Play like a nation or play to win?

[warpstorm]

Which would you prefer, that the AI plays like a real nation or playing like an opponent who is trying to win the game? (Or something else?)

 

[North King]

Like a real nation. Playing to win a computer game is rather... Obsessive? I don't know quite the word, but devoting yourself to trying to win a game doesn't seem right to me.

 

[DiamanteLouco]

Preety much like civ3. I will start to play clean, like a nation and then will be owned, get mad, and start to play to win!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, I said 'Play as a Nation', but I wanted to add the following Caveats:

1) That you should still be able to win even if you 'play like a nation'.

2) That there should be sufficient 'in-game' benefits, for AI and human player alike, when they 'play like a nation'.

3) That neither 1 or 2 should prevent either the AI or the human player pursuing the 'empire-building' route, and backstabbing his friends and neighbours ruthlessly-as long as on the whole they 'play like a nation'.

That might sound contradictory, but I do believe its an achievable goal. In fact, based on everything which I am hearing, it sounds like they have either achieved the goal-or gotten very close to it!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Padma]

Like a nation.

I have never been completely comfortable with the idea of "winning" a civ game. If I have guided my nation successfully through the Ages (i.e., not been crushed by the AI), then I have *won*. Score is useful to compare my results with others, and with my other games, but even that is relatively meaningless.

 

[Louis XXIV]

In my opinion, there is a difference between playing like a player and playing to win. In some ways, playing against people feel more natural (like what might really happen) than playing against the AI. If they could play like a person, it would be really great. But the odds of it feeling like a person is my opponent isn't very likely, though.

 

[nicae]

i thought i would be minority, but my choice is the unanimous result up to now: like a nation!
heck, not even I play to win..!

i like to just play with the game as if it were some world, fiddling around with the game rules to act president.
for competition-play, i would recommend multiplayer and/or first person shooter games.

or even better: have an option to choose which AI style you want: player or nation.

 

[strhopper]

I have to say play like a nation...... When I first started playin civ I was a warmonger and after a while I became a nation builder only persue conqust for specific reasons not becuase I just wanted to fight a war

 

[TopDog]

Definitely like a nation. Whenever I play civ 3, I get bored after i've discovered all the techs and start again. It's much more fun building a nation, having a few wars and watching the AI destroy themselves

 

[vbraun]

I guess I play to win, because I have no clue what is like to actually grow a nation across the ages.

 

[Akka]

Immersion is much more interesting than a simple teenager-like "wanna win !".
I'm playing "Civilization", where I change the course of history and I build an empire which stand the test of time. I see the civilization growing, developping, evolving under my eyes.
It's not to have it ruined by some idiotic "player-like reasoning" from the AI which kills the immersion and remind me constantly that it's just a game.

 

[Gr3yL3gion]

I play to win, can't think much more reason to play than that.

 

[Dreadnought]

Like a nation. Its more fun.

 

[kryszcztov]

Civilization is light-years from simulating a real nation through the ages. For a start, no nation has gone through the entire History without being invaded at some point.

AFAIK Civilization is a game, and what I like in games is to aim at the goal and win. So I voted "like a player", all the more as I love multiplayer (the real feeling, where your opponents are at par with you).

I guess there would be a need for a totally different game if an alternate-history simulation was to exist.

 

[frekk]

How is it that there is any difference? The victory conditions are simply benchmarks set by the player to define national success. You don't even need to be the largest or most powerful nation to win necessarily (eg cultural victory, diplomatic victory, etc). One thing they might change is to allow multiple "winners", ie a diplomatic victor, a conquest victor, a cultural victor, and so on.

 

[strhopper]

How is it that there is any difference? The victory conditions are simply benchmarks set by the player to define national success. You don't even need to be the largest or most powerful nation to win necessarily (eg cultural victory, diplomatic victory, etc). One thing they might change is to allow multiple "winners", ie a diplomatic victor, a conquest victor, a cultural victor, and so on.

interestin

 

[Slax]

I want them to play to win, if playing like a nation means they have no ambition to greatness, but simply survival.

 

[strhopper]

Like a nation.

I have never been completely comfortable with the idea of "winning" a civ game. If I have guided my nation successfully through the Ages (i.e., not been crushed by the AI), then I have *won*. Score is useful to compare my results with others, and with my other games, but even that is relatively meaningless.

says it all

 

[kryszcztov]

Like a nation.

I have never been completely comfortable with the idea of "winning" a civ game. If I have guided my nation successfully through the Ages (i.e., not been crushed by the AI), then I have *won*. Score is useful to compare my results with others, and with my other games, but even that is relatively meaningless.

I really disagree. For a start, it's quite easy to guide your civ through all the ages. Apart from the Deity and Sid levels, just be nice with your neighbours, play just decently, and you'll win. Also you seem to forget that we can win a Civ game before the Modern era (fortunately, because in Civ3 that's the most boring part of the game ), hence my question : would you avoid winning before the Modern era because it wouldn't feel like winning as you value it ?

SimCity has no preset goal and so there is no need to optimize your skills to ensure victory. But Civ is a game that you can win, so that is what I'll aim at. If I played it like a nation, I'd be currently very frustrated because Civ is very far simulating a real nation, very far. That's also why I have never joined Demogames here : simulating a democracy for this type of game is shooting oneself in the foot (that can bring some challenge, mind you !).

 

[Akka]

I really disagree. For a start, it's quite easy to guide your civ through all the ages. Apart from the Deity and Sid levels, just be nice with your neighbours, play just decently, and you'll win. Also you seem to forget that we can win a Civ game before the Modern era (fortunately, because in Civ3 that's the most boring part of the game ), hence my question : would you avoid winning before the Modern era because it wouldn't feel like winning as you value it ?

Yes. Always. In every single game. In fact, I think it's been years since I didn't got to the "you won" message, as I desactivate practically all the victory condition, because they just look silly.
"winning" in Civ just feel awkard, out of place and "gamey". It's like playing a RPG (a real one) and only caring for the stats of the character, not the dialogue, the background or the scenario.

Civ is more than "I win", it's the whole "see the world develop through the age" feeling. Civ acting like players in a video game destroy this, and would make it a console-like teenage game.

SimCity has no preset goal and so there is no need to optimize your skills to ensure victory. But Civ is a game that you can win, so that is what I'll aim at. If I played it like a nation, I'd be currently very frustrated because Civ is very far simulating a real nation, very far. That's also why I have never joined Demogames here : simulating a democracy for this type of game is shooting oneself in the foot (that can bring some challenge, mind you !).

"winning" should only be seen as a "benchmark", the "your civ has attained grandeur in such a domain", not the essence of the game.