Is Civilization VI a Bowling Simulator?

[Red Menace]

Are we sure this isnt a simulation of Ed Beach's journey as a prisoner of Gandhi? as seen and directed by Ed Beach.
You see Gandhi's nuclear ways have been hinted at since the beginning of the civilization franchise! And we've seen his evil first hand when he captured Ed Beach, you see the addition of continents is to accurately portray the world as he saw it from his prison island, and I assume there will be unlimited range and stacking of nukes.
And the expansion of espionage is to represent the infiltration of firaxis by Gandhi which led to the kidnapping of Ed Beach.
The so-called science victory is representative of Ed Beach's glorious escape on the back of a nuclear missile
Religion is expanded to give the player a better perspective of Gandhi's love of nukes.

Clearly this is a simulation of Ed Beach's journey as a prisoner of Gandhi, and his amazing escape from the clutches of Gandhi. This is the greatest simulator of all time there can be no other. Thank Ed for saving the world from Gandhi.

 

[Acken]

Sounds like a good companion app for your phone. You can flirt, date and talk with/to the leaders in your current game, and depending on how well you do you get a diplomatic bonus/penalty when you continue the game!

Choose carefully.

Just click the heart option over and over

 

[Maximus_Light]

Sounds like a good companion app for your phone. You can flirt, date and talk with/to the leaders in your current game, and depending on how well you do you get a diplomatic bonus/penalty when you continue the game!

But will my color coded choices actually be meaningful? Will I finally end the reaper Gandhi threat? I mean you have your red purity Domination victory and your blue harmony religious victory...
I don't know man that ending was really lack luster.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Sounds like a good companion app for your phone. You can flirt, date and talk with/to the leaders in your current game, and depending on how well you do you get a diplomatic bonus/penalty when you continue the game!

Should I go to the mall and buy the perfect gift for Vicky, share some juicy gossip with Cathy, or go to the gym and lift weights so Cleo will notice me?

 

[Ryika]

Should I go to the mall and buy the perfect gift for Vicky, share some juicy gossip with Cathy, or go to the gym and lift weights so Cleo will notice me?

Why not buy a city state for each of them? Only requires the small investment of 10 Envoys (Available in the shop for only $5.99 per Stack of 100), and if you're a Premium Gold+3 Member ($9,99 per month) you even get one of the more well-known city states.

 

[Karmah]

one question stays on though , is it a reboot of a bowling simulator ?

 

[stealth_nsk]

one question stays on though , is it a reboot of a bowling simulator ?

And here's the winner of the post of the month.

 

[Plus Ultra]

one question stays on though , is it a reboot of a bowling simulator ?

Finally, someone is asking the real questions.

 

[ProMeTheus112]

bowling tile improvement dlc pls

 

[burleigh]

I was going to suggest that Civ VI is like a Swiss Cheese, but then I realised my analogy was full of holes

 

[stormtrooper412]

what a strange way to phrase a point. But yeah, I agree

 

[DWilson]

one question stays on though , is it a reboot of a bowling simulator ?

No, it's a side-step.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Actually, considering all the evidence, people are really not understanding... civ6 is not a strategy tactical game, reboot, bowling simulator, or a real estate market, it is a tuna sandwich.

(I'm limited on time, but I'm sure someone can put the pieces together to show the details of what is obvious if you take some time to think about it)

 

[Buccaneer]

Much prefer a Swimming or Bowling Simulator than the Bulldozer Simulator that was Civ4, where the only play is to pick a small, medium or large bulldozer and aim it straight.

 

[Biz_]

civ is actually just a racing game unless you play on very specific settings in very specific ways

 

[Auramagma]

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.

Of course, it isn't strategical. Since as you nicely put it, it is simply trying to make sure that you get most benefits from all of the circumstances, i.e. tiles, districts, buildings, etc. To be strategic, it all has to be contributing to the greater goal than just adding extra resources to your civ. You decide what that goal politically, financially, militaristic, culturally is and then build everything around it. Otherwise, will end up with resource collection \ build buildings simulator like CiV. And I am not convinced that CiVI is doing better so far... Will see...

 

[agonistes]

Either discuss how my analogy works or does not work

Well, Civ is clearly a strategy game. The term has been around for awhile, and it essentially refers to games that involve a large and varied number of optimization decisions.

Your bowling analogy is fitting for any single decision, but not for the collection of decisions that make up the strategy in Civ.

Now, a more fitting comparison may be if you were bowling, batting, volleying, and shooting all at once and trying to achieve not just the best possible outcome from each effort individually, but from them jointly as well.

Galaga is more of a 'bowling' game.

