How Would You Implement A Classic Mode?

[Crashdummy]

I've said it before, I don't think we are that far from agreement.

In the above statement, for instance, I think you are more than half right: Age transitions and Age-mandated Civ switching needs to go: Civ switching itself should be Optional and subject to the gamer's decision based on what is happening in his/her specific game with his/her specific Civ.

I think the game needs not Just a 'Classic Mode', but the Option to play a continuous Civ from start to finish OR transition to another Civ under varying conditions - NOT including an invisible and Mandatory switch hidden behind an Age transition that is arbitrary in that it occurs regardless of how your game is going and is equally disastrous to everybody regardless of how well or poorly your Civ is doing.

IF all we get is a reversion to Civ IV/V/VI, then the franchise is truely Dead: turning Civ into a Retro game is a dead end design-wise, IMHO.

A game with both could be marketed as giving the gamer their choice of play: fight to maintain your Civ through Hull and High Water, or find ways to build a Civ that is, in the end, a medley of several Civs/cultures that went before.

How difficult something like that would be to Code, I haven't a clue - the last computer language I learned officially was FORTRAN, which I think counts as Paleolithic Programming these days. No matter how difficult, though, it's worth at least exploring, because I think the result would be worth playing for the maximum number of gamers.

Its a fallacy to call it a revert to Civ IV/V/VI. Its a revert to the soul of the franchise, what made it great, only in that aspect, there are plenty of changes Civ VII brought and that can be done in the next Civs that dont fundamentally change the core of the franchise

The Classic Mode also requires you to be able to start the game with any Civ, so yes, it should be a new game mode, because the current mode requires Civs to be aplit in Ages and Classic Mode requires everyone to be available from start. For Civ VII, it should be a new Mode, picked before the game for that reason

I think Civ VIII wont have age transitions and civ switching at all, doubling down on these mechanics will certainly mean the franchise will die, like Halo did when they went sandbox. Civ switching might work in another franchise, it will NEVER work in the Civilization franchise because it goes against what the franchise is all about

 

[tman2000]

As people keep saying, they are in no danger of closing the studio down. 8 will still happen

SimCity is dead. Kerbal Space Program is dead.

 

[tman2000]

like Halo did when they went sandbox.

What was strange about this for me was how the open world added a little bit of fun for me, but in blandness and tedium took away more. Interesting how design can simultaneously add something positive but also take things away.

I thought Infinite's story missions were adequately conceived in balance to the open-world, as a return to a guided narrative. However, it's simply that the story missions were bad that sunk them.

As for the open world, it would have been better without far flung and relatively needless upgrades or busy work to go do. Some of the open world areas were quite good. I guess this is an argument against filler and in favor of building unique areas not cookie cutter locations.

The other thing about Infinite, relative to a game like Skyrim, was that there was no real story in the open world. There was a fair bit of (repetitive) environmental storytelling, but there was no guided narrative that was involved and rich just located to certain unique locations you would happen upon on your own. Nintendo's open worlds also struggle with this, although they make up for it with a meticulously well designed world, and have a little of it.

Well, consider this a long winded way to repeat the point of how just awful the religious gameplay is in Civ 7. Had that one system been decent, since antiquity is somewhat liked, and people really engage with Treasure Ships even if they complain about them, then with a good religious game, maybe Civ 7 would have been better received. And then we have rumors that one of the first expansions was intended to be an update to religion with crusades (and I believe piracy, as a general Exploration update). You cannot make a game bad then expect people to pay even more money to get the non-painful version. That "model" for V and somewhat VI was a very poor lesson Firaxis/2k learned and they need to unlearn it.

 

[tman2000]

Civ switching might work in another franchise, it will NEVER work in the Civilization franchise because it goes against what the franchise is all about

During this discussion, I've come to the conclusion that what defines Civ is the "one-more-turn" feeling which represents an uninterrupted chain of direct, immediate, meaningful choices. This implies the need to remain a single faction because those next-turn clicks need to be part of a single grand effort, and any attempt to interrupt that grand effort will break the chain of "one-more-turn".

