Important proviso here: people often use addictive as a synonymous for enjoyable. It’s an epic unfolding before your eyes, one click at a time. A turn-based world, a couple of units, stone-age technology, and then the long climb from that to a world-spanning Empire. Obviously, the series’ fortunes rose (If they’re not hailing Alpha Centauri, there’ll be lots of players out there who’d argue Civ2 as their favourite game ever) and fell (Civ3 picked up a fair share of disgruntlement), but the core of the game remains compelling. ![]() I love Civ, but didn’t play much of the sequels after my experiences with the originals, mostly out of fear that they’ll actually make it so good that I’ll just disappear into it forever. At 10:30pm, when I've wandered the streets of south Bristol looking for fast-food like a particularly determined settler trying to find a rare-resource-rich area, it wasn’t because I hadn’t eaten all day. It’s mostly posture, and it takes something like Civilization to show how much that’s true. It’s something games reviewers throw around without really thinking about, with colourful metaphors describing it in terms of something you could base "Requiem for a Dream II: This Time It's Got a Joypad" about. It’s always been - to use that most devalued of gaming terms - addictive. It’s terribly moreish, this recapitulation of human history in a turn-based format. And then hours of the rise and fall then rise again of Spanish Taoism.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |