Simulation vs Game

[civilizationfanatic2000]

Let's say that Civ VII be one of two extremes: Simulationist and Gamist. On the former end, the game goes as far to simulate ecosystems, geology, the movement of populations, the beliefs of populations- essentially everything that mattered then and now and forever to a society. The game is most likely exceedingly difficult to play or enjoy but contains an immense amount of worldbuilding information.

On the latter end, nothing is immersive. If you think about things seriously for a minute everything falls apart. However the game is designed well and is fun to play.

Which of these extremes would you prefer to play?

 

[Naokaukodem]

Well since you cannot simulate History, because each event has his mess of theories, simulation.

More seriously, I do think that Civ tries to be a simulation of sort, like with Great People being the grain of sand that is supposed to have a great impact, but in fact, for balance purposes, have very few.

I think that everything Civ is trying is to be a simulation, but that it bumps to reality to what is a game or what customers would like a game to be. So why not just trying to be a good game ? Nah.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Let's say that Civ VII be one of two extremes: Simulationist and Gamist. On the former end, the game goes as far to simulate ecosystems, geology, the movement of populations, the beliefs of populations- essentially everything that mattered then and now and forever to a society. The game is most likely exceedingly difficult to play or enjoy but contains an immense amount of worldbuilding information.

On the latter end, nothing is immersive. If you think about things seriously for a minute everything falls apart. However the game is designed well and is fun to play.

Which of these extremes would you prefer to play?

Simulation and game, or as you put it immersion and fun, aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. If the simulation ends up boring, then the player will lose interest, and if the game gets too abstract, then we would lose the Empire building suspension of disbelief, so that wouldn't really be a "civ" game anymore.

The topic makes me think about a podcast with Soren Johnson, the lead designer of Civ IV, and Johan Andersson, a Paradox designer who worked on Europa Universalis. The topic of that podcast is "Board Game vs Simulation-style Strategy Games" and I assume that is very close to the discussion you would like to have :

Interesting podcast on "board game" versus "simulation" style strategy games

I've just listened to an interesting podcast about the pros and cons of "board game" versus "simulation" style strategy games. One of the participants is Soren Johnson, the designer of Civ 4. There is a discussion about the Civ series starting around 1:05:00. One of the presenters makes quite...

forums.civfanatics.com

 

[Ordnael]

I think CIV VI has stricken a nice balance between simulation and game. You can go all Command and Conquer with a Domination or Religious Victory, and you can go Sim City with a Cultural or Science Victory. No extreme is desirable for me.

 

[luca 83]

clear that the events do not flow the same as our history but the causes are similar or certain events probable within limits in certain situations: however in revolutions. nothing is certain! but the fall of prime ministers, kings, republics can
happen, I am against the revolution chosen and made by the player because it is anti-historical, and unrealistic, and little immersive, as the fixed leaders

 

[Evie]

I like a balance of both, but in any particular situation where it just isn't possible to have both, gameplay come first.

 

[luca 83]

I think CIV VI has stricken a nice balance between simulation and game. You can go all Command and Conquer with a Domination or Religious Victory, and you can go Sim City with a Cultural or Science Victory. No extreme is desirable for me.

I find instead that the game is very lacking on the simulation part since 1991 has done very little for simulation: no unintended revolutions, no creations minor states, factions or political parties, forms of government that represent more theeology painful diplomacy

 

[Ebitdadada]

For me the key thing is immersion. I felt like Civ 6 almost went out of its way to scream "IT'S A GAME!" From the "Card" system (could have fixed this so simply by calling them policies or government focuses or some such) to the fact that you were contacting "Gandhi" not India, to the silly leader agendas just seemed almost purposely designed to break immersion. Then towards the end they want super gamey with the weird fantasy element.. Really hope Civ 7 makes an effort to make you feel like you're part of / writing an epic story.

Civ 6 was great in many ways but the constant breaking of immersion got me to stop playing & why I play Stellaris instead now.

