1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

How Civ is fun ?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Naokaukodem, Aug 21, 2014.

  1. Naokaukodem

    Naokaukodem Millenary King

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,107
    Sorry for the big wall of text, but i had to say it.

    Spoiler :
    1. Why I don't think Civ is about strategy

    People seem nowadays to always refer to "strategic choices" and mechanics when talking about Civ.

    But first I don't think there is that much strategic choice in Civ, particularly in higher levels. There is always an optimum way to play in order to win that cheating AI, and only one can occasionnally try different strategies in order to fulfill the victory conditions, for some marginal victory. The goal is to "guess" those optimum strategies, not building any from scratch on your own, you are limited by the game system and what you can reasonably do, and constrained by the AI bonuses and your maluses. Don't get me wrong you can call it strategy but it's more about daylife strategy than "grand" strategy.

    I don't think Civ is a "grand" strategic game at all. There have been grand strategic games by the past, but they were very elitist and not everybody could play them without invest itself deeply by reading a 300 pages book entirely. Civ is a mainstream game, where you can play immediately by moving units, building things, and interacting with the environment. The audience is just not the same, everything is kept simplistic, witnesses the very archaic main resource system, where you can't produce anything without hills and grow babies out of food. Not to mention the genuine unit system that is a "pushing units" one and the blatant lack of complexity and mindblowing innovation in any iteration.

    On top of all, Civ has always been a pretty easy experience, where challenge as seen above has always come from principally the AI bonuses and the path of its mechanics, but they are not insuppresible once you know the game. It's just about that : knowing the game. Then sure, it will take some games to become familiar with it, and each game is pretty long already, so it has a good lifetime. But it loses its interest when familiarized with it and when beating the highest levels, unless you play multiplayer.

    But multiplayer is just underlining the flaws of the game : wild and imperfect. Wild because the game obviously has not been thought out for multiplayer, with its so long games, starting biases and snowball effect, but also with its big failure to synthesis geopolitics, with players that are globally (at supposed equal starts) weakened by any war, not including unfair alliances (and silly : what are we doing when the alliance won ?). Not talking about the difference of players levels inside one same game, unbalancing the whole, or the difficulty for everybody to understand the true limits of fairness and ingamePolitics (if there are any !).

    No, I think that Civ is about fun. Or, more precisely, should be about fun. I've never seen any iteration of Civ digging down the base concept. It has always been about better graphics and Whatever tweaks. The base concept is mindblowing. The sequels ? I've seen some of them even withdraw some of the initial and funniest aspects of it, for example the powerfull wonders. Hard to keep in a game that forbid them in Deity though. So not only the game isn't reasonnably as mindblowing as its predecessors, due to the lack of mindblowing innovation precisely (and of course what could be called in its ultimate form "the weariness"), but it is also less fun for newcomers that should reasonnably be mindblowed by it.

    For example, is frustration fun ? The new systems have proven themselves only more and more frustrating. First the maintenance system, crippling greatly your economy without any way of control beside testing, and now the global happiness system, forbidding uninhibited expansion and war. (what should be the funniest parts of Civ, because it's its ADN)

    Developers don't seem to focus on the good things, making the games dull or frustrating. If they were focused on fun, things like global happiness would have never existed in such a game. They are more focused now on mechanics and forums debates about how Civ is unpredicatable and therefore playing is about opinions rather than true strategy. (as a proof, their last devblog entry : is not moving our first settler always better ? WAOW, that's so mindblowing... not !)

    So instead of babling about strategy and be kept in fascination before Civ own qualities, devs should put themselves in question, urgently. Civ is a game, not an apothecary subject. I really dismiss all those apothecary speculations, and never participate in them because they bore me to death. Like, could we add civilization X to the game, their UA would be +5% Y, and their UU have + 10 % strenght against Z. Come on guys, you can do better than that !

    So, folks, Civ isn't about strategy, it's about fun. You can try to correct some mistakes by tweaking the next iteration, but it's at the cost to deter what was really fun. And that's what happened. Instead, I just suggest to dig down the base concept, it is to say civilizations that go through the test of time, rise and fall, expand greatly, fight greatly, it's all about the feeling we have from it, it has never been about gameplay for itself alone. Gameplay games like Minesweeper, Chess and the like are so cold and boring ! Stop luring yourself, Civ is a "sandbox", nothing more. And that's as a "sandbox" that we, video gamers should enjoy it.

