add that civ is not a war-game. It's an empire building game. If you want a lot of war, perhaps you should click the "aggressive AI" checkbox.
If you rather spend more time on empire building a peacefull AI is much better to have to deal with.

Me myself am more confident with beating the AI cultural, technical and economical. You focus too much on the combat part of the AI, imho.

8) BUGS


1. [-1] I want the game out of the box to be without any major bugs.
2. [0] While I'm patient, I don't tolerate broken games either. The game needs to be very playable with only the occasional issue.
3. [+1] I accept bugs as part of the process and am willing to wait for patches.
4. [+2] I am used to bugs and don't really care if a patch is released as long as it's playable.

cIV does a pretty good job with being playable out of the box. For sure compare to modern standards.
For that reason the 3rd option should erally have a [+2] value already.

9) MULTIPLAYER and EDITOR


1. [-1] I think full and stable Multiplayer/Editor ability out of the box is very important, particularly if we have been promised it!
2. [0] Give me most of what is promised and I'll wait to some reasonable degree for things to get sorted out.
3. [+1] I don't mind the absence of MP/Editor elements since I am confident they will come later, and I am happy with single player now.
4. [+2] I will only play single player, so with MP/Editor or without, I will simply play.

The 1st option is clearly the option to go with.
I surely don't understand why you give cIV [-1] in that category. cIV MP. It deserves [+2] for both MP and editor.

Perhaps not the world-builder, but the way cIV is structured is already an editor in itself. It goes ways too far to make an editor for that. If you give cIV [-1] for being modable you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Look at the mods that have already been created. They go much farther then any civ-mod in the past in such a short timescale. And I'm sure that amazing things will come that'll totally change the game at all fronts.

And on the MP front, you can't judge the game because the lobby is a little bit flawed. (clearly you have already addressed interface issues and bugs in other sections of your review)
Now you give MP less points b/c of an interface issue while you already gave cIV less points because of an interface issue.

cIV multplayer really works good. Much better then the civ2 and civ3 multiplayer. It works smoothly, easy. And it works really really good. That cIV MP is totally different then cIV SP doesn't mean that the MP is inferior.

But again, you're not a MP person. That's why it amazes me that you give it such low rates.

10) SERIES INNOVATION


1. [-1] We've had Civ now for years and years. If CivIV doesn't really push beyond its basic formulas, then I'll be disappointed.
2. [0] I don't expect Firaxis to reinvent the wheel, but I expect a few radical departures from the formula by now.
3. [+1] Civ's core elements have clearly stood the test of time. Sure, innovate in a few areas that need attention, but keep Civ basically intact.
4. [+2] It's Civ. I'll take any version. Any time.

Wasn't this your first item already?

Conclusion: your pre-set points system is just in advance already a statement that if you have heigh expectations the game will suck.
It doesn't matter on which game you'll apply this, every game will come out very negative if someone has heigh expactations.

In advance you already state that heigh expectations haven't been met in any way. That's your system:
[-1] heigh expactations
[0] some expactations
[+1] no expactations
[+2] just gimme the game, I'll love it anyway

And of course you'll defend that everybody who loves the game falls in the last category. The category who'll love anything anyway. But it's more that your system pushes us in there then that this is legitimate.

Again, some parts of the game aren't any good. Manual, civilopedia, tutorial. But some are. MP, Editable (why are tutorial and manual responsible for 20% of the score and MP and editor for just 10%? In a normal world MP would be responsible for 20%, editor for 10%, manual for 3% and tutorial for 1%) (how many games come with a tutorial anyway?)

I'll fix your rating system with mine.
Again: your idea for a review system is really good!
Though unfortunately you do not really implement it very well.

-------------------------------------------------------
I'll make my choise bold

1) OVERALL EXPECTATIONS


1. [-1] I want CivIV to revolutionize the genre.
2. [0] I just want CivIV.
3. [1] I want CivIV to revolutionize itself.
4. [+2] I want CivIV to improve some old stuff, add some good new stuff and get rid of some bad old stuff.

2) THE MANUAL / TUTORIAL / CIVILOPEDIA

1. [-1] Manual / tutorial / civilopedia should be a good source for learning and understanding the game.
2. [0] I don't ever read manuals.
3. [+1] Manual / tutorial / civilopedia should help me starting the game
4. [+2] If a manual / civilopedia / tutorial comes with this game I'm a happy camper!

