The good and the bad of Sid Meier's Civilization series

I believe he meant in one sitting. I know I’ve done that, more than once…

For me I guess, new features and such aside, that in the end it’s still Civ, and having played both II & IV to death, it’s just kind of hard to get enthused about it much anymore. Plus I’ve moved on to more pure wargames because the combat system must apply to every era of warfare, which makes each of them bland and ahistorical.

Naw, it was 37 hours for that one game, multiple sittings, and seeing that nunber just took me aback, making me think about all the time I had already spent on Civilization and video games in general. By quantifying it like that, it ruined its appeal to me. I don’t want to know how much of my life I wasted on your game, I just want to play the game w/o the existential crisis. :wink:

Also, SMAC was just too damned ugly. Who then hell approved that color pallette? :face_vomiting:

Yeah, I mentioned Civ Revolution II in the OP.


Sounds like the sort of game where you pass the save file to a friend after you die. That’s pretty cool if it works out for singleplayer though.



For me frankly a lot of is is about reaching middle age. I just don’t have the appetite to spend dozens of hours first mastering the rules and then comparable amounts of time playing the game. This thread made me pull out of Civ 6 and I could see myself playing that again and examining some of the mechanics like religion which I haven’t tried much.

I also installed EU4 and and fiddled around and I think that one is a nope. I used to play a bit of EU2 back in the day and it was already quite complicated. Now there seem to be just too many variables often in a small font size that is unpleasant to read. The idea of spending dozens of hours in there just seem like fun any more.

For what it’s worth, this thread triggered something in my dreams last night. I was playing Civ, and another nation gifted me and one of my allies each a Power Generation Satellite, and I was glad to get the gift (because it’d boost all of my cities, of course), but also extremely worried about it, because how the Hell did they have satellites already, when we were still halfway through the medieval era, and how could I launch this thing anyway, but then I realized that I had enough Lego pieces that I could just mount it above the model of my capital city, and that worked.

I guess I should have assumed that was the case.

Weird, but I enjoyed reading it.


I’m curious what you’re basing this on. What makes you think the market for turn-based strategy is notably shrinking?

I have been a Civ fan since it started. I got going on Civ-II, loved Civ-III and then Civ-IV blew the doors off.

IMO Civ-V was the high water mark. I know people keep going on about Civ-VI but I honestly do not get that at all. It’s ok but it is a step-back from Civ-V (with all DLC).

I could never get into Alpha Centauri. Dunno why.

(It was ugly and you had little sense if you were doing well, poorly, or average.)

I agree that SMAC was ugly and the technology progression was necessarily opaque compared to Civ but the design of the different factions and their philosophy was excellent and nicely worked it into the gameplay. Plus it introduced some great features for choosing government policy and designing your units. I played it more than any game other than Civ 2 and would love to play a full-fledged sequel.

The factions in SMAC might have been well-designed in some ways, but balance wasn’t one of them. The gameplay overwhelmingly favored the tree-huggers.

That’s because the tree huggers were absolutely incontrovertibly 100% right. About everything.

I never found that - the Gaians could have a good rush if they got lucky with early mindworms and they had a decent late game, but they didn’t have the consistent early military of the Spartans or Believers nor could they grow as fast as the others.

If I recall correctly, the community consensus for the basic game was that Spartans were best for early rush and Morganites for the long game.

More generally, it was an entirely playable strategy to completely piss off Planet and let the rising sea-levels and rampaging mindworms devastate your enemies.

Which would mean being better able to cope with mindworms and sea-level rise than your enemies are. And which faction would be best at that?

Nothing scientific, just observation. Console gaming is dominating PC gaming and it’s mostly dominated with FPSs, Battle games and various Sandbox-style games.

I was curious, because my own observation is that we’re in a bit of a strategy renaissance right now. The number of options for deep strategy games, in almost any genre, is pretty staggering. Likewise, the number of turn-based games coming out seems higher than at any point since the early '90s.

Civ VI, in particular, has been a monster success for 2K and Firaxis. Just the base game alone has already outsold any previous iteration of the franchise, and that’s before you take DLC sales into account. There’s basically no chance that Civ 7 is going to be substantially simplified over 6, at least when comparing launch versions. The market is for deep games with multiple, complex systems.

I think this observation was pretty accurate maybe 6-10 years ago, but I feel like we’re in the middle of a big PC resurgence. High player counts, big hits, lots and lots of games of all sorts coming out. Just anecdotally and by watching trends I feel like PC gaming is stronger now than it has been since maybe 2008.