I think I understand Civ 7 is. It's a reset.

[Bibor]

The first printed manual I held was for Civilization (on Amiga). So yes, I have quite a bit of history with these games.

I think that with Civilization 7 Sid Meier got what he really wanted from all games past Civilization (1), but didn't quite get, although Civ 6 got close. He probably wanted a Civilization game for the modern times, compatible with TV consoles, handhelds, not just personal computers. You see, all Sid Meier's games were adventures into some (historical) aspect of human civilization: Railroad Tycoon, Pirates! and so on. The fact that Pirates! And RRT are different genres doesn't really matter, as long as you take it as a cartoonish and simplified simulation of an aspect of human activity. If you ever played Ghost master (you can look it up on Steam) and if you feel it might very well been a Sid Meier game, I wholeheartedly agree with you. The X-com reboot is also very much a Sid game. The moment Jake Solomon finally understood what Sid wants, he nailed it. Creating fun and addictive games that don't take themselves too seriously: that's who Sid is as a creator and I think that's the essence of makes him valuable to the games industry and our culture in general.

At some point, probably somewhere around Civ2, Firaxis got injected with another type or strain of creativity, that of Brian Reynolds. And boy is it different from Sids. Generalistic, logical, complex, interwoven, analytical. This strain added and probably dominated all future games labeled Sid's, right up until Civ5. Even other developers like RRT2's PopTop was heavily in the "Reynolds camp". This "Strain" is the one that makes you compute, create spreadsheets, find new ways to hack the game. It's also the one that makes them interesting and fun (for some people at least) for a very, very long time.

I must admit, I prefer Brian Reynolds' vision. But I'm also the first to admit that it's Sids "essence" that makes Firaxis games unique.

If anyone thinks that Civilization 7 will work without "The Reynolds Strain", well, they are wrong. It won't. It's there for a reason, and that reason is not to damage, but to improve. To provide longevity. With civ 5 and to an extent Civ 6, both strains were somehow lost and replaced with lookalikes. This time it seems that the Sid's "two thirds" are back where they should be. I just hope that the last 30% is going to be Reynolds'. Otherwise, it's going to be a really cool game, but forgotten in a year or two.

 

[Quintillus]

I'd love to hear more from Sid over the course of VII's development. Even general commentary on the series... maybe not likely before VII's release, but what are Sid's favorite Civ games to play? Does he play all of them? Has he played some of them to death and hasn't played them in years as a result? Is VII shaping up to be his ultimate game? Did he play Fall From Heaven II for years?

There are of course the obvious problems with the big boss expressing preferences for anything but the latest game, it's like a parent saying which child is their favorite. But if he writes a memoir or hangs up his boots some day, it would be fascinating to read his thoughts on the series as a whole.

If we assume for a minute that your hypothesis is true... I'm probably three-quarters Brian, one-quarter Sid in my preferences. The analytical side definitely appeals to me. But I don't mind a dose of whimsy as well. Tropico comes to mind as a game outside of the Civ series that straddles that balance.

 

[Vincent_lacruz]

You should read that interview: https://videogames.si.com/features/civilization-7-interview-gamescom-2024

They explain their view, and their desire to have something rather different from CIV 6 (no CIV 6.5)

“We didn’t want to make Civilization 6.5,” the producer explains. “People already have Civilization 6 and they play it a lot. They still play 5. They still play 4. Some of them are still playing 3. Ed [Ed Beach, creative director at Firaxis] wanted to do something new with this, because right now I think players have exhausted most of the creativity they can have in a game. In most of the games that we’ve put out, like Civ 6 and all the expansions afterwards, players usually know exactly how they’re going to play something when we show the let’s play, because they understand the strategies.

“So in this one Ed wanted to simulate something new on top of the world that Sid [Sid Meier, creator of the series] built. And in something new such as Ages, the same strategies will not work anymore. They might work in the microcosm within each Age, where you will have some sub-strategies that are familiar to players, but in terms of the long game players will need fresh eyes. They’re going to come in with a new challenge, they’re not just playing another version of Civ 6. It is a risk and we’re excited about it, but we also think that is a new direction that will give players something new to chew on.”

 

[Olleus]

You should read that interview: https://videogames.si.com/features/civilization-7-interview-gamescom-2024

They explain their view, and their desire to have something rather different from CIV 6 (no CIV 6.5)

The interesting thing in that quote is the emphasis it places on learning the game. I think that's entirely right. What's most fun to me in Civilization is learning the potential strategies, which are best when, and the possible variations. The moment I've mastered (though I've never been a world class competitive player) the game enough that I can pick my civ and map type and have a game plan that I'm confident I'll follow, is the moment the game becomes dull to me. The process of getting better is more interesting than being good. So I'm not just hoping that the base approach in Civ7 will be different from the past, but that it will be more varied and variable too.

