My Civ World Review

[Dale]

I have been playing Civ World. Civ World has you controlling a single city inside the game. You start off independent, but are able to join one of a number of pre-determined Civs. At this point, you still control your city completely, but any science you generate assists the whole team, and their research assists you.

The game contains a few mini-games, such as the pipe-dreams commerce game, a jigsaw puzzle culture game, and a maze science game. However, the games are shadows of their separated concepts. For example, the pipe-dreams commerce game you do not score points for how long a pipe (or road for your caravans and trains in this case) you create, but simply just getting a path, ANY path from point A to point B.

The game has quite a number of "rewards" for the player. There are medals for accomplishing certain feats in your civ (such as being the first to build a ginormous museum). Each civ has a hierarchy, so excelling in a certain area allows you to become a minister, royalty or even King of your civ. When you do attain a certain rank your name is displayed with little bells and whistles. Finally there is also the throne room. This is a Sims style room which you can decorate as you see fit. There are the normal items worthy of the Sims, such as wall panels, floor tiles, chairs and plants. In reality, medals, ranks and the throne room serve no in-game purpose except to show off and "feel good about yourself" that others are lesser than you. Of course this breeds individual competition between team mates in your own civ. Not only are you competing against other civs in the game, but an even more volatile and ever present competition with your friends in your own civ! This does not a team co-op game make.

Civ is a 4X game, yet Civ World has zero exploration, expansion or extermination. All you can do is exploit the little bit of land you get, and even then the exploitation is not to enable a world conquering Civ, or massive culture, but quite literally exploitation leads to gaining the little "awards". To actually get enough of these to feel adequate and actually get anywhere in the game, you need to continuously log in and grind your resources, which enable you to pursue the "awards". Of course, the other way to "earn" rewards is to simply use Civ Bucks. That's right, cold hard cash.

I describe the game as Civ Farmville, as the game works on the exact same principles and psychology as Zynga's games. Zynga has made billions of dollars making players feel inadequate enough to spend cash to buy in-game garbage, so they can feel good about themselves and to enable them to brag to all their friends that their farm is better, thus perpetuating the cycle of frustration and cash spending. Civ World doesn't lack in this regard. Quite simply, all "rewards" are obtainable through the use of Civ Bucks. And Civ Bucks are obtainable through PayPal.

The entire game comes down to two things:
1. Spend cold hard cash to cheat your way to a fancy throne room (this is a Sims style room where you buy a single wall panel, plant, floor tile or column), medals and rank; or
2. You spend countless hours in FB grinding away to overcome the Civ Bucks buyers to create a city which is a shadow of what the leaders are.

Ultimately, the negative psychology inside the game is the exact same negative psychology employed by Zynga in their "ville" games: engage the player enough with pretty colours and flashy mini-rewards, whilst frustrating them enough to spend cash to get Civ Bucks and pay their way to the rewards.

[DanM]

You could at least mention that there's a limit on how much you can spend per diem >< I've never bought a civ buck and have top 5'd plenty of games!

[bahrc]

I do agree that it sucks when there are people who will throw cash at it, just to be the best, but how would you suggest that these companies make money, if we leveled the playing field? would you be willing to pay to play? Even if you would, the amount of revenue would be lower because people would be turned off at the prospect of having to pony up the money up front. The structure that Zynga mastered is not that dissimilar to that of a drug dealer. The goal is to build up an addiction, and level of competition.

The sad fact is that Video Games have been becoming less of an art, and more of big business.

[rrrob]

From reading your review you obviously know nothing about online games, game design or how to play this game.

This is the first web/facebook game (AFAIK) that moves away from timer based progress. Sure there are timers in the game but they functions as cool downs and not as a mean to artificially stretch out the "game play".

It is clearly not Sid's intention to port Civ as a 4X game to FB. They are trying to advanced the social web game genre from timers and spamming your friends for in game benefit to real game play that mixes planning, strategy, some luck and real "social" features.

