Why are some gamers crazy about Civ?

[shinoui]

We know Civ, we know how it works, we know all the tricks (well almost all of 'em), we know that some of us are playing it since the birth of it ten years ago. We know that the Civ Community includes players still suckin' the milk bottle and either old horses. Just check the thread "Too old to play". Now comes a new question : "Why do we love it so much? from Civ DOS to Civ3 Conquests. I have some answers to that question and I'll try to develop it if this thread stays alive.
Tell me why ... you love it so much.
Shinoui

Moderator Action: tsk, tsk. Language, please! --Padma
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/faq.php?faq=updated_rules_2011

[Padma]

I have always enjoyed "thinking games". I learned to play chess while in Elementary School. Later I came to love wargames, both with miniatures and with maps and unit counters. When computers came on the scene, I played some of the available games, and they were okay, but nothing special for me. (Aside: I thoroughly enjoyed EA's "M.U.L.E.", clunky graphics aside, because you had to *think* about what you were doing. A great game for its time!)

As PCs became more common, and complex, I checked ou the original "DOOM". I played a couple of rounds, then turned to my friend (who owned the game) and asked, "So what's the point?" He was flabbergasted that I didn't love the game like he did. My first exposure to First Person Shooters, and it told me all I needed to know.

For my last unaccompanied overseas tour, I took all my old board wargames in order to have something to do in my free time (besides touring Europe ). I had a mapsheet 8 feet wide by 7 feet deep laid out on the floor of my barracks room, with a "DO NOT TOUCH" sign above it, for the sake of any inspectors/maintenance people. I spent three months replaying the Normandy Invasion, using company-sized units.

All of this is just to illuminate the point: I like thinking games, not simple shoot-em-ups.

I ran into Civ when I retired from the Air Force in 1996, and fell in love! Here was a game that required thinking, and strategic planning, in order to win. It doesn't take up acres of floor space to hold the map! I can play it at whatever detail level (i.e., micromanagement) that I am comfortable with, and I can lead my people through the ages to their glorious destiny, or get crushed in the attempt.

[Esckey]

I like all games that actually requires ya know skill and knowledge and not just good reaction time. I still like FPS just as long as it's really smart AI or I'm online against humans, cause then you need tactics.

I got in Civ cause I liked the idea about taking over the entire world, now if only they gave you more options as to what you can do

[thestonesfan]

It's like playing with army men in the sandbox, but you have really fancy army men and your sandbox has mountains, water, and everything!

[Riesstiu IV]

People are crazy about Civ because it's fun!

[Mark Young]

I'm pretty much the same as padma. All my mates are FPS players, the first game I ever saw was duke nuke em. After a few does it got dead boring. I tried tomb raider which I stuck at for a while, then C&C, and a couple of others until I found civ.
The only other games I play regularly ( meaning other then civ but more then twice a year) is Pharoah/cleopatra.
I also enjoyed playing wargasm which was a great game too. and I really like half life.

[Turner]

I hate this game. I really do.

I have spent so much time playing it, and so much time on forums devoted to it, that when I have free time, and am just sitting around, I don't know what to do.

This game has really messed me up. . . it's all Civ, Civ, Civ.

I just bought FS2002. I love it. But after flying around for a bit, I exit out and start playing Civ. Then I get frustrated and have to restart, because of a stupid mistake or bad starting position. . .

Oh, and yes, I'll be getting conquests as soon as it's released. I wasn't going to with PTW, but did, so I do know that I'll be getting C3C that first day.

[Mark Young]

Originally posted by Turner_727
I hate this game. I really do.

I have spent so much time playing it, and so much time on forums devoted to it, that when I have free time, and am just sitting around, I don't know what to do.

This game has really messed me up. . . it's all Civ, Civ, Civ.

Exxxcelllleeent Phase 1 of the brain washing transformation is complete.
Now for Phase 2. He will now turn into one of these---->

[Turner]

If you think for a second this is going to help you in our PBEM. . . well, son, you got another think comin'. . .