 

[Marla_Singer]

For me the key thing is immersion. I felt like Civ 6 almost went out of its way to scream "IT'S A GAME!" From the "Card" system (could have fixed this so simply by calling them policies or government focuses or some such) to the fact that you were contacting "Gandhi" not India, to the silly leader agendas just seemed almost purposely designed to break immersion. Then towards the end they want super gamey with the weird fantasy element.. Really hope Civ 7 makes an effort to make you feel like you're part of / writing an epic story.

Civ 6 was great in many ways but the constant breaking of immersion got me to stop playing & why I play Stellaris instead now.

I think that is intended to be this way. The first time I got that" board-game" feel in the series was in struggling to move my units with the 1 UPT rule in Civ 5, and it's true that this has only increased with Civ6 in nearly all aspects of the game. It feels like Firaxis is heading the series towards some form of role-playing board game.

 

[luca 83]

I think that is intended to be this way. The first time I got that" board-game" feel in the series was with in struggling to move my units with the 1 UPT rule in Civ 5, and it's true that this has only increased with Civ6 in nearly all aspects of the game. It feels like Firaxis is heading the series towards some form of role-playing board game.

A realistic game should conceive the spersolinisation of the player and the abandonment of the leader as avatar with more politics and representation of social and political classes this process can be helped by better ai

 

[Marla_Singer]

To go back to the podcast comparing Civ and Paradox games, Soren Johnson insisted on the importance for the player to have access to all necessary information. I think that's an important point regarding the topic. More complexity doesn't necessarily means more immersive if the player feels like he has no control.

Also complicating things for the sake of realism isn't useful if you only increase the list of tasks that should be done without giving additional gameplay values to them. If they only make things more tedious, they make you lose interest in what you're doing. To me a game is good if its core mechanics are well-thought. As such, for each feature to be added into the game, it should be carefully thought whether they actually add something interesting from a gameplay perspective or if they only add extra tediousness. Sometimes you need to kill ideas that were great on paper but didn't turn out good when implemented.

Yet my feeling, from my maybe too shallow experience in Civ5 and Civ6, is that the series probably evolved too much in the opposite direction. They streamlined the game so much that we've lost interesting aspects of it. Also the game gives way too much importance in tiles (1UPT, districts) and other boardgamey aspects (for instance the policy cards mentioned earlier). That makes me totally lose interests, because I don't believe anymore that I'm actually "building an Empire to stand the test of time", but rather feel like I'm playing a game with its set of rule being made this way for whatever reason. Maybe also that is me growing too old but I don't think so, as listening to what people say, many seem to regret the lack of depth in Civ6.

 

[luca 83]

To go back to the podcast comparing Civ and Paradox games, Soren Johnson insisted on the importance for the player to have access to all necessary information. I think that's an important point regarding the topic. More complexity doesn't necessarily means more immersive if the player feels like he has no control.

Also complicating things for the sake of realism isn't useful if you only increase the list of tasks that should be done without giving additional gameplay values to them. If they only make things more tedious, they make you lose interest in what you're doing. To me a game is good if its core mechanics are well-thought. As such, for each feature to be added into the game, it should be carefully thought whether they actually add something interesting from a gameplay perspective or if they only add extra tediousness. Sometimes you need to kill ideas that were great on paper but didn't turn out good when implemented.

Yet my feeling, from my maybe too shallow experience in Civ5 and Civ6, is that the series probably evolved too much in the opposite direction. They streamlined the game so much that we've lost interesting aspects of it. Also the game gives way too much importance in tiles (1UPT, districts) and other boardgamey aspects (for instance the policy cards mentioned earlier). That makes me totally lose interests, because I don't believe anymore that I'm actually "building an Empire to stand the test of time", but rather feel like I'm playing a game with its set of rule being made this way for whatever reason. Maybe also that is me growing too old but I don't think so, as listening to what people say, many seem to regret the lack of depth in Civ6.

