What's with strategy games?

[Spoonwood]

I've liked strategy computer games for quite a while. When I think about it, it seems a bit hard to understand the fascination for the single player games I play. I usually play against a computer which has such easily exploitable tactics it comes as ridiculous. In order to make the game interesting to play I usually either have certain self-imposed restrictions (like only building 5 or 1 city in civ III as opposed to some 10+ cities) or play on a difficulty level where the AI outproduces me by some ridiculous percentage number (such as Master of Orion and civ III) or has some extra units at the start also (civ III). As a rough analogy either I have to cut off one leg or give the computer an extra heart to run a somewhat interesting race against it, since the computer never runs in a straight line... really it runs in no line at all. Why in the world do I bother playing against such a computer when it simply plays as that unaware? Where lies the fascination with such games?

Please answer according to your own personal perspective... I wish to emphasize that no "right" or "wrong" answer here exists. A lie here might even reveal a perspective we've missed.

 

[timerover51]

I like to play strategy board games and miniature tactical games. However, finding the time, space, and opponents is difficult. I find playing on my laptop is a reasonable substitute. Not near as good as playing human opponents across a table, but something to keep my mind occupied. Does help in testing combat values without my unconsciously biasing them.

 

[darski]

This could be where I get it wrong but I don't think of CivIII as a strategy game. I see it as an empire building game. sort of like "The Sims" on steroids. And I don't give the AI any ground because they can beat me any time they want with one arm tied behind their backs.

Maybe a clearer definition of a strategy game would help. I consider Go, Stratego, Battleship etc to be strategy games because it is all about strategy. I find for Civ that you have more of a plan about what to do rather than a set strategy.

 

[Rodent]

Actually, I think of Civilization as a Combination of Military Strategem and Empire-building, The Latter being Predominant.

No Game of Civilization is the 'same' and there are Many Variants to play with. The AI will Remain Dumb, But it can give a good challenge to Human players (mostly) because of the 'extra heart' you mentioned.

The AI cannot be made smart (at least now) so to keep up it needs the support

 

[splunge the 2nd]

Chess is a classic strategy game and no one is giving the advanced chess playing AI's any "legs".

Be interesting in a few decades what PC gaming'll be like- will Civ 27 be simply prettier or will the AI's have personalities modelled on the historic figures?
In the meantime, I enjoy civ even with Ai idiocy.

 

[anaxagoras]

You can play purely to "beat the game", in which case you are right: the game is beatable, so why play? If that's your sole objective, then pretty soon the game and its stupid AI will "wear out" for you. You get to a "what's the point" moment, and need to move on to something else.

On the other hand, you can make decisions based on what would be "socially reasonable" in a game, rather than what's "best" for beating the game. For example, playing a religious civilization, you may elect to build temples, simply because that would be important to a religious people. Or perhaps you build a wonder because that's what the Egyptians really did. Sort of a role-play approach.

Another possibility is to play multi-player, so instead of beating the AI, you are going up against other people.

I certainly understand what you are saying, and it can happen playing any game eventually. Ultimately, what is really the point of beating someone else at chess? I find Civ engaging enough so that I haven't had my existential moment with it, yet. But I know those moments can certainly happen. Good luck dealing with yours.

 

[Spoonwood]

GOTM competitions also involve competing against other human players.

 

[ThinkTank]

For me the fascination with the civ series is about building something and watching it grow from something puny to something large and complicated. Probably Freud woulda brought that one home to where it belongs, and there is some sense in that: there's a fair amount of ego on these forums. Look at me lifting these 2000 pounds with 1 hand on my back!

In better news, to me the beauty of the game is that in the process of all this building of a civilization you get the impression the game (I mean a particular game) is in a sense real, as well as that it is really yours. The fact that it involves a lot of time only amplifies that feeling. It's about combining the complexity of the game with this feeling of personal achievement.

I often regret that a game is finished - it's like saying goodbye. I also remember the first few times I downloaded a save from someone else from this forum and opened it. I felt I was doing something indecent - entering into someone elses world, uninvited.

 

[darski]

For me the fascination with the civ series is about building something and watching it grow from something puny to something large and complicated. Probably Freud woulda brought that one home to where it belongs, and there is some sense in that: there's a fair amount of ego on these forums. Look at me lifting these 2000 pounds with 1 hand on my back!

In better news, to me the beauty of the game is that in the process of all this building of a civilization you get the impression the game (I mean a particular game) is in a sense real, as well as that it is really yours. The fact that it involves a lot of time only amplifies that feeling. It's about combining the complexity of the game with this feeling of personal achievement.

I often regret that a game is finished - it's like saying goodbye. I also remember the first few times I downloaded a save from someone else from this forum and opened it. I felt I was doing something indecent - entering into someone elses world, uninvited.

I get this same feeling. Even the part about someone else's save. Good points.

 

[TheOverseer714]

I would add that strategy games give their players a sense of empowerment and control. Their decisions decide the fate of units, cities, and empires. Contrast that with the real world, where we are lucky if we can control our own life, much less control of a nation. Our vote is only powerful when aggregated with millions of others to influence a nation's course. It is no coincidence that the games that people such as us on this forum play are often called "god games". I have the feeling that the long term players get a basic need fulfilled by playing, else this game would join the thousands of other electronic games that have been discarded. There is a reason we play this beyond fun, though fun is a factor. Challenge is part of the equation too, there is always a new challenge, a higher level, a new variant. But in the end, people do things because they get something out of them.