Score vs. Playability

[cube359]

I would be interested to know what people think about getting a high score as opposed to "playing the game" (before anyone asks I suppose I dont really know what I mean by "playing the game"!)

But I tend to play Civ2/TOT for the playability, the enjoyment of playing. Yes. I try to win, and get a good score, but defeating a powerful, well controlled enemy is much more fun than managing 100+ cities. Once I have *beaten* the computer opponents, I tend to put the domestic advisor in charge of things and let the game do it itself. Sometimes I get SOOooo bored at this stage that I end up leaving the game unfinished.

cube 359

 

[Håkan Eriksson]

I never play just to get a high score just for the fun.


Leaving the game unfinished?!?!?!?!? I cannot leave any game unfinished, is not that like surrendering?

------------------
Homo sum humani nil a me alienum puto
(I am man, nothing human is alien to me)

Ex Libris of Gustaf VI Adolf

 

[Kremlos]

The score part is kind of like the throne room to me. it's a neat 3 second diversion, but back to immersing myself in the fun and challenge of the game.....

 

[Leowind]

Once I left one city surrounded and built up my empire around it. Very boring. I maximize my score best I can, but launch SS soon as I can and get the game over, so I can get on to a new game

. (Not much into the bloodlust idea)

 

[Markstar]

Before I start a game I usually decide whether it's going to be a game just for fun or to get a high score.
A high score game for me is with huge land masses and big continents, so you can build as many cities as possible. That way, your science output and everything else (of course) is significantly higher than playing with small land masses. But that's way more fun, because then you can't just fight all your opponents right away and by the time you can fight your last opponent he usually is pretty good developed as well.