All Quiet on the Civ Front

[Zaarin]

At least we have nice music, right?

Oh, yes, Andreas Waldetoft is brilliant.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Or would another version just lead to the Civ market being even more fractured?

Civ VI seems to me like it was deliberately intended to be a better version of Civ V, one that got rid of the flaws of Civ V, and then expanded on what was good about Civ V. I think Civ VI could ultimately win over Civ V players as a result - it is, or will be eventually, the better game.

I can’t say the same for Civ IV v VI. Civ IV seems to have a very different philosophy and or design (specifically, “not a board game “). I can’t see FXS supporting that type of game in the near or medium future, but could definitely see another developer taking up the mantle - retro graphics, an explicitly “Sim” approach instead of “Boardgame” approach, much darker elements.

Civ has never been not a board game.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Agree, but it will require an entirely new game engine and some serious thought given to implementation.

Absolutely. And that, more than anything else, is what I'm hoping for. That the series gets handed over to a development team that is given a mandate to re-implement the concepts that made Civ 1 so great, without being burdened with using the same game mechanics that have been used in the past.

Isn't every civ game already a reboot? Its not like there is a continuing storyline.

Each new iteration of Civ, to date, has been created using a roughly 1/3rd old, 1/3rd changed, 1/3rd new approach. Old mechanics get brought forward, tweaked, get new systems layered on top of them. I think we've hit the limit of the value of that approach.

Renovating an old house time after time eventually gets to the point where tearing it down and re-building from the foundation up leads to a better result. I think we're there now with Civ.

Civ has never been not a board game.

Very true. And that's a virtue. A (good) board game must keep all players engaged at all times, not have mechanisms that inspire people to rage quit or drop out because it's obvious after turn 2 that they're going to lose, not overwhelm the players with excessive tedious decisions, not have them sit around for hours making no interesting decisions because the important decisions were all made at the beginning of the game and were sufficient to guarantee victory. Most importantly, at the end of the game, win or lose, all the players should have enjoyed the experience and be looking forward to playing again (only this time, they're going to do X not Y …)

 

[Cuneiform]

Each new iteration of Civ, to date, has been created using a roughly 1/3rd old, 1/3rd changed, 1/3rd new approach. Old mechanics get brought forward, tweaked, get new systems layered on top of them. I think we've hit the limit of the value of that approach.

Renovating an old house time after time eventually gets to the point where tearing it down and re-building from the foundation up leads to a better result. I think we're there now with Civ.

I don't think so.

In that event, such a game would not be Civ 7 but something else entirely.

 

[Gedemon]

Civ has never been not a board game.

By game rules, sure, but it was more hidden in the previous iterations (less with civ5 already), that were really able to give you the feeling of leading an Empire to pass the test of time.

While Civ6 is a naked board game with good rules, everything in it make you fell that you are conquering a simple board, not the world.

 

[Zaarin]

I don't think so.

In that event, such a game would not be Civ 7 but something else entirely.

I can't say I agree with your assessment. The important thing about Civ isn't the mechanics; it's the use of real world civilizations as factions with real world leaders leading them. Aside from that, the only other things I'd indelibly associate with the Civilization franchise is a certain tongue-in-cheek levity reminiscent of The Sims and an unfortunate tendency to be completely historically inaccurate despite the historical pretext of the game. Virtually any mechanic could be sacrificed while retaining those traits and it would still be recognizable as a Civilization game. I agree with Trav'ling Canuck that Civ7 would be much better off rethinking the formula.

 

[AvianBritish]

pdreview was just updated! I wonder what that is for...

 

[acluewithout]

I can't say I agree with your assessment. The important thing about Civ isn't the mechanics; it's the use of real world civilizations as factions with real world leaders leading them. Aside from that, the only other things I'd indelibly associate with the Civilization franchise is a certain tongue-in-cheek levity reminiscent of The Sims and an unfortunate tendency to be completely historically inaccurate despite the historical pretext of the game. Virtually any mechanic could be sacrificed while retaining those traits and it would still be recognizable as a Civilization game. I agree with Trav'ling Canuck that Civ7 would be much better off rethinking the formula.

