I have been Civ'ing since Civ1 was released as a gold edition, which makes me both an old fart and something of a fan of the series. Such a big fan infact that i've clocked in >100 hours with Civ4 and it's 2 expansion sets.
So when i bought my Xbox i kept my eye out on the Civ version for the consoles: Revolution. After the game dropped enough in price, i purchased it and was immediatly hooked.

Civ: Rev follows the same lines as all the Civ games: choose a civilization and start founding cities which produce buildings and soldiers who can be used to attack other civilisations. But where as a typical game in Civ4 may take you a day, depending on your settings, a single game in Revolution takes only a few hours. This is certainly understandable given the nature of the more fleeting nature of console gaming (turn it on, play for 20 minutes, go do something else) but this adaption actually works pretty good.

This change in game time is gotten by having less cities and civilizations on a smaller world map but also a decrease in the different types of units available. The sloping time (the first turn takes up a hundred years, the later turns take a single year) is also greatly exaggerated. The true strenght of Civ: Rev is that it makes all these changes but still manages to be as fun (sometimes more so) than it's bigger brother Civ4. Sure it has less diplomacy than civ4, but play Civ4 a lot and you will see a lot of recurrent patterns in diplomacy making it, after some time playing, simply a pattern to predict. All in all it's a nice and quicker game than the previous Civ's while still offering lots of depth and character.

The style of buildings and advisors is more comical than in Civ4, with the advisors and leaders adopting a sort of Simstalk. I personally did not find this too off putting, but more seriouslyminded gamers mind find that a hindrance.