How much do you care about scenarios?

cain3456

King
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
687
Someone posted a question on Steam asking why Civ6 had fewer scenarios than earlier versions. I replied that players don't care all that much about scenarios. Do you think that's correct? I don't notice much commentary on the historical scenarios such as Australian Tycoon. Even later adds like Battle Royale and Pirates don't seem to get much commentary after a brief spike when thry were new. :undecide:
 
I gave most of them a try at one point but didn't play more than one game in each because of the lack of variety and replayability. They are fairly limited from a gameplay perspective, generally and compared to the base game. I seem to remember one or two ideas from a couple of scenarios that could have been brought over to the base game but never were but, honestly, I think don't its worth the devs' effort to do more. Especially if they are only going to be stand alone experiences that don't have a lot of value after the first play through.
 
Some people may like it but i always thought scenarios were out of place in a game like civ. Like the whole point is building a civ from the rocks to the spaceships. Playing preset scenarios kinda defeats the point. Like if i wanted to do a run of WWII I'd go play hoi4. I've had fun with them before but i never understood their purpose.
 
I liked Civ V scenarios that did something different, like the one about Polynesia or the Steampunk one. In Civ VI they also tried but in my opinion it came down too much on the side of "You have this army, go kill that".

But, maybe I should give them another try. I remember the one about the Nile being quite fun, and the one about Alexander to not be that great.

In general I wouldn't miss them that much if they left them out in Civ VII. Maybe they could spend some more resources on the Worldbuilder instead and let people create their own scenarios.
 
Some people may like it but i always thought scenarios were out of place in a game like civ. Like the whole point is building a civ from the rocks to the spaceships. Playing preset scenarios kinda defeats the point. Like if i wanted to do a run of WWII I'd go play hoi4. I've had fun with them before but i never understood their purpose.
I liked Civ V scenarios that did something different, like the one about Polynesia or the Steampunk one. In Civ VI they also tried but in my opinion it came down too much on the side of "You have this army, go kill that".

But, maybe I should give them another try. I remember the one about the Nile being quite fun, and the one about Alexander to not be that great.

In general I wouldn't miss them that much if they left them out in Civ VII. Maybe they could spend some more resources on the Worldbuilder instead and let people create their own scenarios.
Someone posted a question on Steam asking why Civ6 had fewer scenarios than earlier versions. I replied that players don't care all that much about scenarios. Do you think that's correct? I don't notice much commentary on the historical scenarios such as Australian Tycoon. Even later adds like Battle Royale and Pirates don't seem to get much commentary after a brief spike when thry were new. :undecide:

I gave most of them a try at one point but didn't play more than one game in each because of the lack of variety and replayability. They are fairly limited from a gameplay perspective, generally and compared to the base game. I seem to remember one or two ideas from a couple of scenarios that could have been brought over to the base game but never were but, honestly, I think don't its worth the devs' effort to do more. Especially if they are only going to be stand alone experiences that don't have a lot of value after the first play through.


The current Civ2 and Civ3 sub-forums here on CivFanatiics are FAR more about custom scenarios and mods than the Vanilla game, or an enhanced but basic game, by an immense margin. Those two communities are practically nothing but. I can't speak for Civ4 or Civ5, directly indeed the very different story in Civ6 is VERY noteworthy and obvious to me. Though I'm not sure I, myself, can offer an explantion.
 
They definitely don't seem to be that popular based on achievements: https://steamcommunity.com/stats/289070/achievements

Red Death and Pirates! were definitely pretty unique, but seemed primarily aimed towards giving more multiplayer action for Civ, and I dunno how well that held when most people play single player.

I wouldn't be surprised if for Civ 7 they just do the Game Modes instead of Scenarios, as they seem more popular.
 
Is it bad that I haven't tried a single one? I had a bit of a play around with the game modes like random tech tree and monopolies, but I'm more into the original game. "Original game" as in Rise and Fall and Gathering Storm expansion rulesets.
 
I have been playing Civ games for 30 years, and I never cared at all for scenarios (I seem to remember they were introduced with Civ2?). The sandbox experience of building a civilization over millenia is so much more fun than playing some limited scenario with convoluted rules that limit available options and force very specific gameplay. In each iteration of Civ I try scenarios, but I have ever finished maybe one or two, and quit dozens of times. I wish the developers would focus on providing a polished game rather than spend resources on scenarios.
 
I think scenarios in Civ 6 just weren't really fun.

The Nile, the Alexander, the Polish one and the Viking one were all pretty much the same cloth.

The only unique ones that seemed fun was the Australian one.

While the Plague one was mostly good for multiplayer (since the AI could never learn how to utilize the systems properly).