The game is filled with new innovative game play elements and it can be hard for some people (such as the reviewer) to understand the multiple strategic layers in this game. Sure, you can gain in game advantage from some grinding elements and spending real money but it is by no means necessary to be successful. If you know how to play the game and coordinate with a group of people you can easily beat grinders and big money spenders who fail to grasp the full depth of the game.

This is not a perfect game but it is a major step forward for persistent web games
and my prediction is that companies like Zynga will copy many of the game play elements from Civ World.

It involves actual planning and strategy. Not for people who need a game to make them feel more adequate and complain when they feel inadquate from inability to grind or put in enough money to progress.

[gninjagnome]

I've never bought a Civ buck, and I'm regularly King, Duke or Prince in my Civ, and contribute to a functioning Civ despite being a very casual player.
You are assigning value to the throne room. I don't think most people care. I haven't gone into my throne room, or seen an other players throne room in forever. Also, you don't need much more than a population 8 city to contribute to a Civ. Sure more is better, but often the time you take increasing your size is time taken away from being able to play in other ways.

You really don't need to spend real money to have fun in this game, which is something I really like.

[rrrob]

I do agree that it sucks when there are people who will throw cash at it, just to be the best, but how would you suggest that these companies make money, if we leveled the playing field? would you be willing to pay to play? Even if you would, the amount of revenue would be lower because people would be turned off at the prospect of having to pony up the money up front. The structure that Zynga mastered is not that dissimilar to that of a drug dealer. The goal is to build up an addiction, and level of competition.

To be succesful in online games with multiplayer component you need skills and time -- for Zynga type of games you only need time and/or money, no skills involved.

No one would play a game not requiring any sort of skills or time investment. It would be too easy.

What most games of these types do is to give the option to substitute money for time. You don't want to spend 2-3hr a day to be successful in the game? Just spend some $$ instead (people who work or with families). You don't have $$ but have lots of time (students)? Just spend more time in the game. The difference between Civ World and other Zynga games is that Zynga only has grind and Civ World has real game play. The question is just if you are able to understand the gameplay or not.

[Dale]

I posted this at another forum in response to a comment I'm focusing only on the throne room. It places my opinion a lot deeper than my initial thoughts above did:

Actually, my focus was on 3 points:
1. The mini-games.
2. The "rewards".
3. The lack of 4X.

If you take the entire monitisation out of the picture and just focus on the game itself, whilst yes the game is about running a city within an entire Civ, you are still mostly just grinding the whole game. But instead of clicking on individual fields, the game has a single button to press many times to harvest everything (this is at least one good point in the design). If you take the city management element by itself, it really does come down to grinding. You grind your harvest button every hour (or whatever the time is) to get a little bit of resources, to get a little bit closer to building another facility to increase your grinding potential. Everything in the city focuses on increase how many little "bits" of resources you can get when you click the harvest button. And those resources just go straight back in to generate more little bits. Because really, there's no point building units. With no player extermination there is no need to defend yourself, or your civ for that matter. And since wonders are built by great people not hammers, you don't even get any enjoyment from having a city build the pyramids. The city is literally, grind resources to harvest more resources.

What is the point of the mini-games? Seriously, what is their point? The too are a heavily grinding mechanic. It's the same thing over and over and over again. You might as well just be grinding farms in WoW. Take the pipe-dreams mini-game. At the moment, the aim is to place a couple of road tiles to connect the road from truck to the city (left side to right side). You get a cash bonus. Wait 10 mins, repeat. GRINDING! It's exactly the same with the other two. It's a basic little test, big reward, repeat. From MY perspective, the mini-games are simply there to keep me in the game and grinding them for their personal rewards. And in a game that by all marketing is supposed to promote teams, how do these concepts fit into team co-op? They don't, they promote individual competitiveness.

