[NFP] We need historical game modes too!

[oSiyeza]

Religion was first something what was introduced in DLC (expansion) and now is standard part of game (what is OK, its maybe most important thing in history when it comes to concicvences) ...
Now we have expansion (which this is, just in 6 parts) whit magicians and vampires ... how long before they become standard part of game. What if they come with Civ 7 new ides of "bringing history and fantasy together" or something like that.

How long when they become a part of the main game? There have been 4 years of development, 2 expansions, and 6 DLC before you got any non historical content. I think you are jumping the shark, while riding a horse here.

Nobody knows what the next game is going to be, when or if there will even be one. And this is not a discussion of any future hypothetical game.

Also it is clear as water that the devs have been extra careful with not adding any non-historical content in the base game. You are literally arguing on the air here.

 

[Zaarin]

I will give up after this post ...

There are two things ... something is possible but did not happen (moon landing in 1777), Maori superpower in 2020, some random religion become most followed etc, etc ... those thing didn happen, but THEY COULD ... Vampires and magicians COULD NOT EVER HAPPEN ...

There is difference ... one thing is way which history rolls itself, another is how is universe built.

Look, I'm not thrilled about adding excessive fantasy elements, but the franchise has never, at any point in its existence, been about serious history nor has it ever taken itself particularly seriously. Civ2 had such charming real life, historically attested leaders as "Shakala of the Zulu." Civ3 had skinhead Joan of Arc. There is absolutely nothing new going on here; in fact, I'd argue that secret societies are a lot more historical than "Shakala," since, you know, secret societies are a thing that existed, even if conspiracy theories have exaggerated their influence and power. The game doesn't even directly imply that either vampires or cultists are actually doing anything supernatural.

 

[GenyaArikado]

it's unlikely they'll go that far. Maybe for an spinoff or for an specific xpack for a long running legacy title...which is what civ6 might be....

 

[oSiyeza]

I will give up after this post ...

There are two things ... something is possible but did not happen (moon landing in 1777), Maori superpower in 2020, some random religion become most followed etc, etc ... those thing didn happen, but THEY COULD ... Vampires and magicians COULD NOT EVER HAPPEN ...

There is difference ... one thing is way which history rolls itself, another is how is universe built.

Please, just avoid arguing on feelings and using caps out of indignation. Everyone is entitled to his opinion. There are different players that want different types of content. And no one has changed or endangered the alleged “pure” civ experience.

The fact is there is room for non-historical content in civ, there always has been. Im sure a lot of players like it, and I’m certain that most players appreciate more optional content that may include something they don’t personally like, better than no content.

There is room for content that will be enjoyed by different people with different tastes.

Arguing from the heart, without stopping to think, can be damaging as can lead to very biased conclusions or to impose certain ideas to others.

This is an open community, with room for discussion and room for different playstiles. No one holds the idea of what civilization is or should be.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

I didn't like the decision to make it a cartoon because I was worried that it meant they weren't taking themselves seriously enough. Then they introduced religious combat complete with lightning bolts. Not only is the idea asinine it isn't even a fun game mechanic. The tech quotes read like they were googled at the last minute by a precocious child. I've been trying to keep an open mind but they just keep getting sillier as they go. It isn't about being perfectly accurate, it's about creating the right atmosphere. The cartoon aesthetic, the clergy throwing lightning bolts, the modern conspiracy theories, the giant death robots and the zombies are out of place and detract from the game. I'd be more forgiving if the game provided a well balanced strategic/tactical challenge but it doesn't. I was open-minded, now I'm becoming convinced that Civ big-shots have a tin ear for the game. @Zaarin pointing out stupid but minor mistakes from the past like "Shakala" does nothing to make me feel better about the equally stupid but much bigger mistakes that are being made right now.

 

[Zaarin]

I didn't like the decision to make it a cartoon because I was worried that it meant they weren't taking themselves seriously enough...The cartoon aesthetic

Wow, I thought the "colors more vivid than brown hurt my masculinity" complaints died down years ago.