3) GRAPHICS and SOUNDS

1.[-1] I want to be able to play cIV on an old computer
1. [0] I don't care about graphics
1. [+1] Good graphics and sounds in a strategy game should never come at the expense of computer performance from beginning to end.
2. [+2] I'll prefer a little slower game with graphics that help me playing the game and improving the interface

4) THE INTERFACE

1. [-1] I don't want too much information on my screen and a simple interface.
2. [0] I don't care about the interface
1. [+1] I think the interface should make my attempt to do or find something effortless and intuitive at first glance.
2. [+2] I think the interface should make my attempt to do or find something after some studying very easy and make it possible to manage the game easily and get all information I need.

5) UNDERSTANDING GAME CONCEPTS

1. [-1] I want all game concepts to be readily understandable and open to strategic manipulation in a simple way without having to study it.
2. [+1] I do not expect to understand everything all at once, but between the manual, forum discussions, and feedback from Firaxis, I hope eventually to understand everything in detail.
3. [+2] I only need some basic idea of what's going on and will simply just ignore things that I don't like or don't readily understand.

6) ARITIFICAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)

1. [-1] I like an AI that, if it has an advantage, always presses it.
2. [0] I like an AI that presses its advantage only when its chances of success are high.
3. [+1] I like an AI that abides by friendships earned over the course of the game in understandable ways, even if this means games can end up being very friendly. The reverse should also be true: enemies should stay enemies.
4. [+2] As long as there is MP and varying levels of difficulty in SP, I'll find the challenge I need anyway.

7) BUGS

1. [0] I want the game out of the box to be without any major bugs.
2. [+1] While I'm patient, I don't tolerate broken games either. The game needs to be very playable with only the occasional issue.
3. [+2] I accept bugs as part of the process and am willing to wait for patches.

8) MULTIPLAYER

1. [-1] I want MP to be like SP
2. [0] I don't care about multiplayer
3. [1] I think full and stable Multiplayer/Editor ability out of the box is very important, particularly if we have been promised it!
4. [2] I don't care about SP, MP is the most important aspect of the game

9. Combat

1. [-1] I want a very complex combat system with a lot of units, armies, in fact I want a strategic game in which I can lead my armies to victory.
2. [0] I don't care about combat or war, I just want to build my empire peacefully.
3. [1] I want a combat system in which I can make strategic decisions without having to focus on it all the time
4. [2] Combat is a part of the game, like culture, religion, economy and great persons. It should work good and not dominate the other game concepts.

10. Empire building
1. [-1] I want a game in which I can make heigh-end decisions and influence my empire with a lot of key decisions, diplomacy and trade.
2. [0] I want a game in which I'll manage most of the time my empire instead of cities and single units, eventhough I still want to be able to micromanage all of that as well.
3. [1] I want a mix of empire and city managing.
4. [2] Micromanaging is my life. I like to tweak everything for the best result.


total: 6 points

[-10 - -5] You probably are looking for another game
[-5 - 0] This is the game you're looking for but it's not exactly like you want it to be
[0 - 5] You'll like this game and enjoy playing it, though there are some issues.
[5-10] This is the game you were looking for!
[10-15] Why are you doing this survey? You shoul be playing all day long and quit your job!
[15-20] Are you crazy? Nothing in this world is perfect dude, though I'm happy that you're enjoying it all that much!

I wonder how much points you'll get in this system yin

[Mergle]

I'm at -1 under your system Yin and I agree with your critique (altho' I have few problems with the interface beyond the system slowing & the stupid double use of enter/space keys). However, emotionally I feel much more positive towards the game.

I really feel that for the first time Firaxis is serious about making a strategy game (SMAC is as horribly broken as Civ2 [I never lost a game and always played Deity Ironman (no reloads) SP]- what it really scores for is immersive experience). Their use of external fan betatesters has really paid off in this regard.

Although they still haven't learnt robust programming (this may be a by-product of their continual prototyping approach you refer to), they do seem to be slowly learning about tech support (those complaining now should look back to SMAC where they had a tech support guy who failed to acknowledge any bugs beyond driver issues, the ironworks-equivalent (space elevator in SMAC?) was horribly bugged and never gave the right production even in the final patch, infinite range missiles never properly acknowledged, and same tech support guy said bugs were good because they game people something to talk about on internet boards - and he seems to have been serious. He was moved onto the core team for Civ3, and I think it showed...