And then we can look at the "rewards". There are no civ-based rewards. They are all individual rewards. And the medals for instance are one instance per civ rewards. So what I've found in the two games I was in, was that it was a rush for the medals at the start. People will focus on tailoring their city to obtains medals to the detriment of the whole civ if need be. How does that promote team co-op? Once again it's individual competitiveness. And when you look at the big picture screens, the only way to get anywhere inside your civ is to focus on getting these individual rewards. The game rewards individual pursuit instead of team co-op as it should be. Where are the "rewards" for defending your civ from barbarians?

Lastly there's 4X. There's not really much to say here, except that Civ World is simply 1X: exploitation. You exploit your resources, to exploit the rewards, to exploit the top ranks. Civ to me has always been a 4X game, with exploration and expansion being my two favorite components. This simply does not exist in Civ World. There is no world to explore. There is no way to expand to other cities. There is no extermination of your rivals.

We can go back and forth regarding the psychology within the game. The game does reward the individual, but the frustration comes in the game breeding the want of more individual rewards (which is the same premise for Zynga's games) so as to impress on the civ screen. It's the old "my farm looks ****, I don't want my friends seeing that and laughing, so I'd better log in and farm it".

[gninjagnome]

It's only grinding if it feels like it, and to me it's not. With grinding, you are compelled to always be at the computer, or there at certain times for optimal play. With this game, you can get away with logging in once or twice a day and still contribute to your Civ. You don't have to sit at the computer and mindless click to get ahead. You really only need a limited number of production to build all the buildings you need, and once you have that set up, you can focus on other things (playing the market, mini-games, etc.), or just let yourself coast along with your set up. Yeah, you won't necessarily be at the top of the game, but you can still contribute to you Civ, and make an impact on things.

With regards to the mini-games: There's actually not that much grinding in the mini-games. It's actually more beneficial to not play them constantly. With your example - the caravan game - rewards go way up if you wait more then 10 minutes between runs. It goes up to 1000 gold if you wait a couple hours (and you have a few grand saved up - not that hard) - way more efficient then grinding 50 gold at a time. Science there's no point in constantly trying to move 1 space, and with combo bonuses in the art swap, your better off accumulating a lot of moves before going. The science maze and the culture puzzle are also ways for you to help your team mates (Science bonus upon maze completion, culture reward upon double swap).

With regard to co-op. There's a high degree of coordination that can go on. The most successful Civ's are constantly communicating and planning. The best way to get fame points is to win the eras, and you can only do that by working as a team. I think this is a game that gets much better if you are working with people, rather then by yourself. It's just not immediately apparent that's the case. I'm not sure how you can try and get medals to the detriment of the Civ - how are you hurting your Civ by building wonders, or focusing on research? The main thing is they have given us multiple ways to play - you can coordinate with team mates, or focus on your own thing and still help.

Battles to have consequences. The reward for defending your Civ from Barbarians is a bump in population. Defending against invaders prevents your wonders from being taken and letting the other Civ's gain free techs.

There are definitely problems with the game and balance, but I think they have a pretty good foundation. I think the idea of Civ wide medals would be awesome. At the very least a lasting representation that you won an era.

[GambleFish]

I used to laugh at the joke on CFC of Civ 6 being a single "You win" button. But **** me if that's not where the franchise is headed. :shame:

Melodrama doesn't help anyone

[Mega-Dolphin]

I don't think Civ World is a bad game at all. It's not traditional Civilization though, if that's what Dale is looking for. It's really a team game where a group of people create a civilization, not one player expanding to dominate the map. There is no map to emphasize that the foundation of Civ World is the players, not the map. The key to winning is to gather players under 1 civ, not gather lands under 1 civ. It's a social game.

[CanuckSoldier]

I agree with Dale, and I wrote a simliar review at CivPlayers.

http://www.civplayers.com/index.php?...f&topic=9626.0

CW maybe pushing the limits for a FB game but unless it continues pushing it until it is the first true 4X FB game then it is a failed effort, nothing should have the name Civ in it unless it is a 4X game period.

