Hint at 3rd expansion from Firaxis??

[Trav'ling Canuck]

in two years, let´s see how it goes and maybe start talking about Civ VII, which will eventually be needed I guess.

This. I get the people who are saying they're not ready for Civ 7 yet. The reality is Civ 7 is still years away under any scenario.

There's two decision points, as I see it:

1. A third expansion versus another game on the Civ 6 engine (new BE/Colonization/etc.). I think it's highly likely that Firaxis may go the third expansion route here.

2. Subsequent to that, continual improvement of Civ 6 versus Civ 7. Unless there's a dramatic change to the sales model behind civ in the near future, economically Civ 7 is going to be more rewarding than selling more Civ 6 stuff.

 

[Morningcalm]

New civs can come with Civ VI expansions, that would be taken care of. I understand you as far as graphics are concerned, but is it worth losing all development potential, depth and a lot of features, over graphics preferences? Personnally I don´t think so. I was critical of the graphics at first, now I got used to them and I actually came to like them, it helps FIRAXIS make the map alive. I´d rather have a plague system, corporations, vassalage, Alt. Leaders (France, Egypt etc...), new civs, a new navigable river system for trade, invasions and plagues added to this current game than to start all over again and be unsatisfaied for at least thte next 4 years, until we have the same discussion about Civ VII and the potential creation of Civ VIII. It would be the same thing, same development cycle all over again, no thanks.

Once again, I do understand you regarding the graphics, if it´s not your thing then it´s not great for you, I get that, but at this point Civ VI really has the potential to become a great mainstay of the game.... let´s give it two more expansions as solid as what Gathering Storm looks to be and then, in two years, let´s see how it goes and maybe start talking about Civ VII, which will eventually be needed I guess.

I am fairly sure they've begun development of Civ VII by now--at least in the rough stages, simply based on practicality. Civ games take ages to make, yes, but I don't think this is a case where Firaxis is going to have the entire team working on an expansion (or even multiple expansions). So the idea that Civ VII would be that much further away and that Civ VI therefore ought to get a third expansion just doesn't ring true. Regardless of how many expansions Civ VI gets, Civ VII will take years to develop, so I don't see how a third expansion necessarily helps or hinders on satisfaction level there.

There would be another problem with a third expansion--feature bloat. Once we have too many features (let alone civs), they will be hard to differentiate. Golden ages, governments, and world congress will all give bonuses, but simply packaging new features (like corporations) as new clusters of bonuses won't be fulfilling. Disasters are already in the game even if diseases aren't. Vassalage might be interesting, but not as such for players to be vassals, surely.

But the main problem is I don't see what kind of cohesive theme a third Civ VI expansion could have.

Adding new civs is easy enough, but an expansion is more than just a series of new civs...unless we want to descend to the level of the (generally lower quality) extra expansions Microsoft has given Age of Empires II (The Conquerors was the only truly good expansion IMO, despite some good features and interesting civs in later expansions)

And frankly I do not have interest in two more expansions. One more, sure, based on the cohesive theme and features of GS. But two? Unnecessary.

 

[bite]

I am fairly sure they've begun development of Civ VII by now--at least in the rough stages, simply based on practicality. Civ games take ages to make, yes, but I don't think this is a case where Firaxis is going to have the entire team working on an expansion (or even multiple expansions). So the idea that Civ VII would be that much further away and that Civ VI therefore ought to get a third expansion just doesn't ring true. Regardless of how many expansions Civ VI gets, Civ VII will take years to develop, so I don't see how a third expansion necessarily helps or hinders on satisfaction level there.

There would be another problem with a third expansion--feature bloat. Once we have too many features (let alone civs), they will be hard to differentiate. Golden ages, governments, and world congress will all give bonuses, but simply packaging new features (like corporations) as new clusters of bonuses won't be fulfilling. Disasters are already in the game even if diseases aren't. Vassalage might be interesting, but not as such for players to be vassals, surely.

But the main problem is I don't see what kind of cohesive theme a third Civ VI expansion could have.