So as someone who'd almost given up on firaxis (I didn't buy Civ3 - the hushhush cutting of multiplayer lead me to suspect a rushed job - but then my brother gave it to me for Christmas...and it failed both the immersion and the strategy tests for me) I am now playing Civ4 every spare moment (which isn't many!). I even have a senaking hope that an expansion patch will actually deepen the game rather than just bolt on a bunch of ill-tested extra features without addressing gameplay flaws (see: SMACX)

[Cort Haus]

According to that rating system I score an indifferent zero, yet according to my experience I really like the game - probably +10.

So the rating system doesn't work for me. Cybershy made some good points, and suggested an alternative, but I don't know if these ratings systems are at all meaningful.

It all reminded me of those "How blahblah are you" ratings that tabloid editors fill up their newspapers with. Loaded answers that put words into people's mouths and assign an arbitrary number to the result. Sorry guys, I don't think it adds up.

Much obsessing about the tutorial, but no mention of strategic depth...

[Cort Haus]

from the review ...

AI is just too timid (at least on Noble)

Noble is a learner level. Why are people going around kicking the AI's butt on this level and then complaining it is too easy?

[yin26]

Thanks to everybody for the feedback, including some nice comments about my family.

Actually, each part of the review takes a completely different approach. Hold on for Parts 2 and 3 for something quite different. In the end, whether or not you are agree with my point system is fine -- what's at least useful about it, is you know EXACTLY how I arrived at my score.

Surely this beats the vague systems used most other places. Also, I do see the gap between rational and emotional scoring. I originally had higher scores on many items until the honeymoon phase wore off and I began to debate some items with others I respect. I also understand that if the manual and tutorial mean nothing to you, that's fine. Give those items a +2 (as in "don't care") and you'll see higher marks for yourself. For me, though, these ARE important items because they speak to a commitment to a quality game experience for the gamer.

Indeed, I think one of the biggest issues to be addressed in Civ 4 is a seeming misunderstanding of just how much Civers want to actually understand the underlying mechanisms. Thus, we see a weak manual. A weak tutorial. A weak Civilopedia. It's a trend I don't like, so I felt those items deserved weight.

Finally, I agree about the combat odds that show on the screen. This, too, I have learned since my review (which was written a few weeks ago now) doesn't account for a LOT of variables. Nor can you see your odds at defending. Therefore, I would have gone even more negative in my scoring on this issue which, once again, speaks to allowing the player to understand the game underneath the hood.

[yin26]

Hang on for Part 3.

Originally posted by Cort Haus
from the review ...

AI is just too timid (at least on Noble)

Noble is a learner level. Why are people going around kicking the AI's butt on this level and then complaining it is too easy?

[yin26]

CyberShy:

Thanks for the support of the system, even if we disagree on some things. For example, you would say that Civ 4 *has* revolutionized itself -- but I disagree. Fixing a game mechanic that was broken since Civ 1 (ICS) is hardly a revolution, for example. Don't get me wrong -- this fix gives me a much greater reason for watching the game's development, but it's a game fix that's overdue.

But, as you said, at least we can debate these items and understand where we disagree!

[Nikolai]

I managed to end on +6, does that make me very easy to please, or what?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by yin26
what's at least useful about it, is you know EXACTLY how I arrived at my score.

Surely this beats the vague systems used most other places.

Yes, it does indicate how the conclusions were arrived at, but the system doesn't really (so far) include key aspects of the gameplay, especially the availability of strategic choices. I'm not even sure it can, and while I applaud the attempt to quantify the qualitative, I think perhaps it is unquantifiable. Hence the 'vague systems' referred to above.

Have other games been measured by this system?

Indeed, I think one of the biggest issues to be addressed in Civ 4 is a seeming misunderstanding of just how much Civers want to actually understand the underlying mechanisms. Thus, we see a weak manual. A weak tutorial. A weak Civilopedia. It's a trend I don't like, so I felt those items deserved weight.

I'm with you and the whole community with a call for fuller documentation. Too bad the documentation design process didn't consistently deploy the technology of 'Alphabet' instead of Hiroglyphics on the 'pedia and for a manual index. Also, sites like 'poly and CFC are leaned on somewhat to 'fill in the gaps'. Space-elevator near the poles, anyone?

Finally, I agree about the combat odds that show on the screen. This, too, I have learned since my review (which was written a few weeks ago now) doesn't account for a LOT of variables. Nor can you see your odds at defending. Therefore, I would have gone even more negative in my scoring on this issue which, once again, speaks to allowing the player to understand the game underneath the hood.

