Care to elaborate ? Why is it fun ?
It's fun to build things.
Yeah, that why seeing the buildings on the map is important, and the city view in previous games. Which one is better ? I don't know, both have pros and cons : the buildings on map can seem too small, or in districts too "obvious" (I mean, wow, you have a university in a campus, how incredible
everything is blue anyway, and the feeling doesn't change globally with more buildings), and the city view can seem too random at times.
Except in CivI where the game punishes the player at every opportunity.
Oh really ? I played Civ1 only on my friend's computer at his home by the time, he thought "the game could interest me", no idea why. (maybe because I was grandiloquent in my RP games and megalomaniac too, lol, although first I didn't see this potential in Civ1, I just wondered what to do with settlers and units in general lol, at least I remember I was obsessed with improving the land at first, then probably rage-quitted when Gandhi declared war on me)
to stand the test of time in an immersive alternate world.
never played to "win the game".
"Stand the test of time" means more or less winning doesn't it ?
To build pretty things and to enjoy the emergent narrative.
Did you feel like there was emergent narrative in Civ6 ? Personally not too much. It was more like Dark Vador, made of cogs and mechanisms. (or something like that, I can't remember the exact Yoda citation, especially translated in English)
I play it as a historical empire simcity
You mean like Civ6 ? Districts ? What about other iterations ?
I was interested in it because of the historical aspect. And I kept playing it because it’s fun!
Personally, as I said, that was just a friend recommendation. When I saw a guy in my classroom giving away CDs full of games, and that there was Civ2 among them, and the guy said me it was beautiful, I really wanted to play it because I found Civ1 quite ugly. And he was right ! Graphics are important to me, in every game.
It's an interesting tactical wargame with strategic elements added. The formula predates the original Civilization by quite a few years, and the basic gameplay loop is very satisfying. Build units, explore the map, found or conquer cities, repeat.
View attachment 707528 View attachment 707529
Civilization I essentially just added technological progression and a rudimentary economic system to the original Empire game. The progression over time is a very compelling addition, which is why Civilization was so successful, and why most other Empire successors have added similar progression systems. Firaxis has done a pretty good job of adding interesting new features to each iteration, which is why it's still a strong franchise. The other successors to Empire have mostly faded away. (Age of Wonders is still going, but I think they've lost the essence of the game in the dizzying array of features and options. I've played about 100 hours of AoW4 and enjoyed it, but I don't think I've finished a single game.)
Thx for this bit of History ! Another hint that Civ games need technology, that's the root of it, hence my deception with Civ6 that could run on my 2010 previous computer. (never bought it)
A lot of folks here seem obsessed with the implementations of the various civilizations. I enjoy the variety, and I'm glad they spend effort on it, but in the final assessment they rarely impact the gameplay all that much. The game also doesn't go into enough detail to really teach you anything meaningful about the real cultures beyond a few names, and what the game does 'teach' you through its inherent gameplay loop is often wrong. I think the main value of the different civilizations is in roleplaying, and that's really more about the player than the game.
I agree with this very much ! Leaders and civs are not that big of a deal in reality, only if to roleplay them. It's easier if you have your own country as a civ in the game, you can defeat your Reality past enemies. (reminiscences of History lessons) But it can be intersting to roleplay any other civ that you have heard of at least. For that however, you really need only names IMO, it's not a History lesson after all. I think that Firaxis would try to depict civs History in the gameplay only if it were a command from the US for schools, there wouln't be any other reason really, I think that History lessons / reads are complementary of the game and the idea everyone has of the Civilization. Sure it's kind of mainstream but we do not need experts views especially when they are debated between them.
To play one Civ/people/identity/leader to stand the test of time....
I don't understand this very well... "stand the test of time" is just a gimmick, it doesn't mean anything about emergent storytelling or History "simulation"/recreation. It's even the contrary of realism, which I advocate for creating new enthralling mechanics.
Why do I play any game? I can't pinpoint an exact reason.
