8 ms·

Well, I quit Civilization on Civilization 3 because it was too much for me to handle. Same for Sim City at some point. It got more and more complex every versio

by soneca 6y ago

Well, I quit Civilization on Civilization 3 because it was too much for me to handle. Same for Sim City at some point. It got more and more complex every version to the point it wasn’t much fun for me anymore. So I “wasn’t there” 20 years ago already.

paulryanrogers 6y ago
It may be stage of life too. RPGs seemed like work to a younger me. Yet that younger self got bored with action games and made mods and mini games for years. Now I have less free time but enjoy the feeling of progression in lighter RPGs like Deus Ex. Audiences change over time among with the game offerings.
- WA 6y ago
  Yeah, if a game looks like Excel today with lots of charts and stats, I won’t play it. Don’t have the patience anymore.
29athrowaway 6y ago
Civ 4 was the greatest Civ. Civ 5 and beyond tried to turn it into some kind of board game. "Death stacks" happen in real life. e.g.: every human battle ever, including Normandy in WW2, I don't know why Civ 5 chose to remove them. Civ 5 and 6 have nice features but it's no longer Civ to me. Plus, the excessive amount of $60 DLCs are a no-no.
- mcv 6y ago
  I think the death stacks make it too easy to just steamroll over the opposition. One military unit per hex makes it more tactical. It works for me.
  - 29athrowaway 6y ago
    Civ 4 has ways to prevent excessive unit stacking. Mounted units, catapults, artillery and air strikes cause collateral damage. Nukes make death stacks useless. I think the game was fine the way it was.
    - mcv 6y ago
      And still is, isn't it? I don't think they changed Civ 4. Nothing wrong with different people liking different games.
- mercer 6y ago
  > Civ 4 was the greatest Civ. Alpha Centauri enters the room ;)
  - 29athrowaway 6y ago
    Alpha Centauri was a great game. Its spiritual successor Civ Beyond Earth was not.
rorykoehler 6y ago
I only play games that require minimum investment. Ones I can play 10 mins at a time with resolution. Stuff like Fifa or racing games for example. The only game I invested serous time in completing in the last 5 years was GTA on iOS. They just suck up too much time that is better spent on other stuff like spending time with family or exercising. I'm really surprised at how many dedicated adult gamers there seem to be these days, especially employed ones, as I don't know where they find the time.
- HeWhoLurksLate 6y ago
  For some, gaming time replaces the time that could be spent watching TV/etc.- it's another way to spend leisure time, and IMO, gaming is probably better for your mental health than watching 3 hours of the news /etc.
- canarypilot 6y ago
  I only exercise in ways that require minimum investment. Ones I can do 15-30 minutes at a time with resolution. Stuff like HIIT or 5k runs for example. The only exercise I invested serious time in the last 5 years was a half marathon. Exercising just sucks up too much time that is better spent on stuff like spending time with family, or unwinding with a video game. I’m really surprised at how many dedicated gym members there seem to be these days, especially employed ones, as I don’t know where they find the time.
  - rorykoehler 6y ago
    No doctor ever advised playing more video games. Exercise is a requirement for good health, especially for the more sedentary job types. I've noticed a lot of these types of comments popping up on HN recently. They aren't constructive. Instead they are willfully ignorant and don't add anything to the conversation.
    - canarypilot 6y ago
      So first you malign my choice of how I spend my leisure time with an implicit “my hobby is more wholesome than yours” and now you call me ignorant? I had hoped to add to the conversation by holding a mirror up to your silly “my hobby is better than your hobby” comments by highlighting that there is no “right” amount of time to spend on relaxing and taking care of your well-being. As I’m sure you are aware, mental health is an important component of overall well-being, and you will find that doctors have prescribed treatments involving computer games in a wide ranging number of studies since their popularity began to grow in the late 1980’s. Picking one well cited example at random from a 30 second Google search https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00260/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.0026... . “No doctor ever advised playing more video games” is such a broad brush statement as to be useless to refute. It is factually wrong, and the first statement in our sub-conversation that truly deserves the label “wilfully ignorant” - you can learn more about the topic with a few minutes of searching for “video games therapy”. You are likely aware that not everyone is neurotypical. Some people come alive in their creativity in a video game but struggle to communicate face to face, or struggle with the fine motor control to draw, paint, or write. Video games like Minecraft can become effective communication channels. Doctors and researchers can and do prescribe video games as therapy ( https://psychcentral.com/news/2019/01/28/therapeutic-video-game-may-help-kids-with-adhd-and-autism/141681.html https://psychcentral.com/news/2019/01/28/therapeutic-video-g... ).
fossuser 6y ago
I spent most of today playing Civ6 which was on sale (I’m on vacation) I played the tutorial and then one and a half games against the AI. It took 8 hours and not much happened. It had a fairly overwhelming UI and was really slow for each turn (even on fastest speed, tiny map, two players). I’ll probably never play it again, it wasn’t fun.
- throwaway56034 6y ago
  Perhaps Civ6 just isn't your thing, but your experience could also be exactly what Sid Meier describes: You have to grasp the different mechanics to get to the fun, strategic part of the game - which takes a while. Like in chess, where learning the game doesn't end, but actually only really starts once you know the basic rules of piece movement. As a non-native speaker, I sometimes have a similar experience when reading English books written in a rather ornate style, i.e. where I don't know some of the vocabulary: I can follow along just fine, I get the story arc etc., but the book just isn't fun because lacking the vocabulary I can't grasp the fine details of the atmosphere, the character descriptions etc.
  - freeAgent 6y ago
    I think a big difference between Civ games and chess is that chess has very easy-to-learn mechanics. There are only a half dozen different pieces and the rules are pretty simple. A beginner can start playing almost immediately and have fun from the start. I think Civ’s mechanics are several orders of magnitude more complex.
    - fossuser 6y ago
      Yes - chess has a relatively simple and limited ruleset, the complexity comes from the combinations possible. Civ6 has a crazy amount of complexity to do basic actions - the complexity comes from the UI and all the rules, each city has a ton of things to build which each take many turns, there’s multiple skill trees of unclear benefits, there’s governments and policies, where you can build and what you need to build isn’t clear. During all of this kind of tedious action nothing interesting is happening. I’d guess there’s a baked in assumption that people playing are already familiar with the game. The tutorial and in game recommended actions were not great. I don’t mind some complexity (I like KSP, Starcraft) - Civ6 feels like a bad design problem.
ezconnect 6y ago
My experience is the opposite, it got less complicated. It's not challenging anymore because it's becoming easier to play. Maybe because the internet made playing it less complicated because of the information available or I know the game play too much and there's nothing new to challenge my knowledge of the game.
mcv 6y ago
Civ 2 ranks among my most played games ever, but I skipped Civ 3 and 4 entirely, only to pick up Civ 5 and 6 again. I like 5. 6 not so much.
hollandheese 6y ago
Civilization is in a weird space. It's too complex now for many gamers and way too simple for the gamers who grew up with strategy games.

