Uncomfortable Discussion- is Civilization obsolete?

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By the same token, that like asking if Federation Commander is obsolete because of Attack Wing.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.

Duke,that is probably the most straightforward and level-headed take on game nostalgia I've read.

I think that just like how people buy new games to keep trying to recapture that "frontier" state when everything is fresh and exciting, people hold on to (and romanticize) old games that aren't played much anymore because of those great memories and feelings like what Von Tush described there about the scope and scale of how hobby games USED to be.

But the reality of it is that buying a new game doesn't work, and neither does trying to get back to gaming times 20, 30 years ago. The sad reality is that I will never play Civilization again pretty much every week for a whole summer with the same five guys like I did back in 1991. Those were great times, great memories. But these days, not only is it much more difficult to pull that off...it's also quite frankly undesirable.

I can't honestly say that Clash of Cultures and Mare Nostrum do not provide pretty much everything that Civilization does (and then some, really) EXCEPT the extended real-world timeframe. That does bring with it some positives, like that sense of investment and development over time, but there is arguably more GAME in the newer titles than there is in the 35 year old design if only because "game design technology" has gotten so much better at compressing process and abstracting out everything but the essentials. I keep coming back to this idea that Civilization, given its mechanics and process, doesn't actually NEED to be as long as it is. Not with the way game design has developed since 1980.

Orlok's point about losing interest after six hours is something that I think gets glossed over or wilfully ignored when we talk about these old, long games. I can remember MANY sessions of long games in my formative years that were hardly these legendary, epic events where everyone was magically transfixed for 10, 12 hours around a board. In fact, I would say that almost every session I ever had of one of these extremely long sorts of games would be characterized as either:

- Ending before the actual endgame condition because everybody got bored and wanted to do something else
- Ending because we were out of time/somebody had to leave
- Ending because there was a clear winner that no one could really challenge
- Being much less interesting in the last several hours than it was in the first several hours
- Featuring two or more players that completely lost interest either due to position or distraction

Then there was the eight hours deep Advanced Civ game that ended due to Catpocalypse. Cat jumped up on the table right on to the board and pieces went everywhere.

Let's come to Jesus here. How many of you guys have actually played Civilization in the past five years? Ten years? How many games with 8+ hour playtimes have you FINISHED in the last five/ten years? And NOT on Vassal.

To quote Michael Barnes: "if you're doing anything for six hours, you should at least be making minimum wage to do so."

Michael Barnes wrote: Let's come to Jesus here. How many of you guys have actually played Civilization in the past five years? Ten years? How many games with 8+ hour playtimes have you FINISHED in the last five/ten years? And NOT on Vassal.

Personally...None. Well a learning (and only) game of TI3 about five or six Thanksgivings ago.

This question though kind of smells of "Well this is what I do so this is what everyone does" mentality. And that's what I'm kind of getting at, it may be obsolete for you and perhaps most gamers in general these days. But the unique aspect being the long personal time together isn't replicated so for others that do have the ability for the game is still very much viable.

That said though, I personally wouldn't get rid of it, because for me being able to hold and touch a tangible thing opens up the floodgate of memories. I've very much had that moment you had last night where I picked something up that I haven't touched or thought of for a while and suddenly a lot of forgotten memories came back. So I tend to hold onto things long past their useful life. But my answer might not be right for you. It's the same reason on why I like to buy books instead of checking out from the library.

And of course what is good for me might not be good for you.

If we're going to listen to the Font of All Wisdom, Chris Farrell (I'm only partly joking - he knows what he's talking about) he'd tell you that Civ is the bomb and Advanced Civ basically sucks ass. That it adds a couple of hours to an already long game, and breaks the game in the process.

Maybe it's because I'm an old fart, and a terrible game duration optimist, but I think a six-player Civ game isn't going to take any longer than a six-player TI3 game. Having played both, I _know_ I'd have have more fun playing Civ. If I played with my current gaming group, I'd have to teach 3 or 4 players TI, vs all of the others for Civ, and they'd have the same beginner's issues.

As for getting rid of it, I'm heading that way with a lot of games on my selves. I'm probably never playing a lot of games on my shelves again, so they should be gone. But, dumb as this may be, some I wouldn't sell or trade even if I knew I'd never play them again. Civilization, for me, is one of the keepers.

Michael Barnes wrote:

Let's come to Jesus here. How many of you guys have actually played Civilization in the past five years? Ten years? How many games with 8+ hour playtimes have you FINISHED in the last five/ten years? And NOT on Vassal.

Me! Me! Pick me!

I was in an 8-player TI3, played with the changed Imperial card, Imperial II (I had to look it up), as well as a couple of the other expansion set Strategy cards. This ran from 1 to midnight, with a pizza break. That game _really_ needs something like Nexus Op's "Win a Battle" VP cards, to keep the fights going.