Surely adding leaders and talking about leaders and clothes and leaders does not help! They are. If you add new mechanics instead of adding new civilizations and new military units, why don't you improve AI? Why don't you create new mechanics and better governments that are more complex? Peace treaties? . You can't talk about slavery because it offends a minority ! Of violence because it is not politically correct, we can only talk about the splendid things of civilizations ! Why does the majority want it so ! Then it simplifies

 

[Naokaukodem]

Also complicating things for the sake of realism isn't useful if you only increase the list of tasks that should be done without giving additional gameplay values to them. If they only make things more tedious, they make you lose interest in what you're doing.

Good description of most of my games (attempts) of Civ6.

Yet my feeling, from my maybe too shallow experience in Civ5 and Civ6, is that the series probably evolved too much in the opposite direction. They streamlined the game so much that we've lost interesting aspects of it. Also the game gives way too much importance in tiles (1UPT, districts) and other boardgamey aspects (for instance the policy cards mentioned earlier). That makes me totally lose interests, because I don't believe anymore that I'm actually "building an Empire to stand the test of time", but rather feel like I'm playing a game with its set of rule being made this way for whatever reason. Maybe also that is me growing too old but I don't think so, as listening to what people say, many seem to regret the lack of depth in Civ6.

I would not have thought about it in those terms, but if Civ6 had lack of depth, which can be described as vertical complexity, it is sure that it has a lot a horizontal complexity, which can also be described as many things to do / choices, although that doesn't mean they are not relevant. (imagine you are attacked early : you should build units to defend yourself, but at the cost of not expanding rapidly enough to compete now, mid and late : therefore, you should try to not overreact and keep some hammers for your settlers)

 

[Verrucosus]

To go back to the podcast comparing Civ and Paradox games, Soren Johnson insisted on the importance for the player to have access to all necessary information. I think that's an important point regarding the topic. More complexity doesn't necessarily means more immersive if the player feels like he has no control.

Also complicating things for the sake of realism isn't useful if you only increase the list of tasks that should be done without giving additional gameplay values to them. If they only make things more tedious, they make you lose interest in what you're doing. To me a game is good if its core mechanics are well-thought. As such, for each feature to be added into the game, it should be carefully thought whether they actually add something interesting from a gameplay perspective or if they only add extra tediousness. Sometimes you need to kill ideas that were great on paper but didn't turn out good when implemented.

Sometimes a gameplay feature can be interesting in ways that make you lose interest in the forces of history it's meant to simulate. The Great Person feature introduced in Civ4 (also used in Civ5) was a clever gameplay element that had lots of interesting strategic implications. In terms of simulating the idea that (apart from rulers) certain individuals of genius have an outsized influence on the course of civilization, it was a step backwards. In Civ1 to Civ3 these Great People were represented by specific wonders. There weren't tons of them (just seven in Civ1), but - just like other wonders - they had a unique, often powerful effect. They were as important and memorable as truly "great" people should be. By contrast, the Great People from Civ4 and Civ5 were forgettable as individuals. I would have had a hard time remembering even a Great Prophet's name three turns after spending him to found a religion. In terms of simulating their greatness, that's a failure, is it not? The Civ6 system moved us back to unique effects and even added biographies, but the effects not as "great" as those of the Great People wonders from Civ1 to Civ3.

Regarding the podcast, I remember it mainly for Johnson's quip about people interested in talking about games as history simulators being "generally Johan's problem" (at around 56:40), for his observation of how Paradox let players engineer "modifiers" to base values whose workings remain completely obscure (regarding combat from 1:11:00), and for Andersson's comment that focusing more on characters in Civ7 would be "the wrong path for Civilization" (at around 1:05:50). I think he's right about that. (It works in Old World, but only because of the much smaller time scale.)

 

[Evie]

Minor point: great people were introduced in III, not IV, and Civ III used a mix of both wonders and leaders to represent their role in history.

 

[luca 83]

The intelligent artificial one should adapt to the territory to the needs of the game governdells, and have objectives that are higher than the victory program by space race or military victory or points