should the throne room / palace view return in Civ 6?

[ehecatzin]

You click the third option if you don't want them.
The idea is for something that shows your civs progress through the game.

NO, I would mind I don't want the Firaxis art department to waste time on a throne/palace feature that wouldn't add anything to the game besides a gimmick.

I'd rather they work on different terrains, more ethnic units/buildings, wonders and leaders.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

NO, I would mind I don't want the Firaxis art department to waste time on a throne/palace feature that wouldn't add anything to the game besides a gimmick.

I'd rather they work on different terrains, more ethnic units/buildings, wonders and leaders.

You realize that most of those are basically all gimmicks (as is the entire game).

 

[nzcamel]

You click the third option if you don't want them.
The idea is for something that shows your civs progress through the game.

Lol, saying 'I don't mind' is clearly not the same as saying 'no, I don't want a throne room'.
Even an 'other' option is superior to 'I don't mind' in terms of expressing an opposing stance.

 

[George Abitbol]

The Throne room and the palace should return in Civ6. I don't mind if they waste time and resource on that.

 

[Manifold]

The Throne room and the palace should return in Civ6. I don't mind if they waste time and resource on that.

If they improve the game fun how they could waste time with it?

 

[Ryika]

Yes, the palace should return - as a mod. Would certainly become a baseline-mod for me if someone were to add it in an interesting way and with great artwork for different cultural types.

Would I want the devs to waste their time with a feature that is just fluff? No.
And yeah, horrible poll. ^^

 

[Depravo]

You realize that most of those are basically all gimmicks (as is the entire game).

Reductio ad absurdum, ladies an' gerbils.

 

[Ryika]

Maybe a more neutral way of putting it would be to have them focus on features that actually have something to do with empire management and stuff you usually do in 4x games. I'd describe the palace as it was used as a "gimmick" because it's not really part of the game, and I don't think it could be turned into a real feature either without feeling extremely gimmicky.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Maybe a more neutral way of putting it would be to have them focus on features that actually have something to do with empire management and stuff you usually do in 4x games. I'd describe the palace as it was used as a "gimmick" because it's not really part of the game, and I don't think it could be turned into a real feature either without feeling extremely gimmicky.

I agree its not a gameplay feature (and some graphics count as a 'gameplay feature' due to UI). However, in that same category fall

-Leader screens (not just the animation, having images of the leaders instead of just a tech box)
-leader/unit audio
-playing the game outside of strategic view
-wonder movies
-tech quotes
-end game victory sequences


I'm pretty sure if the game only had strategic view and only a flag for diplomatic interaction, most people would think it was poorer for that.

If the palace/throne room was just random stuff that you got to choose, like in previous civs, I agree it could be some nice art that had no real connection to the game.

What is needed is to connect it to the game (like how a victory replay is better than a fixed victory movie..and the worst is a victory end sequence that doesn't even show victory type)

That is what I would like to see.. something you could look at in a game and see "yes that was the empire I built this game".

 

[Ryika]

I agree its not a gameplay feature (and some graphics count as a 'gameplay feature' due to UI). However, in that same category fall

-Leader screens (not just the animation, having images of the leaders instead of just a tech box)
-leader/unit audio
-playing the game outside of strategic view
-wonder movies
-tech quotes
-end game victory sequences

The difference is that all of these interact directly with gameplay, the palace is tagged on for no real reason.

I'm pretty sure if the game only had strategic view and only a flag for diplomatic interaction, most people would think it was poorer for that.

If the palace/throne room was just random stuff that you got to choose, like in previous civs, I agree it could be some nice art that had no real connection to the game.

What is needed is to connect it to the game (like how a victory replay is better than a fixed victory movie..and the worst is a victory end sequence that doesn't even show victory type)

That is what I would like to see.. something you could look at in a game and see "yes that was the empire I built this game".

Well, like I said in my last post... I think the palace is just too "small scale" to really fit into the game as something that acts as or interacts with gameplay mechanic.

It also runs into the problem that the idea of a palace as the "leader room" basically loses its meaning in the midgame.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well, like I said in my last post... I think the palace is just too "small scale" to really fit into the game as something that acts as or interacts with gameplay mechanic..

No more "small scale" than leader/unit animations.

In terms of interaction, the best role I can see for it is as a History (sort of like a condensed "replay")...which works well with some features [Government Legacy bonuses, Districts, possibly Great People)

Major events in your history would show up there
-Governments is easy (something based on current government and legacy bonuses you have now)
-Civs you eliminated/or captured their capital
-Religions founded/present in your empire (not just the sign, but possibly the beliefs)
-Great People (depending on how many you get in a game)
-Luxuries/Strategic Resources that you had a lot of over your history
-Specialty Districts that you have a lot of (proportionately...throughout history)

...have the game remember it at the end of each era, and you have 7 "pictures" that show your history (probably a map as well off to the side)

It also runs into the problem that the idea of a palace as the "leader room" basically loses its meaning in the midgame.

Not really, most nations have a Capitol building of some type, at least one of the "leaders" of any decently sized modern nation has some type of a "palace".

Although Exactly how it should be implemented palace/throne room/"capital city monument area"-like in the CTP game would need to be worked out to properly show what you wanted to show.

 

[Ryika]

No more "small scale" than leader/unit animations.

