Civilization: The NEW Chess?

[jdobbs951]

For a game that came out in 1991, Civilization (and additions) have stood the test of time. CIV 4 BTS, (my personal favorite) is a classic example of how a game can transcend its humble beginnings. I recently watched a video about video gaming and its educational value http://youtu.be/IJcuQQ1eWWI

 

[tdy99]

I've often wondered about this myself. Chess basically has unlimited re-playability. Will any of us still be playing Civ 4 20years from now?

Maybe at some point, a few iterations down the road, they will come out with a Civ game that is literally perfect and can't be improved on. I feel like the games have gotten better over time. I don't know about 5 because I haven't played it, but 1,2,3,4 get better with the higher number. Maybe someday down the road on 7 or 8 or something there will be a final version of Civ that has the infinite re-playability of classic game like chess.

 

[diegovelasco45]

Chess its not famous because its re-playable, its famous cause it was the easiest board game and the only-one that was playable between different people for hundreds of years.

Civ is so much more than Chess, if chess has millons of variations, Civ4 has a googolplex. Civ5 tried the one-unit-per-tile thing just like chess, but I dont think its working out.

 

[strijder20]

Chess its not famous because its re-playable, its famous cause it was the easiest board game and the only-one that was playable between different people for hundreds of years.

Civ is so much more than Chess, if chess has millons of variations, Civ4 has a googolplex. Civ5 tried the one-unit-per-tile thing just like chess, but I dont think its working out.

Actually, I like chess more, because it has less random, uncontrollable factors in it.
CIV5 is a slight failure, in my opinion. But well, they should learn from it, and improve civ4/5 features in civ6.

 

[badger2d]

A game being more complex makes it better the same way a book having more pages makes it better.

 

[Skallagrimson]

I like Civ more because chess is 100% unforgiving of any single one mistake at any given time. Civ has enough turns and side-factors involved that one screw up won't spoil the whole game.

 

[s.bernbaum]

A game being more complex makes it better the same way a book having more pages makes it better.

I don't know if you mean that in a positive or satirical sense but I agree with it in the positive way. Complexity and more pages (of a good book) =

 

[SamSniped]

I love playing chess against a person who has no clue what they are doing...multiple facepalms in those...
Anyways, Civ4 gives many ways of play-Go out peacefully and build it all, rule the world, or shape the world in the way you want by changing scripts and codes. it is always fun. Chess has few good opponents without playing online, and a lot of those guys are probably using some software to help them...

 

[m00n]

I'd say Civ is nothing like chess because it's core is based on random numbers. Chess is the game that you can plan ahead. There's not 2% chance of losing your queen when you capture a pawn in chess.

 

[NeverSurrender]

A game being more complex makes it better the same way a book having more pages makes it better.

In my opinion a game is better the simpler it is* (only to a certain degree of course, snakes and ladders for example is crap )... actually thinking about it, is snakes and ladders even a game? In that unless I'm mistaken there are no decisions at all to be made in S&L just roll the die and move in one direction only. Monopoly is only slightly less crap than snakes and ladders. Painful.

*The exception to this... is Civ.

 

[JujuLautre]

randomness does not mean that you cannot plan ahead, just that you have to consider risks. Ask Backgammon, Poker or Bridge players what they think about it

 

[Kid R]

Chess with its simple mechanics is good to play against humans because the simplicity lets the human element take centre stage. Against AI it's rather soulless.

Civ on the other hand has huge baroque and deliberately non-simple mechanics, designed to be played for entertainment. In real competition against humans it's a terribly dumbed-down version of itself because of the human ability to find the most effcient tactics and exploit weaker players ruthlessly. 90% of the "decorative" content and mechanics are ignored.

Not saying it's a totally bad comparison but a simpler or "purer" game might be a better candidate as the "new chess". Worms, or Advance Wars maybe (Edit: before anyone says it Starcraft realistically IS the new chess in some parts of the world!)

 

[Iranon]

Complexity is comparatively easy and should rarely be a focus of game design. Depth is what one would be normally after, and truly great games tend to feature great depth without undue complexity - go is the poster child for this, but chess is no slouch either.

Most modern games won't stand the test of time and aren't designed to do so (not good for business anyway). Strip away the technical implementation and setting... does the underlying game itself remain unique and will it invite players from future generations to dedicate their life or at least a few decades to it?

Even at its best, Civ is no gem of game design... just involving enough and approachable enough, with just the right amount of historical background to become popular. I played most games in the series and enjoyed them. Civ4 at least has a decent level of depth (somewhat obscured by tortured maths) for a mass market title, but that's mostly achieved by cluttering it up rather than emergent through elegant mechanics.

 

[elohssa]

Chess doesn't rely on luck or random number generators. Having said that, when you think about it, civ 4 is basically a board game with a giant dice.

 

[diegovelasco45]

That would make civ more realistic, since life itself is very unpredictable.

 

[strijder20]

Chess doesn't rely on luck or random number generators. Having said that, when you think about it, civ 4 is basically a board game with a giant dice.

There is a difference between rolling a dice and making no decisions and rolling a dice while making decisions. Some decisions you make in game will give you better dice rolls.

 

[Halion]

If the Persians had dual core processors in the 7th century BC they would have been playing Chess AND Civ4.

 

[Halion]

Even at its best, Civ is no gem of game design... just involving enough and approachable enough, with just the right amount of historical background to become popular. I played most games in the series and enjoyed them. Civ4 at least has a decent level of depth (somewhat obscured by tortured maths) for a mass market title, but that's mostly achieved by cluttering it up rather than emergent through elegant mechanics.

Well I will probably get Civ6, wasn't impressed by Civ5. Civ4 easily a 95%. The quest for civ 100% continues. Chess has reached a point where almost all possible combinations of moves to move 30, half the game, has been exhaustively analysed. There's little mystery left. You don't get that problem with Civ.

 

[Utenlok]

If Civ4 had a pocket move suggester it would say 1. Axe rush neighbor 2. Build the Great Library 3. Bulb your way to Liberalism 4. Build lots of curs/cavs 5. Win

So it is kind of like how you say for chess every possible set of moves has been calculated.

 

[Kid R]

^ If the rules were changed so that like the AIs hold off for a while in single-player, nobody could DOW in the first say 100 turns that might bring some interesting decisions into pVp matches. It might be worth doing things like building buildings and actually trying to research some more strategic units....