That said, I do think civ-switching could work. I think it would have to be more of a bail-out or handicap feature for less-skilled players on higher difficulty. If you start to fail, you can civ-switch and receive a temporary era based advantage. This would happen fairly regularly to give less skilled players access to higher difficulties. However, the context for this would be that highly skilled players are making every effort to not civ-switch, where keeping the same civ throughout the game is a kind of intended primary challenge.

The interruption of a civ-switch would work within a reward loop that punishes weak play and rewards strong play. So on lower difficulties, average players wouldn't have to civ-switch. I think this kind of system would be appropriate. Although, from a marketing perspective, given the fallout of Civ 7 which has as much to do with poor development as poor design, they just can't ever bother with a civ-switch mechanic.

Actually, I suppose they could include it as an optional, marginal feature. Instead of switching to unique civs, you'd switch to mainline civs. So, England could become America at some point if you turn on the option. Where England and America are core, timeless civs. This could be a sort of Trojan horse for the feature that wouldn't sell as many extra civs but might reconcile the community to the feature for Civ 8.

 

[Krikkit1]

Studio will not be closed, but franchise will be thrown to garbage if one game won't receive proper support. It's an image thing - the leading franchise can't afford it.


I don't see optional civilization switch either - dedicating resources to design fictional civilization bonuses is not something I see Firaxis doing (the whole age-based civilization thing was to represent them historically, not creating some ahistorical fantasy), and I also don't see Firaxis letting people play civilizations without bonuses.

More likely are the solutions which were already in this thread. One is the mode where you pick and keep civilization name and city list, but still choose "cultures" with their uniques. Second is the scenario framework for modders to do something if they want. I actually expect Firaxis to do both at some point.

I think Firaxis will have at least one of these options available
1. play without bonuses outside of civs age
2. play with fully generic ie age linked bonuses outside of main age
3. play with semigeneric bonuses outside of main age (ie attribute + age linked)

They won’t have fully unique Antiquity America/Modern Rome bonuses available

They will probably ALSO have the in game option to choose your “Name/Graphics/City List” package separate from your “Uniques bonus” package

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think Firaxis will have at least one of these options available
1. play without bonuses outside of civs age
2. play with fully generic ie age linked bonuses outside of main age
3. play with semigeneric bonuses outside of main age (ie attribute + age linked)

They won’t have fully unique Antiquity America/Modern Rome bonuses available

They will probably ALSO have the in game option to choose your “Name/Graphics/City List” package separate from your “Uniques bonus” package

I think those are 100% mod area - easy to implement once appropriate APIs will be exposed, but too balance breaking to embed into the game itself.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Its a fallacy to call it a revert to Civ IV/V/VI. Its a revert to the soul of the franchise, what made it great, only in that aspect, there are plenty of changes Civ VII brought and that can be done in the next Civs that dont fundamentally change the core of the franchise

The Classic Mode also requires you to be able to start the game with any Civ, so yes, it should be a new game mode, because the current mode requires Civs to be aplit in Ages and Classic Mode requires everyone to be available from start. For Civ VII, it should be a new Mode, picked before the game for that reason

I think Civ VIII wont have age transitions and civ switching at all, doubling down on these mechanics will certainly mean the franchise will die, like Halo did when they went sandbox. Civ switching might work in another franchise, it will NEVER work in the Civilization franchise because it goes against what the franchise is all about

Current mode in Civ VII has Age Specific Civs, but I think that would be easier to change than removing the Ages entirely as mandatory determinants of which Civ you can play - and I think both have to change. In fact, there are already mods available that make it possible to choose any Civ from the start, but they cannot give any Unique attributes outside of the Civ's original Age, I believe. That's a Start, though.