Strategy is a high level plan to achieve one or more goals under conditions of uncertainty. ... Professor Richard P. Rumelt described strategy as a type of problem solving in 2011. He wrote that good strategy has an underlying structure he called a kernel. The kernel has three parts: 1) A diagnosis that defines or explains the nature of the challenge; 2) A guiding policy for dealing with the challenge; and 3) Coherent actions designed to carry out the guiding policy

- wiki

1.a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim:

- Oxford online dictionary

Now, you may ask, what does 'high level' mean? I certainly did/do. Because, after all, even in a first-person shooter game, you diagnose/develop/execute, just rather quickly. So, to me, the difference is in the variety and number of decisions that go into the ultimate execution. And, too, so far as games are concerned, I would think that variation in successfully executable strategies from one game to the next would be a condition too.

People these days just love to re-brand... . At least you didn't use the word 'robust'.

 

[Ryika]

I don't buy this argument. Using logic alone seems to be way too convenient to accurately describe what definition fits and what doesn't, and it is also still unclear whether Bowling is not also a strategy game, so even if we manage to find a fitting definition that clearly proves that Civ is a strategy game it could, at the same time, still be a Bowling Simulator.

Think about it this way: If you put ice in a drink, then you have a drink with ice - but if you then shockfreeze the drink, has it suddenly just become ice, or is it still ice with ice in it?

 

[ProMeTheus112]

lol

I think why Bowling is not a strategy game is because there is little "high level" connection between throws, you're always just trying to strike, and if you miss that you're just trying to find the throw that will clear or clear in the least amount. High level is like, it's not completely defined, and it is long term and large scale, then there are lower levels which remain to be defined. In a strategy game, you are playing the high level as well, you are making decisions for the high level (long term and large scale) and there is a game going on at this level, meaning that your strategy doesn't just stay the same whole game, it evolves, you play against the strategy of your opponent or you evolve your strategy depending on the evolution of the game (in a game without "opponents"). And then on "top" of that (on "bottom" of that actually), there may be tactics where you resolve smaller situations in smaller time and space that are connected to the high level and may influence and change it as well.

A FPS is mostly tactics and little strategy because the low level is more important than the high level and influences the high level a lot more than the opposite. You can't make much high level plans (long term and large scale) because it would be constantly defused by the happenings of the low level which are more important. So for example in a Quake match you can't start planning for the whole game at all, because as soon as something goes wrong you have to change your plan for the next short/mid term. It's all about the short & mid term tactics than you must change around depending on the smallest scale results (did you get hit by that rocket did he get the armor did you aim this right did you actually escape that room did someone just die etc).

The more you have long term and large scale decision making going on that influences the low level the more the game is focused on strategy. But if your strategy is decided before the game or you're just applying it you are not really playing a strategy game, you are applying a strategy and the game is on a tactical and managing level, imo. The strategy would be outside of the game then.

And there is more strategy in the game if it allows for a lot of strategic decision making and/or involve more variables, making those decisions more complex, preferably both uhuh. If it's only lots of variables but little to no decision making, it's problem solving, you solve the problem and the solution is your strategy which then doesn't change or almost. Worst case scenario it's a knowledge issue only where the solution is pretty obvious once you have read the book of rules, or you can just learn the solution and not need to care about why it is the solution and just apply it. On the strategic level it could just be a knowledge check and not involve strategy skills.

Does that make sense?? Damn feels ambiguous this stuff sometimes.

 

[agonistes]

I don't buy this argument.

and it is also still unclear whether Bowling is not also a strategy game

I agreed with you in my previous post. As I said:

Because, after all, even in a first-person shooter game, you diagnose/develop/execute, just rather quickly.

By definition, ANY game COULD be called a strategy game. Any decision-making process could be called strategic. But NOT every game IS called strategic, and not every decision-making process is considered strategic. Therefore, there is a waterline. Generalized strategic process removed, what is the waterline for a game being considered strategic? And wasn't it first used to simply inidcate a game in which there were more decisions to make, and less repetition in game play?

Now, I don't know what the waterline is for the universe at large, but I DO know that in Civ I can make a great number of decisions about how to achieve one of a number of victories (another decision), and I know that my turn 20 of one game is very much unlikely to involve the same conditions, let alone the same decisions, as my turn 20 of another game. Isn't that the essence of a strategy game?

Some of you may be thinking, "well, that's not true (or, that's not me), there aren't that many decisions, the conditions never change." If you are thinking that, I suggest that you are not fully aware of all of the decisions you are making, and nor are you recognizing all of the conditions. You may implement the same strategy and tactics every game, but that does not make the game non-strategic.

Don't equate strategy with complexity or difficulty, because the standard for both rises as intelligence rises. The best strategies are usually neither complex nor difficult.

Using logic alone seems to be way too convenient to accurately describe what definition fits and what doesn't

Are you proposing another method?