The game is still disorienting for those not used to its interface or logic. Had it not been for someone I know purchasing this game for themselves and explaining it to me as they played it, I probably would have neglected it entirely out of a frustratingly steep learning curve. Much about the game's core interface, its "city" system, seems a bit wonky to me, and would not have made any sense to me had I just jumped into the game. I suppose it may be due to poor assumptions on my part, but had I not been taught the express reason and need for it, I would probably never have built a granary in any of my cities. A fatal error. A granary, as one finds out, increases a city's food production by so much percent every turn, which increases population, which adds a square of territory that a city in near proximity can exploit, which can then be used to increase general production, which can make producing military units faster, which is what I wanted to do from the beginning. As it turns out, building a granary may be more advantageous for creating a strong military than would building a barracks. This is the game's underpinning strategy, and keep in mind Civ Rev is referred to as the "simple" version. Apparently there are people out there who want to inhibit building military units even more, possibly by having to build mills and silos as well as a granary (what fun!). For myself, I think Sid Meier has struck a good balance.

I still contend that it was only through many conversations with an experienced Civ player that I managed to understand and even enjoy Revolution. Although now in hindsightt I'm beginning to feel this was an unintentional happenstance of good fortune that has made the experience more enjoyable than if I had learned the game on my own. What Civilization really accels at is raising discussions on various strategies, which can pertain to their real-world inspirations. The game itself seems to be built around a constant reward system, which is to say that no matter how bad you are at the game you seem to almost constantly receive positive bonuses. Playing the game well means that these bonuses are achieved by design and with a long-term goal in mind, but unintended turns of good luck may change that long term goal. Rationalizing new courses and directions for one's civilization to progress is the most enjoyable part of playing this game, and having to explain and justify each new direction, or staying the course, to someone else elevates the importance of sensible decision making in the game. A disagreement on what should be the chief aim for the next few turns, or where the civilization should be many turns from the present, prompts some incredibly engrossing political, social, and even moral discussions in real life that would otherwise be irrelevant or hypothetical. By then witnessing the outcome of these discussions and choices in the game, it not only lends more weight to each choice, as another actual person sees the consequences, but it ends the disagreement as the outcome becomes plain and new choices are presented. The game, of course, is still just a game, and not all disagreements can be definitively ended by the outcome of each match, but the fact that it can raise such differences or similarities in how people feel a civilization should be nurtured is proof enough of the game's merits.

The drawbacks of this game are evident, however. First off, it would be nice to have some control over the terrain a person plays in, instead of always having it randomly generated. It is incredibly annoying to have AI opponents only go to war with human opponents, and never fight amongst themselves. A stronger focus on political intrigue would have been welcome, as sowing discord among potential enemies and allies is always a good time. Lastly, and most important, not having an offline multiplayer mode is criminal. As the co-operative aspect of this game is the one I find the most enduring, and with its turn based nature, it seems a no brainer to have multiple people sit around one console and take turns playing it board-game style. The fact that it is not even possible to have two human controlled civilizations in one match offline is a gigantic oversight on behalf of the developers who thus fail to encourage and foster the strongest part of this game; the conversations it starts. These are not deal breakers, and it should be noted that even with these drawbacks I can still say that, 2 weeks in, I am currently having more fun scrolling through menus to order the construction of a Samurai Castle in a High Production city for its military bonus, than I am fighting as a Samurai in Soul Calibur IV. My only concern is that these drawbacks will see the situation reversed in another 2 weeks time. And if that proves to be the case then I can only hope polymorphed hooves will not impede my rutter control as I leave port for an island that tempts me less and rewards me more.