A friend and I have been playing alot of lan beyond the sword. It's pretty damn cool with all the units, features, etc. Thinking back on all the civs before this one I find that 2 is easily the best of the series. One of course was not that in depth but fun for the time because it was innovative. If they tired for too much detail that early on they would of just ended up making another romance of the three kingdoms. In other words a boring ass game. If I wanted that much strategy I would take over a third world country and try to run that. Now we come to the greatest of them all!

Civs 2 seems to have just enough content to be a deep strategy experience without being to overwhelming. Everything flowed at just the right pace, some kickass units that have since been left out, It all just seemed right! Plus, there's nothing like melting the ice caps and watching your enemies drown in radioactive waste. Why did that take that feature away? Why does nuclear waste go away in only a few turns? Granted that time goes by pretty quickly! It's just not that satisfying to blow your foes to dust anymore! If they added glowing radioactive children units then I would be satisfied all over again.

Alot of people may disagree with what I'm about to say but what the hell! I also think that the PS1 version is the best. The menu navigation was pefectly fluid. The overall quality seems better as well. After playing that version and then buying the pc version I felt like I was playing a watered down version of the game. Suprising since it's usually the other way around. This makes me really excited to see what Sid and the gang can do with the new console Civs. If it's anything like 2 then I Think we're all in for a kickass time.

PLEASE NOTE : I could talk about civs 3 but why waste your time? The game was boring enough to play so you don't need to read about it.