Some responses up above are some of the reasons I play:
this
...and this
...and this
...and even this
I guess you can say it started with Seven Cities of Gold for the Commodore 64. I never played Civ 1 since I had joined the military and in the beginning I had no PC. I finally got a PC in the mid 90's both for games and to check this internet thing out, and once I saw Civ 2 on my brother's computer and aboard ship on a Chief's (CPO) computer, I was hooked. Never looked back.
I primarily only play Civ games and RPG's. Most other games can't hold my interest for very long. I haven't had much luck in alternate civ titles, it's why I'm reluctant to try those. Some are more in depth than I want in a game (like Ara).
And I play mainly for those 4 X's. Exploration is a big one, discovering the world is always fun. Expansion and building up your empire is always nice as well. I'm not a huge warmonger, but sometimes the mood strikes me.
It seems I have the same tastes as you, Civ and RPGs. But I won't spit on some action games casually. (provided they aren't too hard, like the Uncharted series that I rated 7/10 globally) I like race games too. (Forza Motorsport, Mario Kart, F-Zero, wipeout... although the three last would probably be a little bit too hard for me now)
Honestly I can't dissociate eXploration from eXpansion, eXploration and eXpansion from eXploitation, and eXploration, eXpansion and eXploitation from eXtermination. IMO that's just a fun way to name the "genre" which had, apparently, only few examples until recently.
I love board games, particularly when strategy is fused with chaos. Civ is a great board game.
“Chaos is a ladder”
Civ6 has sure a lot of chaos, beginning by the map generator. It's too much to bear for me personally.
Can't you really stop ? Do you still play any iteration now ? Why are you looking forward a new iteration ?
I like 4X games, spread over a large (hundreds) number of turns. Gotta be turn-based, because my reflexes were never super fast and have slowed in the past few years. I love pushing back the fog of war. I love popping goody huts. I love spreading my empire to multiple land masses.
I'm most attracted to the "stand the test of time" meta-narrative. I like building multiple cities, controlling lots of land and resources. I want to build, both tall and wide, and be able to conquer to achieve my goals. Love the quote from Conan the Barbarian! As part of my run to play as every leader in Civ3, I would alternate between space and domination victories. Seeing my color dominate the mini-map is very satsifying. I rarely pull off "timing" tactics or strategy, where I finish researching X tech at the right time to spend gold to upgrade a bunch of units. Or complete a wonder at the right time to switch civics and maximize its effect. For me, it's not about the When so much as How Large, Not Making Big Mistakes, and How Many techs and civics.
Same. Except I couldn't do it in Civ6 and to some extent in Civ5. (Tradition, 4-5 cities, I abandonned any idea of warfare in Deity) Oh that was a Conan the Barbarian citation ! Nice. (inspired by G.K. I bet though)
heh. easy answer: "Conan! What is best in life?"
I destroy pretty things and enjoy the emergent narrative.
Perhaps this is why I'm bigger than most players on AI competence. I kinda need my opponent to build something very pretty to maximize enjoyment, not simply a nice wonder, and I can't do this for them.
What really hits the spot is when an AI has developed a thriving, beautiful and peaceful civilization with breathtaking infrastructure and development with rule of law and social stratification. A real feast for the wolves.
For me there is a conflict between emergent narrative and game objectives (gameplay). When you are a beginner, you may appreciate your expansion, but you will probably be annoyed by any aggresive civ. On the other hand, when you are a pro, you may be annoyed by a too easy gameplay even in Deity. Because I believe that you begin to play for emergent narrative, but you end up playing with gameplay in mind : you have to fail, and want your revenge. You have to have been itched, annoyed, humiliated by a loss. "So, AIs, you don't want to let me build in my little corner ? All right, I will do everything needed to defeat you next".
As to buying tiles diplomatically, that sounds attractive but in the fact I believe it would be exploitable/useless (too expensive). Think it in terms of multiplayer. No one would give up an important tile he got for any price, unless one plans to invade you soon after. As to grow borders through other means, I'm all for it ! I proposed once to make scouts coloring the map. Was kind of extremist I believe lol.
It goes from game to game also. For example, playing Ryse : Son of Rome had echoes of Civ thematically, and that's why I wanted to play it. I said this on the Internet, and a guy mocked me because "LOL they have nothing in common". What a fool, even if I knew it already.