And I'm sorry, allowing only continuous Civ play, whether it's the 'soul' of the franchise or a body part somewhat lower and more physical is reverting to the Civso
kk,,jc8 of 1 through 6. While that might be classic and familiar to the majority, my experience with Civs 2 through 6 was that I was bored to tears with it and the games long before a new Civ game came out. Before this year, I had not played Civ VI for at least two years, and had not played it without Mods for at least another year before that. That may be an entirely individual experience, but given the many complaints on these Forums about the last DLCs/additions to VI, I suspect not so much.

I could foresee, though mixing the 'Classic' and 'Switch' in that any unpicked Civ in your game should be available for you to switch to - under certain specific conditions in that specific game. Sometimes your choice may have to wait a while to become Optimal, but that's 'Classic' also: Civ games have always given Civs attributes and Uniques only available at certain periods of the game and much less useful at other times since long before Civ VII.

An additional possibility, and 'doubling down' on the Classic/continuous Civ mod, would be transitional Uniques instead of Civs. That is, your Greek Civ picked at start and optimized for Antiquity might have new Uniques/attributes available later in the game. Instead of radical Civ-wide transformation, your Civ 'only' changes the way it fights wars, or handles religion, or finances Trade - and, yes, some of those new attributes might well resemble Byzantine Roman, but that Civ-wide change is not required.

Even if the 'new' attributes were generic and picked from a general 'pool' of available changes (sort of like Mementoes, in fact) it would allow continuous Civs without losing all their Optimization later in the game - or having to wait until the late game to use any Uniques because the Civ (Great Britain, America, Soviet Union) ONLY existed in any form in the late game period.

 

[Leucarum]

An additional possibility, and 'doubling down' on the Classic/continuous Civ mod, would be transitional Uniques instead of Civs. That is, your Greek Civ picked at start and optimized for Antiquity might have new Uniques/attributes available later in the game. Instead of radical Civ-wide transformation, your Civ 'only' changes the way it fights wars, or handles religion, or finances Trade - and, yes, some of those new attributes might well resemble Byzantine Roman, but that Civ-wide change is not required.

There's a mod for Civ6 which lets you mix and match different features from different civs and it's honestly fun (if completely insane)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

There's a mod for Civ6 which lets you mix and match different features from different civs and it's honestly fun (if completely insane)

Not surprised. The concept was discussed several years ago as a way to make Civs' uniques more relevant throughout the game. Not really a direct part of this Civ VII continuous versus transforming Civ discussion is that 'classic' Civ always had a problem with many if not most Civs being very limited in that their potential Uniques were all trapped in a single Era or chronological portion of the game. Antiquity Uniques for the USA or Modern Uniques for Scythia are a pretty hard sell unless they are so generic they could apply to anyone.

 

[Crashdummy]

And I'm sorry, allowing only continuous Civ play, whether it's the 'soul' of the franchise or a body part somewhat lower and more physical is reverting to the Civso
kk,,jc8 of 1 through 6. While that might be classic and familiar to the majority, my experience with Civs 2 through 6 was that I was bored to tears with it and the games long before a new Civ game came out. Before this year, I had not played Civ VI for at least two years, and had not played it without Mods for at least another year before that. That may be an entirely individual experience, but given the many complaints on these Forums about the last DLCs/additions to VI, I suspect not so much.

I could foresee, though mixing the 'Classic' and 'Switch' in that any unpicked Civ in your game should be available for you to switch to - under certain specific conditions in that specific game. Sometimes your choice may have to wait a while to become Optimal, but that's 'Classic' also: Civ games have always given Civs attributes and Uniques only available at certain periods of the game and much less useful at other times since long before Civ VII.

Civ VI launched 9 years ago, you say you havent played with Civ VI in the last 2 years. That means you played for 7 years, thats a win in my book. I doubt many people would be playing Civ VII in 7 years without a Classic Mode....

