Is Civ 1 simpler than Civ 3 or 4?

[stwils]

I wonder why I keep coming back to Civ1. Is it because it is simpler than Civ3 or 4? Is the game engine the same?

Civ4 (expecially) seems so cluttered with so many options and things that I have a hard time knowing what to do. The tech tree itself is so full of choices that I don't know where to go.

The graphics are fun for a while. (So are Civ 3's) And Civ 1's graphics are not beautiful but quite abstract. (Actually the abstract graphics give me a feeling of calm...)

For some reason I keep coming back to Civ1. Is it because it is easier? Is Civ4harder? Civ 1 was started in 1991, I think. And here we are in 2008.

Am I copping out on Civ 4? Or does Civ1 really hold an appeal that is true, not easy, but true?

stwils

 

[Veni]

Or does Civ1 really hold an appeal that is true, not easy, but true?

(Loaded Question ... )
IMHO: Both of the above.
Most immediately, Civ I has less going on at any given point. By this I mean less variables, not less gameplay. Less variables means greater simplicity, but this should not be confused with a 'lesser' game, or an 'easier' game in the sense of requiring less intelligence to master.

More broadly, the heart and soul of the Civilization enterprise is the abstraction of settled (cultivating) human existence into a strategy game. In this, Civ I excels as no other. The further development has gone into increased unit types (including attributes), technologies, improvements/wonders, animation (& graphics in general), formulae, et cedera, the greater the potential for tedium, even if at once 'prettier' (I would, however, insert the caveat of the music set in Civ IV, which best translates music into gameplay [& not only at the 'pretty' level]). While each do have their individual merits, CivII for me is merely a hydrocephalic CivI, CivIII can be disorienting in its detail, long turns and porn music, while CivIV just makes me nauseous. To return to CivI from any of these for me is like:
1) Sitting down to a game of chess with an old friend; or
2) Writing a letter with pen and paper, rather than email or text msg: I find something deeply spiritual and intimate in this.

Anyways, my two cents.

 

[krille]

Civ1 is definitely easier than Civ4. Try to play at Deity level in Civ4: BtS and then compare it to Emperor level Civ1.

The graphics are definitely superior though, as I get very confused when looking at all the details of Civ4, it really drains my mental energy. I prefer Civ1's very basic, over-simplified and crude "abstract" graphics. They're much easier on my eyes and brain. I can take in and assess the strategic situation in an instant, everything is crystal clear.

I love the illustrations that go along with techs, they provide so much atmosphere and nostalgia.

I never liked Civ2, mostly because it's so ugly. (So I never really played it much at all.) Civ3 was much prettier, but a bit too detailed. Civ4 is way too detailed.

I definitely don't go back to Civ1 because it's easier, I think it's got a lot to do with the graphics and simplicity. (Chess is also simple, but hardly "easy".)

 

[Osvaldo Manso]

I find the comparison between Civ I and a game of a chess to be a very interesting one.

I never played Civ II, but I have tried Civ III. I hated all the animations, especially while units were moving. I also didn't like the 3-d view. I remember saying in an old thread that the beauty of Civ I lies in its abstract qualities.

When you look at chess, you know that those figures are there to represent certain groups of people (the bishop represents the power of the church; the horse represents the military force; the king stands for the formal power; the queen stands for the actual power (money?) etc...). It's the same in Civ I. When I look to a cavalry unit I know that it represents no one but a lot of horses and a lot of mounted soldiers, just like an army is divided in several divisions.

I believe that when it comes to strategy games "less is better". The more the game leaves room to your imagination the better. Civ I is apparently simple but it has a lot of deepness waiting there to be explored. It's the kind of game that unveils very slowly. In the first contact, it doesn't seem such a big deal. I guess that a couple of years passed by until I fully realized the scope and the possibilities of this wonderful game.

 

[stwils]

What beautifully written replies. I'd like to shout "AMEN!"

The comparison to chess is especially meaningful, as it too is abstract just like Civ1. Chess is the best of all strategy games and one could spend a lifetime with it and still keep learning.

I think that is the way with Civ 1. There are many layers and one can concentrate on its depth while playing without all the many distractions of Civ 3 or 4.

Thank you for your thoughts. I will never feel guilty again for not trying to lose myself in Civ 4 with all its confusion, glitter, and those silly, idiotic lions.

stwils

 

[GoodGame]

Civ 1 is way simpler than Civ4.

 

[CheScott]

I haven't played Civilization in a very, very long time. Most of this post is likely to be purely nostalgic.. maybe I'll see if I can gank one of a torrent.

I have to agree with much of the above posts, though. The original has an abstract Zen quality; deceptive simplicity in it's function and gameplay. But my best memories of the game come from when I didn't really understand how it worked. Turn after turn would pass and I would watch the beaker go from blue to green to yellow to red, but I didn't understand what process drove it.

Indeed, I didn't really understand the game mechanics until I played Civ2 for quite a while. I didn't play Civ3 much, perhaps I should gank that off a torrent as well. I did play Civ2 for probably as long as I played Civ, if not longer.

I gotta tell you. I played it on a whim last weekend (still having all my disks), I haven't been so bored out of my mind in ages.

However, I don't find Civ4 to be all that overwhelming, either in graphical intensity or gameplay. Infact, Civ IV: BtS is probably my favorite iteration of the game.

However, this is only slightly related but there is another antique Civilization game that was quite a lot of fun that hasn't been mentioned. Probably because it's completely different and from Avalon Hill, not Microprose. But if you like the direct and slimmed down nature of Civilization I would deffinetly recomend checking it out. It was a heck of a lot of fun, but, I warn you, absolutely nothing like any of Sid Meier's games.

It's called Advanced Civilization

 

[stwils]

CheScott:

You say when you went back and played Civ 1, you'd never been so bored in all your life. Is that because the graphics are not visually stimulating, or because you find the Civ 1 game boring?

stwils