Are you really in favour of uniques ?

[Naokaukodem]

You won't have more uniques.

To those who missed my point (after listening Polycast episode 223, don't know if i understood well -very bad in oral comprehension, the main reason why I declined an invitation years ago, but I guess that they "didn't see the point")

So, no uniques would free people to better roleplay their own country first, and then possibly others they have knowledge about.

With uniques : people choose a civilization according to their uniques, not according to what they are in reality. Uniques are tied to gameplay, and what gameplay effects they have. Countries in reality are not gameplay. Therefore, uniques tend to limit the different countries to a bunch of marginal specs, by opposition to true matter.

Result : they pick random civs according to their uniques, not the ones they want to truly roleplay. Anyone would want to pick its own country. The involvement in the game would be totally changed, and the fun and amusement also. (it's hard to bypass this fact when France can start near Japan, it's the reason why I don't do it, otherwise i do not speak necessarily for myself)

PS : you won't learn anything without uniques, you won't get extra knowledge from the game to reality, but you would get extra interest from reality to the game.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Without Uniques, the game loses about 95% of it's replayability and every nation is the same to play. You don't need to play according to your uniques, I for example rarely build any Unique Units because I almost rarely ever play aggressively.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Without Uniques, the game loses about 95% of it's replayability and every nation is the same to play.

It's amazing to affirm such a thing. The difficulty levels (which are numerous), the random map generator, the starting locations, what unfolds from them, luxuries, strategical resources, the tech tree, the social policies, etc. are all in favour of replayability. It's not 2 unique units and and a unique ability that will make me play another game. Civ is so much more than that.

You don't need to play according to your uniques

I don't need. But I do. And again, I don't necessarily speak for myself who is aware of the problem, but also for other peeps that are "trapped" in the unique world without knowing it.

 

[reddishrecue]

Some uniques look really political and at the same time look really unique for a certain map type. For example, England, which is dominant in water maps. Or how about America who is good at land maps and cheap tile purchase expansions. Like that, other civilizations who can be good at water maps such as Indonesia can also be good at making faith. Some civilizations don't look that political and seem to be tribal no longer seem that tribal when you look at the help section. Maya, for example, is composed of 3 or 4 different political countries.

 

[Acken]

I don't need. But I do. And again, I don't necessarily speak for myself who is aware of the problem, but also for other peeps that are "trapped" in the unique world without knowing it.

Seriously ?

 

[Biologist]

This discussion doesn't seem likely to go anywhere productive. What it boils down to is that you have an opinion that most if not all of us disagree with, and your circular arguments aren't convincing.

The debate is moot anyway, since I highly doubt that Firaxis will do away with unique attributes (either bonuses or units/buildings) in Civ VI, and they certainly aren't going to retroactively dismantle Civ V. If you really hate unique units, mod them out. You've expressed an unwillingness to accept others' viewpoints as potentially valid, so you should not be surprised when we continue to dismiss your arguments.

 

[reddishrecue]

This discussion doesn't seem likely to go anywhere productive. What it boils down to is that you have an opinion that most if not all of us disagree with, and your circular arguments aren't convincing.

The debate is moot anyway, since I highly doubt that Firaxis will do away with unique attributes (either bonuses or units/buildings) in Civ VI, and they certainly aren't going to retroactively dismantle Civ V. If you really hate unique units, mod them out. You've expressed an unwillingness to accept others' viewpoints as potentially valid, so you should not be surprised when we continue to dismiss your arguments.

What made you come to this conclusion about firaxis?

 

[Biologist]

What made you come to this conclusion about firaxis?

Long post incoming, I've tried to format it for readability:

Video games, movies, and books that are part of successful franchises tend to be relatively formulaic. Successful elements of the formula are generally carried forward to the next iteration. There are exceptions, usually to prevent sequels from becoming too derivative; an example is the removal of unit stacking from Civ in favor of 1UPT movement.

Unique attributes for civilizations is a concept that has developed throughout the Civilization franchise, from unique colors, to unique leaders, to unique units, to unique combinations of units, buildings, and bonuses. You can change the unit movement system in Civ and have a game that is still readily identifiable as part of the franchise.

Removing unique attributes entirely from Civ VI would result in a game more like Settlers of Catan than Civilization, where the focus is entirely on player interaction with the map and other players, rather than including player interaction with their own faction. As an example of this, see Civ: BE, where it is possible to create an entire game full of civs with identical bonuses and units, and the only considerations are terrain and player interaction. Already players have complained that the game lacks replayability and depth.

As for my certainty that Firaxis will not retroactively and fundamentally alter Civilization V, doing so would make no sense from a creative or financial standpoint. Hundreds of mods already exist to fundamentally alter Civ V, making an official alteration on that scale unnecessary. It would also obliterate all the creative effort that went into improving the game since its launch.

