Tweet
For me 'winning' this game really is the least important part of it. If it would have been, then I could have basically stopped after a few weeks. The joy is in creating stories out of the things you see on your screen, and having others interact with these stories. How bad or how well my civ is doing only influences the content of my stories, not the will I have to play this game. On the contrary; the point where my civ was attacked and facing destruction was the best part. Of course, there are extremes; if America had been reduced to but three cities in the North then it might have been tough to come up with good stories. However, even then, tales about a leader in exile, facing hardships and whatnot, could possibly have inspired another nation to gift me one or two cities in a new place, or provide armies to take back a city, etc.
That's the beauty of a diplogame: if you drop the focus on winning and shift it to storyline, the craziest things can happen. Unpredictable stuff. Where in a real civ game you would just try to kill opponents and choose the best civics in order to stimulate your civ to grow and prosper, in a diplogame you could do the opposite, and create something akin to N-Korea, or whatever, screwing up your own economy, spouting crazy propaganda, etc. In a real game, the AI would quickly annihilate you. But in a diplogame that won't necessarily happen and you can play out these ideas.
I don't get it that anybody would feel that the game is over just because Russia has become all powerful. I find that a great situation, because it might lead to a crazy final world war, with excellent stories of oppressed nations rising up, etc. If everybody doesn't care about the consequences to their score, then these things can happen. And I would be against forming a rule against alliances. The only important rule should be that everybody learns to see score as just one more number that can tell you something about how developed a civ is. But it doesn't determine who wins the game. For me, in a diplo game, it is about the fun you have being creative and seeing that creativity mirrored in a computer game. And about how what you write can influence others, how it can lead to funny, beautiful and confusing stories and tactics, and how the game then becomes a little bit more than just a game.
The motivation for a diplo game should not be tied to your score; it should be tied to how well everyone responds to each other, and how well everybody is able to let go of the traditional way of winning, and instead focus on creating the best possible storylines. The ones who do that, they are the ones 'winning'. It sounds very cliché, but a diplo game is one of the few games in which everybody can be a winner
I don't see any reason why the current world situation would be any less fun if there wasn't a superpower like Russia. I think that making rules to prevent superpowers from forming would actually make the game boring. I also don't believe in trying to make the game historically correct; a fun part of the game is that we get to actually rewrite history. So gifting rifles, forming huge alliances, strategical pre-emptive strikes, razing a few cities etc etc. all good! As long as all the players involved are open to new stuff that could even possibly cripple their country, but would make sense in our storyline. Because that is what I think makes diplogaming fun; letting the storyline lead you, not the score.
That's the beauty of a diplogame: if you drop the focus on winning and shift it to storyline, the craziest things can happen. Unpredictable stuff. Where in a real civ game you would just try to kill opponents and choose the best civics in order to stimulate your civ to grow and prosper, in a diplogame you could do the opposite, and create something akin to N-Korea, or whatever, screwing up your own economy, spouting crazy propaganda, etc. In a real game, the AI would quickly annihilate you. But in a diplogame that won't necessarily happen and you can play out these ideas.
I don't get it that anybody would feel that the game is over just because Russia has become all powerful. I find that a great situation, because it might lead to a crazy final world war, with excellent stories of oppressed nations rising up, etc. If everybody doesn't care about the consequences to their score, then these things can happen. And I would be against forming a rule against alliances. The only important rule should be that everybody learns to see score as just one more number that can tell you something about how developed a civ is. But it doesn't determine who wins the game. For me, in a diplo game, it is about the fun you have being creative and seeing that creativity mirrored in a computer game. And about how what you write can influence others, how it can lead to funny, beautiful and confusing stories and tactics, and how the game then becomes a little bit more than just a game.
The motivation for a diplo game should not be tied to your score; it should be tied to how well everyone responds to each other, and how well everybody is able to let go of the traditional way of winning, and instead focus on creating the best possible storylines. The ones who do that, they are the ones 'winning'. It sounds very cliché, but a diplo game is one of the few games in which everybody can be a winner
I don't see any reason why the current world situation would be any less fun if there wasn't a superpower like Russia. I think that making rules to prevent superpowers from forming would actually make the game boring. I also don't believe in trying to make the game historically correct; a fun part of the game is that we get to actually rewrite history. So gifting rifles, forming huge alliances, strategical pre-emptive strikes, razing a few cities etc etc. all good! As long as all the players involved are open to new stuff that could even possibly cripple their country, but would make sense in our storyline. Because that is what I think makes diplogaming fun; letting the storyline lead you, not the score.
Comment