Uncomfortable Discussion- is Civilization obsolete?

I was rearranging the game shelf today to make room for these ERP games and my aged, time-honored copy of Civilization flopped out onto the floor. I picked it up and looked at Olivier, Taylor and Burton and remembered the good times had with this game, and how it remains one of the most influential and important games ever made. I opened the box and realized that I had not actually done so since...2008?

I flipped through the rulebook, looked at the AST, calamity cards and so forth...and I really got to thinking if I would ever actually play this great game again. Or would I choose something like Clash of Cultures or Mare Nostrum, games with similar concepts directly inspired by it, over the original?

Then I looked at the playtime...up to 12 hours.

I'm really kind of thinking about this critically...why would I elect to play classic Civilization again when I'm much more likely to get folks to play a great three hour session of CofC or even something like Innovation or Through the Ages?

It's not that I don't want to play Civ ever again...because I do. The question is really why would I?

So what do you think, is Civilization a game better respected and remembered fondly than actually played in the modern era?

12 hour game - yes, please.

Civ - sounds good.

12 hours of Civ - not so sure.

Heh, yeah, by today's standards it's really too thin to be a 12 hour game...mechanically, it's not that complicated or detailed. But there's like 16 phases to a turn or something and it just extends the game such that it outstrips its range, so to speak.

I think I'd be down for even a 5-6 hour game of Civ...but with a full table of mostly new players that isn't likely to happen.

Imagine your house snowed in, without Internet and videogames. Your phone only provides voice.

This game's era is gone.

S.

Civ+AdvCiv is one of the greatest games that nobody plays. It's era has passed not because the game hasn't held up, but because there's so many more games out there and those games are easy to find. I've been to gatherings where we've played games for 12 hours, but managing to convince people to play one game for an entire day has been an exceedingly rare event.

It is still great though. It has a special place on my shelf next to Age of Renaissance.

How likely is it that you will be able to play it again? Probably not very. Not only has Civilization's time come and gone as Sag said, but the time in your life where you can play it is on an extended hiatus until your kids move out.

Having said that, I see no reason why that should mean you must trade it away. It's not some huge crate of a box like Twilight Imperium, and I suspect that we won't see a reprint anytime soon just because the market doesn't seem to care about it. It's a rare enough game that if it were me I'd just hold on to it, whether I played it frequently or not. You're allowed to have a couple of games to hold on to just because you want to.

Michael Barnes wrote: Heh, yeah, by today's standards it's really too thin to be a 12 hour game...mechanically, it's not that complicated or detailed. But there's like 16 phases to a turn or something and it just extends the game such that it outstrips its range, so to speak.

I think I'd be down for even a 5-6 hour game of Civ...but with a full table of mostly new players that isn't likely to happen.

A few years ago some friends played a game in about 7 hours. Granted, they are pretty sharp players in general, but I was impressed with some of the play aids from BGG they used that seemed to greatly speed up the decision making process.

But yeah, noobs playing the game - 10-12 hours is probably more realistic.

IIRC, about 2/3 of those phases are simultaneous. That doesn't mean that you're playing it slow, but 16 phases back then would boil down now into Upkeep => Movement => Combat => Build => Trade => Buy => Cleanup. It looks scarier than it is.

At any rate, it isn't any longer than a 6-player TI3 with the expansions that take the Empire (or whatever the 2-point role is, I don't remember) out. I'd play it this weekend, if I could talk some players into it.

That's part of the problem too...talking people into playing it. I have no problem saying "guys, Mare Nostrum" and we're on. But Civilization is usually "ehh...I dunno" And then you're looking at likely playing it, what, once a year? And it's definitely the kind of game that gets WAY better when everyone has experience and knows what they're doing. A once a year learning/relearning game is the worst way, unfortunately, to experience a lot of older games.

Ownership is overrated...it is a pretty darn small box, but I don't really get into that having something just to say I have it thing.

Michael Barnes wrote: Ownership is overrated...it is a pretty darn small box, but I don't really get into that having something just to say I have it thing.

