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

I wish BE was a Sandbox game; NO Victory Conditions

Discussion in 'CivBE - General Discussions' started by El Caballerion, Apr 23, 2014.

  1. El Caballerion

    El Caballerion King

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Messages:
    937
    Location:
    New York
    After playing Paradox Games and coming back to the world of CIV, I really feel that the CIV series is stifled by victory conditions. Games like CIV should be about doing what makes the player feel rewarded as their nation grows over time, facing unique challenges along the way. No ancient CIV ever dreamed of building a rocket to Alpha Centauri; so why victory conditions?

    BE should consist of adapting to whatever comes your way, and becoming good at something. It shouldn't be about rushing to achieve a victory. I wont be playing to ONLY build warp gates or achieve transcendence, but to ADAPT (like the colonists) to this new world and have a unique experience each game. It would be great if in mid-game, the world starts undergoing global warming or volcanic activity, then the late game would be all about ADAPTING.

    Who else feels that the 'fun' of the CIV series is in the journey, and not the ultimate achievement of goals?
     
  2. Tapio

    Tapio Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2014
    Messages:
    16
    Playing is the fun part. Not winning. But game must end. If game never ends, it becomes boring soon. In Civ it's good that there are victory, something to plan for in the end of the game. And something to end the game. (So player can start again) It's necessity. Not big part of game but necessity. Plain sandbox games become boring very soon.
     
  3. AriochIV

    AriochIV Colonial Ninja

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,958
    Location:
    Nehwon
    You can probably turn off the victory conditions and play forever if you like, but that would get pretty boring after a while.
     
  4. SamBC

    SamBC Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,052
    Location:
    Lancaster
    EUIV and CK2, at least (not sure about other Paradox games) end, they just don't have victory. So just turn off all the victory conditions but leave the end date on (or have time victory on, I can't remember how that works), and you end with a score.
     
  5. Lachlan

    Lachlan Great Builder of Civs !

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,072
    Location:
    European Union
    Strongly agree, victory conditions should be reworked to more synthetic graduation...
     
  6. Lord Tirian

    Lord Tirian Erratic Poster

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,724
    Location:
    Liverpool, UK
    Many sandbox games disagree with you! ;) But it's certainly the case for strategy games: most sandbox games work well, because they allow the player to set their own goals (exploration in Skyrim, building your giant machine in Minecraft, making odd rocket contraptions in Kerbal Space Program).

    However, this requires being handed a lot of parts to build your own experience with. Civ... is not that sort of game. It doesn't give you components, it gives you a progression and since it cannot be infinite, it results in a natural endpoint (e.g. hitting Future Tech).

    Unless the game does re-imagine the Civ concept entirely and allows you to have something like "generic" research to continually create your own new buildings, units etc., it won't make a good sandbox game. Add to that that expansion is limited by map size - other sandbox games do not expand, hence you get away with limited maps. Civ's mechanics require expansion, hence the map size is another natural endpoint.

    I'd say it would, in fact, a fun sandbox mode would change Civ so much it wouldn't be Civ any longer. You might be looking for another game (and nothing wrong with that).

    I do think Civ could do with new victory conditions and BE looks like it's trying its hand at that. A CivIV mod I once saw also tried to make a version where all victory conditions tie into a final score, that was a neat idea, too -it would reward sandbox-like game play. Instead of aiming for one victory, you'd just try to make an interesting and stable civilization covering all gameplay aspects.

    EDIT: It was the Mastery Victory mod.
     
  7. Bechhold

    Bechhold King

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    663
    Gender:
    Male
    A truly sandbox game with more and more micromanagement has been a dream for many civ players since before V came out.
     
  8. Evie94

    Evie94 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2013
    Messages:
    255
    Location:
    Ireland
    this. knock yourself out. Didn't that guy on /civreddit/ play Civ 2 1000 years into the future? No reason you can't do that within the game itself without actually....yknow, destroying the concept of Civ as a game
     
  9. Bezurn

    Bezurn Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    587
    Since civ is a game of inflation, with few sinks to curb the influx or materials, wealth, science and culture, then it would be difficult to model a game with no true ending on this model.

    If it cost population to build troops as well as hammers then it might be something that could be doable. And if there was a way to destroy buildings without capturing a city perhaps.

