Some people complain that too many of the new scenarios are scifi/fantasy themed. But I did a count.

There are 12 scenarios five are scifi/fantasy. That means 7 of them ARE NOT scifi/fantasy.

So what's the big deal with having a few scifi/fantasy scenarios?

EDIT: Actually thanks to Gaius Octavius, I realize that there is one maybe, which is Gods of Old
So there are 5 scifi/fantasy scenarios, 6 non-scifi scenarios and 1 maybe.

SciFi/Fantasy
Afterworld
Fall From Heaven
Final Frontier
Next War
Superrobo

Historical Based/Flavor
Charlemagne
Crossroads of the World
WWII: Road To War
Rhye's and Fall of Civilization
Gods of Old ??? (depends on format)

Modern
Broken Star- Appears to take place in modern day times, possibly near future. But there is no indication of scifi elements so it stays off the scifi list but it some could easily argue that it is not historical.

Other
Chaos- Seems to be basically an epic game with tons of random events. Which could actually be considered historical flavor but that depends on how it goes.

I think people just like to complain and nitpick about whatever.

After lurking about for a long time, it seems that there's a good number of people around here that are set into the mentality that if something doesn't appeal specifically to their own interests, then it's "dumb" or "boring".

I like sci-fi and fantasy about equally, so I'm looking forward to trying out everything in BtS, and enjoying the game for what it is: just that, a game.

Nothing wrong with sci-fi scenarios. I am actually looking forward to Final Frontier.

I think the issue for a lot of people is that we'd rather see fans make these mods, and have Firaxis donate more time to the epic game. You've already seen how many people have complained about the HRE taking out a spot for a "more deserving" civ. If they'd done one less scenario in exchange for one or two more civs, that would have made a lot of people much happier.

Fantasy scenarios are also not what a lot of us are looking for when we play civ. You want action, play an RTS; you want a bit of fantasy, play one of the many RPGs with that format. Civilization is geared more towards... civilization. :D Plus, a lot of civvers would have preferred historical scenarios, like Japanese Unification, WW1, the Cold War, American Revolution (not the one that came with Vanilla!), American Civil War, a Colonization mod, an SMAC mod, etc...

I suppose Firaxis is doing this to get more people attracted to the game, which is not a bad marketing strategy if you ask me.

BTW, it's possible 6 of the scenarios are fantasy, not just 5, depending on the format of Gods of Old, which we don't know much about.

Thanks Gaius I will add a ? to Gods of Old.

Fantasy scenarios are also not what a lot of us are looking for when we play civ.

As of this post, Fall From Heaven II (a fantasy mod/scenario) is the most popular file here on CivFanatics, and on Filefront's Civ4 site. And given that it's about 350mb, (and not even close to being 'complete', if I'm not mistaken) I don't think people are downloading it just for the heck of it.

But really, just because something includes elves or aliens doesn't make it any less a 'civilization'. I could easily point someone wanting a historical scenario to another game too. The Hearts of Iron games offer a vastly more deep WWII game than Civ can, at least without heavy modification. But even so, I like Civ better, and feel my own interests shouldn't be overlooked because HistoryPuristA think ObscureCivilizationB HAS to be in the game.

Personally, DevilRat, I am always flabbergasted that FFH2 is so popular. To me, that's a sad commentary on what civvers have become--too much like fans of other genres. FFH2 is a first-rate mod, but it's just not my interest. Maybe it's just me.

I guess all the purists are still playing Civ I, II, and III.

Im not the slightest bit interested in the sci-fi scenarios. I might play them once, but I can't see me playing them any more then that, and Super Robo in particular sounds crap (I hope to be suprised with all of them though). That said, I have no gripes with sci-fi scenarios. The success of FFH alone shows that sci-fi/fantasy is popular amongst the community so why should the interests of these not be catered for as well? As they say, variety is the spice of life.

Bongo-Bongo raises another good point: one reason people are against scenarios in general is because they usually have a lack of replayability. That's why focus on the epic game is so well-received in comparison.

On an additional note, if I had too chose I would pick historical scenarios, I love studying history, watching historical movies/shows, playing historical games. However, I also love the scifi/fantasy genre as well. I have never played FFH, I have a dial-up connection so I don't download much of anything, but it looks amazing to me.

I will, however, be the first one to complain if they put scifi/fantasy into the epic game.

While I'm happy that the scifi scenarios are in, I'm skeptical about the progress they've made on the AI. I think a lot of other people are also worried that Civ4 is too much flash and not enough substance and they'd just rather see game mechanics improved rather than a lot of resources being used up on marketing items like new graphics, new scenarios, new whatever which is just more of the same fundamentally broken stuff.

