Playing to have fun vs. playing to win

[Karmah]

Civ is not a multi-player game (in my usage ,not in general) and I used it mainly as a chill and think game (by opposition a team competition adrenaline based game closer to a sport) , so I tend to pay attention to mecanics of the game to build my game around a few of them. I'll never play to win 'the faster as possible'. I like to build a couple of wonder 'because I can and it feels cool'. I don't have much of a pressure to optimize something to compare to others (which would be number of turns I guess)

 

[Lily_Lancer]

I vote for Leaning towards performer since I find myself care more about yields and stats of the empire at a certain number of turns instead of winning as quickly as possible.

 

[Forster]

I vote for Leaning towards performer since I find myself care more about yields and stats of the empire at a certain number of turns instead of winning as quickly as possible.

You surprised me. From reading many of your posts I would have put you as playing to win.

 

[Browd]

I would reconcile that by distinguishing between a performance-oriented player (take any civ and any map (standard conditions, random opponents, etc.) and play as well, as crisply and efficiently, as possible, without sentiment or distraction) vs. pure speed-run players, who (if CFC's HOF play is any indicator) may select opponents and map conditions, and re-roll maps for optimum starts (all within HOF rules), and then aim to beat their best time (or the best posted finish time) for a given victory condition. Nothing wrong with either aim, but they are different aims.

 

[MAHRana]

What id like to see is a broader range of victories, perhaps civ specific. EU4 comes close but misses actual the actual victories, while Civ makes victories too generic and restrictive. I would love to play a game as Japan in which victory entails me to play isolationalist, or play as Macedon in which victory would mean razing x number of cities for example. Allows a more unique feel, since each civ would have its own specific approach and individual playstyle. atm it feels far too generic.

 

[God of Kings]

What id like to see is a broader range of victories, perhaps civ specific. EU4 comes close but misses actual the actual victories, while Civ makes victories too generic and restrictive. I would love to play a game as Japan in which victory entails me to play isolationalist, or play as Macedon in which victory would mean razing x number of cities for example. Allows a more unique feel, since each civ would have its own specific approach and individual playstyle. atm it feels far too generic.

Something like Rhye's and Fall from Civ IV?

That would be excellent.

 

[gozpel]

It is a simple question, so I go middle as I do in all games. No hardcore.

 

[Nimbit]

Equal. I rather just be left alone on an island to build my cities but I also would like to win while doing it.

 

[Morino1914]

Leaning towards technician, because I usually aim for fast and efficient games because the late game is quite boring and takes too long Within preset restraints as no-warring, fewer cities, don’t capture enemy cities. My latest game I’ve decided to be peaceful with 5 cities (because of surroundings and resources) and going for fastest possible culture win. And I will use autosaves when I forget details like wall-chopping, moving governor in time, loose a unit to barbs and similar things.

 

[sixty4half]

I go through an evolution of this every version of Civ. At first, I play to have fun. I'll try a dozen or so civs that are presonal favorites or look like fun to play. Then once I've got the hang of the game I play to win. this is when I move into Immortal and even Diety. I'll play like that for a dozen or so games. Then I start to "play for fun" again but this time at immortal or emporer. By the time I'm bored with the game a new generation of civ comes out.

 

[Karpius]

The most ironic thing to me is that it bothers people who "roleplay" when their opponents don't and they lose. When that complaint starts showing up, it's time for a little self-reflection, because that's not coherent.

Despite my own self-proclaimed "creative" style of play, I would have to agree with this.

When one enters into a competition to "win", one should expect their opponent to use every means in the rule set to win. Never expect the opponent to play a "kinder and gentler" game just because one wishes them to. Its kinda silly.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Betty is best girl.

 

[kaspergm]

I think Civ VI is forgiving enough (and the AI inept enough perhaps) that you can do this and still be in a reasonable position to win the game. Likewise you’re probably not going to be able to be a builder or role-play much if you get off to a really bad start or are being pummelled by the competition.

The contrast to me would seem instead to be between speed-players and role-players. You don’t have to be set on winning in under 200 turns to still be focussed eventually on winning.