Defensive combat odds would be good, though quite an interface faff, I expect. Select a defending stack, select a visible opposition stack, select unit within opponent stack. Do-able but with limits - it could only help with the first hypothetical battle.

To award -ve points to the whole game because a useful feature hasn't yet been implemented makes it extremely hard for any product to stand up. Anyone can take any piece of complex software, and list a dozen, or a hundred things that could be better. Implement them and there's another hundred ideas.

If each unimplemented idea is seen as a failing, the product has no chance. I haven't worked in the games industry, but my experience of managing business software gripes & wishlists is that there is quite simply no pleasing some people. Adding functionality can actually decrease satisfaction, as some users then want to extend the new functionality, and get inspired to think of new things they'd like that are 'missing'.

Take the Diplo encounter screen. I have a moan or two about the diplo, but I much prefer it to Civ 3, especially the various attitude 'ledgers'. What I understand though is that some of the problems with Civ 4 diplo (can't make demands on equal terms to the AI) arrive because a Civ 3 diplo problem was fixed. (Personality-less AI who could always be bribed). Fixing one problem can push up a bubble elsewhere.

My eventual point here (if anyone's still reading this far) is that while I may have enough little gripes to award the game a -10 or a -20 if I went around giving -1 to everything I wasn't sure of, I believe the game is strong, certainly as a platform, and largely due to the strength of analysis & feedback over the years from the community - perhaps unparalleled in gaming history. So I see many of our gripes as development opportunities for Civ 4 and beyond rather than 20 reasons not to buy Civ 4.

Of course, technical failures on some hardware is very disappointing, but that should be quickly fixable. The game's 'core values' of strategic variety are sound, IMV, and that's the most important thing. If they'd got that wrong, the game would really suck.

[yin26]

Indeed. I hope people caught this part of the review, right at the top:

This approach solves many old Civ problems while introducing some novel gameplay, and any serious Civer should try CivIV just to see these elements in action.

Having said that, I stopped playing the game a few weeks ago because too many little (and some big) issues added up to too much annoyance for me. However, most of them can be fixed.

I talk more strategy, etc., in Parts 2 and 3.

[Solver]

I like your review, Yin. I'm really glad to see that you think the game has some issues that can be fixed, and that you seem optimistic about the gameplay.

I do absolutely disagree with you on some points, but that is natural, of course. You know, I'm this kind of a gamer who cares almost exclusively about gameplay. If the gameplay is good (and in Civ4, I believe it to be great), I will hardly even notice some of the other issues. Also, I'm a very lucky guy as far as compatbility issues go - I almost never have issues with my games, and the retail version of Civ4 never crashed for me in the admittedly short time I played it.

Where I most disagree with you has to be the interface. The Military Advisor is an atrocity, but other than that I'm fine with the interface - took some getting used to, but I can get a lot of information much quicker than in any previous civ game. Maybe I'm partly biased due to having played the beta versions in which - obviously - the interface was far worse than the late betas/release version.

Overall, while I do disagree with you on a few counts... again, I like the review, and I sincerely hope that you continue with Civ4 in maybe a couple of months, when another patch or two are done, along with things like PitBoss.

[yin26]

Thanks, Solver. I'm sure being a beta tester has something to do with it. It's also likely that you just have a higher tolerance for certain issues. That's fair. One thing I can say, though, is that it took me a number of weeks of solid testing before I felt I could really understand the changes. While some of this has to do with poor documentation and interface (IMO), a great deal of that had to do with the fact that Civ 4 really does play differently, and I did enjoy probing all the new stuff.

In the end, though, I really do believe that Civ 4 needs some serious patches and solid X-packs to move things to another level. Keep up the input to Firaxis, Solver!

[Hutch]

I've been reading this site for years. I have finally registered and de-lurked so that I can provide my response to the survey/rating system.

Here's how I scored, with some commentary.

1) OVERALL EXPECTATIONS
Score 1

2) THE MANUAL
Score 2 -- I didn't even read the manual, I just figured out the game systems as I went along, and also from reading the forums here. The pop-up descriptions for everything (tech, units, terrain, etc) are very helpful.

3) TUTORIAL
Score 0 (leaning towards 1 because I do recall learning a thing or two during the tutorial, but really this was worth a 0 to me)

4) GRAPHICS and SOUNDS
Score 1. I have observed some stutter in the Wonder movies, but only on Huge maps. I have observed some lag in the game, but this was corrected by turning off one of the graphics settings. I despise the song that plays during the game setup, but I love the music that plays during the game. Overall the graphics are a great improvement over previous versions of Civ.

