Why are some gamers crazy about Civ?
- Thread starter shinoui
- Start date
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
I have Lords of the Realm 2. It was and still really is a great game. I never played the first one.
I like civ, because it let's me control armies and particpate in alliances, not to mention the ablility to build a great civilization. I generally like history, politics, theology, and geography. That adds to it. I also like games that allow you to control militaries or be a part of a militaric group. I don't know why war and conflict is so appealing.
shinoui
Chieftain
Hi, this begins to be interesting many posts explain the way which leads to Civ (1,2 or3...)but until now except Padma and Ision no one tries to dig the question "why". That means that we understand the paths which drive us to Civ but few of us have tried to understand "why" they sood for such a time on that new discovered track. I believe we must try harder as this could be a great help to our friends designers at Firaxis when they will think to be mature for Civ 4 but a great help as well for us crazy gamers just to understand the secrets of our addiction.
Keep on digging
"Life is a hole you must dig until it is hollow enough for the final fall . Being smart doing it could be the watermark of Civilization."
in "Remenber it" by J. F. Alzheimer . "Forget it" Press publisher
Keep on digging
"Life is a hole you must dig until it is hollow enough for the final fall . Being smart doing it could be the watermark of Civilization."
in "Remenber it" by J. F. Alzheimer . "Forget it" Press publisher
troytheface
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,262
intellectual reasons are probably are not accurate. People are probably mesmerized by the visuals and ability to control.
Since we are bound by sight more so than the other senses , a screen two feet away from ur face in bright colors, coupled with the ability to manipulate small figures probably appeals to our instinct to observe and control.
Since we are bound by sight more so than the other senses , a screen two feet away from ur face in bright colors, coupled with the ability to manipulate small figures probably appeals to our instinct to observe and control.
Mark Young
Formerly Sir Eric
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2003
- Messages
- 1,799
While the visuals are nice to look at they are hardly the most cutting edge nor would I say that they are mesmerizing.
The ability to control is probably is a definite hook for me or to be more accurate the ability to gain control of something that I cant control is the appeal.
In gameplay this equates to me being able to control my game effectively from regent down, monarch after a certain point as well but I dont control ( or is the word dominate more apt?) the game in the higher levels ( Emporer and Diety) that I am only now just learning how to play on them. I have just recently started to play those levels and I have lots to learn but if I could control them easily then they wouldn't be as appealing, therefore the challenge of controlling what you cant control is very appealing.
Also playing with other people is different again, so trying to control a game against another person is even more challenging.
That being the case I think that the appeal isn't the fact that we can control what we do, because you can do that in any game from Tetris to UT2003, but that you have to try and control/dominate something that you cant control.
The ability to control is probably is a definite hook for me or to be more accurate the ability to gain control of something that I cant control is the appeal.
In gameplay this equates to me being able to control my game effectively from regent down, monarch after a certain point as well but I dont control ( or is the word dominate more apt?) the game in the higher levels ( Emporer and Diety) that I am only now just learning how to play on them. I have just recently started to play those levels and I have lots to learn but if I could control them easily then they wouldn't be as appealing, therefore the challenge of controlling what you cant control is very appealing.
Also playing with other people is different again, so trying to control a game against another person is even more challenging.
That being the case I think that the appeal isn't the fact that we can control what we do, because you can do that in any game from Tetris to UT2003, but that you have to try and control/dominate something that you cant control.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
I don't think it has anything to do with the graphics. Most of my game takes place 'inside'. I think it appeals to the megalomaniac deep in all of us.
TopGun
258 kills
Yeah, Warp... where else do we have the opportunity to lead an empire to grandeur (or utter destruction)?
troytheface
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,262
an interaction (not fusion) between the visual and control is what i meant. Watch someone that is watching tv. They almost go blank. It is not so much the graphics of the game per se, but the
actual photon bombardment coupled with the "inner" warp mentioned. What is unique with Civ unlike other games is the
movement of the user-as a distraction- is not as profound-a distraction from the two aforementioned elements- as in shoot'em up or excusely war games..Sims Civ...similiar in this..and top of the market.
actual photon bombardment coupled with the "inner" warp mentioned. What is unique with Civ unlike other games is the
movement of the user-as a distraction- is not as profound-a distraction from the two aforementioned elements- as in shoot'em up or excusely war games..Sims Civ...similiar in this..and top of the market.