    A sandbox won't work for CiV. The inflationary tendencies of the game would have to be redone and toned down. There would have to be a 'crafting' aspect of the game added in which to occupy the time of the player instead of managing their inflation to outpace their opponents.
     
  10. rastak

    rastak Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,567
    Location:
    Minnesota

    Paradox games ALWAYS become a snooze fest for me. Crusader Kings 1 & 2 were my favorite but I eventually lost interest in those too. I have no idea why you'd want to but just turn off the victory conditions and time limit as previously mentioned and make your own goals. I prefer a little structure in my games myself.
     
  11. Fabio1701

    Fabio1701 King

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2014
    Messages:
    748
    Location:
    Wassenaar, NL
    in all civ games since 3 you have been able to choose victory conditions and even turn them all off. go for it. but others do need closure.

    As a CK2 player I tend to set myself a goal (resurrect the roman empire, reform the Norse religion, form the Persian empire, destroy all vestiges of Catholic/Shia/Tengri/X religion, have a trading post on every shore of europe, etc) and usually by the time I have accomplished said goal, the difficulty has gone to 0% (and I usually start as a lowly baron to make things interesting) and it gets pretty boring. Never made it to the end of the timeline because of that. Essentially I have set my own victory condition, and stop. At one point I have conquered the entire map as the roman empire save for 6 counties (pre-india expansion) and didnt even have the patience to finish that off (waiting for my chief councillor to make up reasons to invade took aaaaaaages).

    I once decided to play civ3 beyond the victory and after 100 turns grew terribly bored. Never again.
     
  12. AriochIV

    AriochIV Colonial Ninja

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,958
    Location:
    Nehwon
    Civilization games are about progression, and so it's easy to see why the victory types aren't that compelling. But once you get to the top of the tech tree and there's no more advancement, there's no more game and so it needs to end somehow.
     
  13. El Caballerion

    El Caballerion King

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Messages:
    937
    Location:
    New York
    I just think that all the fuss about WHAT happens in the end, usually means the mid-late game does not get as developed. Just think about how much more fun CIV would be if during the Great War period, units were able to undergo trench warfare and gas attacks? Sadly, this all gets skipped just to make it to some pointless victories.

    The journey (in CIV games) and how I adapt to it, is what matters to me; not where I end up.
     
  14. glaivemaster

    glaivemaster Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    467
    Location:
    Leeds, United Kingdom
    I think people are confusing no victory conditions with no end game. The Paradox games people use as examples here do end, when they reach a certain date, and there's no reason Civ couldn't as well. In that scenario, playing would be more than just a race to whichever victory condition, because it wouldn't matter when you get around to doing something, you're not going to lose before then.

    I'm not saying it's a good idea, I just think people need to understand what's being proposed. No-one really wants to hit Future Tech 97 and keep going.
     
  15. Silverman6083

    Silverman6083 History-Lover

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    669
    Location:
    Earth
    Oh rly? Civ 5 Stories & Lets Plays. Into the Future by Heerlo. ;) Proof
     
  16. Lord Tirian

    Lord Tirian Erratic Poster

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,724
    Location:
    Liverpool, UK
    That's why I was posting the link to the Civ4 Mastery Victory mod as example how Civ could/should handle time victories. From that mod's description:
    Spoiler :

    A Mastery Victory is won as follows:
    • If selected, the mastery victory replaces the other victory conditions in the game (by nature it can't co-exist with them)
    • Mastery Victory is determined ONLY at the end of the time-span of the game. You have to survive to the end.

    Points are given for the following:
    • Land - 1 point per % of landmass controlled by team.
    • Population - 1 point per % of total planet population possessed by team.
    • Culture - 1 point per % of total planet culture belonging to team.
    • Religion - 1 point per % of world religion if you control the religion's holy city. Only the top religion you control is scored, so second and third holy cities will not increase your score (but will prevent other civs from gaining points from them).
    • Power - Your civ's power is summed throughout all of history. 1 point awarded for each % of the total summed power of all the surviving civs on earth. While power increases throughout time, this does mean that you'll be scored for your military for the whole game span.
    • Wonders - 1 point per % of world wonders CONSTRUCTED by the civ, not owned! The game keeps track of who actually builds the wonders as opposed to those who capture them. Wonder benefits are still granted to whoever currently possess the wonders. This makes the investment of a wonder more meaningful and more realistic.
    • Legendary Cities - Any city achieving Legendary status grants 30 bonus points. (You can have one, you can have five; you'll receive 30 points for each one you build).
    • Starship - 100 points given to any civ launching an interstellar starship. This is a big score bonus but represents a significant achievement; if a civ that hasn't launched a starship is to be considered superior to one that has it must have made significant cultural and military achievements!


