Where is everyone?

[InsidiousMage]

I just disagree with this "no uniques for any civ" idea entirely. It'd be incredibly boring to me.

Its also one of the biggest complaints with Millennia so I doubt we will see another game try it anytime soon.

You complained earlier about how they are unbalanced strategies that you had a bad experience with in multiplayer. Yeah that's unfortunate, but Civ isn't a competitive multiplayer game, so I don't think the devs need to focus on perfectly balancing every faction--that would really be to the detriment of the game and reduce any fun.

Here is an incredibly hot take - games either need to be single player or multiplayer. Trying to appeal to both types of players will lead to lesser experience for both types of players.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What we could do, of course, is start with Un-Named Pre-Urban 'Tribal' Groups and have them develop their 'uniques' based on how far, how long, and where they wander before settling down. Humankind sort of tried this with their Neolithic Start, but frankly, didn't seem to have followed through on its potential: while wandering you could not develop any Civic or Social Policy differences, no new ways of doing things (Pottery, Weaving, Archery and Boating as Technologies all precede the first city-building by thousands of years), not even any new ways of fighting. Which meant that Humankind's 'start' was really a Pre-Start, because nothing much important happened except scouting until you advanced to the first 'Era' and selected a Civ to play based on virtually nothing you had already done.

I think that could have been much, much better done. Have the 'Neolithic' (or Paleolithic) wanderers get a chance to develop some Technologies, some Civic/Social policies, maybe even some special attributes to their religious practices (like, building Gobekli Tepe or one of the early wooden 'Henges' whose remains dot northern Europe) so that the 'choice' of which Civ they become on First City Founding is to some extent determined by what went before and where they wound up. And if you really, really want to play the game's version of the Phoenicians then you'd better 'wander' towards the coast or you may wind up with some very Un-Punic Uniques indeed!

I would still want to personally choose your civilization at the main menu. That way even if you start in the middle of the desert playing as a wandering tribe of Phoenicians, you can start wandering towards the coast.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I can't agree with this at all. The leaders 100% contribute to emergent storytelling. For example, I remember in Civ 5, I loved having Suleiman on the map because he always allied with me. His jovial greetings gave me a real kick. With his friendliness, he became a real character. In Civ 6, I get a kick out of Kristina calling me a philistine who can't appreciate art.

It's not storytelling. It's feelings at that point. You had feelings with pictures. But that's OK. Paintings give us feelings. (so they say) But you had feelings towards an image and its attitude. And I feel it's kind of disconnected from the rest of the game and its gameplay. That might not be though. I don't know.

The point is, their personalities make them characters in the story of our game as much as they are historical figures in real life. It's much easier to anthropomorphize a videogame character who is already human rather than this abstract notion of a civilization itself.

There are many games out there with characters with personnalities. I don't think Civ is the best candidate for that, that's all. Thing is the game is named Sid Meier's Civilization, not Sid Meier's LeaderHeads. More than a picture, the name is important. It says less and by consequence far more than a picture. Even the picture of the "box" of Civ6 doesn't represent a collection of Leaders, but Atlas, the Titan who is condemned to carry the Earth on his shoulders ; and cities and landscapes at his feet. The true essence of Civilization is the civilization. If you want to point out the Leaderheads too much, the concept becomes suddenly far more narrow and sketchy.

I just disagree with this "no uniques for any civ" idea entirely. It'd be incredibly boring to me. You complained earlier about how they are unbalanced strategies that you had a bad experience with in multiplayer. Yeah that's unfortunate, but Civ isn't a competitive multiplayer game, so I don't think the devs need to focus on perfectly balancing every faction--that would really be to the detriment of the game and reduce any fun. The vast majority of players love that every civ has its own unique style or flair.

Removing everything from a faction's kit except their name and their city names would result in the financial death of this series. I can't fathom the fun in it at all.