Oh I definitely agree, the epic game should stay as 'pure' as possible.

I'm thinking wholly of scenarios as far as 'fantastic' stuff goes. It's just with the extreme modability of Civ4, it seems like a waste to make all extra scenarios and such keep a strict, true-Earth based theme. Considering especially that the game is designed to let people have fun, not give them a history lesson.

Extra thought: Plus offical scenarios are good for showing modders how to do things in ways they may not think of themselves.

Well, that's what sites like this are for. ;)

To me, that's a sad commentary on what civvers have become--too much like fans of other genres. FFH2 is a first-rate mod, but it's just not my interest. Maybe it's just me."It's a sad commentary" and "It's just not may interest" seem to convey opposite sentiments to me. Maybe I'm jsut reading you wrong?
I'll reiterate 2 quick points:

1-Fantasy/Sci-fi scenarios made for civ are not RTS games or Role-playing games, or even imitations thereof. They are games with the same gameplay of civ, which you and I both love, but with a different theme. But there is nowhere else to go if you want the "4X" civ building gameplay of civ with a fantasy theme.

2-There was little opportunity* cost for adding Age of Ice to BtS. It didn't take away from any epic game content or historical reinactment scenarios. You might not want to play it, but you'd gain nothing by having it removed, either.

Now besides this particular, my thinking is that mods that are quite differnt than normal civ gameplay give you better value. If you want a Age of discovery scenario, for example, play normal game with those civs selected on a Terra map, renaissance start on slow speed, and that's a very close aproximation. There's no way for you to change game settings and get Final Frontier or Afterworld, for instance.

edit:
*I don't want to downplay the testing, translation, or music provided by Firaxis that makes this a professional calibur scenario, though!

"It's a sad commentary" and "It's just not may interest" seem to convey opposite sentiments to me. Maybe I'm jsut reading you wrong?


Not quite. I am just expressing my ambivalence.


I'll reiterate 2 quick points:

1-Fantasy/Sci-fi scenarios made for civ are not RTS games or Role-playing games, or even imitations thereof. They are games with the same gameplay of civ, which you and I both love, but with a different theme. But there is nowhere else to go if you want the "4X" civ building gameplay of civ with a fantasy theme.

2-There was next to zero opportunity cost for adding Age of Ice to BtS. It didn't take away from any epic game content or historical reinactment scenarios. You might not want to play it, but you'd gain nothing by having it removed, either.


That's not my point; what I was saying is that I am afraid they are trying to make Civ too much like other genres, which might have bad implications in the long run. I remember people objected to the idea of tactical combat in Civ because they thought it would make it too much like RTS. (I disagreed, but that's another issue.)

My point is that by trying to make it appealing to RTSers and Fantasy genre players (if that's what they're doing), it sets a bad precedent. The die-hard fans probably wouldn't like Civilization anyway...


Now besides this particular, my thinking is that mods that are quite differnt than normal civ gameplay give you better value. If you want a Age of discovery scenario, for example, play normal game with those civs selected on a Terra map, renaissance start on slow speed, and that's a very close aproximation. There's no way for you to change game settings and get Final Frontier or Afterworld, for instance.

You have obviously never played the game Colonization. Aside from that, I agree with you... but that's what sites like this are for. Most people these days have access to the internet, so they can download them. And in response to your other point about time issues, I am perfectly fine with them including FFH2, or even 10 or 100 more FAN-MADE scenarios of ANY kind in the game. Here's my point: how much time when into making Afterworld? How much time went into Final Frontier? Gods of Old? Superrobo? IIRC, those are not simple fan-based mods. The programmers spent a lot of time on them--time which could just as easily have been spent on more leaders, more civs, or a better end game.

Whichever you prefer is your own opinion; I am not saying one is better or worse. What I am saying is that many people feel it's a waste of time because the scenarios don't have the replayability that the epic game does, which is one answer to the OP question.

Here's my point: how much time when into making [Firaxis sci-fi scenarios]?
Well, the real issue here is, do you feel enough has been added to make the epic game improvements worth the price? If more than enough, than "it's all gravy", as they say.
the scenarios don't have the replayability that the epic game does
Well, my broader point, though mostly my own opinion, obviously, is that more "out there" scenarios have better replayability than historical ones, because the gameplay can be made more different than the already great epic game.
But we can't really discuss this in much detail now. Let's take this point back up for debate in July. ;)

I'm sure a good amount of time has gone into the BtS scenarios, so that they feel like something a little more than "Civ4 with Spaceships" or "Civ4 with Mutants", while at the same time keeping the familiarity of play.

