Discussion in 'CivWorld - General Discussions' started by GlobularFoody, Jul 24, 2011.
Is it true that only one player can win a game, not the winning civ?
All the game does is gives you an end screen. You interpret the end of the game however you want. Some may say the person with the highest fame is the winner, but I just see it as the Civ with the person that has the highest is the winner, not the individual.
From Civ World Wiki:
Its not like the player that finishes first gets any special message, achievement or anything like that. Nothing. Nada.
It doesn't even matter, since there is no Hall of Fame. Everyone wins! Here's your "participant" ribbon.
Yeah, winning is pretty meaningless.
There's not even a participant ribbon, just a "the game ended", which is really odd. Nothing tells you you won except the wiki.
Wow suddenly out of nowhere they updated it, with the possibility of quitting your world.
Out of habbit I clicked Quit, as it is on the position where CONTINUE was.
Byebye both my worlds where I was rank 2 in total Fame, because I accidently just quit them both.
You didn't actually need to click quit for your first game. There is a button with an orange arrow at the top of the screen that says Go Back To Your City when you hover over it, click that.
the game is ridiculously anti-climatic in its ending. you basically get the end state of the game when it ends. No summary, no history of the game, no congrats on the win, nothing.
The game is quickly making me lose interest.
I popped 5 era wins (the last ones) within 10 mins or so. I had the luck of running it, but I imagine it sucks for other players to just go "what just happened"?
I think being on the winning civ is most important, and then being highest scoring on that civ, 2nd most important. But I'm more of a team player...
At this stage, I think you can get out of it whatever you want, since there really is no reward for winning. Just go for whatever makes you feel most satisfied.
Separate names with a comma.