[Mark Young]

Hey, you cant blame me for trying

[Ision]

Many of the replies to this question have been to state that 'Civ' is a thinking mans game. While I agree with that to a point, I do not believe that that is the primary reason for the tremendous loyalty of players to the game. I have met many highly intelligent FPS gamers that find Civ boring. While it would be nice to believe that CIV players are on average smarter than players of other types of games, I do not believe that this is the case, at least not to any significant degree. In my opinion there are 2 primary reasons that this game holds such a fan base;

1.There are no decent alternatives. TBS games are very rare and with the exception of Europa Universalis, CIV is about the only other TBS game made with the same quality of an RTS game like Age of Kings. In other words, it’s Civ or nothing. TBS games are rare because the audience for them are a ‘niche’ audience (I’ll get into that with number 2) and therefore the ‘supply and demand’ economics kicks in.

2.Our orientation is different from the typical RTS or FPS gamer. The typical CIV player has a different mind set than your typical RTS gamer. The Civer in all likelihood has a significant interest in history, geography, and politics. The typical Civer is probably a reader, detail oriented, and somewhat of a dreamer. By dreamer I mean, that his interest in politics and history has often made him think in the ‘what would I have done’ mode. Civ plays out to that type of mindset. Lastly, old-age CIVers are the 70’s and 80’s Avalon Hill war games players; CIV is as close as they can get to that in a computer game.

My nephew for example is a brilliant kid that loves science, mathematics, and music. But his general orientation is different from mine. What he considers fun is a by-product of his primary interest. His idea of ‘dreaming’ is not in the historical/political context. So he plays out his version differently. All games are in a sense ‘niche’ games, but ours is a ‘niche’ within a ‘niche’, a sub-group of what is called the ‘Strategy Games’. Please remember I am speaking in generalities. So please don’t bombard me with, “ hey I play TBS, RTS, and FPS!”…. No doubt the thousands of CIV players come in many different flavors. My point is not an attempt to ‘pigeonhole’ everyone here into a few categories but to point out what believe is our common attraction to this type of Strategy game.

Sincerely,

Ision

[Turner]

Originally posted by Sir Eric
Hey, you cant blame me for trying

That is so much funnier when you look to the left and see the bashful lion. . .

[Daarkseid]

Ision's excellent reply details precisely why I got into Civ and continue to play civ games in the form of Civ3.

I am dreamer and I pay great attention to detail, and to be able to manage the details and manipulate them for the purpose of playing out this dream of mine is one of the greatest sensations in the world.

[TopGun]

I've always been a gamer. I grew up in a family where, on weekends, we'd spend hours playing games. All sorts of games, but mostly Chess, Chinese Checkers and cards. Later came Stratego and Risk.
What all these games had in common was that playing them really challenges one's mind. Yeah, "thinking games" - Padma, you hit the nail on the head with that one!
With the advent of computers, a whole new world unfolded for me... Of course I had to check out almost every computer game I could get my hands on but I really got stuck with Strategy games such as Oil Barons (anybody here remember this game for the C64?) and Railroad Tycoon. Spent hours, no days, even weeks... until I felt like this: Sorta.
No seriously, I simply love strategy games where I had to plan, think, outwit the AI, etc to win. But something was missing... because besides being a gamer, I've always have had a huge interest in history and all things military. Blame my dad, he once bought me a tin figurine die cast set with which I made huge armies of 16c-18c soldiers - and for accuracy's sake, I painted them after pictures I found in history books!
Later, I got even crazier when I started buying 1:72 scale toy soldiers, 1:72 scale airplanes, military vehicles, guns, etc. Of course, I painted them accurately as well! My whole room looked like one big arsenal... Of course I played with my "armies", reenacting the battles of WWII, even rewriting history right there, on my bedroom floor. I think, eventually, my Mom got sick of me playing war all the time and threw out most of my 2,000+ soldiers and that's when I realized that going out with girls was alot of fun, too.
But the bug still stuck!
Later, much later, when computers got faster and smarter, I started playing with soldiers again. This time it was games like Siedler (a cute little strategy game from Germany - I used to live there for some time), Ascendancy (a pretty cool Sci-Fi game), Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (gosh, I loved that game) and later, Age of Empires/Age of Kings. All these were great games, since they fed my folly: history, development, strategy and military.
Then I bought Civ3. I couldn't believe that I didn't buy Civ earlier, because it is all I ever wanted in a game... it's all the other games rolled into one, it lets me play with my toy soldiers again and, the best thing: I can customize it! Finally, I can play with historically and culturally accurate units and reenact and/or rewrite history... ohh boy, I'm in love.