I'm facing the same problem with some of my stuff. I've come to the conclusion that I should sell the games that fall in to that category. Keep the stuff that you play the crap out of out and sell the rest .... and here's the important part: YOU CAN STILL PLAY THEM. Got a hankering for Civ? Set up the date, go buy it again, play it, and then get rid of it again. That's a MUCH better solution than keeping it to languish on the shelf.

Everything is always available for purchase, it's just the higher than normal price that drives us away. But if you are just going to resell it, then why worry? You can chalk the difference up to a "rental fee."

If I play A&A & F:AM once every 2 years then why do I own them? It's not like it's not available at the store, or through a a trade or Craigslist buy. Let someone have their possessions weigh them down.



I'm making a certain number of limited exceptions for joke games/art objects. Die Macher, Cyborg, Federation & Empire. Otherwise ... out it goes. You have to be good AND make it to the table regularly or out you go.

Timely.

I just posted the following at BGG:

I'm a one game, one box guy and have no problems dumping expansion boxes and keeping everything in a base box. However, has anyone extended this to standalone games?

For example, 1812 and 1775 could both fit in the box of one. Easily. Same with say...Columbia block games (or most wargames, I'd imagine), I could dump Hammer of the Scots and Crusader Rex into the same box. I just bought that Pocket Ogre for $3 and it easily fits in the Legend of Robin Hood box.

This isn't a space issue, and I'm not exactly a minimalist (yet), but I sure do like getting rid of things and having as little as possible.

I doubt anyone is doing this, and I'm not looking to justify why one should or shouldn't, I'm just curious if anyone has.

boardgamegeek.com/article/16392356#16392356

Dump Civ's box and put the contents in the Clash of Cultures box?

I think any game you need to plan a day around doesn't need to go on a shelf. Its not going to happen that people will see it on game day and say "let's spend the next 12 hours playing that" on a whim. You can toss it in a closet or box in the attic amd just pull it out when needed.

The reason why Civ, and other long games, will never be "obsolete" is because you can condense, compress, abstract, streamline and whatever to a game to capture game elements, but it can never capture the experience. The group dynamic. The stopping to pick up pizzas half way through. The rise and falls of people. The long term dynamics of alliances and back-stabbing.

And I know for some people that is not an element they desire, one they seek out. It may be of low importance but that does not make it obsolete. In other words to provide an experience that cannot be replicated, the social group element and dynamic, by definition cannot be obsolete.

A game whose usefulness has passed for an individual absolutely, obsolete not at all.


By the same token, that like asking if Federation Commander is obsolete because of Attack Wing. Now, personally the micro-management that is in Federation Commander isn't an aspect I desire, but at one of the game shops it was being played every time we had an Attack Wing event there, they even have their own dedicated table for it. And not a one showed any interest in Attack Wing.

Come to your senses Barnes, sell that sucker!

If it ain't getting played wing it.

I've just negotiated to trade off Napoleon's Triumph on similar grounds. Its a beautiful game, and i do sort of understand the rules, and i would like to play it some more. But the reality, i never take it off the shelf.

The thing is. you can remember the good times you had playing a game, but if you are playing something else instead, be happy with that. You don't need to try and repeat ever good time with a game. Every game has its season. I'm not advocating the BGG attitude of playing something 3 times then shelving or selling it, but some games are just a part of your life that passes.

I'm relatively young, so Civilization was a "grail" game by the time I started playing board games. With that said, I was extremely eager to give it a try having read such beaming praise for it online, and reading countless comments from veterans who "wished they still had the time".

A few years ago, I played two full games of Advanced Civ, really to see what the fuss is about. I hate to say it, but I do think its time has passed. For both games, I really enjoyed the first six hours or so, but as the game continued and dragged, as trades took longer, as calamities became more frequent, and as patience wore thing, I realized it just takes too long for what isn't a complicated or even terribly deep game. I still think it's a good game, but weighing the game in a simple cost (time, mostly) versus benefits approach, I don't think it's worthy it.

Perhaps if there were shorter scenarios, accelerated starts, or other ways to break up a full game, it would be worth it. Yet as a 12-hour game needing a full-compliment of players? I think I'll pass.