As an example of such an ill-advised rewrite, remember how angry fans were when George Lucas threw the original Star Wars trilogy down the memory hole and released his "improved" Special Editions? His PR still hasn't recovered from that (and his other questionable creative decisions since, but that's another topic). Firaxis took a big gamble with Civ V, and only really broke even in the arena of public opinion with the release of GnK and got ahead with Brave New World. They're not going to throw all that away to satisfy a minority of the player base.

 

[reddishrecue]

Long post incoming, I've tried to format it for readability:

Video games, movies, and books that are part of successful franchises tend to be relatively formulaic. Successful elements of the formula are generally carried forward to the next iteration. There are exceptions, usually to prevent sequels from becoming too derivative; an example is the removal of unit stacking from Civ in favor of 1UPT movement.

Unique attributes for civilizations is a concept that has developed throughout the Civilization franchise, from unique colors, to unique leaders, to unique units, to unique combinations of units, buildings, and bonuses. You can change the unit movement system in Civ and have a game that is still readily identifiable as part of the franchise.

Removing unique attributes entirely from Civ VI would result in a game more like Settlers of Catan than Civilization, where the focus is entirely on player interaction with the map and other players, rather than including player interaction with their own faction. As an example of this, see Civ: BE, where it is possible to create an entire game full of civs with identical bonuses and units, and the only considerations are terrain and player interaction. Already players have complained that the game lacks replayability and depth.

As for my certainty that Firaxis will not retroactively and fundamentally alter Civilization V, doing so would make no sense from a creative or financial standpoint. Hundreds of mods already exist to fundamentally alter Civ V, making an official alteration on that scale unnecessary. It would also obliterate all the creative effort that went into improving the game since its launch.

As an example of such an ill-advised rewrite, remember how angry fans were when George Lucas threw the original Star Wars trilogy down the memory hole and released his "improved" Special Editions? His PR still hasn't recovered from that (and his other questionable creative decisions since, but that's another topic). Firaxis took a big gamble with Civ V, and only really broke even in the arena of public opinion with the release of GnK and got ahead with Brave New World. They're not going to throw all that away to satisfy a minority of the player base.

How would you know these facts? Do you work for firaxis?

Moderator Action: Please answer in a way that provides more information so others understand what it is you are driving at. This looks more like trolling than anything else.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Biologist]

You seem to be somewhat passive-aggressive about this topic. Why would I need to work for Firaxis to make a rational analysis of broad patterns in entertainment media, and their logical effects on corporate decisions with respect to successful media franchises? I'm all for debate, but your implied assertion is nonsensical.

Moderator Action: Please report the post and move on. Please let the staff handle it. Answers like this are only going to start a troll war.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[killmeplease]

Removing unique attributes entirely from Civ VI would result in a game more like Settlers of Catan than Civilization, where the focus is entirely on player interaction with the map and other players, rather than including player interaction with their own faction.

Thats a good point. This game is not a generic kingdom simulation or whatever, despite some people want it to be. They complain about Americans in 4000BC, or the Great Wonders being "unrealistic", but this game is not about realism or history simulation. Its just a fun game in some epic decorations and thats why its so popular.

Uniques certainly add to replayability, which cant be too much of, so "the game is already replayable because of ..." is not a valid argument.

Uniques add to flavour, otherwise why even to bother with unique names? There could be civilization group of people creatures 1, 2 etc. And the player could type the name of his liking, "French Empire" or "Magic Ponies", whats the difference?

 

[stormtrooper412]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the flaws of BE that the sponsors were indeed "all pretty much the same"

 

[Redaxe]

As an example of this, see Civ: BE, where it is possible to create an entire game full of civs with identical bonuses and units, and the only considerations are terrain and player interaction. Already players have complained that the game lacks replayability and depth.

This is fairly accurate of real life to be honest. All modern militaries today look & operate in much the same way(the only real difference is how far advanced the training, electronics and software is). Hence why most space scifi strategy games have a range of alien races to maintain some diversity.

And world culture is becoming more and more homogenized in the tech/information age, this would be the same if we could colonize a new planet.

 

[Biologist]

This is fairly accurate of real life to be honest. All modern militaries today look & operate in much the same way(the only real difference is how far advanced the training, electronics and software is). Hence why most space scifi strategy games have a range of alien races to maintain some diversity.

And world culture is becoming more and more homogenized in the tech/information age, this would be the same if we could colonize a new planet.

You definitely have a point. I'm not arguing that BE isn't realistic when it comes to representing potential future space colonizers. I'm just pointing out that it probably wasn't the best decision from a gameplay standpoint. Firaxis could have, for instance, gone with an "idea" system similar to the one Paradox used for EU IV: a set of unique bonuses for each sponsor that unlocks as you advance in technology, and maybe changes subtly depending on which affinity you align with.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Seriously ?

Yes, yes, seriously. When you have uniques, you take account of them, so you will choose random civs in order to have uniques. Without uniques, the question presents itself differently : because there are no uniques, you choose your own civ or a civ you heard of and want try to incarnate.

I know how roleplaying my own country can be thrilling, for having experienced it in Civ2. Other people ignore this, as they have never been drived to experience it.

