Agendas are making a return.... Yay or Nay?

[KayAU]

ARA appears to have named 'Leaders' who look even blander than Civ VII's, and no other named people that I've seen (only in previous Pre-Release versions, to be sure: they might completely surprise me with the Release version on Tuesday).

I don't agree that they're particularly bland, but in addition to leaders, Ara has a multitude of Paragons, named historical figures who can be assigned to different roles, such as different government positions, army leaders, or crafting Masterpieces. IIRC, you can have frickin' Moses laying siege to your enemies' cities. It's pretty cool.

With regards to named leaders in general, they are indeed a strong point of the Civ series. They are immediately recognizable, bring a lot of personality and flavour, and imbue the factions on the map with a clear identity. I took this pretty much for granted until I played Humankind, where factions frequently shift cultural identity, while the leaders are pretty anonymous. It felt schizophrenic to me.

I also think the great people system of Civ 6 was one of the few features where I don't have much to complain about. In a game where there were so many good ideas poorly implemented, the Great People system was a joy.

A side note: Civ 7 leaders scenes are a bit odd to me. Civ 5 had excellent leader scenes, Civ 6 had duller backgrounds, but highly animated leaders. I don't like the new perspective in Civ 7 though. Looking at your own leader from the side, interacting with other leaders who are also not facing you, seems like an odd choice, as it places the player outside the action. I want an enraged Harald to be coming straight at me.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I don't agree that they're particularly bland, but in addition to leaders, Ara has a multitude of Paragons, named historical figures who can be assigned to different roles, such as different government positions, army leaders, or crafting Masterpieces. IIRC, you can have frickin' Moses laying siege to your enemies' cities. It's pretty cool.

With regards to named leaders in general, they are indeed a strong point of the Civ series. They are immediately recognizable, bring a lot of personality and flavour, and imbue the factions on the map with a clear identity. I took this pretty much for granted until I played Humankind, where factions frequently shift cultural identity, while the leaders are pretty anonymous. It felt schizophrenic to me.

I also think the great people system of Civ 6 was one of the few features where I don't have much to complain about. In a game where there were so many good ideas poorly implemented, the Great People system was a joy.

A side note: Civ 7 leaders scenes are a bit odd to me. Civ 5 had excellent leader scenes, Civ 6 had duller backgrounds, but highly animated leaders. I don't like the new perspective in Civ 7 though. Looking at your own leader from the side, interacting with other leaders who are also not facing you, seems like an odd choice, as it places the player outside the action. I want an enraged Harald to be coming straight at me.

Ah, I had forgotten all about the Paragons! In my defense, it's been many months since I got a chance to play a pre-release version of the game - and I haven't seen any of their Leader graphics for the same amount of time, so I suspect they may have improved as they approach Release date.

I agree, the Civ VII approach to the Leaders is off-putting. IF we are intended to identify with the Leader (which is now the only completely Universal attribute of our Civ, the only part that does not change with Ages) then I would think keeping the interactions in 'first person mode' looking out through his/her eyes would work better. At the moment, as posted, it puts the gamer in the position of an on-looker, vastly reduces identification with the Leader and puts the gamer outside of the action on screen.

 

[KayAU]

I just had an idea about leader scenes. I'm not sure it's a good idea, but hear me out: In my opinion Civ 5's leader scenes were the best, most immersive in the series. You had a striking, animated leader, in a setting which represented their civ and culture. In Civ 7, leaders are no longer permanently tied to civs. What would it be like if you had leader scenes like those in Civ 5, where the leader was constant, but the surroundings changed based on their current civ? I mean, it would probably look really goofy, but the idea amuses me. Just the idea of encountering "Ghandi of the Inca" sitting on Pachacuti's throne.

 

[chaosprophet]

On the leaders povs, I'm not too bothered by the facing against each other, but would still prefer the just facing the player, as, similar to how others put it, I see the leaders as visuals for the opponents, but not as an avatar for myself. But don't think it is something likely to change or even being added as an option, as I think they would probably have to completely redo most of the animations for all leaders.

