Changing Leader Mechanic in Civ 7

[Naokaukodem]

You're still mistaking the "how" for the "what".

The map is how. It's a tool (and an essential one) on which the game is played, that allow the concept at the core of the game to translate into actual gameplay.

But the leaders (and civilizations) are what. They're the aforesaid central concept of the game - build your own empire as one of history's great leader and civilization.

Sure, you may only care about the empire building, and not care for the leaders and civilization, and that's fair, you're free to enjoy the parts of the game you want and not care about other parts. But it is plain observable fact that Civ has been marketed precisely on that "build a civilization as one of the great leaders of history" for decades, and that leaders have been ever-increasingly more central to the way the game is played (so it's not just marketing, it's design and development too). That's not my personal opinion: that's the reality of the game as Firaxis is making and selling it. (And no, none of the "feature" you pointed at are even remotely comparable in importance to either the marketing or the development, so any attempt to bring them into the discussion is pure apple-and-banana comparison).

They're almost as much the face of the franchise as the monsters are the face of Pokémon. The odds of them being removed any time soon are minimal.

Yeah obviously I'm all mistaken about the how and the whatnot.

Beside that, the map is what you have in front of you all the time. The leader heads are just momentary views, and they are unpleasant. You don't play with the leaders, you don't settle cities near their noses or smiles, you don't move your builders near their breast, you don't move your troops up their ***.

The name of the game is Civilization, not Leaders. Not even CivilizationS. It's about simulating what could be another Earth, or in Earth maps another History. And to another History, totally new figures could appear for what I care. Or none, which would be best. Oh you should still be able to rule France or Franks, but choosed within an alphabetical exhaustive list of what exists and what has existed. Then, everyone could play anything, including their own country. That would be seen ON THE MAP with city names principally, and other surrounding civs that would be the real neighbours of that civ. (culturally linked starting locations)

 

[luca 83]

Yeah obviously I'm all mistaken about the how and the whatnot.

Beside that, the map is what you have in front of you all the time. The leader heads are just momentary views, and they are unpleasant. You don't play with the leaders, you don't settle cities near their noses or smiles, you don't move your builders near their breast, you don't move your troops up their ***.

The name of the game is Civilization, not Leaders. Not even CivilizationS. It's about simulating what could be another Earth, or in Earth maps another History. And to another History, totally new figures could appear for what I care. Or none, which would be best. Oh you should still be able to rule France or Franks, but choosed within an alphabetical exhaustive list of what exists and what has existed. Then, everyone could play anything, including their own country. That would be seen ON THE MAP with city names principally, and other surrounding civs that would be the real neighbours of that civ. (culturally linked starting locations)

You are right lets talk about infinite leaders and possible civilizations the map and the mechanics are the most important thing! There are so many leaders and civilizations but mao can't be king or peter the great communist and antihistorical the leader system was fine in 1991 in 2006 today it is honestly outdated this conservatism is not good for development

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The name of the game is Civilization, not Leaders. Not even CivilizationS. It's about simulating what could be another Earth, or in Earth maps another History. And to another History, totally new figures could appear for what I care. Or none, which would be best. Oh you should still be able to rule France or Franks, but choosed within an alphabetical exhaustive list of what exists and what has existed. Then, everyone could play anything, including their own country. That would be seen ON THE MAP with city names principally, and other surrounding civs that would be the real neighbours of that civ. (culturally linked starting locations)

What we are trying to say is if you take the immortal leaders out of Civilization, what makes it different to other 4X style or history games? What you are describing sounds like it already exists in Crusader Kings. Also having customizable avatars then it would be no different from Humankind.
Attaching historical leaders to the civilization is what draws people in, considering well every 4X strategy game has to have a map.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

You are right lets talk about infinite leaders and possible civilizations the map and the mechanics are the most important thing! There are so many leaders and civilizations but mao can't be king or peter the great communist and antihistorical the leader system was fine in 1991 in 2006 today it is honestly outdated this conservatism is not good for development

I'll be on Evie and Alexander Hetaroi's side here. You guys are forgetting that leaders are what makes Civ, Civ.

 

[Evie]

This. Civ without leaders already exists : it's called Humankind.

I have it. It's a neat game conceptually. But in practice, it lacks the personality of civ and it just feels like a lot of sameness.