This discussion doesn't seem likely to go anywhere productive. What it boils down to is that you have an opinion that most if not all of us disagree with, and your circular arguments aren't convincing.

My circular arguments ? They are not circular. They have come down to an end with me saying that uniques were illusions. Nobody counter-argumented this. Now, I'm coming with precisions as the people in Polycast talked about this very thread. and didn't seem to "see the point", which I think is big. Precision done, if you feel i repeated myself sorry for that.

You've expressed an unwillingness to accept others' viewpoints as potentially valid, so you should not be surprised when we continue to dismiss your arguments.

! You are cheeky ! I admitted earlier that uniques could help one to roleplay... however i think that roleplay one's own country is more powerfull, that's all, because i've experienced it myself in the past, and based on the fact that roleplaying aka "recreating History" (long time advertised as a Civ main characteristic just like the "one more turn" sentence) was more or less inferior in Civ5, Civ4 and Civ3, whereas all three had uniques.

Now please, in order to pursue this "discussion" as you call it, try to come up with convincing arguments instead of talking about the talk.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Uniques add to flavour, otherwise why even to bother with unique names? There could be civilization group of people creatures 1, 2 etc. And the player could type the name of his liking, "French Empire" or "Magic Ponies", whats the difference?

The difference is that uniques in Civ5 are linked to gameplay elements as already said.

You could also have generic city names, but if you want to roleplay your country it would be boring to have a list of the most important cities of your countries in front of you, and enter them as you create cities. It's more convenient to have them incremented in the core game. (and, with CLSL, you couldn't modify your neighbour civs names)

You definitely have a point. I'm not arguing that BE isn't realistic when it comes to representing potential future space colonizers. I'm just pointing out that it probably wasn't the best decision from a gameplay standpoint. Firaxis could have, for instance, gone with an "idea" system similar to the one Paradox used for EU IV: a set of unique bonuses for each sponsor that unlocks as you advance in technology, and maybe changes subtly depending on which affinity you align with.

IMO Civ : BE fails in the AI difficulty settings and the limiting system (happiness = health), and the fact that it's too close from Civ5.

AI difficulty setting : AIs are often too strong when it comes to reach max level of affinity quick as difficulty goes. Result : the ONLY way to win the game is to declare early and conquer everybody at higher difficulty levels.
Health : Civ5 is kindof the boring and unepic game, a part of its point is how you struggle with happiness. Health is kindof the laxist pendent of Civ5 happiness, and nothing holds it up.
Civ5 : a number of people have played a number of hours of Civ5. Now they want to move on, play something else unless it's Civ5. (BE has many bugs or weird annoying things - trade system - so better play Civ5)

 

[reddishrecue]

I haven't even played EU IV but I have played BE a few times in which is somehow believed that i knew that game was about but now I realized that I didnt. Uniques arent even that needed by me because i used to use civilization a long time ago without all the necessary things that are happening now. Temples and primitive happiness have come a long way up to now where it has expanded into healthiness that has ended up in Beyond Earth.

 

[Acken]

Yes, yes, seriously. When you have uniques, you take account of them, so you will choose random civs in order to have uniques. Without uniques, the question presents itself differently : because there are no uniques, you choose your own civ or a civ you heard of and want try to incarnate.

I know how roleplaying my own country can be thrilling, for having experienced it in Civ2. Other people ignore this, as they have never been drived to experience it.

Well the "seriously ?" part was about this

but also for other peeps that are "trapped" in the unique world without knowing it.

Not about your opinion itself... even though I strongly disagree with it.

My circular arguments ? They are not circular. They have come down to an end with me saying that uniques were illusions. Nobody counter-argumented this.

That's because it's only an opinion. You can't counter argument an opinion, the fact that you think they are an illusion and you don't like them.
People have clearly stated in that thread why they do not share that view. Not agreeing with that counter-view does not make your idea unopposed.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Well the "seriously ?" part was about this



Not about your opinion itself... even though I strongly disagree with it.

Well it's not about my opinion if you understand well what i said : people submitted to uniques will fail to see the roleplay of their own country marvels, because uniques drive them to choose civs according to gameplay elements aka uniques.

That's because it's only an opinion. You can't counter argument an opinion, the fact that you think they are an illusion and you don't like them.
People have clearly stated in that thread why they do not share that view. Not agreeing with that counter-view does not make your idea unopposed.

No, it was about logic too. I was deliberating about a statement about the contradiction of two things in my argumentation. Solution = illusions.

 

[shaglio]

Well it's not about my opinion if you understand well what i said : people submitted to uniques will fail to see the roleplay of their own country marvels, because uniques drive them to choose civs according to gameplay elements aka uniques.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you seem to be hung up on this notion that Civ players only want to play their own country. I can assure you that I've played hundreds of games of Civ 5 and I've only played America maybe half a dozen times. I like variety and I try out all the different civs (including well over 200 modded civs in the Creation & Customization forum).