Well, aside leaderheads, Civ1 and Civ2 shouldn't be attractive to you, then. That's however when it was judged to worth some deepening. (and no, not only in the direction of uniques) Today's audience has nothing to do with the one back in the days, so the brute sales of each game don't tell us much. Only that Civ has harvested a certain renown. (mouth-to-ear, "coregamers" to novices, etc.) It's like saying that the palace view is what makes Civ a great franchise. There is none in Civ4-6. It's maybe too bad for some, but that's it.

As to multiplayer yes it can be played competitively. The fact that it's not widespread is IMO because the games are too long and the meta a nightmare to understand, plus no real effort to deliver fair maps (RNG all the way)/civs (cheese, a lot of cheese ) to all.

 

[Krajzen]

It's not storytelling. It's feelings at that point. (...) There are many games out there with characters with personnalities. I don't think Civ is the best candidate for that, that's all.

Feelings are an anchor for storytelling. Make me emotionally attached to something in a video game, and I shall tell myself a story, if there is nothing else to work with; and for many people video games are richer this way. Apparently it works even for 4X strategy games, since the main criticism of Humankind has always been its lack of emotional involvement. One of the most beloved strategy games ever made was Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, and it was beloved largely *because* its focus on story and characters.

Thing is the game is named Sid Meier's Civilization, not Sid Meier's LeaderHeads. (...) The true essence of Civilization is the civilization.

That's a bold thing to suggest, that leaders (with their heads you talk to during diplomacy) are not part of the 'essence' of this series, seeing how they were present here since 1991 for over 30 years LeaderHeads have been there longer than 80% of the gameplay mechanics - and are more important for the cultural recognition of the series than any abstract notions or mechanical puzzles. Sid Meier's Civilization has always been Sid Meier's LeaderHeads.

As to multiplayer yes it can be played competitively. The fact that it's not widespread is IMO because the games are too long and the meta a nightmare to understand, plus no real effort to deliver fair maps (RNG all the way)/civs (cheese, a lot of cheese ) to all.

The reason why it is not widespread is most people don't give a damn about playing big epic strategy games competetively and as puzzles to solce, they are rather interested in the feeling of leisurely travelling across history by their own pace - and making their own stories along the way.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The reason why it is not widespread is most people don't give a damn about playing big epic strategy games competetively and as puzzles to solce, they are rather interested in the feeling of leisurely travelling across history by their own pace - and making their own stories along the way.

Nailed it.
Regardless of what the 'professional' historians might be pushing, the gaming community is here for the Narrative History and the interesting and arresting characters and stories that comprise it.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Feelings are an anchor for storytelling. Make me emotionally attached to something in a video game, and I shall tell myself a story, if there is nothing else to work with; and for many people video games are richer this way. Apparently it works even for 4X strategy games, since the main criticism of Humankind has always been its lack of emotional involvement.

Cool story indeed. I guess we have both our opinions.

One of the most beloved strategy games ever made was Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, and it was beloved largely *because* its focus on story and characters.

That may have been one of its strong points, but certainly not a conerstone of all Civ series, and not even the main (or only) strong point of SMAC.

That's a bold thing to suggest, that leaders (with their heads you talk to during diplomacy) are not part of the 'essence' of this series, seeing how they were present here since 1991 for over 30 years LeaderHeads have been there longer than 80% of the gameplay mechanics - and are more important for the cultural recognition of the series than any abstract notions or mechanical puzzles. Sid Meier's Civilization has always been Sid Meier's LeaderHeads.

Sorry but I do not think that is true. Sid Meier Civilization is this, not Sid Meier's LeaderHeads. How such an obvious thing can't be admitted ? It's self blindness at this point.
Before Civ5 we had the Big Fat Cross in every iteration, and suddenly it changed. Was the Big Fat Cross the mark of Civ and cannot be changed otherwise sells sink ? 1UPT ? City-States that take up room on the map ? Sure, the devs might have trembled for their boldness, but hey in fact everything was fine. I can see it happening , but only if this is necessary. (like I said, focus more on gameplay than art, if possible)

The reason why it is not widespread is most people don't give a damn about playing big epic strategy games competetively and as puzzles to solce, they are rather interested in the feeling of leisurely travelling across history by their own pace - and making their own stories along the way.

