Is Civilization VI a Bowling Simulator?

[Ryika]

I've been reading quite a few threads lately, and realized that there seems to be a disconnect between what is basically two types of people. Those who claim Civ is a "strategy game", and those who claim that it's something else.

Now, it is clear that there are strategical elements in the design of Civilization VI. You can for example choose what to build, and, if it's a district, wonder, or Improvement, where to place it, but that's where the problems with the definition come in. Is it really "strategical" to place a district, or is it not more like you're throwing a bowling ball into a mass of pins, aiming to get a strike?

This may sound weird at first, and initially I dismissed the thought myself, but really, placing districts is not "strategical". You want to get the most out of a district, so you place it where you get the highest yield. You may factor in some other things such as "Is this place not better for another district?" etc, but in the end it's really not that strategical. You're literally rolling the ball into the center of the pins to clear them all (aka to get the highest yield). Any district you build after that will inevitably not get as good as a spot (assuming they compete for a similar ideal spot) which is, for the most part, like you're throwing a second ball at the pins that have not been removed by your first attempt. (assuming you didn't get a strike, which is the equivalent of having a second spot that is just as good for the second improvement.)

That's some pretty strong evidence, but the similarities don't even end there. Between each round (of constructing districts) you're likely to be contacted by other leaders, and they may have good or bad things to say, based on your performance, or based on your characteristics. That too is VERY close to what happens during bowling, when you're teasing each other while you're waiting for the bowling machine to spit out your bowling ball ("for the city to grow enough and unlock the next district") so you can bowl again.

I think it is safe to say that, while I'm not entirely sure whether Civ fit the definition of a Bowling Simulator enough to officially change its genre, the similarities are staggering. And in my personal opinion too obvious to be a coincidence.

 

[cooldude1128]

This analogy is both silly and surprisingly accurate.

I hope I didn't just have my enthusiasm for the game destroyed, though.

 

[Thormodr]

Civilization 5 was a swimming simulator. Pick your lane then stay in it! No pivoting!

Civ VI seems to be much different and refreshingly so.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

A hallmark of satire is when it strikes close to the truth. But, in my estimation, this one is a turkey. The OP should spare us from any further attempts. I would go on, but I have to split.

 

[Ryika]

Civilization 5 was a swimming simulator. Pick your lane then stay in it! No pivoting!

Civ VI seems to be much different and refreshingly so.

I agree.

And in a sense that too is evidence for my Bowling Simulator Theory. Because you can throw the ball from the left, the right, from the middle, give it spin, don't give it spin... a lot of different ways you can play, but no matter how you choose to play, you inevitably play to reach the same, or at least a comparable goal.

If you think about it even more, the tech tree is in many ways like a bowling lane. You have a lot of freedom at the beginning, but if you want to have a good shot at winning the game your bowling ball must narrow into the middle eventually. Just like the final technologies are arranged further towards the vertical center as you reach the end of the tree.

A hallmark of satire is when it strikes close to the truth. But, in my estimation, this one is a turkey. The OP should spare us from any further attempts. I would go on, but I have to split.

Eh, what? Please stop derailing my thread with these claims. Either discuss how my analogy works or does not work, or otherwise please leave this thread.

 

[Plus Ultra]

Fun post, but somewhat dissapointing Rykia, you can do much better than this.

 

[Ryika]

Fun post, but somewhat dissapointing Rykia, you can do much better than this.

It's probably because I have been writing Quests for hours today. So exhausting.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Eh, what? Please stop derailing my thread with these claims. Either discuss how my analogy works or does not work, or otherwise please leave this thread.

This is actually a serious discussion!? I mistook it for an elaborate yet lighthearted skewering of several other whiny threads and added my delightful bowling puns.

If you say that there is no strategy involved because there is always an optimal option for every choice, and it is actually a game of skill for how skillful you are in making the optimal choices, we must wait and see. I feel that was certainly the case for Beyond Earth.

A true game of strategy must involve uncertainty. For if certain operations always yield similar results under known circumstances, you are merely playing tic tac toe, with each player countering the other perfectly until it results in a draw.

 

[Plus Ultra]

It's probably because I have been writing Quests for hours today. So exhausting.

That explains why you forgot to mention there is a maximum of 12 strikes per game, and the exact same number of districs in Civ VI.

 

[Ryika]

This is actually a serious discussion!? I mistook it for an elaborate yet lighthearted skewering of several other whiny threads and added my delightful bowling puns.

It seems my "derailing"-pun went unnoticed.

If you say that there is no strategy involved because there is always an optimal option for every choice, and it is actually a game of skill for how skillful you are in making the optimal choices, we must wait and see.