5) THE INTERFACE
Score 1.

6) UNDERSTANDING GAME CONCEPTS
Score 0. New game systems like Religion (and "new" game systems like Civics) only took a little while to figure out.

7) ARITIFICAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)
Score 1.

8) BUGS
Score 0.

9) MULTIPLAYER and EDITOR
Score 2. I don't MP. As far as scenario creation goes, I've been able to achieve what I want by manually editing the xml files.

10) SERIES INNOVATION
Score 1.

So my total score (in this system) is 9.

[sabrewolf]

interesting analysis - i like it!

like solver (unfortunatly not a betatester), i disagree in many points, but it's good to have an alternative opinion stated too. it stands out against all the praise-only reviews that were presented to us in the past months.

and now at least i understand why you (and so many like you) disliked, or even hated civ3... you set the expectation bar so high that only the best of games will barely be able to pass it.

while i also disliked some of civ3's things (especially the horrific out-of-the-box quality, but also the generally criticised dull late game and the extreme distance-corruption), i weighed the positive sides a lot more and that's why i believe civ3 was a far superior game than civ2 (i never tried SMAC, imho that isn't a "real" civ game because it's assumed future). why?
- the AI was fair: in many cases had less bonses than civ4, didn't just gang up
- the AI was intelligent: while civ2 was terminally stupid and even i won at the higher levels. of course civ3's AI didn't understand things that civ4 does, but in the end it is because civ4 has a more sophisticated value system. civ3 hated you for stupid stuff like if you lost a resource of a trade but didn't care if you plowed down civ by civ.
- it introduced some great game concepts like basic corruption (was not done ideally, but it prevented ICS... i repeat: ICS was NOT a strategy in civ3), cultural borders, etc.
- and so on...

what i basically wanted to say is that i can understand why your value system might hate civ3, but i absolutely cannot understand how civ2 could even be seriously considered with the same emphasis and level of expectations (note: graphics and manual excluded).

In the end, though, I really do believe that Civ 4 needs some serious patches and solid X-packs to move things to another level. Keep up the input to Firaxis, Solver

dito!


but to end my long post positively: i fully agree with your assessment of the higher difficulty levels. unlike civ3, where higher levels meant catching up like mad and extreme exploiting (philosophy/literature beelines), civ4 doesn't seem to rush away early on (well, it does, but you don't notice it as extreme) but can keep up even when you have a clear edge.

anyhow, i'm looking forward to the rest of your review, hopefully all before the christmas holidays

[sabrewolf]

and here my score:

1) OVERALL EXPECTATIONS
+1: as said before, i liked civ3

2) THE MANUAL
+1: i don't really need one, but it's nice for on the bus!

3) TUTORIAL
+2: a good UI and manual makes a tutorial irrellevant

4) GRAPHICS and SOUNDS
-2: the current performance necessities means that civ4 has gone too far mainstream. -2 is not on the scale but this is definetly a huge disappointment. this is a strategy game, goddamnit!, no a place where deviantartists dwell..

5) THE INTERFACE
0: unlike point 4, there is room for improvement

6) UNDERSTANDING GAME CONCEPTS
??? you value system does not make much sence to me. understanding a game concept doesn't give negative points! imho civ4 has found a great balance on novelty and simplicity to start off (eg. promotions count, but you can play without understanding, etc)

7) ARITIFICAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)
+1: slight improvement should be the religion. it decides too much while forming blocks and alliances early on (same religion means nearly as many wars). "close borders spark tension" however should have more negative points...

8) BUGS
+2: softened by my last two major games, civ3 and UFO:Aftershock, early bugs are acceptable as long as they get fixed eventually

9) MULTIPLAYER and EDITOR
0: multiplayer: useless if you only just meet the minimal specs, but the game itself (from PBEM) is great in MP. the world builder has space for lots of improvement. like the UI more work needed here...!

10) SERIES INNOVATION
+2: while i'm not "it's civ, i'll take any version", this deserves +2 because as promised the balance of new, same and gone is well chosen!


SUM:
+7: just a patch or two away from greatness ==> agreed!
(note: i didn't quite fulfil your value system, but i would be in this category (+6 to +10) anyhow ). well done on a good estimate!