Ah, ah ! I never read something more wrong. "Puzzles to solce" is the core of the game, you cracked it your done with it. But here comes... multiplayer ! Circle is closed.

Look at this forum frequentation, Civ6 doesn't interest anyone anymore, because most "coregamers" beat Deity a hand in the back. There may be other sources of exchanges like Discord and such, but one can bet that the frequentation of forums is correlated to the one of such medias. It will sound obvious as soon as Civ7 is shown for the first time : it will be litterally a speculation fest, the most loved part of Civfanatics. (we should tell Frx to tighten the releases of each iteration, because every player can THEN see all the possibilities of that franchise without daring to ask for them *sigh*)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Look at this forum frequentation, Civ6 doesn't interest anyone anymore, because most "coregamers" beat Deity a hand in the back. There may be other sources of exchanges like Discord and such, but one can bet that the frequentation of forums is correlated to the one of such medias. It will sound obvious as soon as Civ7 is shown for the first time : it will be litterally a speculation fest, the most loved part of Civfanatics. (we should tell Frx to tighten the releases of each iteration, because every player can THEN see all the possibilities of that franchise without daring to ask for them *sigh*)

That's only because there is no new news currently. I'm sure if a NFP 2 or Leaders Pass 2 announcement popped up there would be more activity, regarding Civ 6.

 

[Ryan F. Mercer]

I'm actively modding. I'm using Civ6 as my development platform, but I'll be releasing the files for Civ7, assuming sufficient compatibility, which I think can be safely assumed. I started work in January of 2023 and I've needed this time to prepare everything. They haven't even announced a release date, but I'm carefully considering the calendar for what I need to accomplish by when. I'm guessing they'll announce in July, and will probably put it at least one year out from there. Chances are, I'll be using all of that time for coding, testing, and tutorializing. Once released, it'll be a race to update the code as necessary for the new version. The more I can prepare now, the easier that will be.

 

[pokiehl]

I'm guessing they'll announce in July, and will probably put it at least one year out from there.

I doubt that. They tend to announce games with a 6-month or so lead time. One year is too far out.

Can you talk more about your modding project? Are you going to release anything for Civ 6 specifically? I think people would be interested in the Lua tools you've alluded to. Are you able to unlock new things for the API or something? Or is this a tool to make Lua modding easier? (Maybe something with a GUI and dropdown menus or something?)

Although I don't quite understand the wisdom of developing a tool for an unrevealed game based off of its 8-year old prequel.

 

[Gorbles]

The true essence of Civilization is the civilization. If you want to point out the Leaderheads too much, the concept becomes suddenly far more narrow and sketchy.

I'm sorry, and I was young in the 90s, so I'm sure Civ 1 made a more impressionable impact on me than it would've had I played it when I was older (tends to be how things go), but I cannot think of my intro to the franchise playing that game without thinking of the increasingly hilarious diplomatic leader scenes as you progressed through the eras. General Zulu Shaka with advisors in full-on modern khakis behind him? Glorious. Anachronistic, and yet glorious.

The "civilisation" has always been a bunch of traits, sometimes more emphasised, sometimes less. But the leaders, caricature or not, is what has generally stood out. And it's fine to have a different opinion, don't get me wrong, but I'll finish with a comparison between SMAC and Beyond Earth (as a devout apologist and indeed fan of BE). SMAC leaders stood out. BE's did not. And every time people mention BE, this is usually mentioned as a net negative (even if there were aspects done well).

(corrected the mixing of civ and leader, that's pretty funny given the post content)

 

[reddishrecue]

I'm sorry, and I was young in the 90s, so I'm sure Civ 1 made a more impressionable impact on me than it would've had I played it when I was older (tends to be how things go), but I cannot think of my intro to the franchise playing that game without thinking of the increasingly hilarious diplomatic leader scenes as you progressed through the eras. General Zulu with advisors in full-on modern khakis behind him? Glorious. Anachronistic, and yet glorious.