Adding new civs is easy enough, but an expansion is more than just a series of new civs...unless we want to descend to the level of the (generally lower quality) extra expansions Microsoft has given Age of Empires II (The Conquerors was the only truly good expansion IMO, despite some good features and interesting civs in later expansions)

And frankly I do not have interest in two more expansions. One more, sure, based on the cohesive theme and features of GS. But two? Unnecessary.

If this is the last expansion, then yes they would have people working on 7, however, if this is not or they have a spin-off in mind I don't think that kind of discussion would have started already

 

[AntoineS]

I am fairly sure they've begun development of Civ VII by now--at least in the rough stages, simply based on practicality. Civ games take ages to make, yes, but I don't think this is a case where Firaxis is going to have the entire team working on an expansion (or even multiple expansions). So the idea that Civ VII would be that much further away and that Civ VI therefore ought to get a third expansion just doesn't ring true. Regardless of how many expansions Civ VI gets, Civ VII will take years to develop, so I don't see how a third expansion necessarily helps or hinders on satisfaction level there.

There would be another problem with a third expansion--feature bloat. Once we have too many features (let alone civs), they will be hard to differentiate. Golden ages, governments, and world congress will all give bonuses, but simply packaging new features (like corporations) as new clusters of bonuses won't be fulfilling. Disasters are already in the game even if diseases aren't. Vassalage might be interesting, but not as such for players to be vassals, surely.

But the main problem is I don't see what kind of cohesive theme a third Civ VI expansion could have.

Adding new civs is easy enough, but an expansion is more than just a series of new civs...unless we want to descend to the level of the (generally lower quality) extra expansions Microsoft has given Age of Empires II (The Conquerors was the only truly good expansion IMO, despite some good features and interesting civs in later expansions)

And frankly I do not have interest in two more expansions. One more, sure, based on the cohesive theme and features of GS. But two? Unnecessary.

You're making a lot of good points. I agree with you, Civ VII must be in the early stages of its development by now and you're right, by splitting teams, getting expansions for VI while preparing VII is not contradictory in itself.

I also agree that nobody wants low quality content just to have content... It's worse than not having anything, it'd be detrimental to the game. When I think expansion for civ games, though, I don't think the game could get bloated with features. If they were to release 4 more expansions I could see that happening, but it won't be the case and I really think of a 3rd and hopefully a 4th expansion as ways to wrap up the game, to make it feel complete, infinitely replayable and enjoyable.

Now, these expansion will not have to focus necessarily on tons of new civs and features but rather on a few, well implemented and deep mechanics (and improvement to the AI along the way) that would really make Civ 6 great at what it is meant to be according to the developpers that is:

- creating a living map
- and making the player have to make choices at every turn.

It is only my opinion but it seems to me that Civ 6 after Rise and Fall has a lot of unexplored potential in this regard, and I don't see how Gathering Storm by itself will be able to maximize it. It would still take, to me, 2 more expansions after that to reach that state. However, as you said, these expansions have to be conceived with a purpose in mind and not just be content for the sake of content.

I feel that GS is going in the right direction somehow, and I would like to see the game being taken a few steps further, as it still has work to do also, in my mind, to recapture the true meaning of the "just one more turn" and "what will your civilization stand for?" original slogans that were the true motors and reasons for being of the game in the beginning.

Civ 6 could be great with a good two more years of development with those points in mind in order for it to become the bridge between the previous era of Civ, from 1 to 5, and a new era of civ, a meta civ era if you will, meta meaning that it would take civ in a new direction and at the same time be a great representative of what the franchise has always stood for.

To sum up, beyond the Sword and Brave New World made me crave for more and both times the following new game came out, it was a let down because it felt like we had to start all over again while these games could still have been improved. It feels even more true in the case of VI, which I believe would need 2 more expansions after GS to feel complete under the condition that it is not content for the sake of content as you rightfully pointed out

 

[Morningcalm]

You're making a lot of good points. I agree with you, Civ VII must be in the early stages of its development by now and you're right, by splitting teams, getting expansions for VI while preparing VII is not contradictory in itself.

I also agree that nobody wants low quality content just to have content... It's worse than not having anything, it'd be detrimental to the game. When I think expansion for civ games, though, I don't think the game could get bloated with features. If they were to release 4 more expansions I could see that happening, but it won't be the case and I really think of a 3rd and hopefully a 4th expansion as ways to wrap up the game, to make it feel complete, infinitely replayable and enjoyable.

