I seriously cannot be the only one thinking this..

[SammyKhalifa]

I do love a good debate and I knew the post with spark a reaction, which is what I wanted as I am intrigued of others opinions.

However please do not take the post literally - I am not saying my 'definition' of the what the game is about or how to play it is correct, nor that the developers 'agree with me'. I do understand the concept of subjective opinions!

Please do not get offended by my war mongering tactics, I just wanted to know how the majority of you guys play it that's all!

I have to admit that I mistake towards the end of NOT warmongering these days . . . in previous Civs I'd typically conquer my continent before turtling up.

 

[Acken]

The beauty of civ is that if the culture victory bores you you can do something else !

 

[Atlas627]

I do love a good debate and I knew the post with spark a reaction, which is what I wanted as I am intrigued of others opinions.

However please do not take the post literally - I am not saying my 'definition' of the what the game is about or how to play it is correct, nor that the developers 'agree with me'. I do understand the concept of subjective opinions!

Please do not get offended by my war mongering tactics, I just wanted to know how the majority of you guys play it that's all!

I'm glad to hear that you understand this subject is clearly a matter of opinion. That being said, I don't think anyone likes being tricked into an emotion that they probably dislike, which is the feeling that someone else is disregarding their opinion. I strongly recommend you not purposely word things to get reactions from people. That's like middle school drama.

 

[Larsenex]

Going on rampages while killing, raping and pillaging is clearly at the center of our history as a species, and I'm glad I can still go onto a genocidal crusade when I feel like it, but I actually prefer the more peaceful aspects of the game, with only a few mass-murders sprinkled in-between.

^^ This is me to a T

 

[Lord Lakely]

Meh, I don't like going to war until the endgame, so Civ upping their peace game is a good thing in my opinion. (especially because it hinges less on building buildings and getting alllll the bonuses)

 

[Miravlix]

I don't understand cars and I have no intention of ever learning, but I can still drive one.

Same is true of op in regard to civ.

The difference between me and op, is I don't go on a car forums telling them about cars...

 

[MALCIV6]

I'm glad to hear that you understand this subject is clearly a matter of opinion. That being said, I don't think anyone likes being tricked into an emotion that they probably dislike, which is the feeling that someone else is disregarding their opinion. I strongly recommend you not purposely word things to get reactions from people. That's like middle school drama.

Oh wow, ''tricked into an emotion''..

It was to encourage people into commenting on their thoughts and how they view/play the game.

Do not take it so personally, it is a computer game to which I assumed would provoke a debate, not something to be taken to heart.

Just to re-iterate it is a computer game and the content was regarding an opinion on one of the many scenarios. I just want to make it clear I never meant to hurt your feelings with stating as to how I play the game.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Sounds like you're pretty satisfied with the game and have some Civs you enjoy playing with, so good for you

It's good that a game like this can draw in all different types! I personally find the combat in Civ V to be tedious and off putting so I've avoided it. Hoping civ VI improves that! It's at the very least looking like it won't be such a hindrance this time around

 

[Atlas627]

Oh wow, ''tricked into an emotion''..

It was to encourage people into commenting on their thoughts and how they view/play the game.

Do not take it so personally, it is a computer game to which I assumed would provoke a debate, not something to be taken to heart.

Just to re-iterate it is a computer game and the content was regarding an opinion on one of the many scenarios. I just want to make it clear I never meant to hurt your feelings with stating as to how I play the game.

You could also encourage people into commenting their thoughts by expressing your opinion and asking them for theirs. You don't need to goad them with "this is the essence of Civilization".

But no, I didn't take it personally. Others might. I'm not saying you were trying to hurt someone's feelings at all! I'm saying you might be unaware that trying to goad responses may also make people upset.

 

[MALCIV6]

You could also encourage people into commenting their thoughts by expressing your opinion and asking them for theirs. You don't need to goad them with "this is the essence of Civilization".

But no, I didn't take it personally. Others might. I'm not saying you were trying to hurt someone's feelings at all! I'm saying you might be unaware that trying to goad responses may also make people upset.

It was meant to be said in a lighthearted way as opposed to ''I like winning via domination, I find cultural/political wins to be less exciting, what do you think?''

I should hope no-one gets upset on 1 random persons view of a computer game but who knows these days..

 

[BackseatTyrant]

When I saw OP basically saying that the essence of the Civ games is to take over the world through military means, I came to think of this clip.

In all seriousness, though, I've always been against the idea that great nations conquer, and thus always wanted Firaxis to include mechanics which reward players for staying peaceful.