The "civilisation" has always been a bunch of traits, sometimes more emphasised, sometimes less. But the leaders, caricature or not, is what has generally stood out. And it's fine to have a different opinion, don't get me wrong, but I'll finish with a comparison between SMAC and Beyond Earth (as a devout apologist and indeed fan of BE). SMAC leaders stood out. BE's did not. And every time people mention BE, this is usually mentioned as a net negative (even if there were aspects done well).

I noticed Shaka came out in many versions of civilization 1. Unfortunately for me, my version of civilization didn't have Shaka in it.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Shaka came out

bully for him

 

[pokiehl]

Its also one of the biggest complaints with Millennia so I doubt we will see another game try it anytime soon.


Here is an incredibly hot take - games either need to be single player or multiplayer. Trying to appeal to both types of players will lead to lesser experience for both types of players.

I gotta disagree here. There are plenty of examples of games that do single player and multiplayer well. A fun game is generally made even better if you're allowed to go through it with a friend.

For Civ in particular, multiplayer to me is absolutely one of the most critical features for them to maintain. It doesn't need to be specially balanced or anything. It's just plain fun to do co-op with a pal. Co-op is the most fun I ever have playing Civ, and I'd be really heartbroken if we lost it.

 

[reddishrecue]

bully for him

Yeah but in emperor in that civ 1 everyone is a bully.

 

[Quintillus]

I agree with pokiehl. I've primarily played III, IV, and VI single-player, but have also had a good time playing each of them with friends in multiplayer. In spite of the occasional multiplayer crashes III (with Gamespy, back in the day), the out-of-syncs in IV, and... so far (knock on wood) multiplayer in VI seems to be stable. It can also be good word-of-mouth marketing. Your pal wants to try a different multiplayer game? If you already play a lot of Civ, you might suggest it. I've both been introduced to games this way, and introduced friends to games this way.

Also agree that balance isn't important. So many competitive multiplayer games squash the flavor out of the game in the name of balance. The fact that most civs have an era or technique where they're kind of overpowered is part of what makes it fun.

Now, I'd also like to see Firaxis invest more in the AI side of things. I just conquered Persia because while I was building a real army after our first war, Persia was building the Terracotta Army, and losing what was left of their original army to barbarians. Free wonder for me, but there's still a ways to go to match the Civ III and IV AI, despite the improvements from V (in V, I would have conquered them entirely in the first war). So maybe I would like the balance to tilt a bit more towards single player, but I see the value in both, and IV came a few out-of-sync fixes away from being outstanding in both.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Also agree that balance isn't important. So many competitive multiplayer games squash the flavor out of the game in the name of balance. The fact that most civs have an era or technique where they're kind of overpowered is part of what makes it fun.

I agree but I wish there was a map generator that took the flavor of each civ in the game into account.

 

[Ryan F. Mercer]

I doubt that. They tend to announce games with a 6-month or so lead time. One year is too far out.

Okay. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Can you talk more about your modding project? Are you going to release anything for Civ 6 specifically? I think people would be interested in the Lua tools you've alluded to. Are you able to unlock new things for the API or something? Or is this a tool to make Lua modding easier? (Maybe something with a GUI and dropdown menus or something?)

Although I don't quite understand the wisdom of developing a tool for an unrevealed game based off of its 8-year old prequel.

Sure.

If the lua scripting environment changes significantly from Civ6, then the people at Firaxis are bigger fools than I already knew. I hope not, but I'll release the Civ6 version after Civ7 release, either way.

I'm not too worried. I really only need lua. It's foundational.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I noticed Shaka came out in many versions of civilization 1. Unfortunately for me, my version of civilization didn't have Shaka in it.

I'm guessing you had it on the SNES? They replaced the Zulu for Japan on that system, because well Nintendo.

 

[reddishrecue]

I'm guessing you had it on the SNES? They replaced the Zulu for Japan on that system, because well Nintendo.

Yeah, it was SNES. Japan, Tokugawa... Nintendo. Makes me wonder still how Shaka looked like though.