Now, these expansion will not have to focus necessarily on tons of new civs and features but rather on a few, well implemented and deep mechanics (and improvement to the AI along the way) that would really make Civ 6 great at what it is meant to be according to the developpers that is:

- creating a living map
- and making the player have to make choices at every turn.

It is only my opinion but it seems to me that Civ 6 after Rise and Fall has a lot of unexplored potential in this regard, and I don't see how Gathering Storm by itself will be able to maximize it. It would still take, to me, 2 more expansions after that to reach that state. However, as you said, these expansions have to be conceived with a purpose in mind and not just be content for the sake of content.

I feel that GS is going in the right direction somehow, and I would like to see the game being taken a few steps further, as it still has work to do also, in my mind, to recapture the true meaning of the "just one more turn" and "what will your civilization stand for?" original slogans that were the true motors and reasons for being of the game in the beginning.

Civ 6 could be great with a good two more years of development with those points in mind in order for it to become the bridge between the previous era of Civ, from 1 to 5, and a new era of civ, a meta civ era if you will, meta meaning that it would take civ in a new direction and at the same time be a great representative of what the franchise has always stood for.

To sum up, beyond the Sword and Brave New World made me crave for more and both times the following new game came out, it was a let down because it felt like we had to start all over again while these games could still have been improved. It feels even more true in the case of VI, which I believe would need 2 more expansions after GS to feel complete under the condition that it is not content for the sake of content as you rightfully pointed out

That's interesting to me because I felt after Beyond the Sword especially, Civ IV was more complete than I'd ever imagined....Brave New World mostly left me that impression for Civ V too.

I think with Civ VI I was ultimately unsatisfied with Rise and Fall since it didn't actually add much contentwise or shake up the gameplay in as fundamental a way as I'd hoped (no scenarios, no real change to the main menu music or appearance, emergencies were rather rare, loyalty often didn't make much impact, etc). I actually found Civ V's Gods and Kings more satisfying content wise than Rise and Fall, and I don't think it was just down to the nice cohesive theme of Gods and Kings (replete with wondrous choral main menu music redone).

I hope GS is a bit heftier in what it adds (as most second expansions are) and in terms of how those features are executed. It's all well and good to have great ideas (Firaxis has plenty), but if the execution is poor there will be a sour taste in the mouth. For me I think that I would have a sour taste if a third expansion was made--it would seem like milking too much out of a milkless cud. Remember those Hobbit movies?

Basically I think that regardless of the status of Civ VI after GS, I will be ready to move on after that. I didn't quite get Civ VI's mechanics (had to scour the forums to find them), and it's quite possibly the worst Civilopedia ever in terms of explaining game concepts....and yes, the aesthetics somewhat annoy me, especially the grimy leader backgrounds and "cutscene" approach to leader diplomacy (as opposed to the real time reactive diplomacy of Civ V).

 

[SxSnts9]

Hey all, OP here. Glad to see my post brought on so much discussion. I thought I'd chime in a bit and say that I do fall on the side of continuing to improve Civ VI even at the expense of pushing back Civ VII (Even though it's definitely coming at some point). I personally love the foundation of Civ VI. As some who absolutely loved Civ IV and was completely disappointed by Civ V (The 2nd expansion made it better, but it never came close to Civ IV IMO). I've been hooked on Civ VI from the beginning. While I don't agree with every single change they've made, the overall game is a complete success to me. I'd be very worried going into Civ VII territory when I feel like Civ VI is already so great. Just keep building on that.

 

[Stilgar08]

I just don't understand why we're discussing CivVII at all... Don't get me wrong it's fine to do so, but I'm on a completely different spot concerning my personal Civ-circle.
Seriously: I want my GS and if I have a feeling that after GS there's still something missing I'd want a 3rd expansion. I had such a feeling after R+F; not a bad expansion, but just an interlude like The Empire strikes back.
If I don't have a missing sensation I want the source code to be released and let the magicians among us cast a spell and make a magnificient AI!

CivVII announcement? Meh, Right now I'd even say I'll pass then. Because if they won't "finish" CiVI why should they do so with CivVII?