Mark Young
Formerly Sir Eric
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2003
- Messages
- 1,799
When I'm watching the telly and I go into a sort of glased over look, it is generally cause I am watching it for the sake of watching it and not cause there is a really cool program on like enterprise or Alias or a good interesting documentary.
The same happens with civ when I get to a point where I dont need to pay my fullest attention.
But if it grabs my attention then my appearance will change as well.
I'm not so sure that I understand your last statement, could you rephrase it?
The same happens with civ when I get to a point where I dont need to pay my fullest attention.
But if it grabs my attention then my appearance will change as well.
I'm not so sure that I understand your last statement, could you rephrase it?
troytheface
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,262
Out of curiosity..how do you know your appearence changes?
I mean, do you watch yourself in a mirror watching T.V?
But to answer your question about the last statement...
Sim City and Civ are interactive games, but rapid movement is not required. Rapid movement would require different concentration
(different muscles if nothing else) which would act as a counter to the "view and think" aspect.
I mean, do you watch yourself in a mirror watching T.V?
But to answer your question about the last statement...
Sim City and Civ are interactive games, but rapid movement is not required. Rapid movement would require different concentration
(different muscles if nothing else) which would act as a counter to the "view and think" aspect.
troytheface
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,262
and too- even tho a show has good "content" a documentary ect. it dsoes not change the fact that one is in front of a box, looking at a glass screen with light coming from it. Content is not
important in so far as physics and physiology - only in convincing ourselves of something...(is my theory)
important in so far as physics and physiology - only in convincing ourselves of something...(is my theory)
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
I find Ision's post highly interesting, but my personal experience suggests that civvers may indeed be on average brighter than FPS-players. I know really good FPS players who are scarily intelligent, and equally good ones who I otherwise regard as, well, on the left slope of the Bell curve. But I would think that all civvers and other TBS-players I know belong on the right slope. Perhaps the level of intelligence, or at least of intellectual curiosity (which tends to correlate strongly with intelligence in my experience), required to enjoy Civ is higher than that for FPS.
What do I personally see in Civ? The combination of long-term Grand Strategy with battlefield "tactics" - I really enjoy outmanoeuvring enemy units in the field, and "scientifically" reducing fortified positions. This along with the assurance I will never ever lose because my sub-average reaction times lefts me down. That I'm interested in history does of course not make Civ less attractive.
That said, while TBS games, primarily Civ, takes up most of my computer game time, I've played alot of RTS over the years - especially the War-/Starcraft series - and occasionally also play FPS (exlusively multiplayer).
Something I'd like to see would be a turn-based purely tactical game - like the tactical part of X-COM: UFO Defense/UFO: Enemy Unknown, if anyone remembers that - with modern graphics and AI capabilities.
What do I personally see in Civ? The combination of long-term Grand Strategy with battlefield "tactics" - I really enjoy outmanoeuvring enemy units in the field, and "scientifically" reducing fortified positions. This along with the assurance I will never ever lose because my sub-average reaction times lefts me down. That I'm interested in history does of course not make Civ less attractive.
That said, while TBS games, primarily Civ, takes up most of my computer game time, I've played alot of RTS over the years - especially the War-/Starcraft series - and occasionally also play FPS (exlusively multiplayer).
Something I'd like to see would be a turn-based purely tactical game - like the tactical part of X-COM: UFO Defense/UFO: Enemy Unknown, if anyone remembers that - with modern graphics and AI capabilities.
Civ 3 is a primitive step toward ultimate total reality simulation. It is so exciting to be here in ancient times.
Most games you play because of the excitement of learning the new rules, the new path to victory. Civ 3 has become a familiar skill. I find it a very soothing world to visit when I am stressed out, and it is distracting because the specific game is still new enough to be distracting.
Also, games are artforms. Civ3 is the most user modifiable computer game, allowing artistic expression. And is itself an artistic statement, a slanted world view. One very positive about the pageant of human progress, which I consider the purpose of existence.
Most games you play because of the excitement of learning the new rules, the new path to victory. Civ 3 has become a familiar skill. I find it a very soothing world to visit when I am stressed out, and it is distracting because the specific game is still new enough to be distracting.
Also, games are artforms. Civ3 is the most user modifiable computer game, allowing artistic expression. And is itself an artistic statement, a slanted world view. One very positive about the pageant of human progress, which I consider the purpose of existence.