And there's how many civs/leaders already in the game? More than you can stuff into the game without modifying the DLL. Does it really need more? I don't really care who my opponents are as long as I have some. It seems a little lopsided to me to expect complex, "non-traditional" mods to be handed of onto the modding community, while making the paid guys add in simple stuff. I was able to mod in my own Civ and Leader, and given my almost complete ineptitude with modding should serve as a good example of how simple it is to add a Civ/Leader (minus modeling, but there's enough people out there that can do that too with the right tools).

For just about every Civ game, people have been making Star Trek/Star Wars mods. The problem with a lot of them is that they play out like the normal game, except with different units. By making a mod such as Final Frontier, you give these modders who may not be so great at coding stuff the chance to make a mod "feel right". And sure, there's plenty of extremely talented people around here that could do it, but it never hurts to get some help and direction from the people that know the inner workings of the game best. It save a lot of time, patience, and code-digging.

Now, if there were to be Final Frontier and another official space scenario nearly identical to it, I can see where there would be a problem. But as it is now, it's good to have something official to use as a base to work from.

I personally don't like the Scifi additions, but i'm not complaining about it because of 2 reasons:

1. I'm not a scenerio player. I will play the WWII scen though.
2. It's at the least of importance. Just don't play the scenerio. While in the case of HRE, There occasionally gonna pop up in my games if i don't mod them out.

The reason why i don't like it, is because we don't know if we're gonna be like that in that future year. It won't be accurate and i generally don't life sci-fi stuff because i like it to be historical.

But that's my opinion, and i am entitled to my opinion.

Fantasy scenarios are also not what a lot of us are looking for when we play civ. You want action, play an RTS; you want a bit of fantasy, play one of the many RPGs with that format. Civilization is geared more towards... civilization. :D Plus, a lot of civvers would have preferred historical scenarios, like Japanese Unification, WW1, the Cold War, American Revolution (not the one that came with Vanilla!), American Civil War, a Colonization mod, an SMAC mod, etc...


I have no problem with people that don't like the fantasy and therefor don't like FfH (or don't like it as much). But I disagree with the statement that if you like fantasy you should play RPG's. The genre (turn based strategy) and theme of the game are seperate and there are fantasy turn based strategy games (heroes of might and magic), fantasy real time strategy games (warcraft), fantasy FPS games (heretic) etc etc etc. You state that if "you want action, play an RTS" but it isn't a good example because action isn't a theme. Theme's are fantasy, historical, horror, sci-fi, steam punk, etc.

You can see a list of video game genre's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_genres

And again, I dont have any problem with those that don't prefer fantasy themed games. Just don't think that the theme is intrinsic to the genre.

And I agree that a lot of people will probably find some scenario that doesn't interest them in BtS. And from that perspective they would probably prefer Firaxis spend their time on the ones that they prefer and not ones they don't. But every person will be different in that regard. Thats the beauty of BtS, viewed from one angle you can say there will some scenario each person doesn't like (the half glass empty) or you can say there will be something really cool for everyone (the half glass full).

edit: man I honestly started this post right after yours, I got busy and missed a bunch of cross posts. I'll add though that I can understand your arguement for "they should spend their time on the epic game instead of scenarios" that "they" is a big group. Some work on the epic game, some work on scnearios I dont know that you achieve good economies of scale by putting more and more designers on the epic game. Also I dont know that the epic game is made much better by just adding more civs and more leaders, but thats just my opinion.

LastOne:
How would feel about this scenario? Firaxis has a choice between putting Poland in, or making "Gods of Old." They chose Gods of Old.

Kael:
Hope you don't take anything I said personally. :D I think Fall From Heaven is an excellent scenario; it's just not what interests me. Apparently 50,000+ other people disagree.

Again, I have nothing against any fan-based material being in. I'd like to see more of it: Dale's Age of Discovery would be good, as would Total Realism and a number of others. Heck, the HOF mod would be a very practical addition! :) The only thing I worry about is if Firaxis is trying to "make a statement" by including 5 or 6 fantasy scenarios in the game. All things being equal, I am looking forward to the expansion because I will finally have a chance to play a lot of different mods, including FFH2. Who knows... I may come back in a month or two and reverse my position entirely.

What I would like to see, ideally, is that Firaxis stick to the basic game stuff, and leave the scenarios (except maybe one or two) to the modders. That will probably never happen, and there are good arguments against it, but based on past criticism that's what I think would be best. Maybe BtS will change my mind.

