I'm giving up Civilization. Here's why

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Using crawlers all by itself was more interesting than all of Civ3 rolled up together.

I would compare using crawlers to nerve stapling myself. But that's just me.

[Dis]

I used them, but I never had farms of them. I never used nerve stapling. I just couldn't do it

[okblacke]

Originally posted by SlightlyMadman Basically, the game is all about reading forums and figuring out the right way to play. Once you've done that, it's just a matter of getting it set up right and the game is in the bag. All the harder levels do is make it harder (actually, just more tedious really) to get it set up.

With no sarcasm intended: As opposed to what? I don't mean "as opposed to having to assess the situation [etc]" as you wrote later, but as opposed to what game actually accomplishes that?

I can't think of a single game that isn't reducible to "reading forums and figuring out the right way to play" unless it's a game that's so old or unpopular the forums/FAQs/Usenet groups aren't around any more. (For example, "Railroad Tycoon 2" strategies have largely evaporated.)

The best games, like Civ and Nethack require you to build up your skills so that you can't just apply a simple formula (while there are many formulas for Civ, they're not simple, particularly if you take every start "as it lays") and allow you to pick what your handicaps are going to be.

A friend and I made a list of games we'd played in the past decade and came up with over 250, and it wasn't an exhaustive list. (Exhausting, perhaps.) Because my buddy has an eight-year-old who likes to say "Remember that game we played three years ago? Let's play that again!" he has a good 100+ of these games live on a drive.

For any of these games that we really liked well enough to play for very long, we had killier strategies. Strategies that come back almost instantly when firing up one of these old games.

Once you figure out those strategies--or reduced the game to those strategies--they got a lot less interesting.

Every single-player game is like that.

Talking about the best games, again (or at least the most replayable ones), they give you options. I lump Civ 3 in with the best games because when I sit down to play it, I don't know how it's going to play out. How much REXing will I do (depending on terrain, neighbors and my personal motivation)? Will I be sitting on lots of resources or will I be forced to trade for them? Will I trie of trading or be unable to get what I need?

I don't do histograph victories these days, generally (which is good because my scores usually suck), but I honestly don't know when I start whether I will win by spaceship, diplomacy, or domination. And I don't know whether I'll do it through diplomacy, sneakiness, or brute force.

Even with all that, I get tired of Civ 3, as I do with any game. I think about ways to improve it.

Two years on my hard-drive ranks it as a damn good game. But I don't think getting tired of a game (any game) need involve the melodramatics that seem to permeate Apolyton whenever any long time Civ player gets tired of it.

Just my .02, of course. Everyone has the right to be as disappointed as they want with whatever they want.

[ok]

[vmxa1]

What no nerve stapling? Not even once?

[Prot]

Lol, I feel sorry for you guys that complain about the speed at which you clear up polution. Get CTC and do what I do.

Fascists with replaceable parts!

[SlightlyMadman]

Originally posted by okblacke


With no sarcasm intended: As opposed to what? I don't mean "as opposed to having to assess the situation [etc]" as you wrote later, but as opposed to what game actually accomplishes that?

I can't think of a single game that isn't reducible to "reading forums and figuring out the right way to play" unless it's a game that's so old or unpopular the forums/FAQs/Usenet groups aren't around any more. (For example, "Railroad Tycoon 2" strategies have largely evaporated.)

Yes, I suppose you're right. When I played the original Civ, I didn't have anything like this, except for a few tips exchanged with my friends at D&D games. I'm sure if I had gone to the right BBS, though, I could have learned all of the tricks. Maybe when civ4 comes out, I'll see if I have more fun if I don't come to places like this to read strategy, and try to come up with it all on my own.

[lethe]

Hmm, playing a strategy game without ever reading the dedicated forums would probably prove more fun. The problem then comes back to the manual being made up mostly of lies and half-truths. (The SMAC manual is nearly the best I've ever seen, and it has a few wild lies in it as well.)

[Sovereign]

Well, I must say that I would like terraforming back into the game.

I believe that in the real world, determined engineers can make mountains and hills more livable. They can also create artifical rivers in deserts, build desalination plants to improve desert next to the ocean like in Saudia Arabia, etc.