Mark Young
Formerly Sir Eric
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2003
- Messages
- 1,799
I've been told by people that when I zone out, I REALLY zone out.
So are you saying that civ produces a trance like state because of the lack of quick movement? Or am I as thick as a brick?
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
It has ultimate replay value - you could make millions of maps, all of them would be different. Sure, I get bored of Civ and play other games for a while, but I always come back, because its always fresh and new.
It has the perfect balance of strategy. Its not TOO in-depth, where the learning curve is insane and you have to check the manual every few seconds to see what this does. Once you pick up on it, you don't forget.
It lasts a very long time. Games will last a week, two weeks. Some hate this, but I love it - it keeps my dedicated. It makes me try harder to keep my empire afloat, because I've just put 30 hours into its creation.
It has good difficulty levels. I am playing on Monarch right now, because I want a relatively easy game. I could play on Emperor, and have a decent challenge, or I could go to Diety and fight for my life. If you find Diety relatively easy, then you need to stop playing.
In short, it has everything!
EDIT: How did I get my way to Civ? I always had an interest in history, and a slight interest in politics. I played Age of Empires II from a friend, and I loved it. Interesting in these "strategy games", I picked up Civ2 (Civ3 was coming out shortly, but I didn't know) and I loved it. In fact, I only really played one game of it, but the game was extremely fun - I was an isolationist power, Greece, doing my bidding while staying put on my island. I loved how I could choose my fate, choose to be an empire, or isolationist, or anything. Then I got Civ3 when it came out. Never looked back.
It has the perfect balance of strategy. Its not TOO in-depth, where the learning curve is insane and you have to check the manual every few seconds to see what this does. Once you pick up on it, you don't forget.
It lasts a very long time. Games will last a week, two weeks. Some hate this, but I love it - it keeps my dedicated. It makes me try harder to keep my empire afloat, because I've just put 30 hours into its creation.
It has good difficulty levels. I am playing on Monarch right now, because I want a relatively easy game. I could play on Emperor, and have a decent challenge, or I could go to Diety and fight for my life. If you find Diety relatively easy, then you need to stop playing.
In short, it has everything!
EDIT: How did I get my way to Civ? I always had an interest in history, and a slight interest in politics. I played Age of Empires II from a friend, and I loved it. Interesting in these "strategy games", I picked up Civ2 (Civ3 was coming out shortly, but I didn't know) and I loved it. In fact, I only really played one game of it, but the game was extremely fun - I was an isolationist power, Greece, doing my bidding while staying put on my island. I loved how I could choose my fate, choose to be an empire, or isolationist, or anything. Then I got Civ3 when it came out. Never looked back.
sabo
My Ancestors were Vikings
Yeah, like warpstorm says... What are the two things guys like to do the best, build things and blow things up. In civ we can do both
I've always loved strategy games: Chess, Othello, Stratego, Risk, etc. As for FPS, Halo is just fantastic, because(besides everything else) you can't pass the thougher checkpoints without strategical thinking. I find one of the main appeals of Civ is its immersivness. And the constant surprises.
What do RTS and TBS stand for?
What do RTS and TBS stand for?
trumpeteer
Player of Trumpet
I've always loved computer strategy games, but most of them I play for a while and get bored of. Then I decide it's time to buy a new one, and I'll play that one until I get bored. Other games just don't have the infinite possibilities that Civ3 has, and since I bought a year or two ago it I've always gone right back to it.
troytheface
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,262
Lol- no, that is not all , I think it has much to do with personal
content which brings us into an inner view which is intoxicating, but yes-physiologically - lack of movement coupled with self absorbtion and added to visual bombardment is a bit stupifying, i mean, while gameing we are not designing a bridge or anything, course thats the nature of games in general. Hitler is quoted as saying he stopped playing chess cause he could see it would be all consuming...which is to say, gameing ain't as bad as some of the alternatives.
content which brings us into an inner view which is intoxicating, but yes-physiologically - lack of movement coupled with self absorbtion and added to visual bombardment is a bit stupifying, i mean, while gameing we are not designing a bridge or anything, course thats the nature of games in general. Hitler is quoted as saying he stopped playing chess cause he could see it would be all consuming...which is to say, gameing ain't as bad as some of the alternatives.
Similar threads
