5 ms·
Civ seems to basically survive on its ability to capture the imagination, but doesn't offer much in terms of strategic depth, competitive multiplayer, or verisi
by sixo 10y ago
Civ seems to basically survive on its ability to capture the imagination, but doesn't offer much in terms of strategic depth, competitive multiplayer, or verisimilitude. It feels like it's open to a disruption by a more adventurous indie offering, same as Cities: Skylines did to Simcity.
- Pxtl 10y agoCiv is really a turn-based grand-strategy combined with rpg-esque Skinner-box elements. I enjoy it when I play, but I don't pretend it's deep. Games like that are all about "yay, I unlocked a new goodie!" and "numbers must go up so I can make more numbers go up" more than deep planning.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoWhat would you consider a deep one that might still appeal to a large audience?
- Lockyy 10y agoPersonally I would recommend Crusader Kings 2 as a good intro to the deeper grand strategies. It's more limited in scope regarding time frame however there's far more detail and politics involved.
- Tomte 10y agoIs it easier to get into than Europa Universalis IV? In EUiV I have started the tutorial several times, and everytime I get stuck moving some armies or so, because it oesn't seem to work the way the tutorial showed just seconds before.
- fnovd 10y agoBoth games are made by the same company and have a similar feel. EUIV has a high learning curve but is very fun once you get a hang of it. There are play-throughs you can watch on YouTube or Twitch, which I'd argue are more informative than the tutorial.
- Lockyy 10y agoBoth are quite similar although CK2 is definitely easier to learn how to play. It's far more geared around interpersonal relationships than EU4 which I've always found more compelling.
- Pxtl 10y agoI tend to prefer a smaller scale - I played the hell out of Advanced Wars back in the day, which impressed me with its strategic play despite the cutesy Nintendo styling and comparatively simplistic list of actions.
- pjc50 10y agoC:S doesn't really deepen over Simcity, that was more a case of EA flying Simcity into the ground with a whole set of unpopular design decisions. I think both depth and verisimilitude are limited by the desire to make it possible to complete the sweep of history in a reasonable amount of time while still having the player micromanage most things.
- animal531 10y agoI loved the first Civs and then Alpha Centauri, but since Civ 4 I haven't been a fan. I feel as if they've tried too hard to incorporate RTS elements, ie. you need X units at this point, or else the enemies will attack you. Now you need to research X/min, or else you'll fall behind, etc. It became too rigid. I think they lost something from Alpha Centauri, where victory could be had with a large range of playstyles. If you held back you didn't automatically get attacked. You could overwhelm with units, small units, or go for odd strategies like adding water survivability, then nuke everyone to raise the water level. You could affect the weather, make super cities with tons of crawlers, or place a regular close grid of a ton of cities. Apart from that the game had a lot of atmosphere, unlike for example Beyond Earth.
- enkiv2 10y agoFreeciv seems pretty easy to patch. So, if you wanted to "disrupt" Civ, you wouldn't necessarily need to write much code.