The problem with mixing Classic and Switch is that in Classic you NEED to be able to pick any Civ from the start, and Switch NEEDS to have Civs that cant be picked form the start. So the only way to have both is with diferent game modes

I dont think Civ VIII should have different game modes, so in my opinion they should stick with what represents the franchise more, which is Classic gameplay

I am sorry for those that liked this experiment, but the experiment failed (and it failed in other games that tried too) IMHO so i cant see it coming back in future Civ games

 

[Krikkit1]

I think those are 100% mod area - easy to implement once appropriate APIs will be exposed, but too balance breaking to embed into the game itself.

Balance breaking isn't as much of an issue as a Mode... ie a mode where all civs only get their full uniques their Age

Names wouldn't be a balance issue in game which is why that could be an in game choice.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Civ VI launched 9 years ago, you say you havent played with Civ VI in the last 2 years. That means you played for 7 years, thats a win in my book. I doubt many people would be playing Civ VII in 7 years without a Classic Mode....

The problem with mixing Classic and Switch is that in Classic you NEED to be able to pick any Civ from the start, and Switch NEEDS to have Civs that cant be picked form the start. So the only way to have both is with diferent game modes

I dont think Civ VIII should have different game modes, so in my opinion they should stick with what represents the franchise more, which is Classic gameplay

I am sorry for those that liked this experiment, but the experiment failed (and it failed in other games that tried too) IMHO so i cant see it coming back in future Civ games

Of course Civ VI was a Win: I got my money's worth out of it in the first few months based on amount spent/time played.

BUT, as posted, I didn't play the game without mods for the last third of its release (3 - 4 years, approximately) and didn't play several of the later DLCs/official modifications at all. Overall a win, but they pushed their luck towards the end, IMHO*.

Civ VII seems to have pushed its luck from the start, which is not the sign of a good design - no question.

You may NEED to be able to pick any Civ from the start, but you have never had the choice of picking all of them at once.

Civ games have not been limited to only as many playable Civs as will fit into a game for decades now. Continuous or Switch, there are always extra Civs available that you could switch to. They may not be optimal for the period in which you switch, but being optimal for very specific Ages/Eras is also part of Classical Civ, so that is a straw man argument.

Limiting the game to only one mode of play is, I think, a major step back, no matter what you call it.

The 'Civ Transition' experiment failed not because of inherent problems with switching Civs, but because Civ VII does it in the most ham-handed style imaginable: making all switches mandatory regardless of the in-game situation, forcing players into a rigid structure of rigid Ages with rigid game mechanics and rigid Victory conditions and rigid interactions among terrain and buildings and cities, and on and on and on.

Frankly, if the game kept the Classic mode but still had the same stilted rigidity in its play with the same linear in-game advance conditions and Victory conditions, it would have failed only a little slower than it did, and would still require major modifications to be playable for any length of time. Having achieved victory all four ways with various leader/civ combinations, I am already bored with the game - about 5 years and 3000+ hours of play faster than Civ VI.

And THAT is the worst thing I can say about any Civ game: that despite all the built-in variations in maps and civs and leaders they have produced a game that is quickly BORING in its mechanics, regardless of whether you are playing one Civ or three.

* - this is not unique to Civ, Dog Knows: the Empire of the Skies DLC for Anno 1800 was a Hard Pass for me after only a few hours of playing it, and I wasn't the only one filling Redditt with negative comments about it. To add insult to injury it also broke every &^%$#^ mod in the game!

 

[Crashdummy]

You may NEED to be able to pick any Civ from the start, but you have never had the choice of picking all of them at once.

You lost me here, i dont know what you meant (probably due to English not being my native language). Care to explain this with other words?

The 'Civ Transition' experiment failed not because of inherent problems with switching Civs, but because Civ VII does it in the most ham-handed style imaginable: making all switches mandatory regardless of the in-game situation, forcing players into a rigid structure of rigid Ages with rigid game mechanics and rigid Victory conditions and rigid interactions among terrain and buildings and cities, and on and on and on.