True, true. I guess that's where the similarities end.

 

[Atlas627]

Nice analogy. I like it.

Also, strategy is recognizing which choices result in which longterm outcomes. Any game can have strategy. Strategy games are merely ones which have nothing else.

A hallmark of satire is when it strikes close to the truth. But, in my estimation, this one is a turkey. The OP should spare us from any further attempts. I would go on, but I have to split.

I like the spin you put on this one. But are you sure it isn't more of a duck? The analogy surely holds a candle to the mystery that is game design. I don't want to de-rail the thread, so I'll show myself out without leaving any scuff marks.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Let's see, we used to have "Bowling for Dollars" so now do we have Bowling For Districts? or Bowling for Apostles? - as I remember, there were 12 of those, too ...

 

[Balkans]

I went bowling 2 or 3 times in my life. I guess i can start my first civ vi game one above normal difficulty.

 

[MrRadar]

Civilization 5 was a swimming simulator. Pick your lane then stay in it! No pivoting!

Oh, I had similar thoughts long ago Only I was comparing Civ games to a clipper tea race.

For example, Civ4 was like Cutty Sark - start from Ceylon, find your way around the Good Hope blocked by, e. g., the French - what a nasty surprise! - turn around, try south of Australia - no chance - too much ice, north of Australia - too many pirates, swerve, manoeuvre, finally, squeeze yourself back through Suez and Gibraltar and, against all the odds, first to London - win!

Civ5 was like a tea supertanker. As soon as Ceylon hides below the horizon, you start planning your turn around the Good Hope and woe to you, if you take liberties from the traditional turning methods set long before you - you'll likely end up stuck up the La Plata or Kongo rivers. However, if passing St. Helena you see that your arc looks nice, you can leave the helm to the cabin boy and go to have some tea yourself

Maybe too much exaggeration, after all

I just hope the Civ 6 ship will be manoeuvrable enough and pleasant to handle

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I've been cautious about posting in this thread because I was, naturally, dubious. I know we don't always agree Ryika, but I can't deny an argument when all the facts are stacked in its favour. You've put together some compelling arguments, and somethings finally clicked into place for me. Teddy Roosevelt is larger because he isn't just teddy Roosevelt. And I think they are also paying tribute to the big lebowski

Spoiler :

I'm expecting that when the moment strikes, Harald Hardrada removes his helmet and reveals he's the dude

 

[Thormodr]

Oh, I had similar thoughts long ago Only I was comparing Civ games to a clipper tea race.

For example, Civ4 was like Cutty Sark - start from Ceylon, find your way around the Good Hope blocked by, e. g., the French - what a nasty surprise! - turn around, try south of Australia - no chance - too much ice, north of Australia - too many pirates, swerve, manoeuvre, finally, squeeze yourself back through Suez and Gibraltar and, against all the odds, first to London - win!

Civ5 was like a tea supertanker. As soon as Ceylon hides below the horizon, you start planning your turn around the Good Hope and woe to you, if you take liberties from the traditional turning methods set long before you - you'll likely end up stuck up the La Plata or Kongo rivers. However, if passing St. Helena you see that your arc looks nice, you can leave the helm to the cabin boy and go to have some tea yourself

Maybe too much exaggeration, after all

I just hope the Civ 6 ship will be manoeuvrable enough and pleasant to handle

Ha ha! Nice analogy!

Yeah, I do hope Civ VI will be different. Sleek, elegant and a pleasure to navigate.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

I approve of this thread.

 

[VainApocalypse]

The analogy doesn't really work.

There is one target in bowling. There are different techniques for hitting it, but they all ideally end in the same way. That's not the case for Civ VI. It might be the case if the game were solely about getting the highest tile yield, or if there were essentially only one type of yield.

That is not the case. Just because a tile could yield +10 culture with a cultural district but only +5 gold with a commercial district does not predetermine the best course of action to be to build a cultural district. Which I decide to build will have more to do with a holistic assessment of the game (victory conditions, neighbors, diplomacy, units, Civ bonuses, religion, city specialization, defensibility, short-term vs. long term yields, etc.). I'm not just clicking the highest number I see.

 

[Maximus_Light]

Is it really "strategical" to place a district, or is it not more like you're throwing a bowling ball into a mass of pins, aiming to get a strike?

Ah, German thinking at it's best.
Every wonder why throwing giant stacks of units together is more like packing a truck with as much weight as you can then smashing it against someone else's truck and seeing who's is most intact.
So really if Civ6 is like bowling and Civ5 is like swimming then Civ4 was like a monster truck rally.

 

[bookman_]

But is Bowling a strategy game ?