I think that’s mostly right, but I think Civ does have some other mechanical and stylistic elements that are core to the “Civ” experience. Some people might argue with exactly what’s on the list - the same way people might argue about what’s core for e.g. Batman (he totally needs robin v robin makes no sense) - but there is some sort of list implicitly.

In my mind, the list probably includes founding cities, and those cities being “nodes” for production and activity, space and Dom victories, unit based combat, and having certain ideological governments (communism, facism, democracy), and a few meme like stylistic choices like ghandi and his nukes.

 

[Zaarin]

I think that’s mostly right, but I think Civ does have some other mechanical and stylistic elements that are core to the “Civ” experience. Some people might argue with exactly what’s on the list - the same way people might argue about what’s core for e.g. Batman (he totally needs robin v robin makes no sense) - but there is some sort of list implicitly.

In my mind, the list probably includes founding cities, and those cities being “nodes” for production and activity, space and Dom victories, unit based combat, and having certain ideological governments (communism, facism, democracy), and a few meme like stylistic choices like ghandi and his nukes.

Yeah but everything on that list except Gandhi is simply part and parcel of a 4X game (substitute "system" for "city" in space-based 4X games). No one is proposing a genre switch.

 

[acluewithout]

@Zaarin Heh heh. Yeah, you’re right.

 

[ggalindo001]

I love the era specific music of VI, but damn do I miss the wartime music. Being at war should inspire a different feeling than peace time.

Until said, I had forgot about this aspect. I think a way to address this tho could be in the same mechanic as the golden/dark ages -- if you are at war, maybe there is harsher red/orange tint to the screen (or for us WW2 buffs, game goes to black and white --- but I'm sure most wouldn't like that).

I honestly think the music aspect of Civ VI is why we aren't seeing a lot more DLC. Everything else can be done in house (animation, creation, etc.) but the music would likely be a different ordeal to work through -- and why we would probably see additional civilizations only in expansions.

 

[Rup]

Until said, I had forgot about this aspect. I think a way to address this tho could be in the same mechanic as the golden/dark ages -- if you are at war, maybe there is harsher red/orange tint to the screen (or for us WW2 buffs, game goes to black and white --- but I'm sure most wouldn't like that).

I honestly think the music aspect of Civ VI is why we aren't seeing a lot more DLC. Everything else can be done in house (animation, creation, etc.) but the music would likely be a different ordeal to work through -- and why we would probably see additional civilizations only in expansions.

Perhaps as a mod. I don't want anymore tints in my game but I do want wartime music.Even though I would never notice as I have in-game music disabled for a loong time
Those are great and all but after a lot of games those get boring, same for any other game.

 

[Aristos]

Why do Paradox games always look like they've been slapped with a heavy desaturation filter?

Because they care much more about excellent gameplay than fancy graphics?

While Civ6 is a naked board game with good rules, everything in it make you fell that you are conquering a simple board, not the world.

Not always. Sometimes, it makes me feel like a Wizard summoning lightning strikes on the infidels...

 

[Rup]

By game rules, sure, but it was more hidden in the previous iterations (less with civ5 already), that were really able to give you the feeling of leading an Empire to pass the test of time.

While Civ6 is a naked board game with good rules, everything in it make you fell that you are conquering a simple board, not the world.

Agreed.
I never thought of it like that but now that I think about it maybe that is why I still like Civilization 4.It feels grander.
As much as I enjoy playing VI, I don't think a video game should be too much like board games.We enjoy both of these differently and play both of these for different reasons.
Neither a video game should be too much like a movie, that is why I don't also like video games that have too much of a "cinematic experience".
It can take inspiration from a different medium but should not get too much like the other medium.

