Explain the Populatity of Civilization Games

[00slash00]

I have never been big into strategy games because, well...i always kind of sucked at them. I always just kind of ignored the civ games but they seem to always have been extremely popular and i cant help feeling like i might be missing out. right now civ 5 is on sale for 75% off and the expansion is on sale for like $3. im tempted to just give it a shot and risk spending money on a series i might not enjoy but id like to know why the fans of the civ games, like the games so much. i watched videos and i cant really tell whats going on, it all kind of looks confusing to me. i also cant tell if theres an actual campaign or if you just kind of pick a nation, play until someone wins, and then start a new game.

anyway, to everyone who loves the civilization games, please try to explain what the game is all about, a little bit, and tell me why you like it as much as you do. thank you.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Because people really, really like strategy games? Especially older gamers. It's the reason why got $2.3 million on Kickstarter in a month.

I can see why lack of a progression system would turn you off the very concept of the game, but most older gamers are used to it so they're not bothered by just playing the same thing over and over again. That way, it's not the mechanics that change, just the people you play with.

 

[A Satanic Panda]

In short: You build an empire from the ground up, through all human time periods. Neolithic - Information Era. You win the game by completing one of several objective that prove your civilization can "Stand the test of time." You must compete with other civilizations (AI or human) and beat them to one of the victories to win the game.

Depending on the game, we'll say Civ 5, there are 5 victories. Time, Conquest, Science, Culture, Diplomatic.

Time victory being the default endgame if the other 4 victories have not been met by a certain number of turns by any civilization. The person with the highest score wins. Conquest victory is annexing all the other civilization's capital cities. But in other Civ games, you have to annex all of their cities. Science victory is being the first to launch a space craft to Alpha Centauri. Culture victory is creating a Utopian society. And Diplomatic victory is winning UN election by being a good neighbor to all the other civilization.

Civ 5 is shipped with different scenarios to play, but most of the fun comes from a basic new games. You can pick a leader to play as, set a game size, difficulty, pace and what not. You can pick a map to generate, I like the small map; small continent setting, and it will randomly generate a map with other civilizations on it. It's very replayable. Sense you're new to the series I'd recommend Civ 5 with the Gods and Kings expansion. If you think you like the game, you should get Civ 4. There is way more depth and scalability in that game then there is in Civ 5. Civ 5 is easy to learn, but hard to master.

 

[Christopher Fisher]

I prefer the Total War series, but Civilization is a great game. It's one of the few strategy series that lets you win the game via some method other than conquering your enemies with brute force. Civ5 has also thankfully fixed a lot of the issues that really used to plague the series, like situations where an enemy spearman would destroy your tank.

The Total War games have also been on sale on steam; you should check them out. I'd go with Shogun 2.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

They just have an addictive nature to them. You always want to go for one more turn until you realize that it is 3 in the morning.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

Civ 2 was one of the first PC games I really got into.
Along with Command and Conquer: Tiberian Sun and the Commandos series. Strangely enough they're all strategy games that begin with C...
So for me, having played a million games of Civ 2 about 12-13 years ago it's only natural I still like lots of strategy games now and playing Civ is basically a massive nostalgia trip.

The appeal to me is basically seeing my Civs blob expand over the rest of the world. It's alot of fun.

 

[Maze1125]

The value in them is see your civilisation grow from a small tribe to an empire, know that the decisions that you made got them there.
If that appeals to you, then go for it, otherwise go for something else.

 

[Exterminas]

The value in them is see your civilisation grow from a small tribe to an empire, know that the decisions that you made got them there.
If that appeals to you, then go for it, otherwise go for something else.

Pretty much this.
The statisfaction in the CIV games is the same as in planting a tree and watching it grow. If you pick the right game pace, the times both these things take, are even roughly the same!

In addition to that there is some standard strategy-game-buisness going on: Painting the map in your color, crushing an annoying foe, applying tactics, etc.

Also Civ is one of the few series where you can actually win as a peacemonger without gimping yourself. And the game is not easly reduced to a cookie-cutter built. There are always multiple ways to victory. They may not be all equal, but they are there.

 

[Vankraken]

For me some of the reasons I like Civ games is because each play through is its own unique set of events that I have direct control on the direction I take in the game. Its the depth of strategy in how you create a gameplan, explore the world, deal with the other nations, and react/create opportunists to advance in the game (or fail horribly). Most importantly is that its a thinking mans game. You can take your time and examine the situation, go over multiple options, and make decisions that you watch unfold and carry out over the course of the game.