    Crazy phenomema, mindblowing innovation, that's what I'm expecting of Civ sequels. I don't want the focus to be on gameplay uniquely, because it's so impacting on how the whole game feels, making everything less hearted, more mechanical as the reproduction of the initial or the previous opus, just "not to lose the point of the series". It's becomming embarrassing. No matter if everything is not perfect. Civ5 is still really imperfect in many aspects.

    Why not, instead of a predictable imperfect experience, wouldn't we have a fairly innovative and focused on fun (the streets signification) imperfect experience ?


    2. How Civ is fun

    Civ is what is nowadays defined as a 4X, it is to say eXplore, eXpand, eXploit and eXterminate. While it's unsure to me how equal or representative all those 4 verbs are, one can say something for sure : it is Civ which invented the genre. Does it speak for itself ? Not entirely in my opinion.

    The two verbs i doubt represent Civ perfectly are Explore and Exploit, while I would easily see the essence of a game like Civ as Expand and Exterminate perfectly, when refering to fun at least.

    a. Explore

    The exploring part is anecdotic for the most part, at least in Civ5 and for an old player of the series.
    Objectively, we can say that exploring occurs only at the very beginning of the game and that once everything is discovered, the exploring part simply disappears. So it has not a good life time and one would have difficulties to define the genre by it.
    On the other hand, I feel that exploring in Civ, and particularly in Civ5, lacks interest. Not only "brain munching" one (there's little strategy in choosing one tile or another when it comes to uncover what is not known), but also candy one (to put it clear : point and fun). As an illustration, I will evoke the middle game discovering of another continent : while it was full of promise and marvel in reality, the mechanics of Civ5 make it anecdotic, if not totally useless or with unpleasant perspectives (possible runaway, boring management of troops for conquest, colonisation nearly impossible -for many reasons-, etc.).

    Don't get me wrong, I think that the term Explore has its place in the definition of the genre, with unknown, danger, excitation and marvel, but that if Civ1, 2 and in a least measure 3 and 4 achieved to represent things in the right way and made us feel all that in the beginnings of each games by subtile touches of humble art (pictures and musics) and also by the wilderness and cryptic ways of the firsts computing and genre days (cryptic graphics, cryptic game and rules as no one have seen such a game before - as cryptic as the reality for savages), the last iteration of the series, with its pompous description of pompous leaders and civilizations, threw the witness so far from humanity first steps as wild tribes, not to mention the general anachronic design, that one may fail to be teased by exploration, especially if it's an old player that knows perfectly the codes of the series. (goody huts, barbarians, other civilizations -in my first game of Civ1, I wondered if there were even other civilizations, because for me it was just a program and not reality...-, etc.)

    More than simply a feeling that one can get accustomed to, I think that exploration should be vastly emphasised. For example, by magnificating the land around : There should be more variety of lands, shape and colours, a little like when we go from one world to the other of a plateformer like Mario. Also, the plants and resources should be more varied (primitives can find uses for nearly every type of plants around ; not just "grand historical" resources should be included, and yet in this domain Civ5 fails), not to mention animals that should look like a living part of the surroundings, by making them move on the map for example (and not only "barb animals" like in Civ4) or allow the player to interact with them without too much micromanagement. Generally, you can allow the player to interact more with this environment, be it tribes that can be your equal at start and evolve according to the shape of the land, the resources, their neighbours (including you) and why not special events, and that may bring you significative contributions at the point you may consider to live into symbiosis with them. (a little like city-states but a lot less arbitrary and more alive)

    More generally, Civ5 seems too much rough in this regard, with simple blocks that pain to prove their use to every player or in every game. I think that developers should not be afraid to dig down and put more details into the base concepts of the game, because they are what make it fun and what it has been built on since the beginning.

    b. Exploit

    I admit I have difficulties to know precisely what it is about, as everything in Civ is done automatically, no action of the player required except good ol' workers actions, citizens placement and choice of buildings, gold purchases, techs, social policies etc... what is pretty honest all in all but I fail to see in every of them the "Exploit" part, which remains vague and nebulous for me.

    c. Expand

    Expansion has always been one of the keys of Civ : when you realise that other civilizations exist, controlled by an AI, suddenly a notion of competition appears, competition for land supremacy. And, if you can build only settlers among some other things, maybe expanding is the point of the game ? It's a shame that Civ5 does not encourage expansion with its limited global happiness and powerfull (essential ?) national wonders that require a building being built in every city. Not only it doesn't encourage expansion, but it may prevent it. Hard to admit for a series that is about expansion, isn't it ?