I haven't played a scenario since the Mars colonization game in Fantastic Worlds, and that was the first scenario I played. For me, Civilization has always been about the epic game. The scenarios, even the ones grounded in reality, were just extra fluff. Completely unnecessary outside of potentially providing artwork for units that should've been in the epic game.

EDIT: To clarify -- I don't care if the scenario is historical, fantasy, or sci-fi. By its very nature, a scenario removes one of Civilization's greatest assets -- its random play. No random map and already established nations means greatly limited options for the player to approach the game.

EDIT: To clarify -- I don't care if the scenario is historical, fantasy, or sci-fi. By its very nature, a scenario removes one of Civilization's greatest assets -- its random play. No random map and already established nations means greatly limited options for the player to approach the game. I usually agree with this, which is why it's useful to differentiate between mods, which probably allow for random map play by different rules, and so have more replayability, and scenarios, which don't (but can be more carefully controled in terms of balance, map aestetics, etc.).

Well, many scenarios have random maps. I believe Fall from Heaven does. Rhye's and Fall of Civilization does not.

That's what I use as the determiner of whether to call it a mod or a scenario.
Fixed map = scenario
random map = mod
Of course, using this defintion, mods can have scenarios, and many scenarios can be mods as well.

I think we have to keep in mind that this is an expansion pack, not the original civ4-- we are basically paying for extra content, including scenarios, to enhance the original game's re-playability. If the developers include sci-fi content in an xpack meant to add some "spice" to the game, all the more power to them. It won't change the dynamics of civ4 or the rest of the franchise, and if the scifi content remains within the scenarios and not overflows into the epic game, those players who don't like scifi won't have to play them.

I am with Gaius: I am never going to play the scifi scenarios. I don't like scifi stuff, I don't want to play scifi, I am just not a sci-fi/fantasy guy. However, I have the option of not playing the scenarios, and since this is an xpack that won't include significant scifi content into the main game dynamics, it doesn't bother me that there are sci-fi scenarios, as long as they also have historical ones.

I've played the civ series for fifteen years, and I know that along with my fellow history buffs, there are also civ players who love modding the game to include sci-fi/fantasy. I think Sid and co. have finally realized that this subgroup is out there, and is trying to reach out with them with a few scenarios in a second xpack. I don't think it is the end of the series' integrity as we know it; life will go on. If you don't want to play sci-fi in civ, simply don't play the scenarios. It's that easy.

Well, I didn't say I'd never play the scenarios... I'm itching to get into Final Frontier and see what that's like... and even Fall From Heaven, finally. But I do agree that any epic content is going to outweight the scenarios vastly.

After rereading this thread, I think I have been way too harsh (read: out of line) with a lot of my comments. Blame it on what Kael called "caffeine-induced rambling." :)

hello this is my first post here
and personally i dont think i have ever played scenarios that have come with civ. But this time i will i have played both FfH RFC recently and think both are great. I will play many of the mods this time around except for some of the scifi ones. The thing is Fantasy and scifi mods and games appeal to alot of people.

i love playing civ but i will never play it as much as i do age of wonders which i think is the greatest fantasy tbs out there. I think civ realizes they have alot of casual fans who like other genres as well and are going to try and appeal to the masses while keeping the epic game the same and if the mods are good enough that i play them multiple times more power to them it will just give us another option to play.

There hasnt been much hype about Gods of Old, but it could be quite good. Especially for modders if it has new game mechanics about religion.

On topic, I play scenarios usually for about 30 minutes, then lose interest. I believe it's because the core game is so good ,not because the scenarios are so bad. I just go back to the core game because I want to try some new idea or strat.
The scenarios haven't yet given that challenge.
Maybe that will change with WWII and some of the others.

Me, I prefer non sci fi, but I'll load them all up.in July.

Fixed map scenarios generally lack replayability, however they can be fun to play nevertheless, even many times before I get bored. And for statement "They could add Poland but choose scenario", I object- they could then kick out all scenarios and put in Croatia, I'm sure many people here would be happy. They could also add Finland, I'm sure there are modders out here who would like to make Finnish Winter War 1939-1940 scenario. Etc.etc. Would any of that make the game better? No. I don't know why some people suffer from 'more is better' complex. Adding stuff just for sake of adding it won't make the game better. I honestly don't care which AI civs will be in my game, and I pick my depending on unique units/buildings and leaders trait. As long as all leader traits combos are covered, I don't care about extra leaders at all. I would rather like if they improved AI or added something in epic game that really improved gameplay like spies (Which they are adding, it remains to see how fun will they be)