 

[SextusMaximus]

Civ 5 is the worst strategy game on the market at the moment. It looks nice and that's about the only thing it has in it's favour sadly.

EDIT: Civ IV is still beast.

 

[Vrach]

and the expansion is on sale for like $3.

Could I ask you where? Checked Steam, it's 15 euros there :\

To throw out a quick answer, the reason's quite simple. I like strategies, but I'm way too slow to play the real time ones. Civilization gives me all the time I need to think and plan everything out and that's how I like to play - I enjoy planning an attack almost more than the actual execution. It's also a game (imo) that's easy to learn but hard to master, so it's hard to get bored with.

On an entirely personal note, I just love taking over the world. Mix a huge world map, a bunch of civilizations and no victory modes (ie. have to eliminate everyone to win) and you get my kind of strategy game. Diplomacy can be fun too (even if the AI is retarded at it) - my favourite moment in a Civ game (civ 3) was causing a world war as a distraction

 

[Zantos]

They just have an addictive nature to them. You always want to go for one more turn until you realize that it is 3 in the morning.

I find Endless Space to be the absolute worst for that. The background music is just so damn hypnotic. And once you get into the ship design menu I don't think you can ever fully leave.

OT: The Civs are just really good at what they do, which is why they're so popular. The genre as a whole really does have an addictive quality of "just one more", and the ones I play tend to be quite calm and relaxing. I mention Endless Space simply because when I get a bit angry or annoyed it's a really good game just to calm down on. Even when you're being attacked on all borders and losing capital systems while everything goes horribly wrong it's still calm and with a pretty chilled pace.

 

[A Satanic Panda]

Civ 5 is the worst strategy game on the market at the moment. It looks nice and that's about the only thing it has in it's favour sadly.

EDIT: Civ IV is still beast.

The "worst?" It didn't have the same depth and scalability Civ 4 had, but that didn't stop me from clocking almost 1000 hours into it. There are some things Civ 5 did much better than 4. Navies, combat, hex grid, and unit embarking...

 

[SextusMaximus]

Civ 5 is the worst strategy game on the market at the moment. It looks nice and that's about the only thing it has in it's favour sadly.

EDIT: Civ IV is still beast.

The "worst?" It didn't have the same depth and scalability Civ 4 had, but that didn't stop me from clocking almost 1000 hours into it. There are some things Civ 5 did much better than 4. Navies, combat, hex grid, and unit embarking...

Definitely there are thing it does better, but there are things that are so much worse. It just doesn't 'feel' expansive or involving to me in the same way Civ IV did.

I'm saying it's the worst in the market compared to games like:

Shogun 2: Total War (Probably best strategy at this time... at least until R2)
HoI 3 & it's expansions
Crusader Kings II
Age of Empires 3, etc.

and certainly no where near as good as some classics. Notably, Civ III & IV (never played 1 / 2), Europa Universalis and Victoria, Any of the Total War games.

 

[Zenn3k]

Civ 5 is amazing.

I have over 800 hours of playtime in that game, and a friend and I regularly do some online play all-nighter sessions that are fun.

Taking the Roman Empire into the Atomic age and nuking your neighbors never gets old

 

[Esotera]

Civ 5 really isn't that great, but it's still an ok game. Maybe I have judged it unfairly in the past as obviously a lot of people rave about it.

Anyway, it's the sort of game you should play if you constantly wonder what might have happened if history had taken a different turn - what if the Roman Empire had kept going? What would happen if the Ancient Greeks had submachine guns? Would it be possible for there to be an infamous Welsh empire that nukes stone age civs?

 

[fenrizz]

DO NOT BUY CIV 5!

Honestly man, go for Civ 3 or maybe Civ 4 (though I have no played it).
Civ 5 is much too "cartoony" for my taste.

 

[Bostur]

I think the Civ series is popular first of all because they are relatively simple and easy to learn, and secondly because they are extremely polished and high quality. The replayability factor is another selling point, since the world is randomized for each game it feels different every time.

I think the original Civilization from 1989 became a huge hit, because no video game had been made with so much depth.

A lot of game designers throw around the term "Easy to learn hard to master", in most cases that is pure BS because they never get near that goal. Sid Meier however sometimes got very close to that ideal and Civilization was his masterpiece.

I think Civ4 and Civ5 have lost track of the elegance of the first three games, but they still retain most of the addictive gameplay of the original.

And these days people who like strategy games don't have a whole lot of choice. We can play the golden oldies with the occasional new expansion, Civilization, Paradox games or Total War games.