What's your primary motivation when you play?

[SG-17]

i play to dominate, i usually play on archepalegos with 80% water because i like naval combat, but i usually defeat the civ that shares the island (usually celts) then i build up my culture, and army, then when i enter the modern times i build up a huge modern navy and send out waves of ships, leaving a path of distruction in my wake.

 

[jb1964]

I play to chill out and get lost in something.

Solo games are to incrementally challenge myself w/ all tribes/traights on different land masses. Always small maps, don't have time for anything else.

Multi and SGames are for getting to know some neat people and some that are just bug nuts!

But when I'm going for the win it's always domination or conquest.

 

[gmaharriet]

Multi and SGames are for getting to know some neat people and some that are just bug nuts!

Awww, jb, do we know any bug nuts??? Yeah, me too!!! I've made some great friends (you included) from games other than solo.

 

[Aabraxan]

I had to vote for World Domination. The question was what is my primary motivation, not my only motivation. If I could have voted for both World Domination and Succession Games, I would have. I'm having a great time in the SGs that I'm in. But I had to choose one and there are few things more satisfying than watching my armies march relentlessly across the landscape. I don't know how many times I've just sat back and watched the victory movie from MOOII, " . . . you have crushed all opposition; your armies are invincible . . . " I guess I play Civ 3 for the same reasons.

 

[iguana1]

I had to vote for World Domination. The question was what is my primary motivation, not my only motivation. If I could have voted for both World Domination and Succession Games, I would have. I'm having a great time in the SGs that I'm in. But I had to choose one and there are few things more satisfying than watching my armies march relentlessly across the landscape. I don't know how many times I've just sat back and watched the victory movie from MOOII, " . . . you have crushed all opposition; your armies are invincible . . . " I guess I play Civ 3 for the same reasons.

I worded it that way on purpose. I have different plans/goals/motivations at times when I play, such as using some variant/man made rule to see how things pan out or going all out war just because. However, usually I'm just about building my nation in amongst all the others. I rarely set out to destroy anyone/everyone for "no good reason". I like getting to modern times with a good reputation and go for the win via culture/UN/space race depending on the game. I always have a few wars along the way to stop a rampaging aggressor, to take back land that is "rightfully" mine (could have been conquered or just settled before I got there), to capture a needed resource (particularly if I can't trade for it) or any other number of "just causes". However, sometimes I'll pick a historically aggressive civ and play with world domination as my ultimate victory goal.

In the end, even if I play some variant, it really comes down to the "story". I will mentally name land regions (penisulas, continents, mountain ranges, etc) and great wars thru time. I always remember who proved themselves worthy as an ally/friend/partner and who was a ruthless, selfish, backstabbing, no good... err, you get the idea but each leader does get a clean slate in the next game.

 

[Aabraxan]

. . . . I rarely set out to destroy anyone/everyone for "no good reason". . . . .I always have a few wars along the way to stop a rampaging aggressor, to take back land that is "rightfully" mine . . . .

Without a doubt, there are plenty of good ways and good reasons to play this game, but I consider every tile on the map to be "rightfully mine." And there's never, ever a war "for no good reason." Claiming land and destroying competition are perfectly good reasons for war, aren't they?

 

[jayqubed]

just for fun. i rarely look at the victory status screen. i wait until the game ends one way or another. ive had games that lasted less than five turns, and many that have gone the distance only to lose them.

 

[iguana1]

Without a doubt, there are plenty of good ways and good reasons to play this game, but I consider every tile on the map to be "rightfully mine." And there's never, ever a war "for no good reason." Claiming land and destroying competition are perfectly good reasons for war, aren't they?

For some (many?) I'm sure this is true. For a few of my games, this also is true for me. Most of mine, however, I try to be a little less hostile. Rarely do I destroy more than one or 2 civs and usually only those if they really tick me off or if we are sharing a fairly small land mass or some other justifiable reason (other than that they exist! ). For me I find it a little refreshing that the vote hasn't gone almost all the way you voted. Reading threads/advice on here, it sometimes feels like that is the only way most of the people on here play. I was just wondering if that was true or if I just had a misconception.

 

[Aabraxan]

For some (many?) I'm sure this is true. For a few of my games, this also is true for me. Most of mine, however, I try to be a little less hostile. Rarely do I destroy more than one or 2 civs and usually only those if they really tick me off or if we are sharing a fairly small land mass or some other justifiable reason (other than that they exist! ). For me I find it a little refreshing that the vote hasn't gone almost all the way you voted. Reading threads/advice on here, it sometimes feels like that is the only way most of the people on here play. I was just wondering if that was true or if I just had a misconception.

Fair enough. I'd agree that reading the threads could certainly lead one to the conclusion that war is the only way to go. But it's also undeniable that there are some excellent players who go for the various other VCs. I'm sure that when I get more experience under my belt, I'll try out the the other victory conditions. For now, though, I'll remain content with mass exterminations.

And I have to add, I find it odd that there are exactly zero votes for SGs at this point. Those are a blast.