    The fact that you have other civilizations that will also expand, makes them threatening, not to say annoying. What to say then about a game that gives infinite global happiness to AIs when you fight for it ? They are even more annoying. But there's a mean to solve it : war. The fact that war means conquests if done properly, and that those conquests require happiness, a lot of happiness, you may as well not be allowed to do them. So not only Civ5 fails in the expansion and land supremacy resulting from the presence of other civilizations, but also fails in the mean to solve the annoyance of the AI expanding. Because in Civ5 AIs have infinite happiness makes them more annoying than usual, and because you may not be able to conquer them makes the whole beyond annoyance. All in all, Civ5, considered with its historical but not less central purposes, is a very annoying experience.

    To be honest, the frustration of seeing most of our cities not at full strenght within the corruption system of Civ1, 2 and 3 is far more preferable than this system. And it solves the snowball effect nearly quite as well.

    d. Exterminate

    As everybody knows, it's not really the essence of the game as domination is only one type of victory among others. Although, as you can build only military units among some other things, the idea of giving it a test may go through your mind. Or not : in Civ1 your first units sounded as defensive ones, like "Militia". Defense against barbs mostly, that appear quite early. Actually that's in Civ2 that I had the idea to do aggressive conquest wars, especially with the Legion unit, that was better in attack than in defense. That may have been also a solution to my expansion issues, I don't really remember. I remember though that war gave me a lot of fun, because it just seemed to be a huge, insane, disrepectful shorcut, stealing to others what I myself took time and love to slowly build. (It reminds me a sentence of Ghengis Kahn about the fun and the sense of freedom of killing and burning !)

    But that war to be only a test triggered by the supposed sensefull possibility of aggressive units, or a true necessity, does not disengage the fact that Civ without war is more or less boring, or at least lacks purpose beside just newcomers curiosity. (what's happening now ? Everything seems asleep, let's start a new game with better objectives, like expanding as far as I can since the beginning, etc. hence the purpose of unhampered possibilities of expansion) So it would be honest to say that the conquest part is finally a great part of the Civ experience, even if its gameplay purpose is not totally linked, as in Civ5.

    I talked about war being a shortcut above. In fact, it's like a cheat, especially with the peacefull/roleplaying AIs of the firsts games of the franchise. And that's what made it incredibly fun ! But there was no tutorial saying you had to do wars, there were only the units you could build, the barbarians, and the other civilizations. Never ever anybody said you to mass build legions in order to attack other civilizations cities ! (you didn't have to do it) Firstable, was it really possible ? Heh, you had to figure it out on your own. Of course, this does not require intensive thinking nor any management of any kind, but if the player is let alone in the face of a program, it's just more personal decisions he would do by himself, making great fun.

    In Civ5, you can play a great part of the game without building a single military unit, because of self-defending cities. This puts an incentive on aggressive wars, because if you can build units, it's obviously to conquer other civs : The "defense against babarians" bit is not the initial point of military units. Not to mention the fact that you are aggressed yourself early by other civs, which may be a game breaker and may focus in a go your next game on conflict. Yes to wars, no to a preset incentive on them !


    TL;DR : I think the sequels of Civ in general failed to renew and even reproduce the fun of the firsts opuses. And no, Civ is not about "strategy" alone !
     
  2. Randall_Flagg

    Randall_Flagg The Evil One

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    611
    Location:
    Joshua Texas
    Amazing how 2 people can play the same game and not see the game in the same way. Very little in your essay is true for me.

    Kudos for writing all that up though. I am sure there will be many who agree with and disagree with you. Should be a fun conversation for sure.
     
  3. DarkestOnion

    DarkestOnion Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    533
    Here are some notes regarding your lengthy post, followed by my assessment of your position.

    1. Strategical is not a word, the phrase is ‘strategic choices’

    2. There is room for Strategic Choice on any difficulty level. However, the most viable strategies do narrow as you move beyond Prince Level.

    3. Grand Strategy is supposed to refer to your long range plans and the term ‘daylife strategy’ might better be called short term tactics.

    4. Grand Strategy Games do not necessarily require either elitist players or overly complex game mechanics that require a player to read the manual (even if it is 300+ pages) for qualification as Grand Strategy Games.

    5. For clarification could you please provide examples of what you consider a Grand Strategy Game exactly?

    6. The audience for Civilization 5 is more diverse than previous titles but that does not mean that making the game accessible to a wider audience has removed its status as a Grand Strategy Game.

