Firaxis at 30, I'm celebrating 15 on civfanatics – final thoughts on Civ6 and the future

[Zaarin]

P.S. If they are going to do a seventh version, I do hope they continue with the same mechanics and graphics from Civ 6. I have really enjoyed 6.

If Civ7 were "Civ6 but all the systems made coherent," I would absolutely consider it a valuable investment; that's not how game iterations work unless you're CoD, though. After Civ6 was very safe, building on the Civ5 model, I expect Civ7 to be rather different (though maybe I'm expecting too much); I would also expect Civ7 to pick a different style from Civ6, though I think the art style whiners hoping for "gritty realism" will be disappointed: Civ7 will still be stylized. (I'm expecting a painterly look, which has become quite popular lately--I certainly wouldn't object.)

 

[Thormodr]

An Expansion isn't just a set of combined DLC's of new Civ's/Leader's. And XP expands the Gameplay with new Game Features that completely changes how the Game is played. Which NFP didn't, because 1) There isn't such mechanics that changes how you (have to) play the entire Game, 2) most of the NFP Game Modes don't really change the Gameplay in a thematical historical sense, and you can ignore dealing with half of them (you can't say that to Loyalty, resource stockpiles, Disasters...etc), they weren't designed as such because: 3) they are just add-ons that you can enable/disable at will 4) they are too disconnected from the game's mechanics to see them as Game Features. They are like Anton Strenger described them them: "Icing Toppings".

Nit picking. New leaders and new modes definitely change the way a game can be played. You can play the game in a totally different way than you could before.

It expands the game with enough material to be considered an expansion. No need for an arbitrary definition of what an expansion is.

 

[Zaarin]

New leaders and new modes definitely change the way a game can be played. You can play the game in a totally different way than you could before.

Not really, though. NFP's modes modified the way certain mechanics work, but it didn't add any new mechanics or even make significant changes to existing mechanics. NFP was no different from the first round of DLC, except for having the art assets done by interns, apparently. (It's a good sign; it means the real art team is probably working on Civ7. )

 

[Leucarum]

I liked that the game features were made optional in NFP. It let's you keep the game fresher by mixing and matching. I'd love it if Civ7 did that with more modes we typically consider 'core'... Though it would definitely constrain design space with every feature they made optional... So there is that issue...

 

[Zaarin]

I liked that the game features were made optional in NFP. It let's you keep the game fresher by mixing and matching. I'd love it if Civ7 did that with more modes we typically consider 'core'... Though it would definitely constrain design space with every feature they made optional... So there is that issue...

Civ6's biggest problem is that none of the systems works together; that will only be compounded by making them modular.

 

[Thormodr]

Not really, though. NFP's modes modified the way certain mechanics work, but it didn't add any new mechanics or even make significant changes to existing mechanics. NFP was no different from the first round of DLC, except for having the art assets done by interns, apparently. (It's a good sign; it means the real art team is probably working on Civ7. )

Meh. It has added countless hours of entertainment for me trying out all the different stuff.

The whole point was would people pay $150 for a civ game. I'd say for base game + 2 expansions and a when whack of stuff that adds enough content to basically form another expansion? (I have gotten countless hours of entertainment from the NFP. It's merely semantics not to consider it an expansion.) I would and have.

As for Civ VII, bring it on!

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

To get people to shell out $100 or more at a single gulp you have to show obvious Value in the product, and that requires that the customer believe that the seller can be relied on to produce a valuable product.

Firaxis has not demonstrated that. The frankly slipshod and sometimes incoherent patches, additions, modes, a la modes, and systems that interact like frogs and fotheringays that they have stuffed into Civ VI have shown that abundantly, to the point that a game from them priced appreciably near or over $100 will find a substantially reduced set of potential customers - and that would be a resounding Death Knell for the series and possibly the company.

 

[Zaarin]

Meh. It has added countless hours of entertainment for me trying out all the different stuff.

Glad you enjoyed it. It killed the game for me.

The whole point was would people pay $150 for a civ game. I'd say for base game + 2 expansions and a when whack of stuff that adds enough content to basically form another expansion? (I have gotten countless hours of entertainment from the NFP. It's merely semantics not to consider it an expansion.) I would and have.

No, the proposed premise was charging $150 for the base game.

 

[Leucarum]

Civ6's biggest problem is that none of the systems works together; that will only be compounded by making them modular.

Without trying to be a moon-faced assassin of joy... surely systems which don't interact are easier to make modular?

 

[Zaarin]

Without trying to be a moon-faced assassin of joy...

surely systems which don't interact are easier to make modular?

What I'm saying is that the problem with Civ6 is that the systems don't interact in a meaningful way; that problem will be made worse if the game's systems are made entirely modular. I want to see the systems interact with each other much more deeply in Civ7.

 

[Leucarum]

What I'm saying is that the problem with Civ6 is that the systems don't interact in a meaningful way; that problem will be made worse if the game's systems are made entirely modular. I want to see the systems interact with each other much more deeply in Civ7.

I can see that. Their systems have become more integrated over time though, as evidenced by Firaxis trying to make different non-core resources important to each victory type (e.g. faith being critical to a culture victory, culture being critical to a science victory). And there is a limit on how interdependent is best I think... If you can use any hammer to beat a given nail, why specialize?

 

[Zaarin]

I can see that. Their systems have become more integrated over time though, as evidenced by Firaxis trying to make different non-core resources important to each victory type (e.g. faith being critical to a culture victory, culture being critical to a science victory). And there is a limit on how interdependent is best I think... If you can use any hammer to beat a given nail, why specialize?

I just kind of feel like all of Civ6's systems work well and are interesting--but are also totally independent from each other. I rarely hold up Civ5 as an example of good game design, but to me Civ5 felt like a much more coherent game in terms of how its systems interacted with each other.