(Heck, even in Alpha Centauri, which is not civ, the various fictional leaders are among the best remembered parts of that game!)

 

[luca 83]

I'll be on Evie and Alexander Hetaroi's side here. You guys are forgetting that leaders are what makes Civ, Civ.

The mechanics are the most important things in civ, the graphics are the leaders the civilizations are secondary and a fantasy world where the aztecs border the chinese but the historical simulation is technological and real

 

[Naokaukodem]

What we are trying to say is if you take the immortal leaders out of Civilization, what makes it different to other 4X style or history games? What you are describing sounds like it already exists in Crusader Kings. Also having customizable avatars then it would be no different from Humankind.
Attaching historical leaders to the civilization is what draws people in, considering well every 4X strategy game has to have a map.

Come on, you know as well as myself that it's not true. Humankind is not like Civ without leaderheads and the only difference is not leaderheads, far from it. I would say that what makes civilization different is its simplicity to learn, and its granularity. And also, its very name ! All simply. (that implies directions in its development, it is to say not a versus fighting game a priori)

 

[Caesar of Bread]

The mechanics are the most important things in civ, the graphics are the leaders the civilizations are secondary and a fantasy world where the aztecs border the chinese but the historical simulation is technological and real

The memories that I have from playing as these civs and leaders are great, and I don't want them to abruptly stop. When I was in DC last month, I'd tell my roommates whenever I created a new wonder as Qin Shi Huang China, and say "Hopefully this time Gandhi doesn't nuke me!". They were too busy watching Friends to notice my game commentary. Memories like that should be kept and continued through the next game in the series.

 

[Naokaukodem]

This. It's outside the game and good only as jokes with roommates. Game design is serious.

It even happened to be a full job from what I heard...

 

[luca 83]

The memories that I have from playing as these civs and leaders are great, and I don't want them to abruptly stop. When I was in DC last month, I'd tell my roommates whenever I created a new wonder as Qin Shi Huang China, and say "Hopefully this time Gandhi doesn't nuke me!". They were too busy watching Friends to notice my game commentary. Memories like that should be kept and continued through the next game in the series.

just means that you don't understand the historical and political mechanics of the game! A leader is not God and a person subject to the times and the laws of the time just as people do not think of morality as a man of the sixteenth century nothing is immortal and this is already a contradiction leaders people ideologies change this a historian it knows from the start, then lacks the historical and political and ideological immersion of a fixed leader Lincoln was fine in 1860 not 1870, or 1899 because he was a product of his time like all of us! Your attitude let's hope ghandi doesn't attack genghiskan and infant and immature

 

[Caesar of Bread]

just means that you don't understand the historical and political mechanics of the game! A leader is not God and a person subject to the times and the laws of the time just as people do not think of morality as a man of the sixteenth century nothing is immortal and this is already a contradiction leaders people ideologies change this a historian it knows from the start, then lacks the historical and political and ideological immersion of a fixed leader Lincoln was fine in 1860 not 1870, or 1899 because he was a product of his time like all of us! Your attitude let's hope ghandi doesn't attack genghiskan and infant and immature

What, so you are saying we shouldn't have fun due to "HiStOrIcAl AcCuRaCy"?

 

[Evie]

...missing out on the fact that the social aspects of a game are crucial to the long-term success of that game.

Game design is serious, but if you think game design is only mechanics and programing, you are woefully ignorant of game design. How the game drive player engagement is just as crucial, not something to be dismissed as "outside the game and good only as jokes with roommates". If you don't understand people, you won't go far in game design.

I may not be a professional game designer, but I've done work in enough game-design-adjacent positions (that is, working with the designers) that I do actually have a good grasp how it works, thank you very much.

Luca, Caesar is not misunderstand the historical and political mechanics of the game. He just disagrees with your repetitive posts about turning the game into an accurate historico-political simulator. As a lot of other people on this forum do, in case that hasn't already occurred to you.

 

[Naokaukodem]

...missing out on the fact that the social aspects of a game are crucial to the long-term success of that game.

You can make a wink to CivFanatics with Giant Death Robots or nuclear Gandhi, but you shouldn't base your whole game on it should you ? By the way those were never first envisionned, and a game that aspires to create social link by its ingredients is a good reciepe for indifference. Civ is not liked for that, it's liked for its name, its genre and its accessibility.