by soneca 6y ago

paulryanrogers 6y ago

It may be stage of life too. RPGs seemed like work to a younger me. Yet that younger self got bored with action games and made mods and mini games for years. Now I have less free time but enjoy the feeling of progression in lighter RPGs like Deus Ex. Audiences change over time among with the game offerings.

WA 6y ago
Yeah, if a game looks like Excel today with lots of charts and stats, I won’t play it. Don’t have the patience anymore.

29athrowaway 6y ago

Civ 4 was the greatest Civ. Civ 5 and beyond tried to turn it into some kind of board game. "Death stacks" happen in real life. e.g.: every human battle ever, including Normandy in WW2, I don't know why Civ 5 chose to remove them. Civ 5 and 6 have nice features but it's no longer Civ to me. Plus, the excessive amount of $60 DLCs are a no-no.

mcv 6y ago
I think the death stacks make it too easy to just steamroll over the opposition. One military unit per hex makes it more tactical. It works for me.
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  Civ 4 has ways to prevent excessive unit stacking. Mounted units, catapults, artillery and air strikes cause collateral damage. Nukes make death stacks useless. I think the game was fine the way it was.
  - mcv 6y ago
    And still is, isn't it? I don't think they changed Civ 4. Nothing wrong with different people liking different games.
mercer 6y ago
> Civ 4 was the greatest Civ. Alpha Centauri enters the room ;)
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  Alpha Centauri was a great game. Its spiritual successor Civ Beyond Earth was not.

rorykoehler 6y ago

I only play games that require minimum investment. Ones I can play 10 mins at a time with resolution. Stuff like Fifa or racing games for example. The only game I invested serous time in completing in the last 5 years was GTA on iOS. They just suck up too much time that is better spent on other stuff like spending time with family or exercising. I'm really surprised at how many dedicated adult gamers there seem to be these days, especially employed ones, as I don't know where they find the time.

