Ways of playing

... But in the end I think it has no point in trying to classify these in equal subgroups and say that these are really more ways to play the game than two main ways: Optimally and non optimally. The difference between these two forms are just too defining and anything else should be subgrouped under these two main headings

The point of my OP is that it's problematic to split all play styles into two groups. First, play styles blur together - playing optimally but with constrained rules doesn't neatly fit into optimal or non optimal play. Second, you can play more than one play style at the same time.eg you can both play optimally and role play.
 
Even since Civ1, only the map will make me decide where to go. As I play on Deity/Immortal I don't want to decide what I want to do before I know the layout of the starting area.

I can start a game with some intentions of going for domination, but then you get a couple of lovely neighbours that can be your allies in the future, so I leave them be. On the other hand you can get the opposite, and your peaceful science victory is blown to pieces at turn 10. This is why I love CIV, it's situational.

Then, I play to win, but I'm not over-reaching to get a 150 turn science victory, I am happy if I just achieve it.

So in all, every game is a new stage for me, and I decide around turn 20-50 where I want to go. Depending on what civ I chose, this can make it hard sometimes, but equally fun. :)
 
The write up in the opening post is very complete. It may be a little bit too complete and complex. I‘d put it simpler on a continuum between Empire Builder versus Board Game Player. So everything that follows are about archetypes with lots of leeway and mixtures inbetween.

I prefer Empire Builder as a term to Roleplaying, since in civ you don‘t control an individual like in other RPGs, but the usual goal here is to build a bustling empire. Kinda like other economic builder games such as Settler, Anno, even SimCity. Whether that has a tilt towards conquering like a Mongol, missionarizing like a Spanish or building Wonders like an Egyptian is just varieties of the same aspect.

On a board game though, time is limited, victories are clear and the question is way more who is better at the game strategically. This playstyle fits way more into Multiplayer, but you can do it in single player as well. Just up the difficulty to Deity and see whether you can catch up to the boni the AI have been given. But once you have, the game gets tedious again. At least to me.

Civ needs to decide for its next itineration which way it wants to go as you can’t really have both (easily). My assumption is that most casual players, probably the big majority of the buyers, are Empire Builders whereas „Play-to-winners“ are more loud on reddit, this forum and the internet. I personally hope for a pivot to Empire Building that would mean to continue their focus on the Visuals, but also find a way to keep the number of decision roughly equal through the ages by reducing micromanagement (capped armies instead of 1upt would be one possibility).

But I do find it important to bring this topic up again, so thank you for that thread :D
 
It may be a little bit too complete and complex.
That is also what I think. A complete ordering of all possible ways people may play loses the simplicity of the two category model and then makes it really hard to discuss what the styles of players are. We are left with what sometime is referred to as "a shopping list" where every item is of equal value and we have no better understanding as a result.
Certainly if that simpler model did not make sense it would be beneficial to move beyond it. But nothing anybody has said so far is convincing enough to say that the model of two styles should be abandoned.
 
The write up in the opening post is very complete. It may be a little bit too complete and complex. I‘d put it simpler on a continuum between Empire Builder versus Board Game Player. So everything that follows are about archetypes with lots of leeway and mixtures inbetween.
I would say that's pretty much the overall picture that you end up with, while the OP focuses more on the "motivations" that get people to where they end up in that picture.
 
Top Bottom