And if they really want to be transparent about things they should have a clear UI that lets people see who is buying victory, and they need a way to link to players FB profiles, so you know who you are playing with, other than "JonR" :-p

CS

www.civplayers.com

[DanM]

After reading both reviews, I frankly don't think you guys understand how the game works yet. You've only been playing in Beta for a week or so, right? Have you had the opportunity to connect with your teammates and talk strategy? Have you hopped from tech to tech completing mazes to give each other bonuses? Have you gotten up at a weird time to contribute to a battle? (guilty!) All these things are FUN! You'll find that the "good" players don't want to group up in one big civ and panty-raid all the little civs... they want to beat the others in fame points, and the only way to do that is by splitting up.

I reiterate that I haven't spent a penny on any civbucks in the two-ish months I've been playing, and have often been at or near the top of the charts (less so since they implemented closed borders. See: my miniwonder complaint). I cordially suggest you guys work harder to develop a team and look at the game from a social aspect. It's not meant to be a 4X game - it's meant to be something you can pick up a couple times a day and have fun with friends. If that doesn't appeal to you then so be it, but show a little respect for the crew at Firaxis. Keep in mind this is Beta, and they've already made many changes based on player feedback.

Edit: I don't think you should be able to reach other peoples' fb profiles, that would be a huge breach of privacy imho (unless it was opt-in).

[Dale]

It's not meant to be a 4X game - it's meant to be something you can pick up a couple times a day and have fun with friends.

For almost 20 years, Civ has always been the leading 4X game. It's been a massively successful game based on being 4X. A game that is not 4X, cannot be Civ. That may seem harsh, but that's how I feel. I just cannot adjust to a game called "Civilization", where you do not control an actual whole civilization.

Though I am very interested in how Zynga's upcoming Empires and Allies will go. Reynolds vs Meier: Will the apprentice out-"Civ" the master?

[CanuckSoldier]

After reading both reviews, I frankly don't think you guys understand how the game works yet. You've only been playing in Beta for a week or so, right? Have you had the opportunity to connect with your teammates and talk strategy? Have you hopped from tech to tech completing mazes to give each other bonuses? Have you gotten up at a weird time to contribute to a battle? (guilty!) All these things are FUN! You'll find that the "good" players don't want to group up in one big civ and panty-raid all the little civs... they want to beat the others in fame points, and the only way to do that is by splitting up.

I reiterate that I haven't spent a penny on any civbucks in the two-ish months I've been playing, and have often been at or near the top of the charts (less so since they implemented closed borders. See: my miniwonder complaint). I cordially suggest you guys work harder to develop a team and look at the game from a social aspect. It's not meant to be a 4X game - it's meant to be something you can pick up a couple times a day and have fun with friends. If that doesn't appeal to you then so be it, but show a little respect for the crew at Firaxis. Keep in mind this is Beta, and they've already made many changes based on player feedback.

Edit: I don't think you should be able to reach other peoples' fb profiles, that would be a huge breach of privacy imho (unless it was opt-in).

Personally mazes are the stupidest thing I have ever seen Yes me and Dale realize that this is a social game, and yes I have cooperated with my team mates, but that doesn't address our assersion that no game that is not a 4X game should have "Civ" in the title. People expect this to be a strategy game, but there is very little strategy involved here. Being a excersie in hive behavour does not make it a strategy game.

And I don't want to violate a players FB privacy settings, I just think we should all know who everyone is, I can still look up your FB profile in a search, I just can't see anything about you. I should be able to do the same thing from the game.

CS

[gninjagnome]

Well, the original review basically was filled what I think were with incorrect assertions about the game (focus on throne room, lack of player interaction, and pay to win). I just wanted to counter that. It was only in the last few posts that it was stated that something that isn't a 4X game shouldn't be called Civ. That's an opinion (which I disagree with). I'd rather review the game on it's own merits, rather then a comparison against what I expected it to be.

[Bantams]

I don't see a Problem with people spending civbucks since they can only spend 10 each day and 10 civbucks isn't a large amount or a large cost in real money terms.

