What after the New Frontier Pass - the end or more

[Zegangani]

2016 Civilization VI
2018 expansion 1
2019 expansion 2
2020-2021 NFP

Perhaps Gedemon might be right with:

About what's next, IMO we're either getting a spinoff this year or civ7 next year. In both case it could be possible to have a second season pass for civ6, as I do think the first season was made by a smaller team while the bigger part of the civilization team is working since GS release on a spinoff or civ7.

The Time between the release of Vanilla Civ VI and RnF and between RnF and GS is in both cases less than a Year and 5 Months. And between GS and NFP it's a Year and 3 Months, but That's just for one DLC Pack. With RnF and GS we got whole EXPANSIONS of Content in a similar amount of Time. NFP, who is taking 12 Months since the first DLC release, isn't Game changing like those Exps. So the Devs might be really working on Civ 7 or a Civ VI spin-off, given the huge amount of Time NFP took, concidering it isn't nearly comparable to a Full Expansion (The only thing that could explain that is that a smaller Team was worked on it, while something else was prioritised).

 

[ManoftheHour333]

While it's true that they may be working on a spinoff...I don't think it's likely. BE didn't sell that well is comparison to Civ VI and with Humankind now encroaching on their market, the FXS should know that making VII would be the next best move in order to make the most money and bring people back to Civ VI. Adding the concepts of Civ VI but done in a more realistic style a'la Civ V I think would be the best move to bring in people frustrated with/tired with Humankind after it drops. If they time it right, they might be able to snatch the market before the Humankind devs have a chance to add in sufficient expacks.

Also, if they were funnelling into a spinoff now, it would mean we wouldn't see Civ VII until at least 2023. And that's assuming that the spinoff doesn't get any expansions...that would be suicidal given their competition and tbh, Civ VI doesnt have enough to last until 2023/4. Their best move IMO is to try and milk as much money out of Civ VI in 2021 (Through a couple leader packs/ platinum edition) and then release Civ VII in late 2022 or early 2023. Just my thoughts

 

[SirMediocrity]

Civ3 was the first with all the expansions planned out from the beginning, ie. on purpose "missing parts" initially. (IIRC Eg. ResearchLab not available in vanilla , but they learned from that)
I suppose, Soren Johnson was quite impatient to implement civ4 from scratch. The releases from vanilla to 2nd expansion took just 21 months. (It's a great feeling to have a whole engine in brain and know instantly where to tweak etc. -- before memory begins to fade ...)

Speaking of which, Austria was seemingly meant to be in Civ 3 Conquests but was cut out because the game has a hardcoded limit of 31 civs. My guess is they originally meant for there to be a 32 civ limit but the barbarians seem to take up one of those slots.

Austria's stuff is still in the code, too. They were supposed to be led by Charles V apparently.

 

[Gradac]

Speaking of which, Austria was seemingly meant to be in Civ 3 Conquests but was cut out because the game has a hardcoded limit of 31 civs. My guess is they originally meant for there to be a 32 civ limit but the barbarians seem to take up one of those slots.

Austria's stuff is still in the code, too. They were supposed to be led by Charles V apparently.

If I remember correctly, you could play as Austria, however you should have replace one of the 31 civs files with Austrian one.

As the time roll, I am more leaning toward opinion that we will see more of NFP kind of extra of civ 6 latter this year, rather then spin off. ( btw if we get a spin off, 'tho unlikely, I would be ok with another Colonization version).

Also, right now, I think, Civ 7 is planned for 2022 or maybe even early 2023 ( and I do also think they are working on it already, possibly even longer than a year).



As for expectation of Civ 7. I have non. From experience it could be very bad, average or excellent - for me personally, but this is purely subjective (and I have feeling I might not like it because I expect they will lean more toward political correctness of nowadays then actual historical simulation, also leaning toward more fantasy and randomness and even more cartoonish and unrealistic graphic.. I might be wrong but I doubt). ..and of course I would buy it regardless. I am a fan.

From strategic point of view I have a wish - I would like that civ7 is nothing like civ 5 or 6. They were very similar 6 looked like extra expansion of civ 5 with uglier graphic , same like 2 and 3 were similar in the same described way. 4 was something like step between 3 and 5 ((but I didn't like it much overly).
So I would prefer completely new idea of how the civ game is played (they can leave hex tile and roughly base of what civ game is but that is it). I have no concrete idea how but that's what I would like, that they surprise us with completely new game concept and strategy of civilization series. I digress, this is for another topic.

 

[Zaarin]

civ 5 with uglier graphic

There are graphics uglier than Civ5? I mean, sure, maybe some of the early 3D games from the 90s were uglier, but not by much.

 

[DWilson]

I think the graphics from V had a very nice, realistic appeal. But, I believe VI's will age much better. Kind of like Twilight Princess vs. Wind Waker, if I am remembering my Zelda games correctly.

 

[Gradac]

There are graphics uglier than Civ5? I mean, sure, maybe some of the early 3D games from the 90s were uglier, but not by much.

I think Civ IV and VI are uglier. That is naturally my opinion.
Although I do not disagree with you that V were.. not pretty either, to say the least. If you know what I mean

Compared the time (year) of when they were issued Civilization III was champion, for graphic (compared to any strategy game of that era). And in general, for me, that was (also compared by time issued) by far most advanced and most fun to play of any iterations of civs (to be clear I am not saying that civ VI is worst from Civ III one on one).

note: forget about Soren Johanson, Jon Shaffer, Ed Beach (sorry guys ) Sid Meyer's IS THE guy. When he was interested in building game like these and when he was in top form he was The King (and Civ III was the last civ that he was heavily involved if I understood correctly)

 

[Zaarin]

I think Civ IV and VI are uglier. That is naturally my opinion.

