“Nobody finishes games of Civ!"

[historix69]

Originally linked by @rezaf :
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/20...ing-paradox-and-making-strategy-games-better/

Jon Shafer on Civ-games in general :

“Nobody finishes games of Civ! Nobody does! That’s the biggest challenge that Civ has: trying to make the game work and be fun from turn 1 to turn 500. Turn 1 to turn 200 is great, but turn 200 to 500 hasn’t been all that great in any Civ game."

“The reason it’s such a challenge is that you’re trying to map history onto this game and the fun part of 4X games is in the two first Xs. Exploration and Expansion. In almost every 4X game you’re done with those two things around half-way through. The Exploitation is less interesting because you’re not getting a lot of new things, you’re just adding to the stockpile you already have. So you’re losing the most enjoyable 60% of the game by half-way through. I’m not sure any Civ has figured out what to do with the second half of the game.”

 

[UWHabs]

Makes some sense. I mean, I find the first 100-150 turns as the most interesting part, and then the second "half" of the game is basically either steamrolling opponents, or settling in, turtling up, and building for the second half.

Of course, part of that is that is that the games essentially design based on that. I mean, in 6, we have:
-3 new districts in the ancient era. 2 in the classic era, 1 in the medieval era, and then 1 modern and 1 atomic (which is useless if you're not going for one of the VC)
-There are literally 0 buildings that you can build in the information era. There's only 1 in the atomic era.

Civ 4 did the best job at the "exploit", by having resource gathering for corporations matter. The game is still fun, but they need something for the late-game builder if they want people to enjoy the entire length of the game.

 

[agonistes]

That bit of the interview resonated with me too. I rarely finish games anymore... I usually don't play with VCs and have no turn limit... so how could I finish?

But I strongly disagree with him. At least in regards to folks around here. Tons of folks play to win, play for score, play for high or best score...

But he doesn't serm to realize that, and because he doesn't, theorizes about changes that take that mistaken belief into account... which makes me relieved he isn't designing civ anymore.

On the other hand, looking at the later game for opportunities to create more choices for the player is not a bad thing.

As an aside, keep in mind that while you might not have buildings, you still have projects. I have found these can be useful even in the late game.

Maybe a tweek to projects would do the trick. Techs opening up new projects. Projects that help passively spread religion, build tourism, add envoys, impact diplomacy...

 

[historix69]

I'm not sure if the audience here at civfanatics is representive for the 10+ million owners of civ games ... quite often the opening of a civ game is fun and the end is more like work ...

(For the projects in Civ 6 I wished they would add a description what reward one gets and a button to lock cities on projects forever ...)

 

[leandrombraz]

I agree with his point but sorry to disappoint, I never left a Civ match unfinished. Even the ones I lose I go into the bitter end. Early game definitely is more fun and Exploration and Expansions is the best Xs a 4x has to offer but I do enjoy late game, even though the enjoyment drops considerably.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I do finish games; nearly each one.

But I'm very patient and dedicated. I play marathon too; and mostly peacefully. I don't mind clicking Next Turn a bunch of times.

The first 2 eras are interesting because you explore and expand rapidly, fend off barbarians, and perhaps consume a nearby neighbor.

The next 2 eras are interesting because you race to build up infrastructure in all your new cities while defending against external threats, and towards the end, another bout of exploration. You get a lot of Great People too.

The last 4 eras are interesting because you narrow in on your victory of choice. New functions unlock, like nukes, air units, Tourism from improvements, and national parks.

 

[DeutschDachs]

My will to finish the games has dropped even further without a Hall of Fame... if the particular game I'm playing isn't going to net me any achievements and victory is all but assured, what incentive do I really have to keep playing when I could start a new game which might provide the challenge this one is lacking? At least in the older Civs I could try to beat my old scores

 

[historix69]

In Civ 4 and Civ 5 I played many games on the Giant Earth Maps but usually I had to abandon them in mid-game when the game became unstable.
When I start a new game, I often replay the start several times to optimize my chances ... sometimes I finish a game, sometimes not. I often end up with 30-100 cities and a respective number of units so finishing a game I already dominate would take a couple of extra days ... It's more fun to start a new game ...

 

[Amrunril]

To say no one finishes is obviously an exaggeration. That said, the first 100 turns or so definitely are the most fun part of every civ game. The main reason for this, I think, is that the early game has a far smaller raw number of decisions, but those decisions matter far more. Deciding whether to build a monument or a granary first in your starting city is a very important decision. Deciding whether to build a monument or granary first in your tenth city is far less important, but both require the same amount of game time, and there are far more decisions like the latter. Similar things could be said of early and late game troop movements. Managing one unit in an army of twenty requires the same amount of input as directing your first scout's exploration. It's certainly possible (and worthwhile) to limit this growth of tedious micromanagement with smart interface and design choices and to counteract it with engaging late game dynamics (like BNW's ideology system), but we also need to recognize that that it is, to some degree, inevitable in a game that focuses on growth while retaining the same basic mechanics throughout.

 

[Jaybe]

OP is a generalization only.
I complete each game of civ. OTOH, I play for the journey not to see how fast I can be assured of winning (and at epic Prince huge continents with double tech/civic costs).

I often delay victory and play to see how close I can come to turn 750 before winning. Without losing, of course.

 

[Uberfrog]

As others have said, Shafer is clearly exaggerating. I finish most of my games, but I'd be lying if I said that the end of many of them (across the Civ games) hadn't largely been clicking next turn.