 

[Siptah]

***EDIT: I mean, should I try EU:4 to get a better understanding of how paradox's games feel and work, will it make the learning curve lower for Imperaotr:rome ? or is it too early to tell ?

While PDX games have a steep learning curve, they are somewhat related and knowing one helps at others. That said, I'm an ok EUIV player that sucks at CK2, so there is no guarantee and every game will need 100+ hours until you see how it really works. Imperator will be closer to EUIV than CK2 is though. A common misconception is that PDX games are hard (because the learning curve is so steep); this is definitely not the case, they are very forgiving once you know how the games work. I think more important than knowing a similar game is that you make sure you don't try to play civ or total war style with a game that isn't civ or total war.



I would welcome a complete re-boot for the next civ title. Sure, it could be a failure, but so could improving on civ VI. Is there a thread somewhere buried in these forums with a radical new approach that is worth reading?

Why do Paradox games always look like they've been slapped with a heavy desaturation filter?

Because you are used to the oversaturated civ VI style?

 

[Ma2ge]

pdreview was just updated! I wonder what that is for...

I wonder, too. I hardly dare to believe it, but I more and more get the feeling Firaxis has something big planned. At least I hope for it.

 

[Siptah]

I wonder, too. I hardly dare to believe it, but I more and more get the feeling Firaxis has something big planned. At least I hope for it.

A new screenshot feature patch with more zoom options and a "walk through your city and take pictures mode"?

Edit: awww... it was just google playing tricks on me and me stupid enough to not see it.

 

[c4c6]

Not always. Sometimes, it makes me feel like a Wizard summoning lightning strikes on the infidels...

I have known it all the time ... despite some of your posts ... ... ... this 'Extended Diplomacy Ribbon' thingy ... that 'Lightseeker' ability ...

... you are _G_ the White! (Deep inside...)

 

[bbbt]

Isn't every civ game already a reboot? Its not like there is a continuing storyline.

In terms of mechanics, I thought it was usually 'odd years revamp' 'even years refine' with Civ. So Civ 7 might be pretty different?

Enter Jomini, the new Paradox engine for all future games... if my hunch is right, FXS is in big trouble.

I don't think Paradox is who I'd put my hopes in - I like their games but don't find them terribly innovative either in terms of their games (more soin their DLC/publishing approach). They seem to lean heavy on their hammurabi-writ-large/excel-spreadsheet-of-mechanics-style for their house games, and near-remakes for their publishing/acquisitions (i.e. Cities Skylines for SImCity, AoW for Homm). Granted, I'd personally say Amplitude is a lot more innovative but I actually enjoy the Endless games less, so that's not everything.

I'm not even a big Civ 4 diehard, but Soren Johnson's 10 Crowns ('“an epic-scale turn-based strategy game that lets players create the greatest dynasty in world history.”) is what I'm most looking forward to (and he's got the Civ 5 Art DIrector in tow).

And if I was the billion dollar lottery winner, there's been a number of small games that I've played that have done pretty interesting takes on different mechanics that I'd love to say 'here's some more money make a game'.

 

[Leyrann]

near-remakes for their publishing/acquisitions (i.e. Cities Skylines for SImCity, AoW for Homm).

Yeah I'm going to have to very vehemently disagree here.

Cities Skylines is a game that SimCity can barely dream of ever being. Yes, there are similarities between the newest SimCity and Cities Skylines, but the quality of those two games is magnitudes of difference. The difference between Cities Skylines and the older SimCities (despite those games being better than their sequel) is even bigger, as all SimCity games before the last one use a grid.

As for Age of Wonders, I would kindly like to remind you that the first game was released in 1999, the same year in which HoMM 3 was released; the first (to my knowledge) to be a big hit. And even then, it already showed a depth in various aspects (in particular tactical combat and building unit stacks, but also things like diplomacy) which HoMM to my knowledge has never reached. On top of that, Triumph Studios has only been acquired by Paradox last year.