Number Crunchers vs. Role Players

[Talcove]

The Civilization series has been around since 1991, starting with the original Civilization, and most recently ending with the expansion pack, Civilization 5: Brave New World. In this time it has grown from a relatively simple game, to one with a myriad of systems, mechanics, and featured under it's belt. It has grown from having a small cult following, to being one of the most played games on Steam. But in all of this time, one thing has stayed the same, the core concept of the game.

Since the beginning of the series, the Civilization games have put you in control of a particular civilization, in the shoes of one of it's most iconic leaders (And Ghandi), and tasked you with leading your civilization through the ages, to stand the test of time. To do this one would have to research various technologies, expand their cultural influence over the world, defend their borders, and expand their empire. One of the best parts of Civilization was that it could bring in more than one audience; it would bring in those who wanted a challenging experience to analyze and overcome, as well as those who wanted immerse themselves in the world and the scenarios.

In the earlier days this wasn't as much of a problem as there were relatively few things that could be added, due to technical limitations. However, as computers evolved, the game evolved with them, and more and more things became possible in Civilization. No longer was the limitation the technology not being able to portray your ideas, but rather than all your ideas couldn't be implemented in a timely, or cost-efficient manner. The question then becomes what to, and not to, add, and why.

I feel that this has shined a light on a schism in the Civilization community, between the strategists and the immersionists - the players who play for the number crunching strategy, and those who play for the immersive role playing.

When faced with certain suggestions, such as globe view or more detailed leaderscreens, the strategists would say that such features would have little to no strategic value, and wouldn't make the game better. Yet if the game added nothing but the features that had strategic value, there wouldn't be any leaderscreens at all, or even unit animations - what strategic value do they have? For the immersionists, however, these features mean the world.

And of course there are the features that the immersionists rally against, such as archers and longbowmen being able to shoot arrows (And kill enemies) across the English channel, or irregularities in the Tech Tree (Internet before Computers, anybody?). Yet if the game never added anything that contradicted immersion then we wouldn't have the brilliant 1UPT system, or futuristic combat units.

The best type of content it the kind which appeals to both sides, without compromising it's integrity. Trade Routes in Civ 5: BNW, I find, fill this position perfectly. The game requires you to construct the actual trade units (Build the transports, train the crew), pick a destination, and grants various rewards from them. Not only does it allow immersionists to take playing with the economy and diplomacy to a whole new level, but it also opens up an array of new options and play-styles for strategic players to utilize.

With that in mind, I post three questions:
1) Witch which camp do you most identify? (Poll)
2) Which other features do you think, or potential features would, appeal to both camps?
3) Should Firaxis add features that only appeal to one camp/don't appeal to one camp?

 

[nemesis464]

I voted for Role player/Immersionist.

Although I do reckon that CIV already has the best of both worlds for both types of players. Single player becomes very tedious very quickly when you just play the optimal game every time, so lends itself well to unusual strategies, thematic choices etc.

Multiplayer is quite a different beast imo. That's perfect for optimal plays and number crunching.

Whilst I play a bit of both, I prefer the role-playing SP side (or even very casual MP with friends), rather than the no-holes barred multiplayer games. I just don't think CIV lends itself to being a competitive game very well.

That being said though, I think there is a hefty overlap between your two groups. Sometimes I'll play in a set civ-themed way, but calculate construction times etc within this.

 

[Scarpa]

Voted Roleplay but really you should put up more of a scale. I do strategize and read strategy guides to at least be competent while playing out a mental scenario.

 

[Mr. Grieves]

I'll often do things inefficiently, if I find it more amusing in that particular circumstance. But I do micromanage my tiles for most of the game, for instance. They're not mutually exclusive, but I'm probably relatively immersionist.

 

[Ronza149]

My major is math. finance so,you know.

 

[Teproc]

Categorizing people is generally dangerous.

I didn't vote, because I consider myself to be both ! I've played all Civ games, mostly for the immersion aspect (I was playing on low difficulty levels and didn't want to sink too much time in the game), but with Civ V I've gone the "analytic" route, looking to beat Deity and try to master the game in a way.

I think gameplay generally trumps realism as far as Civ goes, but that doesn't prevent me from enjoying a game on the Giant Earth map from YnAEMP or from reading the stories people write in the Stories & Let's Play forum.

So basically I reject your dichotomy. What makes Civ great is precisely the marriage of both aspects. If Civ strived for realism above all, it simply wouldn't work as a game, and if it didn't do stuff like the 3D leaderscreens, it wouldn't be an awesome experience.

It's funny because I feel like EU (which i've never played, so I might be totally off here) is the worst of both worlds here : huge attention to realism in world history (which is very cool), which leads to a very complicated gameplay that I don't want to sink my teeth into. If some of you are boardgamers, I feel like Civ is the eurogame to EU's ameritrash (note : this is not a bad thing, just a style of boardgames), and I much prefer eurogames

 

[budweiser]

The thing is, you still have to use strategy in a role play game.

To me, the other side is just a number crunching game design exploit where you end up finishing in 200 turns with a tiny empire that never did anything on the world stage but quake inside its borders.

That's not what these great empires did in real history and it leaves a lot out of the game experience.

 

[Ieldra]

I think that almost nobody is exclusively in one camp, but I think I'm more in the immersionist camp. For me it feels painful to see a Great Scientist named Albert Einstein appear in China in the 1500s and suchlike. *shudder*. Also, while I do enjoy a challenge now and then, mostly I play to build my civilizations as I want them. I do want to fight more, but the always-the-same need to catch up to cheating AIs in pretty much everything that's prevalent in the higher difficulties prevents me from playing at higher difficulties.

