Is Civ V a Good Game?

[krc]

whether a game is considered good or of little appeal does not depend entirely on personal preferences. There are also objective criteria that must be considered:

Before launching into this long reply, let me thank you for your thought-provoking post and note that I agree that most of the criteria you suggest are important. I'm just not sure how many of your criteria are actually objective rather than subjective. If they are really objective, there should be some well-defined way to measure them, and all reasonable people should agree about the evaluation. I also strongly suspect that there are counterexamples to almost every one of your criteria, and I don't know how to "weight" them to decide which ones are the most important.

Originality
Any new game must be original. It has to possess elements that have never—or at least not in this particular combination—been part of a game before.

How do you measure originality? Is more originality really better than less? If a game is nothing like anything anyone has ever seen before, does that make it better?

Back when Strategy and Tactics magazine was producing board games (with hexes and cardboard units that you moved around), they made a whole series of relatively small games about different battles from the American Civil War and from Napoleonic wars. These had basically the same rules. The only thing that changed was the map and the names and numbers printed on the cardboard counters. Very little originality, but enjoyable "beer-and-pretzel" games.

Freshness and replayability
The more a game makes its players want to play again, the better the game.

Some people finds slot machines highly addictive. Are those kinds of games of chance really better than less addictive games?

Surprise
A game should be rich in surprises. Repetition in sequence, progress, and events should be strictly avoided.

Why do chess players memorize openings?

Equal opportunity
At the start of the game, every player should have an equal chance of winning. In particular, the first player should have neither an advantage nor a disadvantage over the rest of the field.

Chess fails this criterion; white has an edge. Every version of Civ fails this criterion, since the starting location makes a difference in the chance of winning (unless you count the start as the moment before the random starting locations are assigned). Those differences may be small, but they clearly exist. In fact, I find it hard to think of any interesting game where the chances of winning are really equal.

Winning chances
A similar rule applies to the end of a game. Every player must have at least a theoretical possibility of winning until the very end. This possibility might be infinitesimal, but it must be present.

Every version of Civ fails this criterion also; I suspect that every multiplayer game fails it because of the possibility of early elimination.

No "kingmaker effect"
A game loses its appeal if, at any stage, a player who no longer has any hope of winning can somehow determine the winner. This problem arises primarily in strategy games.

Not sure about this one. Maybe it's the choice of the word "hope" to replace the earlier use of "theoretical chance of winning". In the board game Diplomacy, I have seen instances where one country has been double-crossed and their hope of winning disappears. In most cases, they play on as long as possible, with the goal of making sure that the person who double-crossed them does not win. Can still be a fun game for everyone involved.

No early elimination
All players should be involved in the game until it's almost over. No one should be eliminated until the very end.

Again, every version of Civ fails this criterion.

Reasonable waiting times
Nothing kills players' interest as easily as long periods of inactivity while they wait their turns. Chess provides a useful counter-example: a player can use the waiting time to plan his or her next move.

What is the objective definition of "reasonable" here?

Creative control
Any game that is not based on chance must give players the opportunity to affect its progress and direction.

Do they have to actually have control, or just the illusion of control? Or is this just a tautology, coming from the definition of "not based on chance"?

Uniformity
The title, theme, format, and graphics of a game must give a unified impression.

Why?

Quality of components
Durability, functionality, and the visual appeal of the materials contribute greatly to the perceived value of a game.

Well, yes. But how do you measure this, and how important is it?

Target groups and consistency of rules
Games differ in the demands they put on their players. Some games require special skills. It is important for game rules to be consistent. A strategy game, for instance, cannot be influenced in any way by luck. Imagine a player conceiving a plan, deciding on a particular sequence of play, and then having to roll dice in order to execute them.

Is Civ a strategy game or a game of chance? Every combat involves the equivalent of a die roll to determine the outcome.

Tension
Every game has its own unique tension curve. But long periods of relatively low tension must be avoided in any game.

At last! I found one of these criteria where I cannot think of any counterexamples. Maybe I'm getting tired.... or does play-by-mail or play-by-email (in a twisted sort of way) provide the counterexample?