Yes I agree, the wording of the categories is wrong, but there are definitely distinctly different players in Civ community. There are some players who play to maximize anything and challenge themselves to win as fast as possible on as high difficulty as possible (although I guess a lot of those players lost interest with the game after Civ4). And on the other hand, there are players who play in a more roleplay sort of way. I'm definitely in that category. By roleplaying, I mean not always taking the fastest path to victory, even if I'm aware of what it is (and even though I still want to win). It may be making a friendly relationship to your neighbor, even if you know you would win faster by eliminating him. It may be not harvesting every forest on the planet, even if you know it would cut your production time. Or it may be not planting unfinished neighborhoods over all your farms to harvest gold, even though I know I could.

 

[NukeAJS]

I mostly play to have fun. For example, there are plenty of times (IE - most of the time) when I could declare war and I'd be better off for it but I don't because I'm in the mood to expand peacefully or form alliances instead.

 

[Sylfea]

Tricksy question. I'm completionist enough to want a religion and at least some wonders in all my games, so I find if I go beyond emperor difficulty I have less fun because I have to fo focus too much on winning... but I don't lik losing either. Hmmm...

 

[King Rad]

I put 'leans toward performer" and probably could have put 'performer.' I play for fun, but as several stated, playing to win doesn't mean you're not playing for fun. Regardless of civ, I usually end up with a 'role' that I play - maybe an "idealized" USA, where I try to play as the world's policeman - trying to look out for smaller civs and CS's [last game I parked troops all around Jerusalem so that Teddy, who doesn't like civs that attach city states, (and who was my ally) couldn't conquer my buddy]. I like to win. [I'm actually a very competitive person, and in my real life, I often 'enjoy' combative/competitive situations, such as my conference last week with the IRS appeals office where I'm trying to win a victory for my client to overturn $2,000,000 in penalties (erroneously) assessed by the IRS against them.] I play peacefully, and even in my current game, when I experienced the new, more aggressive game play by the AI (early surprise attack by Rome, which I barely brought in my archers, etc. in time to defend my capital) and vowed to wipe them out, I ended up making peace, later becoming friends and eventually allying with them [cultural alliance so they wouldn't negatively affect the 'free' city I took after it revolted from Egypt, our other neighbor]. One game, I lost by one turn when a civ won a cultural victory the turn before I launched for Mars. I don't attack other civs to keep them from winning or to take wonders, etc., but I usually win. It's just that I don't do so with a fastest time, etc. strategy and often try to at least somewhat enjoy the specific abilities of the civ I'm playing [I'm currently playing through each one and still have about 4 or 5 to go from the R&F expansion before I finish the list].

 

[God of Kings]

Let me reword what I have written in the OP as the title is written rather poorly:

The performer type is more interested in the characters and plot of a game.

The technician type is more interested in gameplay mechanics and beating challenges.

Civ is a game that suits both very well.

I see that a good number of Civ fans are more interested in the background information about a particular civ and leader as compared with the mechanics of how the civ and leader play.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Pure performer, to the point where I don't even bother to play my games through to their conclusion. They stop being fun by the modern era for me, regardless of whether I'm winning or not.

 

[Futumch]

I play to enjoy myself. I figure that having completed a few games at Deity level, I can now kick back and muck around at the easier difficulties.
I was never really convinced about the way the more difficult settings work either. It's not a case of having more agressive or better performing AI, it is more a case of gimping the player by imposing scaling AI bonuses. It's hard to explain. The AI is basically not playing any better, it's just getting extra stuff out of nowhere.
Anyway, I play at Prince level pretty much all the time now, as it's a level playing field.

 

[Zaarin]

Definitely more of a performer myself. I enjoy the emergent stories that come out of the game.

Losing, or especially being stuck in a frustrated position where you can't expand as much as you want in Civ isn't very enjoyable.

Perhaps, but I'd argue that a hallmark of a good game design is that failstates are interesting. A story with only rising action isn't very interesting. To take an example from an RPG I'm currently running, my players tracked down a group of thieves who stole from their home villages. One character tried reasoning with the thieves, rolled poorly, and ended up insulting them. Combat followed, the other character lost his right arm--NB this is the first encounter of the game. Both of them are now prisoners of the thieves (and we ended on that cliffhanger). The failstate created an interesting story.

IMO that's a big problem with many 4X games in general: failstates are frustrating rather than interesting.