I say, allow Civ2 style terraforming back in Civ4. So even if there's a huge mountain range about 10 squares high and across, you could at least make a city there to grab the vital resources like Coal, Iron, and Uranmium.

To make it fair, terraforming should be allowed only in late Industrial Ages and later.

In short, terraforming IS possible in the real world. It can offer some interesting strategic options. Also, if people don't want to have terraforming in their games, there should be an option at start-up that goes like this "(box) Terraforming allowed". Check or uncheck the box, whichever you want it in the game or not.

Thats just my 2 cents.

[okblacke]

Originally posted by lethe
Hmm, playing a strategy game without ever reading the dedicated forums would probably prove more fun. The problem then comes back to the manual being made up mostly of lies and half-truths. (The SMAC manual is nearly the best I've ever seen, and it has a few wild lies in it as well.)

I generally do NOT visit forums such as 'poly, at least not for tips.

I've played Civ for, I dunno, a decade, and while I've visited here in the past, it was mostly just to look around, maybe toy with scenarios or whatever.

And, truth be told, I sucked at Civ 1 and Civ 2. (I suck at Civ 3, too, just not as badly.) But I have fun with them, right up until the point where I don't any more.

I suck at most of the abovementioned 250+ games. I'm okay with that.

I generally only look for strategies if my suckitude is interfering with my enjoyment of the game. For example, I used a walkthrough to get me past a couple of points in Starcraft. (In that case, though, I think part of the barrier was that some of those missions are long to the point of tedium.) I needed a lot of reassurance in Sacrifice, too.

I'll also sneak a peek if the game design is opaque. RRT2, for example, has an economic model that was difficult to suss-out as was the whole train-loading thing. Civ's culture flipping and pollution models contain some elements that are well-represented in the game, and others that are well-hidden. And I still can't figure out Europa Universalis. I'm sure if I could, I'd agree it was a great game.

Point is, really, that being a better player doesn't mean you're having more fun. I see a ton of messages here complaining about the issues/drudgery/toil of Emporer/DemiGod/Deity levels.

Dude! If you're not having fun at those levels, knock it down a couple of notches. If the easier levels aren't fun, move the heck on!

Four out of five of CGW's Strategy Game of the Year noms were turn-based. If you've worn out Civ, try GalCiv, RRT3, Dominion II or their game of the year Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic.

There's a wealth of options available; why tear your shirt over this one? Or any one?

[ok]

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by Prot
...
Fascists with replaceable parts!

Are you talking about Cyborg Mussolini?

[Skanky Burns]

No, the LeninBot.

[Sovereign]

I use walkthroughs, but only after I beat the game the first time.

The only games I read walkthroughs are RPG's and games with secrets or hidden levels or items (So I can get them if I missed them).

For Civ and other turn based games, I never read walkthroughs or guides, since there's more than one way to play these games.

[Dobian02]

Originally posted by SlightlyMadman I'd rather see Civ4 take the game down a step in complexity to allow the AI to compete better, as I understand writing a really good AI for a game like this is near impossible.

Some people were disappointed that Civ 3 was more simplified than SMAC in certain areas, such as society and economy. I would hate to see a new Civ game made simpler than Civ 3. Civ 3 has a good balance, but I would like to see more added in the next game, not less.

[Sovereign]

I hate to say or consider this possibility...

It could be that the Civ franchise is finally waning, starting to go downhill like with Star Trek. Star Trek Original, Star Trek Next Generation then Deep Space Nine were good. Voyager began the Trek Sucking plunge.

Dunno about Enterprise, haven't seen it at all.

Its possible that Civ4 will be out of original ideas and new approaches. There's so much facelifts and improvements to a game before it gets a little stale.

DON'T GET ME WRONG! I do like Civ, and I hope to heaven and hell, as well as 7 ways to Sunday that Civ4 will be good, not become weaker than Civ 2 or 3.

[Xorbon]

OT: You should give "Enterprise" a try. It's far better than Voyager in my opinion

On Topic: I hope your worries are unfounded. I would also hope they'd have the sense to 'add to' and not 'take away from' the current game. While more quantity doesn't necessarily mean more quality, less quantity (i.e. more simplification) doesn't either.