There's so much stuff in CiVI that just sits there and hasn't been used properly that to me it would feel false to just move on (planes or naval importance, anyone?).

The underlying ruleset offers really many opportunities and I'd love to see FXS elaborate on that...

Give every civ two or three colours so that in every game, each civ can have a unique colour not clashing with any other. You can‘t play a game with 50 civs anyways (or? ))

They got 4 colours to each civ now!

...For me I think that I would have a sour taste if a third expansion was made--it would seem like milking too much out of a milkless cud. Remember those Hobbit movies? ...

It is funny, to me it's completely vice versa: If GS wouldn't feel like "the final chapter" of CiVI I'd feel a bit deceived and left behind if FXS would just go on with the Franchise instead of aiming for XP 3. Like if they start promoting the Hobbit, but never released LotR Return of the King.

 

[Xandinho]

The simple omission of Babylon makes me think that there will be a third expansion. Why would they omit a civ that has been included since Civ1?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The simple omission of Babylon makes me think that there will be a third expansion. Why would they omit a civ that has been included since Civ1?

I'd like to add that Portugal and the Maya would be weird omissions as well.
Portugal because we have Brazil and all of the other major age of exploration Civs, and the Maya for the sole reason that they are one of the major pre-Colombian civilizations, if not the most advanced in some areas.

 

[ferretbacon]

I'd like to add that Portugal and the Maya would be weird omissions as well.
Portugal because we have Brazil and all of the other major age of exploration Civs, and the Maya for the sole reason that they are one of the major pre-Colombian civilizations, if not the most advanced in some areas.

For me, Portugal is the one that convinces me we'll get some sort of post-GS content, be it a third expansion or a last round of DLC. Firaxis tends to be Eurocentric and Portugal is the only European mainstay that's not in yet. Add to that that its colonial descendant, Brazil, is in the game already. I don't see how they could wrap up VI's development cycle without including it. Otherwise, if I suspend my disbelief just right, I can see them omitting the Maya, Babylon, Ethiopia, and the Byzantines.

 

[Ogro]

And more wonders, especially late-game ones. Space Elevator! Dinosaur Park! And more!

World wonder that you must build on jungle adjacent to a national park and a mountain. Could provide tourism, boost to national parks, gold, science,.. if they want to go the Giant robot path again, this could provide raptor riding spec ops. It could also provide faith for those that see science like a religion. It could release "dinosaurs partisans" if we run out of power, did I mention it consumes power per turn?

By the way, I believe we can make national parks on volcanoes. If it erupts, will it burn down jungle and forest around it? Reducing its appeal? Will it kill tourists?

 

[ShahJahanII]

I'd like to add that Portugal and the Maya would be weird omissions as well.
Portugal because we have Brazil and all of the other major age of exploration Civs, and the Maya for the sole reason that they are one of the major pre-Colombian civilizations, if not the most advanced in some areas.

The geographic area and relative time period (technically apart by several centuries but both still ancient era in this game) are both covered by Sumer. Portugal and Maya are probably better examples of civs you'd expect.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The geographic area and relative time period (technically apart by several centuries but both still ancient era in this game) are both covered by Sumer. Portugal and Maya are probably better examples of civs you'd expect.

This is true but the main argument is Babylon has been there from the beginning in some way, or some form. It is a city-state however, and that there is a possibility it might stay that way. I'm more partial for Assyria to come back though to be honest.

 

[Guandao]

The geographic area and relative time period (technically apart by several centuries but both still ancient era in this game) are both covered by Sumer. Portugal and Maya are probably better examples of civs you'd expect.

Sumeria is a horribly designed Civ. Not a real Mesopotamian Civ but an Epic of Gilgamesh Civ.

Curse you Gilgamesh and your stupid war-carts!!!!