The tech quotes read like they were googled at the last minute by a precocious child. I've been trying to keep an open mind but they just keep getting sillier as they go.

I agree with this about the base game and Rise and Fall, but Gathering Storm did make an effort to do better.

 

[FinalDoomsday]

Wow, I thought the "colors more vivid than brown hurt my masculinity" complaints died down years ago.

I think they mean the style of the characters and the world rather than the use of colour. You can have a colourful world without a heavily stylised aesthetic, I think Humankind is doing it rather well from what I've seen.

 

[Zaarin]

I think they mean the style of the characters and the world rather than the use of colour. You can have a colourful world without a heavily stylised aesthetic, I think Humankind is doing it rather well from what I've seen.

Sure, but "stylized" and "cartoonish" are not at all the same thing. There's nothing particularly cartoonish about Civ6's art direction, and at least back on release most of the complaints seemed to be centered around the fact that the color palette wasn't recycling Civ5's "fifty shades of mud." The entire industry has generally moved away from hyper-realism in the past decade because hyper-realism ages really poorly, really quickly. There's also been a general move away from the "reality is a shade of brown" trope.

I think Humankind is doing it rather well from what I've seen.

Humankind looks lovely. It also looks very stylized. Just saying.

 

[The Civs 6]

They don't have a single fantasy scenario. Every scenario in the game is historic in nature. The fantasy elements are in the optional modes, which are additive to the main game, and the Red Death multiplayer mode which is entirely its own thing.

Well whatever, the optional games that they allocated resources to instead of the true game - the true game that the poll in the other thread showed the VAST majority of people in this forum care about.

 

[pokiehl]

Well whatever, the optional games that they allocated resources to instead of the true game - the true game that the poll in the other thread showed the VAST majority of people in this forum care about.

Resource allocation/opportunity cost for game development isn't nearly as binary as you think it is. Just because they put X amount of dollars/hours into Feature A doesn't by any means they could/would just re-allocate those into whatever other development you deem adequate. Any software development or project management professional can attest to this.

The whole ouevre against these game modes by the vocal minority here really harkens to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. What exactly is the "true game" you refer to? Civ has ALWAYS had these fantasy elements that you so vehemently disapprove of - it has NEVER been some stolid history simulation. Civ2 had goblins and mermen, Civ 4 had elves and other fantasy scenarios, etc.

 

[The Civs 6]

Resource allocation/opportunity cost for game development isn't nearly as binary as you think it is. Just because they put X amount of dollars/hours into Feature A doesn't by any means they could/would just re-allocate those into whatever other development you deem adequate. Any software development or project management professional can attest to this.

The whole ouevre against these game modes by the vocal minority here really harkens to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. What exactly is the "true game" you refer to? Civ has ALWAYS had these fantasy elements that you so vehemently disapprove of - it has NEVER been some stolid history simulation. Civ2 had goblins and mermen, Civ 4 had elves and other fantasy scenarios, etc.

I mean I was around for those and the fantasy aspects weren't front and center for either game in the same way that they are in NFP. So I don't know where you got that meme about fantasy being a big deal in the past but frankly it's baloney.

And in general I was more tolerant of the designers back then because, you know, they actually made an excellent product with regards to 2 and 4.

And, on top of all of that, the poll in the other thread pretty conclusively shows the way most people in this forum actually feel about this issue.

 

[Zaarin]

And in general I was more tolerant of the designers back then because, you know, they actually made an excellent product with regards to 2 and 4.

Clearly, many people think they still are making an excellent product.

 

[The Civs 6]

Clearly, many people think they still are making an excellent product.

It's totally irrelevant to this conversation, but I have read that thread and in no way is it particularly strong evidence for that proposition.

 

[pokiehl]

And in general I was more tolerant of the designers back then because, you know, they actually made an excellent product with regards to 2 and 4.

