Why have you and/or do you play Civilization games?

[Ondolindë]

I am sure there are answers to these questions in many of the threads in this forum over the years. I have seen some of them. As I have become frustrated with certain trends of behavior with 2K/Firaxis regarding quality and delays, I asked myself why I have played this game over the years and why I still would like to continue playing. Yet, I must confess that something has begun to chip away because at times I think that I condone its shortcomings and the behavior of 2K/Firaxis.

For me, there are a lot of reasons why I do play, but I believe one of the most salient ones is that there is a sense of simple and pure enjoyment in the accomplishment of learning about and creating a civilization, and putting it to the test through my own struggle to come up with a viable strategy against allies and foes. A world within our very own crazy world. This, of course, and most importantly, I have found, is coupled with the ever-present knowledge that there is a community out there who loves the game for the many things it has received from it, whatever those might be; a community that is striving to do the same I am trying to do, in its spare time (sometimes not so spare, but purposefully planned ) while it's members live separate, easy and complicated lives, around this world of ours (a chaotic, imperfect and tragic world at times through the years, as we know by present events and trends) united by a game, yes, just a game, but united nonetheless.

I would love to hear your thoughts.

 

[Esperr]

I like the flavor of going through history and building an empire. Unfortunatly while I think the last few are fun, they lack flavor and feel like a game.

 

[isau]

I like the fact that the series is fairly easy to mod and I can change the game to reflect how I want to play it and then share that with others.

 

[Prester John 2]

I concur with Esperr. I like the simulation aspect of it. I don't have to win in the end, but have a good time with challenges and memorable moments.

 

[Ondolindë]

I like the flavor of going through history and building an empire. Unfortunatly while I think the last few are fun, they lack flavor and feel like a game.

Yes, I agree. The painstaking struggle at times to build one. I really hate those barbarians at times, for example. They throw my plans off.

 

[Japper007]

I like the variety and replayability, no two starts are entirely the same. There are few of Firaxis strategy competitors that can evoke the same feeling at the start: Now how do I play this start? How do I get the most out of this civ?

It's why I adore civ 6 despite all it's AI and other design flaws, I can start up a Random Civ /Shuffle Map game and get a map that needs a different approach every time. And also why I disliked the BNW expansion for civ 5, suddenly you didn't play your start/the map but it became basically the same build order every time.

 

[Morningcalm]

I also agree with Esperr; for me the game has to have flavor. Civ draws its flavor from history, but in some installments more successfully than others. I find Civ VI jarringly unatmospheric, and you can see this in the small things. Civ V's leader screens had lengthy narrated histories of what the leader did, Civ VI's has simple platitudes. Civ V's scenarios had unique music and lavishly illustrated starting screens (notably, Lincoln appeared in the American Civil War scenario). Civ VI's scenarios lack music and illustrated starting screens. Civ V's leaderscreens were fully animated, had multiple lines (including trade proposal lines) and you could in real time see their reactions. Civ VI's leaderscreens feature dull darkened smudge paintings in the background, lack numerous voice acted lines (trade proposal and peace treaty among them) and instead feature cutscenes that are difficult to skip.

Civ IV had complex diplomatic relations and a diplomatic victory that required you to woo the AI to vote for you to win (in most cases). Civ VI's diplomacy is the subject of constant criticism (and not just due to bugs like the most recent patch's issue where the AI give all their Great Works away for a dime).

There is definitely room for improvement on the atmospheric side of Civ VI. This said, I do like that they are varying the leaders and civs quite a bit since V. We have seen Venice, the Shoshone, and Nubia in that time, along with lesser-known leaders like Catherine de Medici and Gajah Mada. This I do appreciate. I do, however, wish they'd stop making Pericles look like a weakened Solon, or Trajan like Julius Caesar. Historical flavor needs to be recognizable and a tad more accurate to work best.

 

[Esperr]

Civ IV for me and II had the best flavor overall. Civ II especially really made feel like i was "emperor guy" of whatever civilization. I can't pinpoint precisely what it is about the newer ones that feel so lifeless and like a more complex version of candy crush, maybe its just that im older and more cynical.