 

[magha77]

It's a game with different ways to win. I like that. War became a little boring in Civ 5, just bombard the heck out of a city and stroll in. My first cultural victory was so much more rewarding.

 

[Ebrim]

I'm an economist at heart and war always carries the knowledge that I'm just being horrifically inefficient with resources. It may sound silly but this bothers me terribly. I'm also a father and have become quite the softie as a result. No, the best victories for me from Civ V were on the back of a massive trading Empire that could buy whatever and whoever it wanted. This will also be my default approach to Civ VI. Major wars of conquest leave me feeling sad and wasteful.

 

[DeutschDachs]

I did enjoy conquering at one point in my Civ life, but Civ V somewhat ruined it for me with its global happiness. I'd often have to raze cities to keep my happiness in check when I'd rather keep all the cities so I can see the map covered in my Civs color. I want the world to realize the glory of my civilization and allow them to be a part of it, not mindlessly burn cities with women and children for the sake of happiness!

That said I generally prefer to go science or culture or in this case religion and the wars tend to only arise out of other civs attacking me and being wiped as a result or something like them settling a tiny city in between my own

 

[Abraxis]

I like to build cities in areas of the map I can imagine as being very pretty. I'll even re-roll over and over until I get a start that inspires my imagination with wonderful vistas. And I'll leave forests up and unimproved just because I like the way they look.
Then I like to build the happiest and most diplomatically influential civ by trying to maintain a coalition of peace by strategically alienating aggressive civs, and trying to maintain it as long as possible. I've never even cared about winning.
I think I only ever completed 2 games in over 3000 hours of play in CiV.

The problem with CivV for me was my coalitions of peace would always get torn apart when one member DOW another and all the defensive pacts got confused and suddenly everyone hated everyone for being pulled into a war against their friend, turning everyone into a villain.

I am hoping now the diplomacy system will be a little more mature and allow for more sensible scenarios.

Anyways, I think we all need to keep in mind that the developers aren't bad because they don't %100 cater to our taste. This is beyond silly.

 

[E_T]

This has all of the earmarks of a Trolling DL... with that said...

I am more a warbuilder, whom only goes to war (mostly) to deliver a spanking to the AI for desturbing my peaceful play with their warmongering... but gets boring with a dumb AI...

I find the different possibilities that 6 brings to the series has me wanting it now... I bypassed 5 for many reasons, a lot dealing with the 'incompleteness' to it... I am looking forward to this all new game engine and all of the fresh complexities...

 

[GermanSettler]

I have rarely gone for a domination victory... so I cannot agree at all.

Actually, I found the culture influence % in CiV going up and up to be the most "satisfying" victory type, especially when you have different ideologies that trigger revolutions

 

[Martinus]

I have been playing the Civ series since the release of Civ (1) and have always preferred the builder and cultural side of the game, and welcomes the changes introduced in this regard over the years - I find the warmongering tedious and, in fact, sometimes ignore it too much in favour of building.

 

[dturtle1]

I have to admit the new emphasis on culture and religion is impressive from a tactical depth point of view. However I can't seriously be the only one who merely reads this and thinks meh.



.....The true essence of Civilisation is about creating monster empires, with high levels of production and establishing a formidable army/navy. It's about going on a warmongering rampage to take over continents whilst trying your best to not become public enemy number 1 and at war with every nation at once. .....



To me China, Scynthia and Germany are the way forward and the English with their artefacts and Brazil with their Carnivals will remain unused on my game.

Because nothing screams "Civilisation" like going on a murderous rampage :/
I personally won quite a few science and score victories in Civilisation 2. Culture is Civilisation, hence the term "Uncivilised Barbarians" when referring to people of a different culture group to you.(Not saying Culture is the only way to play Civ of course just commenting on the Irony of calling Culture not Civilisation enough )

 

[Edish]

Well, yes - I have to agree.

I hated certain parts of CIV5, such as the archaeologist minigame... I mean I'm a emperor for my people, why do I care about some kahki-clad scout-wannabe goes around and digs in the dirt.

The problem with including such things is that it feels so construed. You have to build this building to put this vase into it, or you have to create a monument on the spot (can't I just store it in a damn barn or something). And you have to build an opera house to STORE a musical piece... come on, that's just stupid...

I loved when culture had a conquering aspect to it in Civ4, you pushed your neighbors borders away and you stole his land - even flipped cities. Not as it was in CIV5 when you had two buckets to fill - tourism and culture, the fastest filler wins...

Civ should just drop those minigame parts that add very little, and have a GOD view. What would a god do to make my civ the greatest. I just came from the Paradox discussion and realized that is why I to a much greater extent play EU4 than Civ5...