 

[luigilime]

the sad thing I see in a third expansion though is that they have a pattern:
they'll put
2 european civs
2 asian civs
2 american civs
1 african civ
1 wildcard
by this logic the 2 europeans i'll presume would be byzantium and portugal, the 2 asians babylon and vietnam, 2 americans maya and a NNA, and the african would be ethiopia. then there's the wildcard.
i believe it will still leave out some really nice additions they had in civ 5: i mean i liked morocco, the iroquois, siam, austria, assyria, as civs since they represented some interesting cultures in the world, not to mention pretty influential cultures.
it's also sad that there was so much potential for newcomers like the swahili, benin, burma, or even the such likeable colonial civs like colombia, argentina, or even italy (patriotism alert).
even after a third expansion i wouldn't be satisfied, because firaxis isn't following a priority agenda that i like, and it's a shame.
i believe most of you would agree that priorities are flawed if more immportant than the civs i mentioned above there are both canada (leaked but not confirmed yet) and australia.
sorry for the rant, is frustrating to see that my country, such a pillar of european culture (even excluding the roman empire) is considered less important than a counrty that was basically the punching bag of expanding empires (cough cough hungary).
no offence intended, neither discrimination towards hungarians, but basically in the last 400 years of hungary's history, hungary has been just the battleground between poland, the ottomans, austria, and later russia aswell.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

the sad thing I see in a third expansion though is that they have a pattern:
they'll put
2 european civs
2 asian civs
2 american civs
1 african civ
1 wildcard
by this logic the 2 europeans i'll presume would be byzantium and portugal, the 2 asians babylon and vietnam, 2 americans maya and a NNA, and the african would be ethiopia. then there's the wildcard.
i believe it will still leave out some really nice additions they had in civ 5: i mean i liked morocco, the iroquois, siam, austria, assyria, as civs since they represented some interesting cultures in the world, not to mention pretty influential cultures.
it's also sad that there was so much potential for newcomers like the swahili, benin, burma, or even the such likeable colonial civs like colombia, argentina, or even italy (patriotism alert).
even after a third expansion i wouldn't be satisfied, because firaxis isn't following a priority agenda that i like, and it's a shame.
i believe most of you would agree that priorities are flawed if more immportant than the civs i mentioned above there are both canada (leaked but not confirmed yet) and australia.
sorry for the rant, is frustrating to see that my country, such a pillar of european culture (even excluding the roman empire) is considered less important than a counrty that was basically the punching bag of expanding empires (cough cough hungary).
no offence intended, neither discrimination towards hungarians, but basically in the last 400 years of hungary's history, hungary has been just the battleground between poland, the ottomans, austria, and later russia aswell.

Hopefully Italy will be the wildcard that you and I would be looking forward to play with. If they do that, I surely won't be disappointed with the game. Mali incoming helps for me.
I wasn't necessarily on the Hungary bandwagon either but looking at them, I think they have many positives. Sure it might mean Austria may not get in, but I think maybe I could live with that, because I want Italy first. Siam isn't a necessity for me with the Khmer, and well I would take Assyria over Babylon, but I don't expect three to make it there, plus we also have probably Phoenicia incoming, which I am more excited about than just Carthage.
Maybe Canada might surprise us, though I would rather have Colombia. Australia certainly did and they are one of my favorites to play as.

 

[klail]

I definitely hope they do a third expansion and just keep going with it instead of doing a Civ 7.

If the price for this is higher expansion costs ($40 vs. $30) then I personally gladly accept this. I think most of the Civ 6 stuff could have been added to Civ 5 (even the graphical look and feel overhaul) for example.

This gives us players a game with much more depth and in an ideal world gives them time to focus on making the modding experience much better. When they do a new expansion it wipes out all the old mods.

I love that we're getting a future era and so on. I'd love some "oddball expansions" too with optional rulesets like maybe a "fantasy" ruleset or a "sci-fi" ruleset. Like what they did with Total War, ala "Civilization: Warhammer" (not necessarily that specific example, but something along those lines where it would use the same engine but basically be a separate ruleset).

Hopefully it would also give them time to improve the AI -- or at least, add in the proper hooks so that the modding community can add onto the AI.

 

[Karmah]

If you think about it ,working on 6 kinda of make more sense than going for a 7th. There is a lot to be done , it is faaar from perfect but I don't see many new mechanism to invent , it's rather extending,tweaking and making the AI understand them from here on that would make the game better.

 

[Siddorm]

How well do expansions sell? What percentage of base game owners buy the expansions?

 

[usadefcon1]

I'd love to see building choices for all districts similar to the way the Government Plaza works.