 

[Ondolindë]

I also agree with Esperr; for me the game has to have flavor. Civ draws its flavor from history, but in some installments more successfully than others. I find Civ VI jarringly unatmospheric, and you can see this in the small things. Civ V's leader screens had lengthy narrated histories of what the leader did, Civ VI's has simple platitudes. Civ V's scenarios had unique music and lavishly illustrated starting screens (notably, Lincoln appeared in the American Civil War scenario). Civ VI's scenarios lack music and illustrated starting screens. Civ V's leaderscreens were fully animated, had multiple lines (including trade proposal lines) and you could in real time see their reactions. Civ VI's leaderscreens feature dull darkened smudge paintings in the background, lack numerous voice acted lines (trade proposal and peace treaty among them) and instead feature cutscenes that are difficult to skip.

Civ IV had complex diplomatic relations and a diplomatic victory that required you to woo the AI to vote for you to win (in most cases). Civ VI's diplomacy is the subject of constant criticism (and not just due to bugs like the most recent patch's issue where the AI give all their Great Works away for a dime).

There is definitely room for improvement on the atmospheric side of Civ VI. This said, I do like that they are varying the leaders and civs quite a bit since V. We have seen Venice, the Shoshone, and Nubia in that time, along with lesser-known leaders like Catherine de Medici and Gajah Mada. This I do appreciate. I do, however, wish they'd stop making Pericles look like a weakened Solon, or Trajan like Julius Caesar. Historical flavor needs to be recognizable and a tad more accurate to work best.

I appreciate your answer. It is true that games do differ and offer different things. Yes, there is room for improvement, but I wonder why there seems to be a lot of it, meaning that there are certain things that by now should already be included. And yet, I also still look forward to what comes next maybe because there is hope that we will get that flavor and the experience to build and manage a civilization that is truly different each time. I think Civ VI manages to do that more than others, especially Civ V. I am amazed at how things are different if I do change one decision or a setting. The start, like @Japper007 said, is quite fun and I would like to have that feeling resurface more as the game progresses. I think Civ VI does a better job at that than Civ V, for sure.

 

[Morningcalm]

Civ IV for me and II had the best flavor overall. Civ II especially really made feel like i was "emperor guy" of whatever civilization. I can't pinpoint precisely what it is about the newer ones that feel so lifeless and like a more complex version of candy crush, maybe its just that im older and more cynical.

It might just be that the newer entries are *very* easy to beat, and the diplomacy very robotic (i.e. not realistic--Alexander hating on you if you aren't constantly at war is a particularly egregious example, but others abound.)

I appreciate your answer. It is true that games do differ and offer different things. Yes, there is room for improvement, but I wonder why there seems to be a lot of it, meaning that there are certain things that by now should already be included. And yet, I also still look forward to what comes next maybe because there is hope that we will get that flavor and the experience to build and manage a civilization that is truly different each time. I think Civ VI manages to do that more than others, especially Civ V. I am amazed at how things are different if I do change one decision or a setting. The start, like @Japper007 said, is quite fun and I would like to have that feeling resurface more as the game progresses. I think Civ VI does a better job at that than Civ V, for sure.

I think VI was a better base game than V, but it's lacking things which V did--you'd think newer entries would at least keep some of what made the earlier ones great. Now we have plastic blue UI colors and stilted leader screen dialogues...

 

[Ondolindë]

Civ IV for me and II had the best flavor overall. Civ II especially really made feel like i was "emperor guy" of whatever civilization. I can't pinpoint precisely what it is about the newer ones that feel so lifeless and like a more complex version of candy crush, maybe its just that im older and more cynical.

I get what you mean completely, but I don't think that is the case of you and for me. I don't feel cynical (definitely older), but I wonder if that is the reason is that we are more experienced, wiser some might say, and thus more demanding. At least for me, it is beginning to frustrate me the fact that Firaxis makes clear mistakes in the development of the game, doesn't communicate with us and doesn't acknowledge mistakes. Although, I must give them kudos for announcing two extra DLC's for their obvious currency exchange error. Yet, as a Mac user, I am yet to taste Nubia, which irritates me and makes me wonder how much they do care about us as a customers, not only for the delays, bugs, but especially, for the lack of frank communication. Case in point is cross platform development. Almost a year has gone by and there is nothing. I do appreciate Aspyr's willingness to respond to questions, but they are dependent on Firaxis, of course, and cannot provide in-depth changes.