I also dissagree with people saying it isn't a strategy game.

It is albeit a facebook one still a strategy game you have to decide wether you go for war techs or the era winning ones and wether to declare war or wait for war to be declared that and things like where to build houses and what they should focus on and when to and what to spend gold on is Strategy :/

[angelar]

I'm a facebook gamer who has come into playing Civ. That said, I tend not to play cityville and the like, but games like Bejewelled Blitz where I get to rank against my friends and also has competitions that reset.

I've quickly become addicted to Civworld (I know, you can't tell) because it allows me to be competitive, within a defined timeframe, yet also apply strategy. It only works when you are working closely with a group of people that you trust to share, roughly, the same goals and also make sensible strategic decisions. Civs"steamrolling" is attributed to bucks here but, seriously, their value is minimal compared to teammates who are working for civ glory rather than individual points. When it is working well you can line up a run of era wins and make sure that your civmates rotate around the top positions to share the spoils.

I think you are missing some things. You get a trickle of resources from your palace so you accrue them when off line (larger palaces mean more resources). Your harvests build up slower after a certain amount of time. The only advantage to grinding is popping bubbles and that is minimal once you get past the first few eras. You can save the moves on the min--games. Actually, the main advantage of logging in regularly (and by that I mean two or three times a day) is checking if you need to put people into mini-wonders or move your counter around mazes to help with a tech discovery.

Yes, I use civbucks, but even then these only give you a competitive advantage if you use them in a strategic way (and I note that our current King hasn't used them and I think the person at the top of the leaderboard in our game hasn't either). Actually our current king was away for the weekend and didn't log in for ages, meaning when he did he has a load of harvests and other resources accrued which he used to help us to victory in eras, incidentally getting the promotion as the reward.

Oh, you can tell who people are by looking at their icon without having to see their FB profile.

[Dale]

Well, the original review basically was filled what I think were with incorrect assertions about the game (focus on throne room, lack of player interaction, and pay to win). I just wanted to counter that. It was only in the last few posts that it was stated that something that isn't a 4X game shouldn't be called Civ. That's an opinion (which I disagree with). I'd rather review the game on it's own merits, rather then a comparison against what I expected it to be.

Please review what I posted in post #7. You made the same mistake as Greg by mis-representing what I said. I did not focus on the throne room, I mentioned all three "reward" areas. Also, post #7 takes monitisation completely out of the equation to show just how grindy this game is.

[JulieG]

I agree with DanM. For those who are saying that this game is all about grinding and not strategy, I just don't think you've found the right group of people yet or discovered how to use some of the game effects to their maximum. In a small, tight-knit civ, there's generally a lot of strategy going on. Deciding which era wins to go for, how to divvy up science (a surprisingly complex issue), which wonders to pop, whether to go to war, what strategy to use in war... there's a lot of potential for social interaction and group planning. All those benefits (i.e. fame points) tend to accrue naturally if you're playing the game right.

That said, it's not perfect. There have been many comments about balance issues between small, closed-border civs and large, open-border civs. It's incredibly difficult to get a decent level of strategy going in a large civ with mostly casual players. And it can certainly feel like a grind if your civ doesn't coordinate and thus is inefficient.

But when you're with the right civ, the game doesn't feel like a grind at all. It feels like... strategy. Not the same strategy as you'd use in the "regular" civ games, not by a long shot. But strategy nonetheless.

[peter grimes]

I find these comments about grinding peculiar, especially when comparing CivWorld to the other titles in the frachise. One of the things that I LOVE about the series is maximizing efficiency - whether it be beakers, hammers, shields, commerce, GP points, etc.

I consider this to be an essential part of the civ experience, and I see no difference between good micromanaging and 'grinding'.

To echo a similar charge levied against civ5 (which I have played but am not interested in until PBEM MP is implemented :P):
"Micromanagement is alive and well in CivWorld".

And I think it is very smart that a player can't rise to the top by using civbucks.

