Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,952
I must admit it, I'm not a huge fan of strategy games, because I'm probably too impatient. I would totally say that I prefer action games, as long as they are not too hard. I'm more among the audience of console games in fact. But old computers had cool action games too, like Doom and the other FPS's, and a whole bunch of RTS's. Not to forget "Hack'n slash's" like Titan Quest that I learned to love. (especially due to its ambiance, I'm not a huge fan of dark fantasy like Diablo or Grim Dawn) I love RPG's too, in general.
My point is that I happen to like Building games too, like Sim City on the Super Nintendo, and I must say the unique music of this version did the job perfectly. And I have the feeling that Civ, at start, was more a building than strategy game. I don't know it's maybe just me who focused less on difficulty but at first when discovering Civ1 I really was in the mood to discover the game little by little, like a total noob (people would say) and... I don't remember exactly but I started a game, built a worker, improved the land, watched my city grow, yields growing, etc. and that was satisfaction. I know it sounds silly, but at first I didn't even know that there was other civs on the map ! When I encountered Gandhi for the first time, that looked surprisingly aggressive, I started to feel worried. But as I was playing on... I don't know... Settler maybe I didn't have more trouble with him, eventhough I carefully avoided his zone.
Finally, Civ2 (never finished a game of 1) was far easier than the following Civs, when it comes to strategy and winning the hardest difficulty level. I've never been too comfortable with the strategy to adopt to beat the highest difficulty level since Civ3. I think I beat Civ3 in Deity only once (started on a arm of land between oceans, had billions artillery hitting enemy capitals, very dull), same with 5 (Korea, 5 cities, 2 military units - the total opposite : hard to adapt !), and maybe a little more with 6. 4 I was annoyed by cities gold cost and therefore went bankrupt when expanding too fast. I don't even know if I beat Civ4 in Deity, but that would surprise me. However, I have fond memories of its multiplayer, that was playing basically like an action game, with lots of adrenaline, and I wasn't too terrible at it.
The irony in all that, is that I asked Firaxis to make the game more challenging after winning every game of Civ2. The thing is, I remember that it was *us* players who began crippled, when I'm not sure the AI got strenghtened. I had an idea lately to give more challenge for the player to develop in higher difficulty levels rather than giving AI billions advantages. (except the 3 former settlers, I don't even know what kind of advantages the AI has in Deity) Now, that would emphasis the building aspect of the game, I think. Optimize, min-maxing, etc. Rather than HAVING LUCK, because let's face it, you win a Deity game in Civ6 by having luck, or not having bad luck. "The experience may differ from a user to the other" they say. You bet.
Lately I tried multiple games of Civ6, all quitted before 1 AD. Why ?
- I repelled an early attack, but couldn't counter-attack due to inferior units and mountains in the way. (two the narrowest possible - 1 tile - shock points) I managed to kill some of his tough units but I lost some myself, and my amenities felt at -1 ! To top it all, I was going to have a dark age ! But man I have only 3 cities, where the heck will I put the other ones ? Shock points, amenities, dark age. Quit.
- I was settling up my second city when I suddenly realised that China had 5 cities at least already ! How am supposed to... ? Quit.
- I toned down the difficulty for Emperor. All those games with Seondok. I built I don't know, 5 cities ? But I don't know, I was BORED. Seowon + library built in capital, then I lost interest for building, since other cities are still developping their crappy infrastructure. (Monuments -one city took 50+ turns to build it most probably, granaries, walls for some, water mills, etc. builders, builders, builders... takes eeeeeeeons) Then I was only getting normal ages and for some reason that contributed to exasperate me. Not to mention that nothing was happening. (I was "protected" -if not hindered- by two city-States - most desactivable features are double-edged in that game, and I don't like it) Quit.
So what's my problem dude ? Watching at Marbozir, I would have quitted a lot of his games, but he kept to believe naively that he could win and find pleasure in it. At some points I got bored the same way I was in my games, but kept watching him because the guy is funny and I have nothing else to do anyway. (and I can always quit & resume)
Analysing a bit my journey, I could say I should desactivate city-States but on Emperor. That way, I could develop better, while fearing less my neighbours, and trading with them. (the ones I'm not at war with) But I fear this would still feel boring. Because era score, because bad production cities, because mountains (normal instead of young like in the first example), because desert, because toundra, because ice, because water, because rainforest, because eurekas and inspirations, simply bad city location, not enough luxuries (like in most of my games...) Bah.
Maybe I should have stopped playing once i beat the game in Deity once, like with Civ3 and Civ5. Civ5 it's not totally true, I re-installed it, because of this youtuber playing it, that just gave me the wish. But i'm not fond of those games, I should know it, I'm fond of inventing a new Civ. I'm fond of early eras and early musics (especially Civ3's). But I'm not fond of lying speeches. "From the first stirring of life, to the great beasts of the stone age" great beast where where where ? (ok it's supposed to give perspective but why bother when all that fades away when the game starts ? Is this truly a "civilization" game ?) "From this early craddle of civilization" Which early craddle of civilizations ? You mean those 6 civs that are equally spread out on the entire map like... America from 4000 BCE ? "You have seen empires rise and fall" Whaaaat ? No I didn't. THIS IS A GAME. Wayyyy too gamey. And it doesn't work for me.
