[NFP] April Update Video

[Linklite]

That's kind of an argument from consequence, though. Not many people play MP because multiplayer Civ is too unwieldy. If the devs made a version that moved faster, had fewer mechanics, and could be finished in around an hour (typical for RTS games), it would likely gain a larger multiplayer following, develop an online community, and have a lot more profit and survivability in the long term.

Then it would basically be an RTS/TBS and lose what makes it Civ. Better to do an RTS/TBS spinoff than convert the entire franchise.

I don't know if it would be more profitable, I for one would lose interest in the franchise and wouldn't buy any more. If they did a side gig I wouldn't mind, but don't turn it into an RTS. The complexity of the game is why I bought Civ VI and not Age of Empires.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

We have 30 years of indication of what people want and expect from Civ, and in general that's not a fast MP mode.

 

[Kwami]

If Civ worked on developing a more robust/fast/fun multiplayer mode, broken AI would hardly matter. I truly think the slower pace is what is keeping Civ back, not the AI.

Look at other "long-form" genres. Turn-based RPGs are all-but dead and have been replaced by MMOs and action RPGs with quicker turn cycles. Casual consumers generally don't have the patience and attention span, and even civ enthusiasts only have enough to play against themselves--add-in the compounding slow-down from other human players and most of us have no patience.

And yet, plenty of "casual" gamers picked up Civ VI when it was released for iOS and Switch and the like. I don't think it's a problem.

Besides, you actually can finish a game in about 2 hours using online speed. It's just not very fun unless you're playing with people that you know. And then there are the desyncs, loss of connection, input lag, pin lag, simultaneous clicks, and everything else that makes multiplayer kind of bad.

 

[InsidiousMage]

crappy AI would be a non-issue, multiplayer focus would encourage better endgame design, speeding up the game might streamline a lot of clunky mechanics, etc. Etc.

Eh, I disagree that a robust online mode would fix those problems because if they have solutions they would have already implemented them. The endgame is generally bad for these kinds of games anyway with most Paradox games just running out the clock basically. Also, I want the game to actually be slower at the beginning and then speed up at the end so an faster style of play is kind of the opposite of what I want from the game. Historically, the Classical era lasts like 1,000 years but the Industrial, Modern, Atomic and Information last around 300 and would like to see that reflected in the game.

 

[DWilson]

@FXS_MisterKevin presents, (drumroll please), Ptssss...... The Trebuchet!!!!

View attachment 593777

I mean, are trebuchet really all that different than a catapult, really?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Then it would basically be an RTS/TBS and lose what makes it Civ. Better to do an RTS/TBS spinoff than convert the entire franchise.

I don't know if it would be more profitable, I for one would lose interest in the franchise and wouldn't buy any more. If they did a side gig I wouldn't mind, but don't turn it into an RTS. The complexity of the game is why I bought Civ VI and not Age of Empires.

I mean, you could make a similar argument for other franchises. I don't think anyone wanted Final Fantasy to convert to action RPG, but they did anyway and the franchise blew up around FF XIII/FF XV and is now more of an MMO style game. I don't think anyone wanted Diablo to remove customizable skill trees and experience points and replace them with hotkey abilities, but now Diablo is more of an MMO style game. Developing an online community is just where the industry is at right now, and for that you need games that can move faster than strict-turn based stuff. I see Civ moving from turn-based to more RTS/ATB style gameplay (complete with automated progression trees) as an inevitability if it wants to grow its userbase.

And yet, plenty of "casual" gamers picked up Civ VI when it was released for iOS and Switch and the like. I don't think it's a problem.

Besides, you actually can finish a game in about 2 hours using online speed. It's just not very fun unless you're playing with people that you know. And then there are the desyncs, loss of connection, input lag, pin lag, simultaneous clicks, and everything else that makes multiplayer kind of bad.

Just because the game sold doesn't mean it is played. I had several friends pick Civ VI up (who had never really played the franchise at all) and barely played it because it was too slow and convoluted. And the desyncs, loss of connection, lag, etc. really just indicate to me that VI is still behind the curve for online play.

(yeah we might be seeing marginal sales increases from wider global markets and some niche casual appeal of fantasy game modes like pirates, red death, and heroes/legends, but overall I doubt Civ VI selling astronomically better than V.)

What I am seeing, based on the cartoony art design, the multiplatform release, is that Civ VI wants to be a casual game. But the very nature of civ as it is traditionally designed is that it is too slow and complicated for casuals and really only has niche appeal among nerds who like very system-heavy games. We are not the average video game consumer. But if "going casual" is really what Civ wants, then they need to make a version of the game that is simpler and faster, because those are the barriers of entry that most casuals don't get past.

 

[Gedemon]

Maybe I'm too old, but I don't associate "casual" and "MP", especially "competitive MP".

And even casual players need an AI that can provide, if not a challenge, an interesting game.

 

[Anno]

There are two Civ games consistently amongst the top ~50 games played on Steam. Civ VI has sold numbers comparable to many mainstream titles (as did V). It’s not some niche game - it is, if anything, the casual entry to the PC strategy game ecosystem.

