I feel torn.
The last few years have been weird for me. The excitement of the lead up to Civ 6, the anticipation of the teasers and looking forward to the new innovations … followed by the uggh of how Civ 6 actually plays.
Then for the last few months, the dev team comments and speculation about yet another possible expansion to Civ 6, pushing out even further the timing of Civ 7. At first it was no big deal. But lately I've been wondering "would I even buy Civ 7 if it was made by the current Firaxis team?"
Now this, and the possibility of a fresh look at what drives the development of civilizations.
I've no idea if this new game will be any good or not, or if good whether it will appeal to me or not. I'm cautiously looking forward to learning more.
Leaving me feeling somewhat optimistic that I now have something to look forward to over the remainder of 2019 that will hold my interest more than speculation about Civ 6 patches or a new Civ 6 expansion.
And yet I also feel sad. I've been a Civ - fan for so long, I really wish I was looking forward to hearing more about the development of the Civ franchise. And following Humankind is just going to continually remind me of that.
Not sure about you but I really dislike the general design philosophy of civ6:
1)
Low difficulty level. This is my greatest pet peeve. There were many indie and non-indie games over last years which were challenging and yet selling very well. Hell, even another Firaxis major franchise, XCOM, is relatively difficult game even without its insane Ironman "no savescummin" mode - and both iterations sold very well. People like to be challenged. People especially like to be challenged in supposedly serious strategy games. Pretty much all strategy games I know are more challenging than civ6 - Paradox games, Amplitude games, Total War games etc - all of them struggle with AI due to modern tech limitations, but they all still manage to achieve adrenaline pumping challenge much more often than civ6. I love difficult games and having to carefully plan my strategies and seeing how my every choice matters. And if we have
eight difficulty settings, there really should be some option for players who want to be challenged, especially - without stupid desperate AI resource cheats. I don't give a damn how hard it is to program 1UPT combat AI, if it is impossible then I'd actually support changing entire stacking and combat system just to give AI a fighting chance. Imagine Civ game with optional difficulty level which makes sustaining thousand years of civilizaiton an actual challenge to stand the test of time, where you have to carefully plan development of your people to avoid dangerous bottlenecks, where you are sweating when in danger and raise your fist in the air when you manage to overcome obstacles... resulting not from AI having stupid crazy early bonus resources but from game design enabling our limited AI to be really dangerous.
2) Cartoonish graphics, Pixar leaders, ironic tech quotes, goddamn rock band units and general march away from even bothering to have some resemblance to history
3) Very abstract "board game" mechanics which neglect immersion and historical inspirations in favour of new sets of shiny bonuses to grab (along that shallow dopamine shot in your veins resulting from filling buckets with currencies)
4) Too many mechanics which are too shallow and too overloaded with countless sources of more bonuses, instead of "less but more" - less game mechanics but with more immersion, interconnection, depth and actual difficult strategic dilemmas
And on top of that two big problems with Firaxis community approach
1) Lack of dev diaries or some kind of equivalent, lack of communication with fans, instead silently watching forums from afar and suddenly dropping patches before going silent for months again
2) Very limited mod support (come on, we have civ6 for three years and there are no mods more advanced that "some more units or buildings with their 3d models", where is .dll?)