This has always been a problem with Civ - Science and Culture victories are ultimately just clicking through turns until certain numbers get large enough (or the turns left to build your rocket get to zero). Even a Conquest victory is a foregone conclusion several turns before you swipe the final capital. There are exceptions: I remember some exciting endgames to Civ V, mostly involving the World Congress. That wasn't a perfect gameplay mechanic by any means, but in some games you had to remain on your toes with City-States right up to the end. But even then you'd have to click through until the next assembly of the UN before you could win!

It of course isn't helped by the number of units being so numerous by the endgame that each turn takes much longer to process, too.

I'd like to think it's a problem that can be solved, with more dynamic end games. Hopefully they're coming up with concepts for a Diplomatic Victory along these lines. But it's not one any Civ game has managed yet, in my opinon.

 

[gfeier]

I just finished a King level domination victory on a huge Pangaea map with Alexander on turn 352 (1931) with a score of 1805. It kept my interest right to the end. The only dull game I had lately was a culture victory with Cyrus. That one had a bit of the next-turn clicking toward the end. My most exciting game was a space victory with Norway where Australia launched the second Mars mission the turn before I launched the third and they had three spaceports. I actually find the late game in Civ VI more interesting than in previous versions.

 

[DemonMaster]

Might be right when it comes to earlier Civ games. Civ 4 for example was like that. I played about half of the game and then never finished due to it was usually "hit enter" (except for the mod FfH). Civ 5 (w/ G&K and BNW) and Civ 6 I always play through, even if I know I will loose. Because there is always something to do (I usually play builder-style). I mostly play for the journey. Civ 5 and Civ 6 offer something interesting in all eras. Civ 1-4 less so.

 

[Siptah]

I finish almost every game. I think I abandoned only two in civ VI so far.
For the later part of the game, Civ V introduced some interesting mechanics and civ VI even more so. It's not on the level of the first half in my opinion, but things like archeology, great people recruitment, national parks, spies (if it would be done a bit better), the world congress (that we don't have in VI yet), tourism in general - all those help making it interesting in the second half of the game.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

Jon Shafer on Civ-games in general :

“Nobody finishes games of Civ! Nobody does! That’s the biggest challenge that Civ has: trying to make the game work and be fun from turn 1 to turn 500. Turn 1 to turn 200 is great, but turn 200 to 500 hasn’t been all that great in any Civ game."

Well let's be honest here, Shafer never finishes anything, so for him to believe this is not surprising.

 

[Securion]

After I have transformed my lands into what I want them to look with forests and what not I mostly press next turn until I quit and start a new game.

 

[Ryika]

He very much describes my experience with 4x games. The early part of the game is usually what's interesting to me, after that, it's a lot of sitting around and waiting for stuff to happen, and what keeps me playing (if anything) is that I'm somewhat connected to the empire and the other entities on the map, while the gameplay itself just becomes stale and you go through the same cycle of actions until the end of the game, not really getting anything new, but instead just adding numbers to what you already have.

While that's not terribly bad in itself, there's clearly potential to do things better. I do think keeping the first 2 x's active for the rest of the game is pretty much impossible in the scope of a civ-game though, at least not with a lot of abstractions, or without bringing in colonization of unknown continents as a concept. Maybe instead a fifth X needs to enter the game halfway through for the next big step in the evolution of the genre.

 

[mitsho]

It makes sense many in this forum finish theri game, after all the site is not called fanatics for no reason. However, I'm fairly confident that most players don't finish their games. I know I only rarely finish them. Around 1 out 10 I'd guess.

While the growing numbers of decisions during the game is a major deterrent, the biggest problem for me are breaks. When I start a game, I'm not bothered that turn 50 takes longer than turn 1. That's a gradual process to which our brain is quite adapted to accepting. But when I have played for 2 hours I need a break and my entertainment time is used up anyways. I don't want to concentrate on a game for longer than that. I mostly don't return to such saved games as when I get back to the game, the world has moved on. It takes time to get back into the game (where was what, what was my goal?) and I'm mostly excited by trying out a new idea or a different civ. Which means starting at turn 0 again.

So for me, a new groundbreaking civ game would need to adress both of those problems: a) Keep # of decisions roughly equal throughout the game (phase out that directing of your exploring scout) and b) Make the games playable in one setting (by well-designed advanced starts, not necessarily faster games) OR ease the getting back into a savegame (by easy summaries). I don't have the solution, but I know that the basic premise of Shafer is correct for most people.

 

[gettingfat]

I finish roughly half of the games but I admit that the second half of the game is sort of boring.

The game is simply too static right now. The civs dont' work together. The diplomacy system is just about providing an excuse for the civs to hate each other. In the real world one nation can war with another one multiple times over the course of the history and absolutely hate each other, and yet they can still work together for their common interest. Yes, they need to include the concept of "common interest" in this game. When the two civs realize that their military powers are sort of on the same level and war is no longer a practical option, the negative diplomatic modifiers should be put aside if a common goal can be achieved through termporary collaboration. So if the human player starts to run away, the AIs should work together against the human player unless the human player has become a serious friend with some of the AIs already.

But I don't have a very high hope on Civ6 including its future expansions anymore. I think the devs really need to sit down and think out of the box.

 

[Kzell11b]

Well let's be honest here, Shafer never finishes anything, so for him to believe this is not surprising.

I don't get it. What hasn't he finished?