HeWhoLurksLate 6y ago
For some, gaming time replaces the time that could be spent watching TV/etc.- it's another way to spend leisure time, and IMO, gaming is probably better for your mental health than watching 3 hours of the news /etc.
canarypilot 6y ago
I only exercise in ways that require minimum investment. Ones I can do 15-30 minutes at a time with resolution. Stuff like HIIT or 5k runs for example. The only exercise I invested serious time in the last 5 years was a half marathon. Exercising just sucks up too much time that is better spent on stuff like spending time with family, or unwinding with a video game. I’m really surprised at how many dedicated gym members there seem to be these days, especially employed ones, as I don’t know where they find the time.
- rorykoehler 6y ago
  No doctor ever advised playing more video games. Exercise is a requirement for good health, especially for the more sedentary job types. I've noticed a lot of these types of comments popping up on HN recently. They aren't constructive. Instead they are willfully ignorant and don't add anything to the conversation.
  - canarypilot 6y ago
    So first you malign my choice of how I spend my leisure time with an implicit “my hobby is more wholesome than yours” and now you call me ignorant? I had hoped to add to the conversation by holding a mirror up to your silly “my hobby is better than your hobby” comments by highlighting that there is no “right” amount of time to spend on relaxing and taking care of your well-being. As I’m sure you are aware, mental health is an important component of overall well-being, and you will find that doctors have prescribed treatments involving computer games in a wide ranging number of studies since their popularity began to grow in the late 1980’s. Picking one well cited example at random from a 30 second Google search https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00260/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.0026... . “No doctor ever advised playing more video games” is such a broad brush statement as to be useless to refute. It is factually wrong, and the first statement in our sub-conversation that truly deserves the label “wilfully ignorant” - you can learn more about the topic with a few minutes of searching for “video games therapy”. You are likely aware that not everyone is neurotypical. Some people come alive in their creativity in a video game but struggle to communicate face to face, or struggle with the fine motor control to draw, paint, or write. Video games like Minecraft can become effective communication channels. Doctors and researchers can and do prescribe video games as therapy ( https://psychcentral.com/news/2019/01/28/therapeutic-video-game-may-help-kids-with-adhd-and-autism/141681.html https://psychcentral.com/news/2019/01/28/therapeutic-video-g... ).

fossuser 6y ago

I spent most of today playing Civ6 which was on sale (I’m on vacation) I played the tutorial and then one and a half games against the AI. It took 8 hours and not much happened. It had a fairly overwhelming UI and was really slow for each turn (even on fastest speed, tiny map, two players). I’ll probably never play it again, it wasn’t fun.

throwaway56034 6y ago
Perhaps Civ6 just isn't your thing, but your experience could also be exactly what Sid Meier describes: You have to grasp the different mechanics to get to the fun, strategic part of the game - which takes a while. Like in chess, where learning the game doesn't end, but actually only really starts once you know the basic rules of piece movement. As a non-native speaker, I sometimes have a similar experience when reading English books written in a rather ornate style, i.e. where I don't know some of the vocabulary: I can follow along just fine, I get the story arc etc., but the book just isn't fun because lacking the vocabulary I can't grasp the fine details of the atmosphere, the character descriptions etc.
- freeAgent 6y ago
  I think a big difference between Civ games and chess is that chess has very easy-to-learn mechanics. There are only a half dozen different pieces and the rules are pretty simple. A beginner can start playing almost immediately and have fun from the start. I think Civ’s mechanics are several orders of magnitude more complex.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    Yes - chess has a relatively simple and limited ruleset, the complexity comes from the combinations possible. Civ6 has a crazy amount of complexity to do basic actions - the complexity comes from the UI and all the rules, each city has a ton of things to build which each take many turns, there’s multiple skill trees of unclear benefits, there’s governments and policies, where you can build and what you need to build isn’t clear. During all of this kind of tedious action nothing interesting is happening. I’d guess there’s a baked in assumption that people playing are already familiar with the game. The tutorial and in game recommended actions were not great. I don’t mind some complexity (I like KSP, Starcraft) - Civ6 feels like a bad design problem.

ezconnect 6y ago

My experience is the opposite, it got less complicated. It's not challenging anymore because it's becoming easier to play. Maybe because the internet made playing it less complicated because of the information available or I know the game play too much and there's nothing new to challenge my knowledge of the game.

mcv 6y ago

Civ 2 ranks among my most played games ever, but I skipped Civ 3 and 4 entirely, only to pick up Civ 5 and 6 again. I like 5. 6 not so much.

hollandheese 6y ago

Civilization is in a weird space. It's too complex now for many gamers and way too simple for the gamers who grew up with strategy games.