Why is CIV4 still the best civ game?

[PPQ_Purple]

Aside from the above, I think it is ironically the opposite sort of demographic who tends to take issue with the squares in Civ4. The Civ5/6 crowd tend to (though I'm barely familiar with 6, admittedly) seem to be more casual players in general, while the serious players in 4 simply treat it as just another factor in the whole tapestry of the game, and not really that significant ultimately, anyway. (It's pretty easy to think "Diagonal = Faster" lol.)

That has nothing to do with hex vs square and everything to do with the fact that 5 and later games are objectively dumbed down to fit a broader audience whilst at the same time 4 is so old that a lot of the more casual players have moved on to other games leaving a hardcore base and a fringe of us casuals.

Either way, as you say I associate hexes with old school tactics games that have lots of stupid rules and dice and all sorts of grinding delay inducing mechanics that turn them into spreadsheet simulators rather than games. Where as squares equals a simple interface and a world map.

 

[sampsa]

I mean, it just does not matter unless you are the sort of player who tries to optimize everything to eek out that last 1% of perfect super efficiency.

I mean it's a strategy game, bro.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

I mean it's a strategy game, bro.

So what?

 

[sampsa]

So what?

...so you should consider the possibility that some, or most people would treat it as one. You can play it however you want, for example doing whatever you find aesthetically most pleasing, of course.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

...so you should consider the possibility that some, or most people would treat it as one. You can play it however you want, for example doing whatever you find aesthetically most pleasing, of course.

My point is that most people playing any sort of game, strategy or not, do not in fact play on the level where such high level optimizations matter. It's like chess. Most people know where the pieces go and fumble around for fun. And you have the relative small percentage that go to tournaments and actually know what they are doing. Same here.

And honestly both play styles are equally valid if you are having fun.

I just found the tone implied by your reply to be mildly flippant and felt the need to respond in roughly the same way. No hard feelings either way.

 

[AspiringScholar]

Especially being as old and renowned as it is, I see Civ4 as something that should be gamed out as much as possible in its unmodded form by those who enjoy the optimization puzzles afforded by the randomization of each new game. I personally don't see anything at all wrong with that, even if it's not my own particular preference. It's such a time-honored strategy game in its own right that it's like chess or something, where modifying the rules at all takes the credit out of mastering the game. That said, I also don't see anything wrong with someone wanting to redline the game engine for their own ambitious modding project, or one's enjoyment from playing an overhaul. It's just a game and recreation and fun should be the highest aim. That takes a different form depending on who's playing it. Being able to win vanilla BtS on deity is something I pretty highly respect, even if I prefer to play the modded game for my own recreational purposes. Just my two cents...

 

[sampsa]

My point is that most people playing any sort of game, strategy or not, do not in fact play on the level where such high level optimizations matter. It's like chess. Most people know where the pieces go and fumble around for fun. And you have the relative small percentage that go to tournaments and actually know what they are doing. Same here.

Yes, chess is a great example. I have 30 years of experience on relatively serious chess, but I do know some people just enjoy making random moves, but the ones that stick with chess are people who mostly try to improve. I see no reason why it wouldn't be exactly the same with civ4. They can choose from a huge number of games and there probably is a reason why they picked civ4. Again, I'm not saying it's the same reason for everyone, but the most logical answer is the strategic content civ4 provides.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Yes, chess is a great example. I have 30 years of experience on relatively serious chess, but I do know some people just enjoy making random moves, but the ones that stick with chess are people who mostly try to improve. I see no reason why it wouldn't be exactly the same with civ4. They can choose from a huge number of games and there probably is a reason why they picked civ4. Again, I'm not saying it's the same reason for everyone, but the most logical answer is the strategic content civ4 provides.

And that is where I disagree. After all I bought CIV4 when it came out and have been playing it sense and have not once ever felt the need to gain any sort of advanced skill in it. I just play it as fumbling as I did on day one and am having a blast. And I am not the only one. Indeed, I would say that I am probably with the majority given how big the modding forum is.

So it most definitively is not the "most logical" answer.

And again, there is absolutely nothing wrong if you want to "expert" the game. More power to you. Just don't assume everyone or even most people do.

 

[sampsa]

After all I bought CIV4 when it came out and have been playing it sense and have not once ever felt the need to gain any sort of advanced skill in it. I just play it as fumbling as I did on day one and am having a blast. And I am not the only one. Indeed, I would say that I am probably with the majority given how big the modding forum is.

Oh I have already understood that a long time ago, since I've read your posts. And I already said you can play however you want. I think the disagreement (though I'm not sure if there really is any) stems from me not understanding why someone chooses to play specifically a game with serious strategic content for an extended period of time and insist on ignoring that strategic content. This is more of a rhetorical question than a serious question obviously. People can enjoy whatever they want even if it makes no logical sense.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Oh I have already understood that a long time ago, since I've read your posts. And I already said you can play however you want. I think the disagreement (though I'm not sure if there really is any) stems from me not understanding why someone chooses to play specifically a game with serious strategic content for an extended period of time and insist on ignoring that strategic content. This is more of a rhetorical question than a serious question obviously. People can enjoy whatever they want even if it makes no logical sense.