 

[paralistalon]

I started as more of a role player. As I progressed through the difficulties to immortal and dabbling in deity, I had to shift to more of a strategist in order to still win. I'm not exclusively a number cruncher or else I would just go science SIM city every game, so I do like to strike a balance between a fun strategic goal and challenge that has a rewarding payoff but is still plausible. I have a hard time turning the difficulty down now because I don't want a total cakewalk that involves going through the motions!

 

[otaman1]

I'm pretty much both.

 

[rkade8583]

I'm also both but I need StratView on at all times due to my craptacular eyes. That mode is a godsend.

 

[shaglio]

I don’t know if I fully fit into either category. I’m not much of a number cruncher since I don’t manually assign my citizens to work tiles, and I try to assign my workers for as long as possible but I eventually hit the automate button. I find paying too much attention to all that minutia to be overwhelmingly monotonous.

However, I also don’t do much Role Playing either. Sometimes I even forget which civ I am after playing for a while. I’ve even forgotten to utilize my Uniques on several occasions. It doesn’t bother me in the slightest if “Albert Einstein appears in China in the 1500s” as one poster said.

I think I fit into a 3rd category: the Explorer’s Club. I always got a thrill (from Civ 1 to present) in exploring the map and discovering what the lay of the lay is and who else is around me. Uncovering all that blackness (now cloudiness) was what got me hooked on the first Civilization back in my summer between High School and College in 1992. It’s what pushed me to get my own computer after playing all night while sleeping over my cousin’s house.

 

[gps]

Immersionist any day. Great Sid in the early nineties created games about putting people into interesting positions: jet fighter or helicopter pilot, pirate captain, submarine captain or railroad tycoon. Anyone who has seen MicroProse game manuals from that time should know (and if you don't know I tell you now ) they were full and flowing over with real world information about the game topic: real world militaric equipment information and stats, real world battle strategies, historic background, whatever imaginable to make the game topic more vivid for the player.
With that in mind for me there is no doubt in Civ Sid tried to put players into the position of a real world ruler of a nation through history. He did not want to create a deluxe chess computer, he wanted to make players experience the same situations and make the same decisions a real world ruler has to deal with, even though Civ I was very barebones (most of the games were in the early nineties) and some of the mechanics were not 100% perfect simulations of real world, and some gamey elemnts were added to make it a better game. But if you see or read any interview from Sid what Civ is about, it should be pretty clear, this was the intention. And although things got a bit more complex and technically sophisticated the sequels haven't changed that much and that intention is still pretty clear.
And I play Civ games because I am interested in history and it's a game about history - not because it's a strategy game. I don't care about strategy games at all except when I am interested in the game topic.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

I don't see it as a good historical role playing game. The fact is, even if you want to follow the path of your leader, there is no guarantee the AI will, nor will the world be the same (America and England spawn at the same time, leaders not following the script, China not being isolationist, etc.).

I forge my own "history".

 

[redwings1340]

I go back and forth, depending on the game. I never roleplay to the extent where I make a ton of mistakes intentionally, but I change my strategy depending on what I think might be able to work, as opposed to taking what I think is optimal every time. I'm going to also try to make the best use of the unique aspects of each civ, regardless of whether I think it's necessarily optimal to do so.

So... I suppose I try to optimize what the strategy I think will be most fun. I voted roleplayer, but I definitely do try to optimize my roleplaying to try to succeed at it.

 

[Teproc]

Yeah I don't get the comment about Einstein in China in the 1500s. Civ is about uchronia/alternative history more than anything else, which is pretty obvious from the fact that civs like America and Germany spawn at 4000BC, that kind of stuff.

Apparently the promtional material calls it a simulation game, but that's really not what it is to me. I agree with whoever talked about exploration : it has always been the most exciting part of the game for me as well. There's a reason the early game is more interesting than the middle to late game : a lot of that is exploration.

 

[gps]

Yeah I don't get the comment about Einstein in China in the 1500s. Civ is about uchronia/alternative history more than anything else, which is pretty obvious from the fact that civs like America and Germany spawn at 4000BC, that kind of stuff.

This exactly. It's kind of stunning to see how many people have difficulties differentiating between historically plausible game mechanics and historically correct events. Naturally this game is NOT about recreating world history as is - I mean how boring would THAT be - but about recreating history as it could have been. That's what Total War does, that what Paradox games dow - so why should Civ be an ifferent?

 

[Bulldog Bats]

Not that I have any difficulty, but IMO some people get carried away with the simulation aspect. The leaders are just numbers, with tendencies based on a few factors - certainly not enough to be realistic. For example, Washington is one of the biggest back-stabbers, when the US has probably bailed out more countries in the last two centuries than anyone else. The fact that the game has put a face and name on the numbers doesn't make it any more realistic.

 

[Tabarnak]

I like to read about numbers to let me better. I don't have tools or sheets or anything...just my brain. I will use the best strategies around, but in a whole. I do immerse more than just calculating everything. I'm a relatively fast player(you don't have choice in mp) and i like the diplomacy environment against AIs and Humans.

Of course, more you play games more you tend to be better. I have a pretty large number of hours played since 1996

 

[UWHabs]

Definitely more in the number cruncher side. Not quite to the level of micromanaging everything, or ensuring everything is optimal, but I play it as a game, not as a historical simulation. If it means having my tanks walk through fields in the 1400s, or my archers shooting across the English Channel, so be it. I don't try to think of the World as the Earth, but more like a mini-map. If you think of it as a globe, the scale just doesn't make any sense.