[Lagwolf]

"Edit: I don't think you should be able to reach other peoples' fb profiles, that would be a huge breach of privacy imho (unless it was opt-in)."

Agreed, well said.

[gninjagnome]

Please review what I posted in post #7. You made the same mistake as Greg by mis-representing what I said. I did not focus on the throne room, I mentioned all three "reward" areas. Also, post #7 takes monitisation completely out of the equation to show just how grindy this game is.

I did read your follow-up post, and responded with why I disagree that the game is grindy.

[ruler dude]

the only thing i would change is that your units should be able to explore the map on your city view (maybe they can and i just don't know about it yet lol) and i also think that once you discover land in your city, it stays discovered.

when i built an outpost to discover land, i later realized i wanted to make another building there, so when i deleted the outpost, everything that was once in my view turned black, and i could not build where the outpost was

[CanuckSoldier]

Well, the original review basically was filled what I think were with incorrect assertions about the game (focus on throne room, lack of player interaction, and pay to win). I just wanted to counter that. It was only in the last few posts that it was stated that something that isn't a 4X game shouldn't be called Civ. That's an opinion (which I disagree with). I'd rather review the game on it's own merits, rather then a comparison against what I expected it to be.

Yes but what merits are those? Firaxis has not stated what this game is suppose to be in the end other than a socially oriented version of the Civ franchise. So lacking any detailed metric that we can use, I think that we are justified in using past Civ games as the benchmark. And ALL Civ games are 4X games, even CivRev as simple as it was, had all the required functions for a 4X game. So I think it is reasonable for all of us vet civ players to expect a Civ FB game to still be 4X and to be disappointed when we find a Civ-ville game instead.

What this should have been and is completely within current programming techology is a web based version of Civ4's Pitboss, linked to FB as the host. Nothing need have been done beyond that, it just needed turn the graphics down a bit. That way people could controll and entire Civ on a strategic level map just like every other Civ game. Yes the mechanics could have been dumbed down like they were for CivRev. But at least it would still have been a 4X game while giving us the social aspect of FB.

CS

[BoMbaStiXxX]

Sorry, but what does "4X" stand for?

[DanM]

If you wanted to play a Civ4 pitboss game with people socially why not just play that, then? I feel like this is supposed to be new, and dumbed down, so anyone - not just civ fans - can play.

I personally hope this is wildly successful and they make money hand over fist - so they can plow all that back into Civ5 upgrades, or Civ6. And find new Civ franchise fans

[CanuckSoldier]

If you wanted to play a Civ4 pitboss game with people socially why not just play that, then? I feel like this is supposed to be new, and dumbed down, so anyone - not just civ fans - can play.

I personally hope this is wildly successful and they make money hand over fist - so they can plow all that back into Civ5 upgrades, or Civ6. And find new Civ franchise fans

I'm sure it will be a sucess with the people that already enjoy FB games, but it will be a disappointment to all of us Civ franchise players that expect quality 4X games from Sid.

CS

[DanM]

Haha, well, I hate Facebook games and have been playing Civ since I was old enough to understand it (Civ II!), yet I thoroughly enjoy Civ World for what it is

[AlibechM]

Haha, well, I hate Facebook games and have been playing Civ since I was old enough to understand it (Civ II!), yet I thoroughly enjoy Civ World for what it is

I have to agree with DanM here, I was a little disappointed on my first game because I was expecting something more Civilization-like and not Age of Empires, but after a familiarization time, I really enjoy the game as-is. Hopefully after they address some balance issues I'll be able to enjoy it even more.

[rrrob]

Dale and CanuckSoldier,

You are certainly entitled to your opinions about the game and you guys do backup your opinions with examples and such.

I think I, and other people here are saying that you two have so far been unable to comprehend the full depth of the game. Your views of the game is that it is shallow grindy and money drain stems from your inabilities to understand what is going in the game. But, there is no need to loudly demonstrate to everyone your ignorance. If you had simply asked how to play the game instead of going off on ignorant diatribes you wouldn't have come out as narrow minded and stupid. I'm wondering why you like Civilization at all since those games they require some sort of intelligence. I guess there is a reason why there is a Settler/easiest difficulty level in the game.