 

[Zaarin]

animated leader

Civ5 had animated leaders?

On the leaders povs, I'm not too bothered by the facing against each other, but would still prefer the just facing the player, as, similar to how others put it, I see the leaders as visuals for the opponents, but not as an avatar for myself. But don't think it is something likely to change or even being added as an option, as I think they would probably have to completely redo most of the animations for all leaders.

We already know they face the leader in the leader selection screen so it'll probably be easy enough to mod--though some of the "interactions" will look weird. But they already look weird so...

 

[KayAU]

Civ5 had animated leaders?

Umm...yes? Much like in Civ 6, they would move about and gesture based on what was going on. Alexander would ride in on a horse.

 

[Zaarin]

Umm...yes? Much like in Civ 6, they would move about and gesture based on what was going on. Alexander would ride in on a horse.

I don't really think of animatronics as animated.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Actually, Millenia, Humankind, and from what I've seen, the 48-hours-from-Release ARA all have 'faceless masses' to some extent:
Millenia has faceless Everything, including your Civ;
Humankind has faceless everything but your Leader, and that is a nameless Avatar
ARA appears to have named 'Leaders' who look even blander than Civ VII's, and no other named people that I've seen (only in previous Pre-Release versions, to be sure: they might completely surprise me with the Release version on Tuesday).

Civ having staked out the Personality High Ground in previous versions has always given us far more individuality of people in the game: Great People, named 'Tribal' barbarians (in previous Civs and Civ VI's Barbarian Clans mode), Governors, as well as the Leaders.

This, IMHO, has been one of the strengths of the franchise: I just hope they aren't backing away from it in Civ VII with their (so far) nameless Army Commanders and other 'generic' civilian units.

I honestly don't know if personality is worth bothering with when it comes to games like these. That's a department more fantasy-themed strategy games like Warhammer will always have them beat in, as they don't have to worry as much about being accused of not being educational enough, or worse, spreading misinformation about history. Of course, historical accuracy is always going to be an impossibility in this medium, but not sociological accuracy, i.e. does the game do a good enough job of simulating human societies, which I personally think is more important for the Civ games to pull off, if not the most important aspect

 

[Zaarin]

I honestly don't know if personality is worth bothering with when it comes to games like these. That's a department more fantasy-themed strategy games like Warhammer will always have them beat in, as they don't have to worry as much about being accused of not being educational enough, or worse, spreading misinformation about history. Of course, historical accuracy is always going to be an impossibility in this medium, but not sociological accuracy, i.e. does the game do a good enough job of simulating human societies, which I personally think is more important for the Civ games to pull off, if not the most important aspect

I think it's very important. The human element is what sets Civ apart from its competitors.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I think the problem between 5 and 6 was that the system in 6 seemed flawed.

On paper, I think Agendas are neat, a specific requrement/condition for an AI to like/dislike you, problem is, they approached it wrong, because while some agendas were fine being binary (as in true or false), other should'nt be. Tell me why Qin Shi Huang will detest me if I build a single wonder more than him. It should be a sliding scale, the more wonders i have, the more he hates me.

Leaders in 5 also felt distinct, they each had their own behaviour (we all mock Montezuma's erratic behaviour, Hiawatha's city spamming, Dido's backstabbing nature), while a lot of that in 6 was gone. Sure Gilgamesh was one you could always trust to be your friend but ultimately most of the AI seemed "the same". The diplomatic system in 5 felt so dynamic, alliances were made and broken, loyalty was earned, while in 6 a lot of it seemed gone, I think part of is because none of it was communicated anymore, you no longer had notifications that the AI would denounce or make alliances with each other, you only had your own perspective and you had to look it up.

 

[sTAPler27]

I'm fine with it but it makes leaders feel very 1 note. Like oh I'm the wonder guy, i'll only pull you aside because I don't like that you're also building wonders.