I dont know, it failed in Humankind and there you had the option to keep the original one. I think it fails because its not the gameplay people like in their 4x games. Again the perfect example is Halo. Sandbox games were succeeding left and right, but when Halo went that way, it failed, and i think its because its not what people wanted in a Halo game

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

You lost me here, i dont know what you meant (probably due to English not being my native language). Care to explain this with other words?


I dont know, it failed in Humankind and there you had the option to keep the original one. I think it fails because its not the gameplay people like in their 4x games. Again the perfect example is Halo. Sandbox games were succeeding left and right, but when Halo went that way, it failed, and i think its because its not what people wanted in a Halo game

What I meant was, in all previous Civs you picked one Civ at the beginning of the game, but you picked from a group (at least since Civ III) that included more Civs than 1, and more importantly, contained more Civs than you could normally include in a single game, so there were always Civs "left over" - and therefore, available to be added to the game later if the game mechanics allowed it.

Humankind failed for numerous reasons, but the one related to the Era transitions was that they provided NO connection with any Civ. You played as an 'avatar' that was related to yourself the player and not your faction. All the other factions were related to avatars not directly connected to to them or any other recognizable figure connected to them. So, after the first transition you started to have trouble telling who was who: these guys are now Mongols - were they Mayans or Huns before? And the game had 6 Eras, so by the time you got more than half-way through the game you could barely remember what you were playing, let alone keep track of all the AI factions.

Not familiar with HALO so cannot comment on that, but in the historicalish 4X genre we have, so far, two instances of Civ transitions being attempted and the games failing - but we also have two instances in which both games had many things wrong with them besides civ switching, and people have commented on many problems with the games besides Civ switching.

Which leaves me to believe that civ switching/transitioning in and of itself may (I repeat, May) not be the problem if it's done right - which, I freely admit, it has not been so far.

Mind you, after two abject failures, it's going to take a very brave designer to try it a third time . . .

 

[stealth_nsk]

Balance breaking isn't as much of an issue as a Mode... ie a mode where all civs only get their full uniques their Age

I disagree. For example, now we have continuity and regroup mode and we expect both modes to be balanced and improved.

Names wouldn't be a balance issue in game which is why that could be an in game choice.

Names aren't an issue, I agree.

 

[aieeegrunt]

What was strange about this for me was how the open world added a little bit of fun for me, but in blandness and tedium took away more. Interesting how design can simultaneously add something positive but also take things away.

I thought Infinite's story missions were adequately conceived in balance to the open-world, as a return to a guided narrative. However, it's simply that the story missions were bad that sunk them.

As for the open world, it would have been better without far flung and relatively needless upgrades or busy work to go do. Some of the open world areas were quite good. I guess this is an argument against filler and in favor of building unique areas not cookie cutter locations.

The other thing about Infinite, relative to a game like Skyrim, was that there was no real story in the open world. There was a fair bit of (repetitive) environmental storytelling, but there was no guided narrative that was involved and rich just located to certain unique locations you would happen upon on your own. Nintendo's open worlds also struggle with this, although they make up for it with a meticulously well designed world, and have a little of it.

Well, consider this a long winded way to repeat the point of how just awful the religious gameplay is in Civ 7. Had that one system been decent, since antiquity is somewhat liked, and people really engage with Treasure Ships even if they complain about them, then with a good religious game, maybe Civ 7 would have been better received. And then we have rumors that one of the first expansions was intended to be an update to religion with crusades (and I believe piracy, as a general Exploration update). You cannot make a game bad then expect people to pay even more money to get the non-painful version. That "model" for V and somewhat VI was a very poor lesson Firaxis/2k learned and they need to unlearn it.

It’s pretty simple. Halo was always a story based shooter with a very carefully crafted guided narrative. Many of the levels would be open, but there was always a path.

