Which aspect of Civ is more important?

[WillJ]

This topic has come up multiple times (most notably whenever the idea of wonder movies, or the High Council, or something else along those lines comes up). But never explicitly, nor has a thread ever been dedicated to it (to my knowledge); that is, until now.

When you're playing Civ, are you sort of lost in your own historical fantasy world, blissfully enjoying leading your own civilization, or are you more worried about the nitty-gritty strategic elements of it? Which of these areas should the Civ development team concentrate on? Should they improve the AI, or make diplomacy more interesting with realistic animations and a longer list of dialogue? Etc. etc. Obviously most of you will think, "A little of both," but which aspect is *more* important?

Think of it this way: should Civ be a game of chess or an interactive History Channel?

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

Nice idea. 2 points:A.make it multiple choices...I did one with single choice and the more I look at it (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=89430) the less I like it...
B.should it be here or in the main forum?

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

o.k I'm covered... I hadn't seen the poll, (only the thread) when posting the comments...sorry

 

[WillJ]

Nice idea. 2 points:A.make it multiple choices...I did one with single choice and the more I look at it (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=89430) the less I like it...
B.should it be here or in the main forum?

A. All the choices are mutually exclusive, so I don't see the point in making it multiple choice. (Plus, I can't edit it anyway.)

B. I put it in this forum because its purpose is to direct the people working on Civ4.

 

[Myzenium]

WillJ said:

A. All the choices are mutually exclusive, so I don't see the point in making it multiple choice. (Plus, I can't edit it anyway.)

B. I put it in this forum because its purpose is to direct the people working on Civ4.

I wholeheartedly agree, WillJ.

Sardar jr, why should the poll be multiple choice? WillJ is right; the options are mutually exclusive. I also think this is the perfect forum for this thread.

Discussing the importance of the historical fiction and strategy can help Firaxis prioritize, making a better game. Is the historical fiction more important? Does the strategy absolutely require the most attention of the developers? These are necessary questions that Firaxis needs to ask itself when making Civ4.

Personally, I think that both must be considered, with emphasis on the strategy. Civ4 wouldn't be a game about the growth of civilization if there was no historical element. However, the game wouldn't be much fun if the strategy would be unbalanced, favoring one playstyle over another.

 

[stormbind]

Remember Civilization for Windows (or Civ1)?

It is more of a race than a strategy game. You build cities, build armies, conquer neighbours... and it's relentless; just like a race on pedal bikes, you have to keep on pressing to win...

Although the rules are the same, Civ3 is much slower. There is more emphasis on reputation and the interface is now much more intuitive which makes it easier to play.

So it evolved from a race, to a race hindered by reputations. It is much friendlier now than it was before, in every respect.

I think Civ4 will continue that transition, maintaining the race as an underlying theme, but emphasising both reputation and cultural affinity between nation states.

So back to the poll, strategy is weak in Civilization. It's more of a pattern. You figure out the pattern, repeat and win; that's not strategy!! Chess demonstrates strategy more than Civ ever will.

Imagery is becoming more important. Imagery is influencing the race...

 

[Myzenium]

I remember Civ1, but I can't exactly follow your reasoning, being a fair chess player.

In a sense, chess is also a race. The first player to checkmate the enemy King wins. Even if the loser had almost done this, that doesn't matter. The first wins.

Patterns? Chess, at the higher tiers, is loaded with games resembling each other. Many of the great players have explained these winning patterns in the wealth of chess literature that exists today.

So if you say that chess is naturally the better strategic game, I would scratch my head and say, "Huh?" Civ is several times more complicated than chess, yet I enjoy both. They require different kinds of strategic thinking. Civ is at least as strategic as chess, if not more so.

 

[rcoutme]

Well, it looks like I voted the current majority opinion.

 

[Brutha2]

I think the most important part of civ is the empire building and ruling over it. It would be better with a greater varience of buildings and other options.