My suggestion, instead of trying to get attention from whining and moaning, go play different games. If you want 4x types, try out Travian, WWII Assembly, Supremacy 1914, Ikarus. Those all have multiple cities/bases, maps, different units, techs tree, base building, fighting etc etc. I have tried them all and they do offer some satisfaction.

Although, in the long most people find that those game contain very little game play but it seems to be the type of games you will enjoy.

Cheers

[Dale]

Sorry, but what does "4X" stand for?

4X is a type of strategy game. It means eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate. In other Civ games you explore the world, expand your Civ, exploit the resources and exterminate your enemies. Civ World lacks 3 of these.

[CanuckSoldier]

Rob, I can't speak for Dale, but I myself understand the concepts of CW well. But IMHO, there is no depth, I understood what the game was doing in 30min, I just was very disappointed that Sid has degraded the Civ franchise by calling this Civ, it is not and should not have the name. I am happy that you and many others will get hours of enjoyment from this game. But I have played every Civ game except CivRev, so yes I had preconceived ideas about what Civ should be, by why should I not? Civ1 was simplier in code than CivWorld is no doubt, and ran on primitive consoles as well as early PC's, and guess what it was still was THE classic 4X Strategy game that started the franchise.

So why exactly can we not have a web based social 4X game? I'm sure that it can be designed and work very well. As you have pointed out there are apparently FB games that do this, so why can't we model CW after that style and not the "ville" style games? That way both new FB gamers and old Civ vets can feel at home in a web based strategy game....

CS

[Dale]

Dale and CanuckSoldier,

You are certainly entitled to your opinions about the game and you guys do backup your opinions with examples and such.

I think I, and other people here are saying that you two have so far been unable to comprehend the full depth of the game. Your views of the game is that it is shallow grindy and money drain stems from your inabilities to understand what is going in the game. But, there is no need to loudly demonstrate to everyone your ignorance. If you had simply asked how to play the game instead of going off on ignorant diatribes you wouldn't have come out as narrow minded and stupid. I'm wondering why you like Civilization at all since those games they require some sort of intelligence. I guess there is a reason why there is a Settler/easiest difficulty level in the game.

I am in my third game now, and in all three except for when I started I have been Duke and above, including stints in Ministries. I've worked on the mini-games and participated in battles and teching. I have been participating in the game as intended, and I know what is going on. I'm going to ignore your insinuation regarding intelligence. You simply have no idea about me.

My suggestion, instead of trying to get attention from whining and moaning, go play different games. If you want 4x types, try out Travian, WWII Assembly, Supremacy 1914, Ikarus. Those all have multiple cities/bases, maps, different units, techs tree, base building, fighting etc etc. I have tried them all and they do offer some satisfaction.

I also play games such as the high level Paradox games, and Matrix Games. I have no need to play those strategically basic ones you mention. I think the issue for me and CS (btw, nice to see you here too mate ) is that Civ World has been designed to entertain the base element with pretty colors and insta-rewards. Those types of games offer me no satisfaction, but I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

Although, in the long most people find that those game contain very little game play but it seems to be the type of games you will enjoy.

Cheers

You have no idea what I enjoy.

[DanM]

I still think it's a misnomer to say it's a 1/4X game. I can't talk about Alpha, but changes were made (at players' request) that made it LESS of a 4X game. Reason was same as in every Civ game ever made: you get to the point where the end of the game is predetermined, and many players see no point in carrying it out to a boring, one-sided end.

The challenge of creating a Civ game in a Facebook format is that you can't expect people to sit down for hours and play a single game through. It has to be something where people hop in and out, and are still able to play. These 4X Facebook games that were mentioned above; I've never heard of them, and neither had you. Do you think there's a reason for that? (hint: because they're not popular)

The goal: create a game with a simple interface that can be played in java. Said game should have wide appeal and be simple enough to not turn laypeople away, yet complex enough to invite in-depth play. Must also turn a profit.