So this OP turned out from Strategy VS. Building to Gamey VS. Simulation ? Both can be intrically linked, respectively, I think. Well I mean, whatever. Nowadays we are at a points where some pros ask for challenge even in building games, otherwise they rate it bad. However that can be done, and they get it ! I suppose we are all different. But maybe I would feel less lonely if I could find someone who feels like I do.
My point is that I happen to like Building games too, like Sim City on the Super Nintendo, and I must say the unique music of this version did the job perfectly. And I have the feeling that Civ, at start, was more a building than strategy game. I don't know it's maybe just me who focused less on difficulty but at first when discovering Civ1 I really was in the mood to discover the game little by little, like a total noob (people would say) and... I don't remember exactly but I started a game, built a worker, improved the land, watched my city grow, yields growing, etc. and that was satisfaction. I know it sounds silly, but at first I didn't even know that there was other civs on the map ! When I encountered Gandhi for the first time, that looked surprisingly aggressive, I started to feel worried. But as I was playing on... I don't know... Settler maybe I didn't have more trouble with him, eventhough I carefully avoided his zone.
Finally, Civ2 (never finished a game of 1) was far easier than the following Civs, when it comes to strategy and winning the hardest difficulty level. I've never been too comfortable with the strategy to adopt to beat the highest difficulty level since Civ3. I think I beat Civ3 in Deity only once (started on a arm of land between oceans, had billions artillery hitting enemy capitals, very dull), same with 5 (Korea, 5 cities, 2 military units - the total opposite : hard to adapt !), and maybe a little more with 6. 4 I was annoyed by cities gold cost and therefore went bankrupt when expanding too fast. I don't even know if I beat Civ4 in Deity, but that would surprise me. However, I have fond memories of its multiplayer, that was playing basically like an action game, with lots of adrenaline, and I wasn't too terrible at it.
The irony in all that, is that I asked Firaxis to make the game more challenging after winning every game of Civ2. The thing is, I remember that it was *us* players who began crippled, when I'm not sure the AI got strenghtened. I had an idea lately to give more challenge for the player to develop in higher difficulty levels rather than giving AI billions advantages. (except the 3 former settlers, I don't even know what kind of advantages the AI has in Deity) Now, that would emphasis the building aspect of the game, I think. Optimize, min-maxing, etc. Rather than HAVING LUCK, because let's face it, you win a Deity game in Civ6 by having luck, or not having bad luck. "The experience may differ from a user to the other" they say. You bet.
Lately I tried multiple games of Civ6, all quitted before 1 AD. Why ?
- I repelled an early attack, but couldn't counter-attack due to inferior units and mountains in the way. (two the narrowest possible - 1 tile - shock points) I managed to kill some of his tough units but I lost some myself, and my amenities felt at -1 ! To top it all, I was going to have a dark age ! But man I have only 3 cities, where the heck will I put the other ones ? Shock points, amenities, dark age. Quit.
- I was settling up my second city when I suddenly realised that China had 5 cities at least already ! How am supposed to... ? Quit.
- I toned down the difficulty for Emperor. All those games with Seondok. I built I don't know, 5 cities ? But I don't know, I was BORED. Seowon + library built in capital, then I lost interest for building, since other cities are still developping their crappy infrastructure. (Monuments -one city took 50+ turns to build it most probably, granaries, walls for some, water mills, etc. builders, builders, builders... takes eeeeeeeons) Then I was only getting normal ages and for some reason that contributed to exasperate me. Not to mention that nothing was happening. (I was "protected" -if not hindered- by two city-States - most desactivable features are double-edged in that game, and I don't like it) Quit.
So what's my problem dude ? Watching at Marbozir, I would have quitted a lot of his games, but he kept to believe naively that he could win and find pleasure in it. At some points I got bored the same way I was in my games, but kept watching him because the guy is funny and I have nothing else to do anyway. (and I can always quit & resume)
Analysing a bit my journey, I could say I should desactivate city-States but on Emperor. That way, I could develop better, while fearing less my neighbours, and trading with them. (the ones I'm not at war with) But I fear this would still feel boring. Because era score, because bad production cities, because mountains (normal instead of young like in the first example), because desert, because toundra, because ice, because water, because rainforest, because eurekas and inspirations, simply bad city location, not enough luxuries (like in most of my games...) Bah.
Maybe I should have stopped playing once i beat the game in Deity once, like with Civ3 and Civ5. Civ5 it's not totally true, I re-installed it, because of this youtuber playing it, that just gave me the wish. But i'm not fond of those games, I should know it, I'm fond of inventing a new Civ. I'm fond of early eras and early musics (especially Civ3's). But I'm not fond of lying speeches. "From the first stirring of life, to the great beasts of the stone age" great beast where where where ? (ok it's supposed to give perspective but why bother when all that fades away when the game starts ? Is this truly a "civilization" game ?) "From this early craddle of civilization" Which early craddle of civilizations ? You mean those 6 civs that are equally spread out on the entire map like... America from 4000 BCE ? "You have seen empires rise and fall" Whaaaat ? No I didn't. THIS IS A GAME. Wayyyy too gamey. And it doesn't work for me.
So this OP turned out from Strategy VS. Building to Gamey VS. Simulation ? Both can be intrically linked, respectively, I think. Well I mean, whatever. Nowadays we are at a points where some pros ask for challenge even in building games, otherwise they rate it bad. However that can be done, and they get it ! I suppose we are all different. But maybe I would feel less lonely if I could find someone who feels like I do.