 

[Zaarin]

Turn-based RPGs are all-but dead

Japan begs to differ. Also, while it's a niche market for sure, most modern CRPGs are offering both turn-based and realtime-with-pause combat options (Pillars of Eternity II) or even just turn-based (Divinity: Original Sin 2, Torment: Tides of Numenera).

 

[iammaxhailme]

Old school turn-based RPGs are rare these days, but Bravely Default 2 just came out like a month ago!

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Maybe I'm too old, but I don't associate "casual" and "MP", especially "competitive MP".

And even casual players need an AI that can provide, if not a challenge, an interesting game.

Best-selling games in the past decade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games):

* Minecraft
* GTA V
* PUBG
* Red Dead Redemption 2
* Terraria
* Animal Crossing: New Horizons
* ES V: Skyrim
* CoD: Modern Warfare
* Diablo III
* CoD: Modern Warfare 3
* Pokemon Sun/Moon
* Human: Fall Flat
* CoD: Black Ops II
* FIFA 18
* LoZ: Breath of the Wild
* SSB: Ultimate
* CoD: Modern Warfare 2
* Borderlands 2
* Pokemon: Sword/Shield
* Super Mario Odyssey
* The Sims 4
* The Last of Us
* Spiderman

Nearly every game that has sold more than 20,000 copies in the past decade has a strong online multiplayer component that keeps players invested long after the single player campaign is finished (and often becomes the basis for a large and long-lived community). Many of these aren't even competitive MP games, they are just games with very well-developed online multiplayer features. And the few single player games that do sell well have dynamic, mechanically simple, fast-paced single-player campaigns that attract a wider audience.

Civ's "community" is effectively the mod community. Which has gathered it a following, but not nearly to the extent of MMOs (because modding is complicated and for nerds; the average consumer wants a prepackaged AAA walled garden, not a mess of custom features). I'm just pointing out the obvious: if Civ really wants to appeal to casuals, then online multiplayer is what casual looks like.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Even when it was first released, I thought the golf course was underpowered. On top of all of that, you can't even build more than one per city, which even more restrictive than kurgans or pyramids. (also, BS that they can't be build on desert tiles...we have plenty of great desert courses where I live. Golf is a universal sport; it doesn't care about terrain.)

I'm assuming since real life Scotland doesn't have any desert, that's why. Plus sand traps.

I mean, are trebuchet really all that different than a catapult, really?

And Line Infantry are just Infantry with muskets that stand in a line.

 

[Kwami]

Nearly every game that has sold more than 20,000 copies in the past decade has a strong online multiplayer component that keeps players invested long after the single player campaign is finished (and often becomes the basis for a large and long-lived community). Many of these aren't even competitive MP games, they are just games with very well-developed online multiplayer features. And the few single player games that do sell well have dynamic, mechanically simple, fast-paced single-player campaigns that attract a wider audience.

Civ's "community" is effectively the mod community. Which has gathered it a following, but not nearly to the extent of MMOs (because modding is complicated and for nerds; the average consumer wants a prepackaged AAA walled garden, not a mess of custom features). I'm just pointing out the obvious: if Civ really wants to appeal to casuals, then online multiplayer is what casual looks like.

A lot of those games function just fine as single-player or local co-op games, though. Just like Civ. And, there's this:

The game shipped more than one million units in its first two weeks of release, making it the fastest-selling game in the Civilization series to date. By May 2017, the game had sold more than 2 million copies, contributing significantly to publisher Take Two's 2017 financial year which had reported revenues of $576.1 million. Take Two stated that Civilization VI was on track to surpass Civilization V's lifetime sales of 8 million copies.

I don't have updated numbers, but 2 million copies in the first year is pretty good. I don't think anyone's worried about whether Civilization games can attract players.

I would also argue that you're ignoring games like Breath of the Wild, Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy, and all of the other Japanese imports that always sell millions of copies despite their complicated systems and length gameplay.

 

[impis]

Multi player improvements are fine but will never be the focus as it's such a small group of people that play it.

The Civ4 AI is pretty bad but they could build and move a unit stack which is what made them a threat!

Hmm, I wish Civ games had COH-style AI. Don't think I'm ever gonna get that wish though.

By the way, Civ 4 BTS AI was pretty competent in other parts of the game too. It felt much more difficult to compete with them than it does with Civ 6 AI.

 

[Gedemon]

Best-selling games in the past decade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games):

* Minecraft
* GTA V
* PUBG
* Red Dead Redemption 2
* Terraria
* Animal Crossing: New Horizons
* ES V: Skyrim
* CoD: Modern Warfare
* Diablo III
* CoD: Modern Warfare 3
* Pokemon Sun/Moon
* Human: Fall Flat
* CoD: Black Ops II
* FIFA 18
* LoZ: Breath of the Wild
* SSB: Ultimate
* CoD: Modern Warfare 2
* Borderlands 2
* Pokemon: Sword/Shield
* Super Mario Odyssey
* The Sims 4
* The Last of Us
* Spiderman

Nearly every game that has sold more than 20,000 copies in the past decade has a strong online multiplayer component that keeps players invested long after the single player campaign is finished (and often becomes the basis for a large and long-lived community). Many of these aren't even competitive MP games, they are just games with very well-developed online multiplayer features. And the few single player games that do sell well have dynamic, mechanically simple, fast-paced single-player campaigns that attract a wider audience.