I welcome you to add to those goals - again this is beta, not the final product. If you don't like it as is don't throw down your toys and go home, give them constructive criticism instead.

[Dale]

If the goal is to reduce 4X, then the game will never appeal to me DanM. Why put effort into a fruitless pursuit? There's plenty of other things out there which do provide entertainment to me.

But I did start another game, and have been King of my civ for quite a while, and one of the top players in the game. I'm giving it one last shot to see if it could reach the depth I want.

[CanuckSoldier]

Yes that happens in civ games, but I don't see what has been made in CW is any better, in fact I see the snowball effect being even worse than in a standard Civ game. And people on losing teams are just going to abandon the game in droves leaving the top 2-3 civs to battle it out. My wife plays Evony and this is rampant in that game and I don't see CW being any different.

It is the "just one more turn" that made civ games better than the average 4X game, and I'm sure that CW could have that even as a social networked game. I played tonnes of Civ4 pitboss, and had lots of fun with a "slower" mode of MP game. All they had to do was reproduce that mechanic in a java based interface and they would have a winner. People want to be the King of a nation, not the mayor of a city :-/ There are other games that already do the CityBuilding genre much better than Firaxis can.

I don't have a problem with integrating the social aspects of FB into a version of Civ, just don't destroy what made every Civ game great, for the sake of fitting into the standard FB mold .....

CS

[rrrob]

So I intentionally made some claims about your intelligence in my reply to demonstrate the way I feel you are stating claims about the game - Generalizing and judging something/someone without understanding the entire picture.

Sure you have played in several games and achieved some success but there are many ways to progress in Civ Worlds and you might have taken the grindy approach which you didn't find much pleasure in. That doesn't make the entire game grindy. Some of the claims I read showed some clear misconceptions about the game features, like clicking harvest whenever one becomes available.

Anyway, it sounds like the two of you are mostly dissapointed that this isn't a social 4X game. Do check out Supremacy 1914. It isn't a FB game and has a pretty good inteface. Might be something you might like instead.

[rrrob]

These 4X Facebook games that were mentioned above; I've never heard of them, and neither had you. Do you think there's a reason for that? (hint: because they're not popular)

Those games I mentioned are not FB games. Travian is one of the biggest web based multi player games out there with millions of players. Just google it. It has players all over the world on servers with tens of thousands of players in guilds that build up bases to build troops and fight other guilds to gain dominance. There are literally hundreds of web games out there that are actually real games, not "ville" clones. Internet is much bigger than FB Check out this site for example: http://browsergameoftheyear.com/

[CanuckSoldier]

Well maybe Brian Renolds and Jesse Smith at Zynga will bring us a good 4X FB game when they release Empires and Allies, it does say "build an empire" in this blog art, not build a city

http://blog.games.com/2011/05/20/is-...signs-say-yes/

They did collectively design the best of the Civ series in Civ2(Brian) and Civ3(Jesse) and Civ4(Soren with Jesse), all they need to do to have the best 4X team ever is to lure Soren away from EA :-/

[OzzyKP]

I'm sure it will be a sucess with the people that already enjoy FB games, but it will be a disappointment to all of us Civ franchise players that expect quality 4X games from Sid.

CS

This is something different. What is the problem with that?

I can't believe you and Dale honestly expected the game to have the same mechanics as a regular civ game. How could that really work? Did you think they'd just port over Civ4 to Facebook to play in a browser with thousands of people? Gimmie a break. I certainly wasn't expecting anything of the sort and without those unreasonable expectations I find that I enjoy the game just fine.

Most of your assertions about the game are just wrong. There is plenty of strategy, there is plenty of teamwork, the Civbucks don't dramatically unbalance the game. Just look at the game for what it is and enjoy it.