    7. Are you seriously saying that once anyone knows how to play Civilization 5 well that it becomes boring unless you play multi-player?

    8. Civilization 5 MP is an additional feature and it was never intended to be a primary development focus like too many of today’s games which are obsessed with MP. Therefore criticizing the game as a whole for not being what it didn’t try to be is silly.

    9. Civilization development has never been about better graphics of tweaks. Although they do occur in the long running series, they are not the focus of the game.

    10. You sound like a Power Gamer nostalgic for the old days of Overpowered Wonders. You aren’t supposed to build Every Wonder in every game on Deity.

    11. Are you seriously arguing that being challenged reduces your fun? If this is true LOWER YOUR DIFFICULTY SETTING.

    You sound like a person who defines Fun as being able to steamroller Civilization by building all the Wonders. You sound like you have a massive chip on your shoulder towards both Civilization 5 and those of us who find Fun within it in other ways.
     
  4. Kiang

    Kiang Eternally Tired

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2014
    Messages:
    115
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    To me, Civilization is fun not because of winning or expansion or any sort of "strategy" at all. Personally, I enjoy Civilization because it allows me to create. I don't care about winning or losing. For me, it's all about watching my civilization develop. Over the course of the few days it takes me to complete a game, I get awfully attached to my civilization, and I designate it tasks that often have nothing to with actually winning the game or achieving a high score.

    As I usually play on TSL Earth maps, I'll be overjoyed if, for example, I can play as Russia and expand all the way to the Pacific Ocean by settling and renaming cities in geographically correct locations. Or playing as Spain as establishing all of the overseas colonies it did historically. Or playing as the Turks and laying siege to Constantinople. Will this wreck my economy? Will I "lose" the game? Will I have to put significant effort into keeping my global happiness in the green? Yes, yes, and yes, but the feeling of accomplishing a difficult goal always results in a fun experience for me, whether it's in Civ or in any other area of my life.

    (Forgive me if this was addressed somewhere in the wall of text. I didn't read all of it, but I do appreciate how long it must have taken to write all of that up.)
     
  5. civmaster17

    civmaster17 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2014
    Messages:
    55
    Civ is funner than sliced bread


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  6. jlim201

    jlim201 King

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2013
    Messages:
    825
    Location:
    Somewhere North of the South Pole
    The way you describe it, you want civ 5 to be a copy of civ 2-4. Go play those games if you like that style so much.
     
  7. asura_

    asura_ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2014
    Messages:
    76
    Location:
    USA
    I don't play it every day, but once every couple months I get an urge to build a civilization and I keep playing the game until I'm bored again.
     
  8. geebo

    geebo Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    423
    Location:
    Bronx, NY
    I always come back to CIV, since III. Been on this forum for 10+ years and I don't play every day either as I have responsibilities in life, I do enjoy building a civilization and playing for hours and hours every few months. You sounds bitter as one said, I do not know why...? Sports games on PS4, and Civ the only games I play anymore.
     
  9. HelloGoodbye123

    HelloGoodbye123 Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    284
    Location:
    U.S.A California
    That is not strategy, war is where all the strategy is, when to move in, when to backout, how to position your units, what units to sacrifice for bait in the hopes to come out on top during the war, that is the real strategy, building buildings is not at all strategy, anyways in single player you dont get this, and thats why single player sucks
     
  10. Nares

    Nares Emperor

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,631
    Actually, that's tactics.
     
  11. HelloGoodbye123

    HelloGoodbye123 Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    284
    Location:
    U.S.A California
    Almost sameee difference :p lol
    Well chess is a strategy game, I would like to think

    Everytime im in war it feels like chess, like yesterday I defeated 8 horse archers sent by the huns with 4 jaguars and an archer lol strategically placed my units in the correct locations!
     
  12. bhavv

    bhavv Glorious World Dictator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,358
    Gameplay is very rewarding, causes brain to release dopamine, dopamine is good.

    MOAR DOPAMINE!!!
     
  13. Naokaukodem

    Naokaukodem Millenary King

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,107
    Why not say Civ1-4 ? Civ2 was basically Civ1 with better graphics. That was usefull as Civ1 even back then was very ugly. Civ3 was dispensable because the only thing it added was strategic resources (too few and failing to create wars as it was suggested) and culture borders (way less fun than Civ2 borders where entities seemed more organic and less artificial) and... better graphics, but readability of Civ2 was not transcended so useless. Civ4 was ugly again, and frustrating. Civ5 is nice and frustrating, all that due to global happiness and 1UPT.