Civ's "community" is effectively the mod community. Which has gathered it a following, but not nearly to the extent of MMOs (because modding is complicated and for nerds; the average consumer wants a prepackaged AAA walled garden, not a mess of custom features). I'm just pointing out the obvious: if Civ really wants to appeal to casuals, then online multiplayer is what casual looks like.

My point was about AI in games, even for casuals, even online, you need one.

For your point, let just say that I disagree completely about what you want the game to be, the moment it stop being turn based, it's not Civ anymore.

 

[tzu]

if Civ really wants to appeal to casuals, then online multiplayer is what casual looks like.

If they did it as a side job, i.e. in addition to their primary job (making civilization) in order to supplement their income, I wouldn't mind. Trying to do it in their main product will squeeze out more "modding nerds" and alike than they gain on the multiplayer side. I suppose, we will see that scenario performed.

We "modding nerds" have already a gradient towards Old World (Soren Johnson being Soren Johnson and acting so), which may steepen when Old World blooms and overflows into Medieval, Industrial & Modern Worlds ...

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I would also argue that you're ignoring games like Breath of the Wild, Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy, and all of the other Japanese imports that always sell millions of copies despite their complicated systems and length gameplay.

Breath of the Wild is one of the games on my list, and the only one of those to break 20 M copies in the past 10 years.

Also, if we want to talk Final Fantasy, Square Enix would have gone under were it not for FF XIV being its best source of revenue, based on how poorly received FF XV was and how long KH III was in development hell.

Kingdom Hearts doesn't really comment much on the survivability of multiplayer modes either way, given that the franchise has mostly sustained itself on cheap shovelware spinoffs as opposed to real titles. What sells the games to middling success time and again isn't the sort of experience it offers (the games haven't been mechanically good since KH II), but the strongest brand following in the entertainment industry (Disney).

My point was about AI in games, even for casuals, even online, you need one.

For your point, let just say that I disagree completely about what you want the game to be, the moment it stop being turn based, it's not Civ anymore.

People don't read and assume too much. I never said I wanted the game to be that way (though I probably would enjoy it better because it would imply being more tightly designed).

You could say the same thing about Final Fantasy, or any other "turn-based" franchise. That's kind of a no true Scotsman fallacy (or some other essentialist nonsense). Civ can and will be whatever keeps it in business.

(and the quality of A.I. matters far, far less in multiplayer games)

 

[tzu]

(and the quality of A.I. matters far, far less in multiplayer games)

But the quality of random strange players matters far, far more in multiplayer games.

And in 6 single player games you find nearly 6 happy winners - a multiplayer game with 6 participants has only one happy winner. (if it is played out so far)

edit: [Another point, similar to the question, whether God can create a rock so big, that even him/herself cannot lift it, is the goal trying to create an AI, which (along with appropriate boni) you cannot beat as player.]

 

[PhoenicianGold]

And in 6 single player games you find nearly 6 happy winners - a multiplayer game with 6 participants has only one happy winner. (if it is played out so far)

In any number of single player games you will have some players who were unhappy losers who got crowded out early game (which will also happen in multiplayer games), and some players who may have won but are dissatisfied due to a lack of real challenge (which seems to be frequently the case with Civ).

A multiplayer game with team victories or cooperative modes can have several winners (and on average, more happy losers because they lost to a real challenge and not a snowball). And team victories or cooperative modes could translate to single-player mode and make for fewer dissatisfied winners.

Just because Civ has traditionally only had one winner, doesn't mean that's an unchangeable feature of the franchise or that it should even remain the only win state. In fact, look at any other multiplayer game and they tend to have team or co-op modes. Civ is extremely behind the curve set by the industry in this respect, because it still largely views the game within the very narrow design space of "single winner" play.

 

[tzu]

In any number of single player games you will have some players who were unhappy losers who got crowded out early game (which will also happen in multiplayer games)

I know that players tend to play at the upper edge of their competence, but they needn't be "unhappy losers": in single player the game can be ABSOLUTELY tailored to their wishes & liking (& abilities). In heavy contrast to multiplayer.

some players who may have won but are dissatisfied due to a lack of real challenge (which seems to be frequently the case with Civ).

Now that is the point, where in a perfect world we would receive the band aid sources and could try making a perfect civ6. But they wont want us to waste our time with such and even more playing that game (and prefer to chase us away) ...

A multiplayer game with team victories or cooperative modes can have several winners [...] Civ is extremely behind the curve set by the industry in this respect, because it still largely views the game within the very narrow design space of "single winner" play.

I view the game as "single winner" play. ymmv. Divide et impera!

Also real time management is difficult enough in single player -- but on the other hand it is never to late for a happy childhood!