 

[Thormodr]

Glad you enjoyed it. It killed the game for me.


No, the proposed premise was charging $150 for the base game.

Meh. It'd just be shuffling around deck chairs, then. $150 base game means more content but less expansion. So, I vote for leave it as is. $150-200 for the whole lot.

Sorry NFP killed it for you. It is easy to ignore, though. Just don't play with it.

 

[Zegangani]

Nit picking. New leaders and new modes definitely change the way a game can be played. You can play the game in a totally different way than you could before.
It expands the game with enough material to be considered an expansion. No need for an arbitrary definition of what an expansion is.

Then we should call them other DLCs Expansions too, because some have 2 Leaders, World and Natural Wonders (and even resources) and also have Scenarios that have a unique gameplay.

For me, it's not about how much Content you add (you can add that bimonthly with small DLCs) but it's about the main Features of the expansion and how they force you to change the way you play the Game. Deciding to play with an NFP Leader isn't any much different than choosing one from Rise and Fall XP for example, and you can have the Game Modes enabled and completely ignore using the features they introduce. Barbarians will still attack you as always, ignoring getting a SS, acquiring Heroes and building Monopolies won't affect much how you usually play the Game, I mean you can say that AI using them adds a little challenge, but that's not the point. Tree Shuffle Mode is a good one though, because it really affects how you play the Game, without it you would always know which route to take and plan ahead, but with it you can't do that, that's a little game changing, but a good one, more of that! Dramatic Ages is just darker dark ages, and Apocalypse just builds on the already existing disasters and takes place too late in the Game. With Rise and Fall on the otherhand, the Loyalty System introduced affected the game from ancient to future era, you need to think more on where to settle, worry about neighbours and conquering cities became a totally different game now. You can't ignore any of that. After all, the Expasions are called after the main Feature they bring in.

I understand why you see it like that, and I'm also glad that you enjoy NFP, but on my part it's far away from being an Expansion. Mainly because you can sell me New Game Features and Mechanisms but not New Content. It's the Game Mechanics that I'm more interested in, the Features that extends the Gameplay and affect how you play the Game (no matter the Leader). I can't get that with a small DLC, so Expansions are my Favorit Shop for that. Did NFP add those Features? Yes. Are they any comparable to regular Expansion Features? not at all, some of them are actually just variations of Features from previous expansions. So if NFP is an expansion then I expect Civ 7 to have similar Expansions, and if that's the case then I would diffenitely say no to Civ 7 and stick with civ 6 or hope for an improved Humankind.

 

[Thormodr]

Meh. Just call it content, then. I am enjoying all the content from Civ VI.

Hoping Civ VII gets at least as much content.

 

[Zaarin]

Sorry NFP killed it for you. It is easy to ignore, though. Just don't play with it.

Since tone doesn't convey well over the internet, I hope that comment didn't sound snide. I meant it sincerely: I'm glad you enjoyed it. I just didn't. I do regret buying NFP, but I'm not overly sorry it killed the game for me--I've gotten more or less what I wanted to out of Civ6 and have moved on to other games. I'm sure I'll be back to it at some point. I still think Civ6 (pre-NFP) was a great game; it has triple the hours of my next competitor for most played game on Steam.

 

[Zegangani]

Though it would definitely constrain design space with every feature they made optional... So there is that issue...

Without trying to be a moon-faced assassin of joy... surely systems which don't interact are easier to make modular?

That's truly true. Making mechanisms interact with each other is time and resource consuming, balacing the gameplay around that adds more to those costs, and making some mechanisms modular so you can switch them on and off would disrupt all that balance and you would have to balance the game for any possible custom setup, that's too much work for a 30-40$ DLC!!

I'm currently struggling with that myself with my 4XP Mod, because I wanted to make the Features in the Mod Modular, but now I see that it's timely not possible so I decided to leave only the Features in the 2 first Packs modular, and make the rest modular when I finish everything. Especially since I'm just a One Man Team lol, thou I recently got someone who helps me, not with coding but with something else, which I think many Mod users will like, especially Zaarin . Tho I can't say anything specific now, but it will be a good surprise I think.

 

[Thormodr]

Since tone doesn't convey well over the internet, I hope that comment didn't sound snide. I meant it sincerely: I'm glad you enjoyed it. I just didn't. I do regret buying NFP, but I'm not overly sorry it killed the game for me--I've gotten more or less what I wanted to out of Civ6 and have moved on to other games. I'm sure I'll be back to it at some point. I still think Civ6 (pre-NFP) was a great game; it has triple the hours of my next competitor for most played game on Steam.

It really wasn't meant to be snide. Sorry if my tone sounded that way.

You can still play Civ VI and ignore the NFP content. That's what I meant.

Yes, you spent money on something that ultimately didn't suit you. That sucks I feel your pain. After all, I bought Civilization 5.

 

[Zaarin]

It really wasn't meant to be snide. Sorry if my tone sounded that way.

No, not at all; just making sure I didn't sound snide.

You can still play Civ VI and ignore the NFP content. That's what I meant.

True (though NFP also introduced some new bugs ). Like I said, though, even if disappointed with NFP, I did get many hundreds of hours out of Civ6, and I am very pleased with it on a whole.

 

[Cedbird77]

At first thought. I am willing to pay more for a better game. You better believe it. I agree that $150 would be too much a wide swath of people. In which I would not want to price others out. I would say $20 more would be nice. While looking for numbers of how much Civ 6 made. I saw this... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil... 2017, the game,sales of eight million copies.

I saw a number somewhere that Civ 6 made 575 Million in revenue. So why does Firaxis need more money from us to make a better game? Seems like they are doing pretty good with current sales.