Mostly because actually becoming extremely proficient as opposed to passably proficient requires a large investment of time, effort and personal energy that most adults with a day job and family can't afford and do not find appealing.

 

[sampsa]

Mostly because actually becoming extremely proficient as opposed to passably proficient requires a large investment of time, effort and personal energy that most adults with a day job and family can't afford and do not find appealing.

Yeah, but that doesn't respond to my actual question "why someone chooses to play specifically a game with serious strategic content for an extended period of time and insist on ignoring that strategic content". I don't mean that I expect you to answer this question, I'm sure everyone has their own reasons.

Maybe the goalposts weren't very clearly defined earlier, but to me they just got moved from generally improving or doing your best to being extremely proficient, using large amounts of time etc.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

The answer is simple.

Games are fun. You play them because you have fun doing so. Not as a skill to learn or master.

Indeed, when it comes to strategy games the idea of a "meta" that can be learned and practiced is anathema to me. It ruins the entire fun.

And that is not me ignoring the strategic bits as you think. It's just me choosing to explore and enjoy them at a level I feel comfortable with and having absolutely zero desire to advance beyond that level. Because that level is where the fun is. Advancing beyond it turns the game into a job.

 

[AspiringScholar]

The answer is simple.

Games are fun. You play them because you have fun doing so. Not as a skill to learn or master.

Indeed, when it comes to strategy games the idea of a "meta" that can be learned and practiced is anathema to me. It ruins the entire fun.

And that is not me ignoring the strategic bits as you think. It's just me choosing to explore and enjoy them at a level I feel comfortable with and having absolutely zero desire to advance beyond that level. Because that level is where the fun is. Advancing beyond it turns the game into a job.

While I personally agree with your mentality for the most part, do you not see that others derive a lot of enjoyment from winning when there's an objective standard and a high level of challenge? "Cracking the code" isn't cut and dry in a well-designed game like Civ4, and every new map shuffles all of the relevant info enough to where plenty of fresh thought has to go into each new win. Not everyone likes to play that way of course, but what's wrong with people deliberately trying to "game" a game, and being satisfied when they succeed at that?

I'm not saying that you are claiming that your own personal preferences are an objective claim, but your own point about a game being about fun equally applies to people who specifically enjoy the standardized challenge, so I'm curious if you would overtly agree.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

I'm not saying that you are claiming that your own personal preferences are an objective claim, but your own point about a game being about fun equally applies to people who specifically enjoy the standardized challenge, so I'm curious if you would overtly agree.

The only thing I take issue with is his attitude.

 

[sampsa]

The only thing I take issue with is his attitude.

Whose, and what attitude? And how does that respond to the quoted part?

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Whose, and what attitude? And how does that respond to the quoted part?

Your. I thought I had explained that in detail in my responses to you.

 

[sampsa]

Your. I thought I had explained that in detail in my responses to you.

On the contrary - before your last post I thought we got each other's points perfectly. I repeatedly told you that you can play however you want. I don't understand what attitude you are talking about, all out of the blue.

Hoping you are willing to answer AspiringScholar's actual question.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

On the contrary - before your last post I thought we got each other's points perfectly. I repeatedly told you that you can play however you want. I don't understand what attitude you are talking about, all out of the blue.

Hoping you are willing to answer AspiringScholar's actual question.

Than you clearly did not understand me.

Each and every reply of mine in this thread has been a case of me pointing out to you how I find your attitude and posts to be dismissive off me and my view.
The use of the word 'bro' and phrases such a "insist on ignoring that strategic content" and "the most logical answer". etc.

All of these are basically you saying "Look, I'll pay lip service to your arguments and all that but let's face it, I am right."

And that is the one and only thing I am responding against all this time. Because I personally find it to be aggravating to a mild degree.

 

[Fippy]

Civ IV is special, you can actually lose on deity while playing close to optimal.
Against AIs and that's very very rare for computer games.

I can only speak for myself..but my motivation & fun (for a long time) came from being curious about how things will turn out.
So i had lots of fun while constantly improving my game cos those AIs kept me on my toes.
Optimising stuff came along automatically, and the same amount of fun came from discussing strategies with peoples here.
Felt like i didn't only look closely at everything for myself, but also to provide ideas and taking part in this community.

 

[sampsa]

Than you clearly did not understand me.

You are correct, I can not read minds. If you are aggravated by something, consider the possibility of speaking your mind.

I had no idea someone could be aggravated from a clearly joking word "bro", but I am no longer astonished by anything really.