Learning and mastering a game
Surely it is an advantage for a game to start quickly and be easy to learn, and the clearer and simpler the rules, the better.

Back to Strategy and Tactics again. They made a regimental-level board game about the Battle of Gettysburg. Three large maps (each about 2 feet by 3 feet). Thousands of counters. Complex rule book describing movement, combat, morale, supply, fatigue, leaders, brigades, divisions, corps, armies. A much better game than tic-tac-toe.

Second point: learning and mastering are two completely different things. Go has very simple rules, which can be learned in a few minutes. It is very hard to master.

Complexity and influence
Short, simple games must have short, simple rules. Complex games, on the other hand, may have more complex rules.

Probably true, since it is hard to think of a good counterexample. Perhaps it is really a tautology when looked at correctly. Any game that has complex rules must be a complex game; it has no other choice.

All this is not an attempt to instruct you on how to invent a good game. Rather, it's a set of guidelines on the kind of characteristics a good game should have.

These two sentences best express the qualities of a good game:

A good game will stay with us all our lives.

A good game makes us long to play it again.

- Wolfgang Kramer

 

[UpInYoGrill]

All I am going to say about this is that a "good drug" should just get you HOOKED. I never had to "try" to get addicted to any other Civ game (I-IV)? I wasn't my choice when I would look at the clock and be blown away that I had to get up in 6 hours to go to work, yet still "one more turn, just one more turn I would say to myself" (that turned into 25-50? 2 more hours sometimes). I have given Civ V another chance again and again, yet always exit the game to go find something more "interesting" to play. That's not even the right word to use because Civ V is an interesting game, but I just don't care for it; I don't care for anything in the game because nothing in the game really matters (other than unit placement), you could spin a wheel for all decision making (or even get that stupid AI to play for you) and still win, as long as your on top of your unit tactics; the game to me has a false sense of strategy, it feels like a BETA version we all paid for.

I haven't played Civ V in a while and jumped on the forum to read up if it's gotten any better reviews over time, and it would appear not. Civ V does have potential (hex grid & 1UPT for example) but lets be honest, this far after release we are not going to get the "magic cure"; until they finish this product and release number 6. It's like we all bought Vista and are just not fully satisfied so we are trying convince ourselves we didn't just just ripped off while waiting for Windows 7.

A GOOD GAME DOESN'T NEED A DEBATE ON IT'S QUALITY BECAUSE IT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF!

Is Civ V a good game? NO!

Do some people enjoy playing it? YES! (not that there's anything wrong with that)

but not me.

I was thinking of checking out some of the mods people mention, but I would rather go smoke some crack (play some Civ IV).

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

Is it a good game? That's pretty subjective.

Is it a good Civilization Game? I'd have to say no. There is no feeling of history or being part of a world where different peoples are struggling to survive. To me, it feels like a turn based strategy game with some minor economic elements.

 

[Agent327]

Is it a good game? That's pretty subjective.

Not really. Considering the criticsim the game has received since release (from both players and professionals), the game design flaws that had to be pointed out by users (and were then largely ´patched´ by the company), and the bugs that should have been largely eliminated during the playtest phase, CiV is at best an average game.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I think the fault is it's a commercial game..

I can rarely find a pretty decent good game that's commercial.. then again I rarely play a lot of games.

I think it's always gonna be a one person's opinion. I think it's alright, room for improvement, but otherwise still fun.

 

[Snoopaloop]

Is it a good game? That's pretty subjective.

Not really.

It is subjective. Everyone has their own perception of the game, this thread as evidence obviously.

The game was/is bugged - you may think it is a bad game because of these flaws. Some other players may not care about these gameplay issues and think it is a good game. Completely subjective.

 

[KillingMeSoftly]

I think its pretty good. Has some rough edges but in my experience there are few games that are perfect.

AI could use some touch ups, and so can multiplayer (it annoys me greatly that map selection is so limited and theres rarely a choice to start teams together).

If I want a simulator, I'll play Europa Universalis 3. More realistic combat, Total War. Civ5 is a sweet medium for me and offers a variety and customisability that those titles don't.