Anyhow, I do feel like they could implement things that would make the game feel more lifelike if they would listen and respond to the many creative ideas there are in this and other forums. Many of them are just small, but do add life and ease to the game playing experience.

It might just be that the newer entries are *very* easy to beat, and the diplomacy very robotic (i.e. not realistic--Alexander hating on you if you aren't constantly at war is a particularly egregious example, but others abound.)


I think VI was a better base game than V, but it's lacking things which V did--you'd think newer entries would at least keep some of what made the earlier ones great. Now we have plastic blue UI colors and stilted leader screen dialogues...

Completely agree. You would think after V installments, feedback through out and Civ VI, and mod development with specific changes responding to what is not liked, they would keep things and listen to the current suggestions. I do know that they won't please everyone, but there are a few things that are said over and over again, that I wonder if they do read and understand what is being said in the forums.

 

[Ferocitus]

I love the narrative that builds up as you play through the ages, and for the
fondness that builds up for some units.
Like Dazza, an Aussie scout who explored the world, narrowly escaped from
barbarians and enemy civs, and just made it home with minimum health after
more than 2000 years.
I miss that little guy. Sniff. He was a dead set legend!

 

[Morningcalm]

What I miss are the epic betrayals and surprise alliances and strategic diplomatic moves that made Civ IV such a delight to both play and read about....Civ VI and V kinda lack that. In part it's because the AI diplomatic system is less complex in V and VI than it was in IV, and also in part it's due to their inability to threaten people (combat is still a joke thanks to stacking limits).

 

[Spudsie74]

I agree w/Esper, too. The game has the right feel, and is very playable. While the AI does suck, but I am more interested in playing than winning. Bottom line, it's fun. All the Civ games have their own strong points, but I do think some of the features of 6 increase the replayability (I have 1500 hrs on 6 and >2000 on 5). The bugs are annoying, as are exploits, but it is still a lot of fun. That is quite an accomplishment, particularly when you look at the AI, and the heavy expectations we lay on each iteration.

 

[Disgustipated]

Civ 4 probably had the most realism, though I use that term loosely as you could have 100 units stacked in 1 square. But it had nice touches like what percentage of a population was yours, and what percentage was the one you conquered (or got from cultural flip). I actually liked the borders moving from culture (though it can be easy to abuse), though I would prefer after a certain time (modern age), the borders should be static. It seemed to have the best simulation aspect, especially with the Earth map.

Earth map in Civ6 is okay, but you have to disable barbarians for the AI to fill it out. I still enjoy Civ6, except for this last patch. I may put the game down until the next patch. No 2 games are the same, even when I play the same map over and over. Sometimes civs really overpower each other, sometimes they don't. My other major genre I play are RPG's, but even my favorite ones suffer from being nearly the same thing every game. Civ has a little more variety. Though lately, I've been following nearly the same tech path through the game, so that's not so great.

 

[bite]

I am a builder, so I play games to build a great empire

 

[craney1987]

TO RULE THE WORLD!!!

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

Panzers.

 

[tjs282]

I'm going to treat this question as adding an unspoken "...rather than other [types of] games?".

I have only played CivDOS, CivIII, and dabbled a little in CivIV (only bought it recently). I'm not an expert at them by any means, but what I like most about them is their replayability.

I love rolling a completely random start, and then taking it as far as I can. I love the exploration of every new map: scouting out the world, uncovering the map bit by bit, finding good places to build great cities, and then growing and improving those cities (and my nation) to the point where I can launch my spaceship.

I love treating the AI-Civs as genuine opponents (yes, I know they're really just a bunch of dumb algorithms, but I love that it doesn't always feel like it), who will happily throw a spanner in my works without warning, and force me to scramble and shift around for allies to fight off their incursions. And I love that I can actually lose the game if I've failed to adequately prepare for that eventuality (not that I love it while it's actually happening, but I love the possibility that it can happen)...

Though I sometimes don't love the RNG ...

 

[Ondolindë]

I am a builder, so I play games to build a great empire

If I may ask, are you a builder in real life?