He shoots.... He scores!!!!

[darski]

I am just a bit curious about how people view their scores in games. Some people always record their scores and mention personal bests when they occur.

With the changes to Civ Complete, I can no longer have an HOF for my own games but I am keeping a screenshot set of all my wins.

I have also talked to others who feel that scores are meaningless. it is the game and the playing that stays with them. i do tend to think that the playing does stay in our memories, I admit that my personal best of 6800 is a great memory as well.

How do y'all feel about score keeping?

 

[joycem10]

Pretty meaningless for me, except for the conquests. For some reason I always try to beat my best scores on the conquests.

On the epic game, I play my gamestyle at emp level and usually win. My playstyle does not max points. I like playing the smaller maps. I prefer not to have cities crowded next to each other and I like having cities hit 25 odd pop points at the end of the game. I like to build crap like temples and wonders. My scores are usually pretty low, but Im happy.

I played a Diety GOTM once and was able to get a win, but it was the most unpleasant game ever. Emperor is the highest level where I can play the way I like and still usually win.

 

[Aabraxan]

Score is not important to me. I like playing at the highest level where I can survive. Either I win or I lose.

 

[TheOverseer714]

I keep track of scores, to some degree. It usually lets me know whether I'm improving my game or treading water. I agree with Joycem that above Emperor, it takes too much work to be fun. Its a game, and games should be fun.

 

[Spoonwood]

Scores don't mean much to me. Neither the Firaxis score nor the Jason score really pro-rates (if that's the term) scoring for 5CC or OCC or XCC games, nor for any variants really.

 

[Spoonwood]

Oh... and Darski... you play Conquests... Complete just consists of the set of games which includes Play The World and Conquests.

 

[CommandoBob]

To me the game score is like the cherry on a hot fudge sundae: not really needed but oh-so sweet!

 

[D.N. Pacem]

Winning by score is not a victory condition I ever try for, so I pay little attention to it.

I agree with the comments about the difficulty at higher levels, though I'm still hoping someday emperor will become too easy for me and I'll have to move on.

 

[Quintillus]

I get a histographic win a fair amount of the time I play, so I certainly pay some attention to it in-game. Not just to keep track of whether I'm winning, but because it's a rough indicator of balance of power - might not want to declare war on the top two scoring civs at the same time !

As to postgame scores, I pay attention to them but don't try to get a high score every game or anything. I play GOTM and always finish in the lower half scorewise, but that doesn't deter me - I play GOTM for the fun of it. And I know that there's no way I'm going to set a personal best, or even be anywhere close to it, every game. When I do get close to it I may try to milk run it to beat my old one, but if I don't come close, that's fine. In fact some of the best games are the ones where it's a very close battle, rather than the ones where you set score records.

I also tend to play for late victories, which affects score, too. No huge bonus for finishing in 300 AD for me, just lots of points at the end. And like joycem, I like to have large cities, happiness buildings, and wonders. Perhaps not ideal for score, but building cities right beside each other just doesn't feel right to me.

I don't actually remember my top score, but I think it was around 7100, and I'm pretty sure I was the Soviet Union in that game (communist Russia) on Regent. About 6800 on Monarch with Egypt was second I think. And my 3700 with Iroquois on Warlord was my best for awhile. All my scores except one are on my old computer, so I don't even reference them that often.

 

[Spoonwood]

I personally have a 10k Deity game with The Iroquois. But, should I rate that higher than an OCC Monarch space game I've had with The Byzantines? What about an 8000 Deity game... or a 7000 Deity game, or a 6000 Deity game?

 

[Bartleby]

For a histographic victory, score is everything to me. For other victory conditions, the date is more important than the score.
For variant games, it's the taking part that counts.

 

[Northen Wolf]

Not important to me - it's the playing that tells me how I am doing.

Score can differ - an empire located in sands vs empire located in fertile grassland/mountain combo for few examples. If I feel myself happy with position/victory score does not matter. Having to fight 5 vs one war is not simple either, and can bring score down for long time.

I do look at score, but I don't care much about that - histography screen (from civ one, the replay) is much more fun/interesting than some 'score'. For me.

 

[timerover51]

Since I play mostly modified games, score is not really meaningful to me. I check the victory screen to see how many people are still alive and who is the nearest too me in population and area. I might worry about score if playing one of the scenarios, if it is unmodified, but that is about it.

 

[Yui108]

Score is not important to me. I like playing at the highest level where I can survive. Either I win or I lose.

this is true for me too.

 

[Taras Bulba]

as long as I win, it doesn't matter

that has been a big reason why moving up in difficulty levels has been soo hard for me

 

[iguana1]

I'd prefer to win than lose but it's much more about the game play. I play it almost like a RPG. Each game is the shaping of my nation. I rarely declare war without "reason" (ok, some of the reasons are flimsy excuses but history is riddled with real world examples). Some of my favorite games are ones in which things go horribly wrong or I'm matched against a more advanced civ from the other side of the world. That said, I always like to see how far the hammer makes it toward the bell but it's more of a nice thing to see than a goal - kind of like palace improvements or the stats screen for highest GDP, etc.