    I would like to play Civ2 again, but i can't seem to be able to launch the installation on Windows 7 64 bits.
     
  14. DarkestOnion

    DarkestOnion Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    533
    Have you tried Installation through DOSBox or as an ISO (Disk Image?)
     
  15. Matthew.

    Matthew. Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,179
    Strategy and tactics overlap. Strategy is big-picture ideas that always hold true. For example, divide and conquer. Tactics is time-sensitive and employing said strategies, such as noticing an opportunity to split an opposing army.

    A game like chess is, of course, both. Controlling the center is good strategy. Seeing the opportunity to take it and control it is a tactical move.

    eXploit in 4X refers to exploiting what is eXplored. In a game like Starcraft, that could mean scouting an opponent with zero anti-air late into mid-game, then exploiting it by sending out mutas/void or whatever. In a game like Civ it is almost completely down to city locations. Placing the city near the river/mountain tile to get the growth and science boost, getting GBR, etc.

    I think Civ covers 4X relatively well except for one point, which is eXpand. Obviously there is incentive to expand a couple core cities right away, but very little reason to do so at any point later on. Because eXpand is limited, the other X's suffer. Sending out a caravel and eXploring that awesome island city location, a great place to eXploit, yet since there is no reason to eXpand, it remains ignored. Obviously exterminate (or more specifically, taking/removing eXpanded locations from your competition) is tied in as well. If another faction also scouts that island location and takes it, you can safely ignore said action.

    I like the idea of tall vs. wide, of limiting the snowball power of wide empires, but removing that one X really hurt the game as a whole turning it into more of a sandbox fantasy game where your actions are justified by role-playing rather than strategic decisions.

    What it comes down to is competition, even with the poor AI. There is no drama, no feeling of need to outplay your opponents. If another faction takes a prime location on the map, you can just say "that sucks", shrug it off, and continue to dominate. If the reverse was true, now suddenly there is conflict. If the faction that took it has been friendly, do you trash those relations to remove that land grab? If you don't, they gain in power while you slip behind. Do you move resources to military to fight for this location? Or do you keep your focus on infrastructure hoping to gain an edge in tech to surpass it?

    These sorts of conflicts don't exist when reason to eXpand also doesn't exist.
     
  16. HelloGoodbye123

    HelloGoodbye123 Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    284
    Location:
    U.S.A California
    why cant you just enjoy the game ......
     
  17. Naokaukodem

    Naokaukodem Millenary King

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,107
    Actually i've thrown an eye in the Civ2 section of Civfanatics, and it's all about installing and playing on a 64 bits OS ! :) As to Dosbox Civ2 was a windows game, and yes that's the ISO that won't launch.

    I pretty agree with that, as i was talking about Civ franchise in general when debating about each X being descriptive or not in the first place, and talking a little about Civ5 at the end of each paragraph, because after all we are in Civ5 forum and anyway Civ5 is the last representant of the series.

    So yes, Civ5 lacks in expansion, whereas it is or should be one of the core of each game of the series. (and have been historically) For what I know, the settler unit could have been replaced with any other maybe more automatic system of creating new cities, because their point has decayed dramatically in this last iteration. Until Civ3, it was about balancing the fact that creating a settler was forbidding your growth meanwhile, or soustracting one or two pop points when created, it was all about choosing the right time to do it, even if again, unless doing savant calculations or comparing two play-tests, it was more about opinions than true strategy. (the importance of multiple cities, hence multiple growth cores hence exponential power, led some players to even build settlers at size 1 (since Civ4 where growth is halted), but i'm still unsure how this is better than at size 2 or 3, and making you vulnerable early, to barbarians or close civ.)

    You obviously have more power in Civ5 when you have multiple cities and multiple growth centers, because science is based on population. So, you always want to expand. The thing is, you can't. (global happiness) The AI can. (infinite happiness bonuses) So frustrating.
     
  18. DarkestOnion

    DarkestOnion Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    533
    I have felt that Civilization has slowly evolved to slow down (if not eliminate) ICS (Infinite City Sprawl) players. I do not want to see a return to Massive City Grids from Human Opponents in say, MP.
     
  19. Nares

    Nares Emperor

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,631
    Virtual machine then? XP can handle all the old stuff, afaik.
     
  20. Nonevah

    Nonevah Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2011
    Messages:
    339
    Out of curiosity, have you ever looked into Paradox Interactive's games? Crusader Kings, Europa Univeralis, etc. For those who like doing more historical things, it's very nice.
     

Share This Page