They chucked out that core gameplay and predictably lost their playerbase

 

[Crashdummy]

What I meant was, in all previous Civs you picked one Civ at the beginning of the game, but you picked from a group (at least since Civ III) that included more Civs than 1, and more importantly, contained more Civs than you could normally include in a single game, so there were always Civs "left over" - and therefore, available to be added to the game later if the game mechanics allowed it.

Ah, now i understood, thanks

Humankind failed for numerous reasons, but the one related to the Era transitions was that they provided NO connection with any Civ. You played as an 'avatar' that was related to yourself the player and not your faction. All the other factions were related to avatars not directly connected to to them or any other recognizable figure connected to them. So, after the first transition you started to have trouble telling who was who: these guys are now Mongols - were they Mayans or Huns before? And the game had 6 Eras, so by the time you got more than half-way through the game you could barely remember what you were playing, let alone keep track of all the AI factions.

That is my point. Two different implementations failed, so this design in particular is very prone to failing. Civilization already got a failure with Civ VII, they cant risk two failures in a row, so doubling down on a system that you know is prone to failing would be a huge mistake. The other point is that Civilizaztion has already set gameplay expectations for the franchise (which was my point in the Halo example), and those expectations go against the concept of civ switching

Which leaves me to believe that civ switching/transitioning in and of itself may (I repeat, May) not be the problem if it's done right - which, I freely admit, it has not been so far.

Mind you, after two abject failures, it's going to take a very brave designer to try it a third time . . .

Maybe there is a civ switching implementation that works but if there is, it wont be on this franchise, and they cant risk attempting it on Civ VIII, thats my point

 

[Leucarum]

I've said before that I think Civs evolving over time is a really good idea. So mechanically, I think switching Civ abilities is here to stay. But in both Civ7 and Humankind a wholesale Civ switch has just been jarring and a feels-bad for too many players. The counterpoint is that other forms of Civ evolution I've seen have felt quite generic and anticlimactic.

Ultimately I think the winner will be whoever manages to make Civ evolution feel special without wholesale Civ switching.

 

[tman2000]

I've said before that I think Civs evolving over time is a really good idea. So mechanically, I think switching Civ abilities is here to stay. But in both Civ7 and Humankind a wholesale Civ switch has just been jarring and a feels-bad for too many players. The counterpoint is that other forms of Civ evolution I've seen have felt quite generic and anticlimactic.

Ultimately I think the winner will be whoever manages to make Civ evolution feel special without wholesale Civ switching.

You could easily just add a role playing element.

Imagine a deck builder (there is actually a 4x civ-like that's based entirely on a deck building mechanic, so I don't mean to that extent). Every era your civ "draws" new "cards" that represent bonuses and policies for that era. Civ 6's civics kind of worked this way. However, I'm imagining something more contextual and maybe mutually exclusive with other players.

You could build these card sets around specific cultures. So you would have a narrative event that says: "The Mongols have risen out of obscurity, do you placate them, integrate them or destroy them?" with some variation in the narrative choices available based on the civ.

Your civ then gains access to relevant attributes in the form of the cards, similar to Civ 7's social policies and traditions. They could then sell narrative culture packs as DLC if they want. In premise, there would be more culture packs than playable civs, as a playable civ can adopt policies from emergent cultures. A playable civ would have essentially one specific advantage reflecting that civ's historical legacy that applies as best as possible in any given age, along with a special unit.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I've said before that I think Civs evolving over time is a really good idea.

I kind of experience my movement through the social policy trees of Civ 5 as my civilization evolving over time.

When I write up a narrative of my game, these are the key points. If I'm going Honor, I actually give my "Warrior Code," when I get it, a name (on the model of Bushido). When I get Military Caste, I lay out a caste system (on the model of India's) that prominently features the soldier class.

These are a new set of advantages that accrue over time (and the qualities of a civlet in 7 are little more than a package of game-advantages).

So I kind of feel that an earlier version of Civ already had this, but more smoothly integrated than the harsh jump-to-an-altogether-different-RL-civ mechanic of 7.