I don't remember what I thought of Civ4 at the time (a little unfair to judge it now), but I personally think Civ6 is absolutely gorgeous--though I can appreciate the style is polarizing. My personal hope for Civ7 is that they do not make it more realistic but simply choose a different style, perhaps one that will appeal more to those who liked the more realistic approach.

Compared the time (year) of when they were issued Civilization III was champion, for graphic (compared to any strategy game of that era). And in general, for me, that was (also compared by time issued) by far most advanced and most fun to play of any iterations of civs (to be clear I am not saying that civ VI is worst from Civ III one on one).

Civ3 was actually my first Civilization game to own (I played Civ2 at a friend's house), but my memories of it are...not fond. Then again, my memories of it are chiefly Abraham Lincoln in a loincloth and Skinhead Joan of Arc.

 

[AntSou]

I think the graphics from V had a very nice, realistic appeal. But, I believe VI's will age much better.

I remember liking them at the time as well. But I was shocked when, after not looking at the game for two or three years, I opened a playthrough video on youtube and all I could see was a brown mush.

"No way... it's got to be youtube's loss of image quality."

No. The mush was real.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I remember liking them at the time as well. But I was shock when, after not looking at the game for two or three years, I opened a playthrough video on youtube and all I could see was a brown mush.

"No way... it's got to be youtube's loss of image quality."

No. The mush was real.

Maybe but you could tell which tiles were hills.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I think Cartoonisher Civs make it easier to do more CIVs. And since there is a lot of CIVs I want to see in this game I believe we need to be even more cartoonisher in Civ 7

 

[Zaarin]

Maybe but you could tell which tiles were hills.

Well, that certainly makes the fact that the game's terrain looks like a pixelated mud puddle all worth it. Legibility is important, but I don't think Civ5 scores particularly high on that front.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Well, that certainly makes the fact that the game's terrain looks like a pixelated mud puddle all worth it. Legibility is important, but I don't think Civ5 scores particularly high on that front.

Haha--I actually like most of the map graphics in the different versions in their own way. I actually think that by far the worst--and the only truly "ugly"--in the lot was SMAC.

 

[Duuk]

I'm expecting a Further Frontier pass and a "Fantasy Civilization" of some form.

 

[pokiehl]

I think Cartoonisher Civs make it easier to do more CIVs. And since there is a lot of CIVs I want to see in this game I believe we need to be even more cartoonisher in Civ 7

I don’t know about that. Stylized art can be just as challenging to produce as realistic art.

As for expectation of Civ 7. I have non. From experience it could be very bad, average or excellent - for me personally, but this is purely subjective (and I have feeling I might not like it because I expect they will lean more toward political correctness of nowadays then actual historical simulation)

I don’t understand. What is “politically correct” about Civ 6’s gameplay systems that impacts “historical simulation” to you?

(I also disagree with the premise that Civilization games have ever been history simulation games [what history simulator has George Washington in 4000 BCE?], but that’s besides the point).

 

[Alaindor]

"Politically correct" could be about having robot world leaders, or even none at all, to avoid any accusations of gender or racial preferences or inferences?

Don't flame me, just trying to be funny... (although, seeing some of the real world discussions...)

 

[Pistol90]

I would like for Civ7 to stay more cartoonish than realistic (even though I was really pissed of when I saw first screenshots for Civ6), but also I think it should go at least a little more towards realistic side than Civ6 which was too cartoonish. There should be some balance, soo that game can age well --- but Civ6 is still a little too cartoonish.

But on other side, I dont expect any news about Civ 7 this year, best case scenario first news in second half 2022, release in nov/dec 2022 ... and that is if there is no spin off game (which nobody wants I would assume)

 

[Gedemon]

I don’t understand. What is “politically correct” about Civ 6’s gameplay systems that impacts “historical simulation” to you?

(I also disagree with the premise that Civilization games have ever been history simulation games [what history simulator has George Washington in 4000 BCE?], but that’s besides the point).

Everything's relative, none of the PC civ games are pure "history simulation game" and none of them are pure "tabletop board game", but civ6 is closer to a "board game" than civ4, and civ4 is closer to a "history simulator" than civ6.

I'd like that tendency to be reversed for civ7.

 

[pokiehl]

Everything's relative, none of the PC civ games are pure "history simulation game" and none of them are pure "tabletop board game", but civ6 is closer to a "board game" than civ4, and civ4 is closer to a "history simulator" than civ6.

I'd like that tendency to be reversed for civ7.

My point was that I’m unclear on what that (the difference in gameplay between Civ 4 and Civ 6, for example) has to do with “political correctness” which seems to be a boogeyman word people here use when they’re upset about female leaders or something.

 

[Myomoto]

I don’t understand. What is “politically correct” about Civ 6’s gameplay systems that impacts “historical simulation” to you?

(I also disagree with the premise that Civilization games have ever been history simulation games [what history simulator has George Washington in 4000 BCE?], but that’s besides the point).

Civ VI is pretty sanitized in terms of historical atrocities. Slavery is not really represented, with maybe the exception of the Aztec's ability to get workers when killing enemy units. There's no forced reappropriation of land away from the original inhabitants to create stability after an invasion. There's no overt limitations of freedoms or human rights of individuals inside of a fascist regime, etc. etc.

Each of these things would carry with them gameplay systems that would complicate the game further, so you can argue that they have been left out for that reason rather than strictly politics. But I generally have an impression that Civ VI tries to convey a 'feel-good fun-time' with a historical flavour, rather than try to actually teach about the real downsides to having lived in the past...