[Mark Young]

Did anyone here ever play Lords of the Realms? It was turn based set in medieval times with the battles in real time. It was pretty cool.... although I only played the demo,. But I would have brought it if I could have.

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Originally posted by Padma:

As PCs became more common, and complex, I checked ou the original "DOOM". I played a couple of rounds, then turned to my friend (who owned the game) and asked, "So what's the point?" He was flabbergasted that I didn't love the game like he did. My first exposure to First Person Shooters, and it told me all I needed to know.

Same here. One of my room- mates installed Doom, and we started playing. After some hours, I got headache, slept for a time, had a shower, meal, and he was still playing. Next morning, he told me he had played until he felt really sick , and erased it, and we both returned to Civ2.

Additionally to a lot of excellent points already made:
There are really very few choices. When I started playing on the PC in the Mid-90ties, there were great Adventures like 'Tentacles', warfare TBS like Panzergeneral or Warlords, and of course, Civ. What do they all have in common? You never need to hurry. I hate it when in my free time I'm forced to make decisions in no time (that's what my job is for).

But now, there really is only Civ, and rip-offs (1914, EU).

[Sparrow3]

I remember when Stratego and Risk first came out. I thought they looked like the best games ever. I also consider them the grandfather of strategy board games.

I couldn't afford either one of them. So, I cut open a cloths dryer shipping box. Drew gridlines and islands on it. Carved some little wooden ships and infantry markers. Then, went out to find someone to play with.

I have always had trouble finding someone to play with; but now the AI plays with me whenever and as long as I want. Civ3 is the ultimate evolution of my board game.

BTW, I have played Kampgrupe, Panzer General, Alpha Centari, A.O.E II, and even 1602 AD/1503 AD. Nothing holds my interest like Civ3. I was playing 1602 AD the day I bought Civ3. I remember holding it in my hands a few days later and thinking; if I load this I may not want to play 1602 AD any more.

RIGHT!

[warpstorm]

My favorite genre is turn based strategic games. The 4X games are my favorite sub-genre. I find Civ3 to be the most fun of them. That 'just one more turn' feeling is in it in spades.

[Mano3]

I've been a wargamer since I was 12. I started off with Avalon Hill's Bismarck and Gettysburg, then moved on to Squad Leader. As soon as Advanced Squad Leader came around, I was a total thinking man's gamer.

When computers and games came about, there wasn't much out there that compared to Avalon Hill's game line. Most early computer wargames were either to bland or too complicated, or the screen couldn't show all the action at once.

Then CIV came out... Simple gameplay entrenched in a tough, thinking man's environment. I've tried others (Age of Empires, Masters of Orion, etc...), but nothing compares to CIV.

I like the aspect of a turn based game. I can't stand RTS (Warcraft, Starcraft, etc..), as they make me feel too rushed. WIth CIV, I can plan, move, build, and fight on my own terms, then sit back and watch the AI move - like a chess game.

[CivCube]

After playing MacPlay's Castles: Siege and Conquest, I was looking for a good strategy game that didn't take itself too seriously. Noticing the oh-so-polite leaderheads on the box for Civ 3, I knew that this was the game for me. It wasn't until I found that it was customizable to the ends of hell as well that I fully realized....