acluewithout
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 3,470
There was a thread recently about gameplay v immersion. Perfectly good thread, but I wasn’t a big fan of the terms ‘gameplay’ v ‘immersion’ or the idea that the two were somehow opposites.
There are of course different ways of playing a game like Civ. I’m going to suggest some new terms, and make a few observations. Feel free to use these terms if you like them, and equally feel free to ignore if you think these terms aren’t right.
Playing to win. This just means literally playing to achieve one of the existing victory types. Doesn’t matter how long it takes you - your goal is just to get to a victory screen. My guess is that this is what most new players, and maybe most players, aim for. I think a lot of us here find winning the game fairly easy even on higher difficulties, even if it takes some of us 300+ turns plus. So, around here, “playing to win” may not reflect much of a challenge.
Playing optimally. Related to playing to win. You aim to achieve a victory, but aim to do so as efficiently as possible - usually that means in the smallest number of turns possible. This is your fast science victory. This would include for example using chopping and overflow. But I think it could also include optimal play where you avoid some really big exploits.
Optimal play with rules. This is what I think a lot of people are actually doing. They aim to play efficiently as possible, but they set certain rules for themselves either explicitly or implicitly. They might have rules about how they play - no war, get a religion, no spamming campuses, use navy. Or they might set rules about what counts as victory - eg get 100 envoys. Sometimes these rules or goals might be implicit, eg someone that tries playing efficiently but always likes building Indistrial Zones.
Speed playing, exploring mechanics, mucking about. Playing nominally efficiently, but actually playing inefficiently at times either because they are playing very quickly or because they want to experiment with different mechanics or explore the map. Think of it as “doing what feels like fun” but still with an eye to some efficiency and or winning.
Roleplaying. I think this is what people mean by immersion, but I think Roleplaying is a more accurate term. Basically, it’s making a story out of what your doing and or making choices by reference to story based objectives. It’s the “let’s pretend” element. This would range from people that are full on building an empire to stand the test of time (trademark Sid Meier Enterpises Global Meganet), all the way to people that go “man, I always invade Australia because I can’t stand Curtin’s smug face” or build high pop cities because that feels more like an empire.
Some observations. First, I think a lot of these categories are not mutually exclusive. You can for example both roleplay and explore. Playing truly optimally might be the least compatible with the other play styles, but even then I think you can mix it with other styles to some extent. For example, you can play optimally, but still imagine in your head that you’re building an empire (if that works for you).
Second, my guess is the majority of people generally (not just on this forum) play a mix of “playing to win”, “speed play” etc., and a bit of “roleplaying”. My guess is that this might partly be driven by not knowing how best to play optimally - I doubt most people are aware of the various strategies, tactics and “tricks” on this forum, although I am just guessing.
Third, on this forum, I think most people find it very easy to win. As a result, they don’t want to just “play to win”. Hence, they usually both play to win and play with one or more of the above styles in mind.
Fourth, this is just my take. The last thing I’d want anyone to think is that I’m trying to impose anything on anyone.
There are of course different ways of playing a game like Civ. I’m going to suggest some new terms, and make a few observations. Feel free to use these terms if you like them, and equally feel free to ignore if you think these terms aren’t right.
Playing to win. This just means literally playing to achieve one of the existing victory types. Doesn’t matter how long it takes you - your goal is just to get to a victory screen. My guess is that this is what most new players, and maybe most players, aim for. I think a lot of us here find winning the game fairly easy even on higher difficulties, even if it takes some of us 300+ turns plus. So, around here, “playing to win” may not reflect much of a challenge.
Playing optimally. Related to playing to win. You aim to achieve a victory, but aim to do so as efficiently as possible - usually that means in the smallest number of turns possible. This is your fast science victory. This would include for example using chopping and overflow. But I think it could also include optimal play where you avoid some really big exploits.
Optimal play with rules. This is what I think a lot of people are actually doing. They aim to play efficiently as possible, but they set certain rules for themselves either explicitly or implicitly. They might have rules about how they play - no war, get a religion, no spamming campuses, use navy. Or they might set rules about what counts as victory - eg get 100 envoys. Sometimes these rules or goals might be implicit, eg someone that tries playing efficiently but always likes building Indistrial Zones.
Speed playing, exploring mechanics, mucking about. Playing nominally efficiently, but actually playing inefficiently at times either because they are playing very quickly or because they want to experiment with different mechanics or explore the map. Think of it as “doing what feels like fun” but still with an eye to some efficiency and or winning.
Roleplaying. I think this is what people mean by immersion, but I think Roleplaying is a more accurate term. Basically, it’s making a story out of what your doing and or making choices by reference to story based objectives. It’s the “let’s pretend” element. This would range from people that are full on building an empire to stand the test of time (trademark Sid Meier Enterpises Global Meganet), all the way to people that go “man, I always invade Australia because I can’t stand Curtin’s smug face” or build high pop cities because that feels more like an empire.
Some observations. First, I think a lot of these categories are not mutually exclusive. You can for example both roleplay and explore. Playing truly optimally might be the least compatible with the other play styles, but even then I think you can mix it with other styles to some extent. For example, you can play optimally, but still imagine in your head that you’re building an empire (if that works for you).
Second, my guess is the majority of people generally (not just on this forum) play a mix of “playing to win”, “speed play” etc., and a bit of “roleplaying”. My guess is that this might partly be driven by not knowing how best to play optimally - I doubt most people are aware of the various strategies, tactics and “tricks” on this forum, although I am just guessing.
Third, on this forum, I think most people find it very easy to win. As a result, they don’t want to just “play to win”. Hence, they usually both play to win and play with one or more of the above styles in mind.
Fourth, this is just my take. The last thing I’d want anyone to think is that I’m trying to impose anything on anyone.
. I think it could make a the lag of a Marathon speed science victory bearable. We shall see...