 

[shaglio]

You should read that interview: https://videogames.si.com/features/civilization-7-interview-gamescom-2024

They explain their view, and their desire to have something rather different from CIV 6 (no CIV 6.5)

“We didn’t want to make Civilization 6.5,” the producer explains. “People already have Civilization 6 and they play it a lot. They still play 5. They still play 4. Some of them are still playing 3. Ed [Ed Beach, creative director at Firaxis] wanted to do something new with this, because right now I think players have exhausted most of the creativity they can have in a game. In most of the games that we’ve put out, like Civ 6 and all the expansions afterwards, players usually know exactly how they’re going to play something when we show the let’s play, because they understand the strategies.

“So in this one Ed wanted to simulate something new on top of the world that Sid [Sid Meier, creator of the series] built. And in something new such as Ages, the same strategies will not work anymore. They might work in the microcosm within each Age, where you will have some sub-strategies that are familiar to players, but in terms of the long game players will need fresh eyes. They’re going to come in with a new challenge, they’re not just playing another version of Civ 6. It is a risk and we’re excited about it, but we also think that is a new direction that will give players something new to chew on.”

On the one hand, this quote makes me more excited for Civ 7. A fresh new take on the franchise might help inject some desire in me to pick up the latest iteration that isn't virtually the same as the previous 6 iterations.

On the other hand, as a D&D fan, I saw what happened when 4th Edition came out and was such a drastic overhaul of the previous editions of the game. It became, and still is to this day, a highly divisive version of the now 50 year old classic tabletop game. So much so, that when they released 5th Edition, it was mostly a revamp of 3rd Edition with a few of the 4th Edition features that were seen as improvements tacked on.

Hopefully Civ 7 won't have the same fate and cause Firaxis to put out a Civ 8 that is mostly Civ 6 with whatever parts of Civ 7 that actually worked tacked on. Then again, 5th Edition D&D has been immensely popular . . .

 

[Bibor]

You should read that interview: https://videogames.si.com/features/civilization-7-interview-gamescom-2024

They explain their view, and their desire to have something rather different from CIV 6 (no CIV 6.5)

Yes, well… Sid’s games were never about deep strategy, but rather about various thematic elements, you play with these, with “all of it” coming together for a grand finale. Also, there’ the civ1 palace. Completely detached from the rest od the game, its just there to break your focus on the game and tell you “hey, you’re doing great. Your pops are loving it”. Its a typical “Sid move”.

A game doesnt need to have deep strategies to be enjoyable. But, home entertainment of this kind stopped being a “niche”. You need to have a strong fanbase to keep the ball rolling. And a fanbase needs an active community. And an active community needs either a complex thing to discuss or it needs to disagree a lot. I hope civ7 will foster the former. This is why I was disappointed with vanilla civ 5 so much: it had nothing complex to push us as a community to constructive discussions, but rather to frustration and disagreements.

 

[Bibor]

On the one hand, this quote makes me more excited for Civ 7. A fresh new take on the franchise might help inject some desire in me to pick up the latest iteration that isn't virtually the same as the previous 6 iterations.

On the other hand, as a D&D fan, I saw what happened when 4th Edition came out and was such a drastic overhaul of the previous editions of the game. It became, and still is to this day, a highly divisive version of the now 50 year old classic tabletop game. So much so, that when they released 5th Edition, it was mostly a revamp of 3rd Edition with a few of the 4th Edition features that were seen as improvements tacked on.

Hopefully Civ 7 won't have the same fate and cause Firaxis to put out a Civ 8 that is mostly Civ 6 with whatever parts of Civ 7 that actually worked tacked on. Then again, 5th Edition D&D has been immensely popular . . .

I was never a true D&D fan. It’s intellectual fast food. In our roleplaying community we called D&D books “cookbooks/recipe books”. The reason why systems like GURPS never fundamentally needed to change was because the foundation was neutral enough to allow for virtually anything your creative mind wanted to do. This is why DnD versions were struggling (I was there when the 2nd to 3rd edition happened): keep changing the recipes, and all previous rulesets become obsolete or need to be changed so much that might as well write the book yourself.

Incidentally this applies to civ as well. They keep adding unique abilities to civs and leaders, instead of creating minor but well balanced “specials” and assign a few to each leader, see what can do with them.

This “new firaxis way” takes away the limelight from the player (on these forums too!) in favor of making their own creation more elaborate. Why? Give me the tools to lego build my own Napoleon’ Grande Armee, don’t give me the actual grande armee unit.