    Something like that would be a fresh breath of air in Civ's victory condition game. It rewards good gameplay throughout and punishes forsaking some aspects of the game unless you have a way to compensate. It's not perfect, but something like that would have a lot of potential.

    I especially like that it keeps track of the past, i.e. it compares your time-integrated military score (meaning pumping out a big army just before the game ends does nothing) and that it tracks the construction not possession of wonders.

    Civ's score system is a good way to track current performance, but it's terrible to judge whole-game performance, so to speak.
     
  17. Crayton

    Crayton King

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Messages:
    698
    Location:
    FLORIDA
    I remember I made a Civ4 mod with dark ages, where you lost most of your tech. Originally, I wanted the "end game" to be some sort of civilization re-start. It ended up keeping you perpetually in the mid-game (not that bad).

    If there were a mechanic where you had to balance your civilization well (that balance becoming increasingly more difficult as technology progresses), for risk of collapsing the global economy into the Dark (or, worse, Stone) Ages, then that would be great. You build your civilization, but as you get closer to "Future Tech" that balance becomes harder to maintain and (global) civilization slips and falls. The last 700 years have seen mostly uninterupted progress, but history shows that collapse happens; this is not modelled yet in Civ, except through conquest.
     
  18. Lord Shadow

    Lord Shadow General

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,001
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Buenos Aires
    To me, Civ has always been about the journey. I hardly ever play with all the victory conditions on, on a slower speed, and mid-level difficulty (i.e. Prince) so that the AI is challenging, even with you to not fall behind, but isn't insane to the point the game needs you to be increasingly gamey to remain competitive. Higher difficulties also pretty much force you to gear your whole civilization to a specific victory type from the get-go, and that's not how I like to play.

    Civ is as victory-minded as you make it, but it's not designed to be infinite. It's ultimately a game about growth, progression and development, which means it has an inevitable peak. You can keep playing indefinitely after that, but given you've accomplished pretty much everything there is to accomplish, it doesn't hold interest for very long.

    So with my preferred settings, I enjoy the ride and the challenges that come up along the way, and near the end I start deciding how I'll wrap it up.

    All games have limited content, mechanics and systems. Even sandbox ones. And there's none that can provide infinite continuous entertainment. Without an end in sight, they eventually bore the player: finite content leads to repetitiveness, sooner or later, and finite stretched (i.e. MMO) content also creates grindiness. All games eventually dry up, which doesn't necessarily mean you won't play them again months down the road with renewed interest.
     
  19. Naokaukodem

    Naokaukodem Millenary King

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,214
    Actually I would have say that Civilization IS a sandbox. That's how I played Civ I, a littlely Civ II.

    And that's a little how I play any new iteration of the franchise. That's why I don't like too much speculation, I prefer to discover the game by myself a little by little, being surrounded by a kind of mist where i don't know exactly what I'm doing.

    I think that newcomers see it at a sandbox too, because we start at -4000 in the wild and that it is difficult to predict what will happen next. (in CivI & II remember, tech tree was not formal, you couldn't play a first game knowing exactly where you go, unless you used some handmade paper tech tree made by someone else)

    It's less true for accustomed players, because they will mostly concentrate on mechanics.

    I once used the word 'experimental' to name such a thing, and I think Civ has become less of an experimental game once devs started to listen to fans and answer their concerns, some of them being important (bugs, angrying asymmetry) some others hurting the 'infinite horizon' feeling we can have from a game like that, with too much concentration on mechanics at the expense of, well, simply fun.
     
  20. Trias

    Trias Donkey with three behinds

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    594
    You mean the poster that came with the game? (in the case of civ2)
     

Share This Page