I do not mean the level of detail in terms of presentation, what I mean is it's significance on the scale of the empire. When I say the palace is too "small scale" I mean that on the scale of empire management it has no real meaning, no impact. It works as symbolism, yes, but I don't see a good reason for adding it as symbolism when the empire itself does the job so much better.

It's... well, like presenting the progress of a city by showing how a single house has changed over the years to me.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I do not mean the level of detail in terms of presentation, what I mean is it's significance on the scale of the empire. When I say the palace is too "small scale" I mean that on the scale of empire management it has no real meaning, no impact. It works as symbolism, yes, but I don't see a good reason for adding it as symbolism when the empire itself does the job so much better.

It's... well, like presenting the progress of a city by showing how a single house has changed over the years to me.

Mostly because it works as summary.
(and the progress of a city based on a single house is fine, if that house actually summarizes the city)

Do you find out your gold income by checking the output of every city, no you look at the summary (in this case the total)

Essentially the Throne room/palace/capital city would summarize multiple things about your empire in one place
(Government, Religion, Luxuries, Great People, District Focus, Major Conquests)
[mostly stuff that is not easily summed up by looking at a current map, especially after you have grown beyond 3 cities...although it should have a copy of the minimap]

And the advantage (since this isn't used as a detailed UI anymore than the leader animations are) is that it can include historical (as opposed to just 'right now') info. The type of "info" that is better for 'presenting' your empire.

 

[Ryika]

(and the progress of a city based on a single house is fine, if that house actually summarizes the city)

Yeah, but why would you want to see the development of a house in a game that is about developing a city? There's better ways of representing the significant steps your city took than simulating them on a pseudo-realistic house.

But overall it seems more like a disagreement between gameplay vs roleplay. I don't see much value in adding a feature that solely represents what is happening "behind the mechanics" without directly adding flavor to the mechanics themselves (at least not enough value that I'd want resources to be wasted on it), you obviously do, so it seems that we have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[Firebug]

How hard would a "Yes, No, Maybe" poll been?

No, because devs have limited time. They have to decide what is most worth it. I wouldn't be suprised if in the super early stages they asked themselves if the Palace should return, and being THEIR JOB to design games they are probably aware of what should and shouldn't appear in their game at this stage of development.

Priorities exist, it's really easy for people to sit on Civfanatics and say "why not this features" and "devs need to add this" while they aren't the ones trying to get a game finished and released for a set date.

Mods on the other hand... yeah, why not? Civ5 has a Palace/Throne Room mod.

 

[Manifold]

No, because devs have limited time. They have to decide what is most worth it.

I still can´t understand this dry argument.

I guess a international company in the 21st century can not be performed this way. your argument sound like planned economy, but this is in reality not true.

If they could make a better game, because it has more rich variety, game fun and better ratings and reviews and ultimately better sales figures, the time for an artist to make the palace view is negligible.

Also, if I remember correctly, it was so that the growing possibility for the palace was connected to the game progress, so it was depending on the game progress, successes and luck. So the palace is not only a gimmick its also a gaming reward.

I guess the game will benefit to more game atmosphere,variety and long time motivation, so that the effort is worthwhile.

 

[Ryika]

How many additional players would buy the game with palace view, but not without palace view? Two? Three? Threeandahalf?

Not every addition you make magically drives up sales numbers, it's the overall feeling of the game (and of course good marketing) that makes them go up. It's not about "Could they reasonably implement this?" - of course they could. They could implement every feature ever proposed and make the game take 2 Terabyte of disk space if they hire enough additional people.

It's about "How much does this contribute to the overall feeling of the game compared to other things that do the same thing?", and I'd say: Very little. The idea of moving the player into a separate space and giving them some arbitrary rewards that interact with nothing is simply outdated, it's from a time where you just could not do much in terms of "rewarding" the player by showing progress directly in the empire itself. Today you can do that, so why move back in time when you can also just work on feedback directly on the map?

 

[Manifold]

How many additional players would buy the game with palace view, but not without palace view? Two? Three? Threeandahalf?

not only because of the palace view of course, but the the overall impression counts and these include nice little things like a palace for the 6000 years ruling player or some other things away from the chessboard. Also Steam will have a reward system for hard work.

Not every addition you make magically drives up sales numbers, it's the overall feeling of the game (and of course good marketing) that makes them go up.

You are absolutely right. a bit of variety off the map could be a benefit for overall impression. That could be a worthy palace for a great leader.

It's not about "Could they reasonably implement this?" - of course they could. They could implement every feature ever proposed and make the game take 2 Terabyte of disk space if they hire enough additional people.

Let's stick to the facts, please. We talk here about the throne room/palace, or?

It's about "How much does this contribute to the overall feeling of the game compared to other things that do the same thing?", and I'd say: Very little. The idea of moving the player into a separate space and giving them some arbitrary rewards that interact with nothing is simply outdated, it's from a time where you just could not do much in terms of "rewarding" the player by showing progress directly in the empire itself. Today you can do that, so why move back in time when you can also just work on feedback directly on the map?

If I remember right and I wrote it before, than growing possibility for the palace was not into a separate space and not arbitrary (Civ 1). Also the other AI ruled Civs had it and it shows you nearly the power of the Civ according to the size of their palace.

The other thing you say is a good question about how a throne room/palace will embedded in the game. In this thread a lot of good suggestions were made.

 

[Manifold]

So this poll is closed and ended.

It is an interesting result I thought the palace view would be in lead.

 

[MRM]

Would have voted for the palace if the poll was not closed already