 

[Evie]

You're asking us to believe game designers are professional who know what they're doing, yet also asking us to believe that they've invested staggering amount of game design and art resources into a part of the game that's not important.

Either the game designers know what they're doing, and leaders are actually important enough to justify all the effort invested into them, or the leaders are not actually important, and the game designers therefore don't know what they're doing since they keep putting more and more efforts into them.

(I will once again note that you're making a ridiculous apple and tennis ball comparison by thinking driving player engagement and the social aspect of the game have anything to do with nuclear gandhi jokes or giant death robots.)

 

[luca 83]

You're asking us to believe game designers are professional who know what they're doing, yet also asking us to believe that they've invested staggering amount of game design and art resources into a part of the game that's not important.

Either the game designers know what they're doing, and leaders are actually important enough to justify all the effort invested into them, or the leaders are not actually important, and the game designers therefore don't know what they're doing since they keep putting more and more efforts into them.

(I will once again note that you're making a ridiculous apple and tennis ball comparison by thinking driving player engagement and the social aspect of the game have anything to do with nuclear gandhi jokes or giant death robots.)

Game designers waste time inventing new leaders and civilizations and putting. New clothes to leaders to pay for dlcs instead of creating new more immersive and smarter mechanics like ai instead of looking for leader xxx of the nation yyyy

 

[Evie]

If the designers are that dumb and your ideas that much better, you should have no problem making your own game and stealing the market away from them, rather than sitting around here demanding the dumb designers make the game your way.

After all, if they are dumb designers, they'll be bad at implementing your own ideas, too.

Or maybe, just maybe, you speak for an incredibly minuscule portion of the fanbase, and the designers are not dumb thinking that leaders matter more than accurate politico-historical simulation.

Maybe.

 

[Naokaukodem]

You're asking us to believe game designers are professional who know what they're doing, yet also asking us to believe that they've invested staggering amount of game design and art resources into a part of the game that's not important.

Either the game designers know what they're doing, and leaders are actually important enough to justify all the effort invested into them, or the leaders are not actually important, and the game designers therefore don't know what they're doing since they keep putting more and more efforts into them.

I don't know. Maybe I told them to do so. (but I changed my mind in that case... it's been what... 20 years ?) It has gone too far... the amount of work to create and animate learder heads is simply taking too much effort IMO (but maybe it's faster than I think ?) compared to all the other parts of the game that need massive improvement, thinking and studies. I'd rather engage several theoricians of History than keep whatever character designers.

(I will once again note that you're making a ridiculous apple and tennis ball comparison by thinking driving player engagement and the social aspect of the game have anything to do with nuclear gandhi jokes or giant death robots.)

Well, believing some dudes here, that may be the case. At least that's one part of it. And, believing your attachement to leader heads, a fair bit of it.

 

[luca 83]

If the designers are that dumb and your ideas that much better, you should have no problem making your own game and stealing the market away from them, rather than sitting around here demanding the dumb designers make the game your way.

After all, if they are dumb designers, they'll be bad at implementing your own ideas, too.

Or maybe, just maybe, you speak for an incredibly minuscule portion of the fanbase, and the designers are not dumb thinking that leaders matter more than accurate politico-historical simulation.

Maybe.

Also i think it is better to invest in ai and game mechanics than in giant robot is leader with colorful costumes, as for the mass i speak for myself other people don't me they interest

 

[Naokaukodem]

About AI it's trickier. It's all about having a challenging AI that doesn't feel it cheats, which is the case now. (2 free settlers in Deity ?) But one shouldn't make such AI unbeatable as well. It's... complicated. (not to mention the tools to make such an AI belong to future. If Firaxis achieve this by themselves, they better specialize in AI and not develop video games anymore themselves, which wouldn't be the end of Civ by the way since it belongs to 2K. Persons who develop AIs are very valuable those days)

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Also i think it is better to invest in ai and game mechanics than in giant robot is leader with colorful costumes, as for the mass i speak for myself other people don't me they interest

The AI are leaders with colorful costumes!

As basically someone who hits most of the target points for who they are trying to sell to (history nerd, American, teenager [I think?]), I can speak softly that leaders are nessecary.