On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 23:20:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 <
[email protected]> wrote:
Wait, does Civ take that long to play? I've never really been attached
to the franchise.
Computationally, yeah it takes a long time, because even starting with
Civ1, the calculation times required by the CPU only grow with each
turn, so it kind of gets increasingly painful late in the game.
For this reason, in Civ1, I used to sometimes just draw a line in the
sand on the total game time, then at the end of that time (whatever it
turned out to be) I would just quit and look at the line graphs of who
was ahead to determine "if I won" or not.
Sometimes that was still quite fun, especially in the early 90's when
visually Civ 1 was on a par with peers.
For whatever reason, there is a huge population of gamers that don't
understand there is no such thing as "beating the game" in any single
player game. There is no end. You will only "win" single player
games if the game was designed in a way to let you win, it's a
question of how long that will take. And if it takes you a long time
to lose then that brings into question the value of time altogether :)
Granted, the whole experience might still be enjoyable -- if your goal
is to "enjoy" and not to "win". But this is why "I beat the game" is
a figment of anyones imagination. A programmed game cannot be beaten
unless it is programmed to let you win. Only a human opponent can be
beaten. But if the point is the enjoyment of the experience, then a
long duration game (especially one that could be put down and picked
up later) would be a good thing, would it not? And if enjoyment of
the game is what matters, the duration really shouldn't.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)