In Civ 5 and by extension, in Civ 3, each of the scenarios felt a little bit more compelling.

I adored the Into the Renaissance scenario, and the others ones were also fun.

in Civ 3, those Scenarios had a lot of detail and uniqueness to it.

I honestly just don't think they bothered with budgeting Scenarios properly.

But I disagree tht "players don't care about scenarios" and disagree that "they don't fit it".

They just weren't done well in 6.
 
The current Civ2 and Civ3 sub-forums here on CivFanatiics are FAR more about custom scenarios and mods than the Vanilla game, or an enhanced but basic game, by an immense margin. Those two communities are practically nothing but. I can't speak for Civ4 or Civ5, directly indeed the very different story in Civ6 is VERY noteworthy and obvious to me. Though I'm not sure I, myself, can offer an explantion.
Perhaps it is because those game versions are 20 years old and people find that scenarios are a way of keeping things alive for them? Not sure it is helpful or instructive to compare them to newer version of Civ.
 
Too much initial world building and the scenarios gameplay is too narrow, most if not all civ 6 scenarios fell into this category.

Not enough initial world building and the scenario feels kind of stale, like why play it over the base game

Europe first settling America/Africa/Asia will always be interesting because you still get an exploration phase of the game. It is also a situation that basically can’t happen in a game of civ (tech leader doesn’t already hold all the land). Whichever side you play, there is a disadvantage to overcome.

Outside of that and a few niche cases (to show off a mechanic eg WWII air combat or the great game city state diplomacy or the rise of Islam for religion) I don’t see the point.
 
I love scenarios (and maps!)

Though yes, looking at the Steam stats, you can see this is a minority opinion.
Very few people have played Civ scenarios.

Gifts of the Nile is my favourite Civ VI scenario.
 
"If you can't make it with actual gameplay rules (6000 years+), make a scenario". I think it's a good compromise, but I tried the Alexander scenario in Civ5 or 6 and I can't say I was amazed. So I stopped trying. Civ3Conquest has at least 3 amazing scenarios : the ascension of Rome, the fall of Rome, and the New World scenario. You could even play them in multiplayer IIRC.
 
I'm fond of scenarios in theory, but I think there's a high threshold for making them engaging, short of which they're a waste of effort and time. Done well they can be concise, multiplayer-friendly variants on the game, ala Civilization III, or showcases of the game's modability, ala Civilization IV, but alas the last two installments have squandered their potential: V's seem designed for multiplayer, but its wretched netcode mean they can't be played that way, while even the best scenarios from VI seem rather like one-trick ponies; it's a much less modable game than its predecessors nor do any of its scenarios feel like a compelling substitute for playing the full game in multiplayer
 
Civ Vi's scenarios never really appealed. I think IV was the only iteration where I played a lot of the scenarios, but that was more becsuse I played the base game to death...
 
NOT

AT

ALL

As in, I've never played a single scenario in all the Civ games I've owned.
 
I played some scenarios when I was playing Civ2, back in the mid-2000s. I played the ones which came with "Fantastic Worlds", especially the one with dinosaurs and the one based on Atlantis. With Civ3, Civ4, and Civ5, I was still struggling to master the mechanics of the epic game as well as working my way through all the leaders. Playing a scenario where the tech tree is different, this item works the same but these don't... just didn't appeal. I would consider playing a Star Trek or Star Wars themed total conversion mod in Civ3 or Civ4 -- similar mechanics but new universe. Probably even have some here on this site, but I've never done it.

tl;dr Nope, scenarios don't matter much to me.
 
I really liked some of the scenarios in VI and was surprised to find out this wasn't a widespread opinion :D

Particularly liked the Aussie one, but also understand that (similar to other games that have "guided" missions where you have set units, set targets, etc) this can be restrictive and indeed punishing if you can't figure out the "right" set of moves. Like, in a classic "campaign" structure for something like an RTS or FPS game, the difficulty tuning is obvious. Scenarios in Civilisation (at least in VI) come across as a lot more fixed, i.e. "you have to use these chess pieces in this order or you're stuffed".

Or maybe I'm just not a good player, which is also why I preferred the Aussie one hah.
 
I loved the scenarios in V and I hated them in VI. You can tell they put a lot of effort into them in V. Scramble for Africa had it's own soundtrack and rules the Mongol one was pretty tight on time to conquer everyone. The Polish one in VI was just fighting barbs for 50 turns or however long it was.

None of this really matters though, I only played them in both games once to get the achievements. Civilization's strength is replay-ability due to the randomness of every game. The scenarios don't have that at all.
 
Top Bottom