And, on top of all of that, the poll in the other thread pretty conclusively shows the way most people in this forum actually feel about this issue.

The poll in that other thread shows that nearly everyone who responded is OK with fantasy elements in this game, so I'm not sure what your point is

The goalpost keeps moving here so I think there's no point in continuing this debate.

First, it was "This is ridiculous! Civ is a history game!"
Then, it was "The devs shouldn't have wasted their time and money on this! I don't like it!"
Then, it was "OK, Civ has always had fantasy elements, but they weren't front and center!" (side note: they aren't in the New Frontier Pass either. They are optional game modes - exactly analogous to how they have been present throughout the series)
Now it's "Fantasy stuff would be OK if Civ 6 was actually a good game! Civ 6 isn't as good as the other Civs!"

It appears that you've decided to be upset about this no matter what, so have at it.

 

[The Civs 6]

The poll in that other thread shows that nearly everyone who responded is OK with fantasy elements in this game, so I'm not sure what your point is

The goalpost keeps moving here so I think there's no point in continuing this debate.

First, it was "This is ridiculous! Civ is a history game!"
Then, it was "The devs shouldn't have wasted their time and money on this! I don't like it!"
Then, it was "OK, Civ has always had fantasy elements, but they weren't front and center!" (side note: they aren't in the New Frontier Pass either. They are optional game modes - exactly analogous to how they have been present throughout the series)
Now it's "Fantasy stuff would be OK if Civ 6 was actually a good game! Civ 6 isn't as good as the other Civs!"

It appears that you've decided to be upset about this no matter what, so have at it.

Frankly if you don't understand "arguing in the alternative", I'm not sure what to tell you. As in, I don't agree with your characterization that Civ ever had fantasy elements, but even if you can't be shaken from that belief, your argument is still wrong.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Well whatever, the optional games that they allocated resources to instead of the true game - the true game that the poll in the other thread showed the VAST majority of people in this forum care about.

It would help if you clarify the poll you are talking about because the only poll I see the "some sci-fi/fantasy in Civ is ok" is currently winning with in second place is "mostly historical" which means less people care about 100% historical.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/poll-civilization-historical-or-fantasy-game.660604/

 

[The Civs 6]

It would help if you clarify the poll you are talking about because the only poll I see the "some sci-fi/fantasy in Civ is ok" is currently winning with in second place is "mostly historical" which means less people care about 100% historical.

Just to be clear when I say most people "care" about, I'm not saying that most people are rabidly anti-fantasy. I'm just saying that most people are "meh" on fantasy, at best, and that's what that poll is very clearly saying.

 

[Zaarin]

It's totally irrelevant to this conversation, but I have read that thread and in no way is it particularly strong evidence for that proposition.

The thread asked the question "Is Civ6 the best iteration in the series?" Many people answered yes. Clearly quite a few people feel Firaxis is still making a good product. I am by no means advocating the idea that quality is a popularity contest, but the point is that, while Civ6 may not be your preference, there are still many players who are very satisfied with the quality of product Firaxis is turning out.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Just to be clear when I say most people "care" about, I'm not saying that most people are rabidly anti-fantasy. I'm just saying that most people are "meh" on fantasy, at best, and that's what that poll is very clearly saying.

I mean I can agree on that. I'm not crazy into wanting a lot of fantasy either. But I also like the way Firaxis has implemented it and in my opinion they haven't made it too over the top. That's why I felt I couldn't realistically vote for the second option and went for the third.

 

[The Civs 6]

The thread asked the question "Is Civ6 the best iteration in the series?" Many people answered yes. Clearly quite a few people feel Firaxis is still making a good product. I am by no means advocating the idea that quality is a popularity contest, but the point is that, while Civ6 may not be your preference, there are still many players who are very satisfied with the quality of product Firaxis is turning out.

I'm not speaking for anyone but myself, and I know that I'm bringing in ideas from other games that aren't of interest to everyone, as far as the quality of the product goes. But I still think that few people who play Civ are very excited about fantasy.