I was wrong about Civ6 - it's a reboot

[leandrombraz]

I don't think "reboot" make sense to define a game like Civ. In a game like Mass Effect or Fallout it would make sense, you have a story, a lore that can be reseted. Nothing in the previous games happened, we are making a new take on the franchise, that's a reboot imo.

In a franchise like Civ, every new game is a new take on the formula, every game is technically a reboot since there's no continuity, no story to advance, no lore to expand, it's purely mechanics with a historical theme. Civ start over every time, trying to build up previous game mechanics and adding new ones, while keeping the same theme. If it got more strategical or tactical doesn't make it a reboot, it's just a new take like every Civ game before it.

IMO you're just overthinking this. Civ VI is a sequel, the next game on the franchise, there's nothing meaningful to call it upgrade or reboot, just sequel. You could call a game like this a reboot if they did something like what Sim City did, give up on the numbers and just call the new game Civilization but, just like Sim City, it would be merely for marketing purpose, with no meaningful characteristics that award it the tittle "reboot" aside from the name.

 

[Gorbles]

A lot of what could be said has already been said I think, but any particular iteration of a game is basically classed as a reboot if enough fans class it as such. There's no real adherence to linguistics, nor any accurate labelling in general, because the people that do the labelling are fans and not experts in any relative field as a whole.

Certainly, even if they are linguistic experts, they don't get to make a unilateral decision on what this game could semantically be classed as.

Bibor, why were you wrong? What is a "reboot"? Why can't a game be both a sequel and a reboot? What are you trying to prove by calling it a reboot? Is there any specific aim to this debate, other than simply stating that opinion?

If you don't like it, don't read it. 1st amendment. Read the OP again. I like civ 6 for what it is. I'm just unsure if I wanted it to be more strat or more sim. They went sim. And it looks like they did a really good job. So what's your issue again?

I'm very late, but the 1st Amendment is a part of the American Constitution and has absolutely zero bearing on a privately-owned and run fan forum which transcends national borders by dint of being on the Internet (relative laws regarding server host location aside, because that has no bearing here either unless you're actually prosecuting someone in a court of law and you require evidence).

Also, the 1st Amendment if actually taken as a rule on these forums does not exempt you from the consequences of your speech. It simply entitles you to it, and other posters to theirs

 

[Bibor]

I'm very late, but the 1st Amendment is a part of the American Constitution and has absolutely zero bearing on a privately-owned and run fan forum which transcends national borders by dint of being on the Internet (relative laws regarding server host location aside, because that has no bearing here either unless you're actually prosecuting someone in a court of law and you require evidence).
Also, the 1st Amendment if actually taken as a rule on these forums does not exempt you from the consequences of your speech. It simply entitles you to it, and other posters to theirs

I know. I'm binge watching The Good Wife. Objection overruled.

 

[Herakleides]

I see Civ VI as trying to distance itself from Civilization 5, which is a very good thing. It may have a few of the trappings but overall it has more of a cIV feeling to me.

I see Civ VI as trying to distance itself from Civilization 5

It feels more like Civilization 4 indeed.

 

[darko82]

I see Civ VI as trying to distance itself from Civilization 5

It feels more like Civilization 4 indeed.

Which is a good thing. Civ 5 had at least a few bad design decisions.

 

[phryxolydian]

In a sense, each iteration of the game is a reboot of the original with more progressive features. It's not like they can rightfully be called sequels, since there isn't a narrative arc to be continued or a series of episodes revolving around central characters.

Precisely. It's kinda hard to understand what people really want out "sequels". It's still very much a Civ game, as all the others before it, just has different features, different mechanics. Yes, for many players (including myself), "core" stuff like combat AI should be a major focus for the devs to improve but, really, the thing that will sell the game are the new features, the new shiny graphics, etc. Of course, it still has to be somewhat balanced and fun as a whole but, you won't ever see "New improved combat AI that will crush your empire in 10 turns!" as one selling slogan for the game.

My point is, it's a new game. It has different features. Stop putting labels to everything, it just pollutes your mind with preconceived ideas, possibly preventing you from enjoying something. This goes for everything. It's like people disregarding certain music before they hear it just because someone put a label to it. Just shut up, listen, and let your ears decide.

 

[beorn]

For all the linguistics, I think the real division is between playing Civ as a mostly sandbox game and playing it as a competition against the other major civs. The former players find great satisfaction in expanding, developing cities, trading, and becoming secure against external threats -- but hardly think about win conditions. The latter might be focused upon a particular win condition from early in the game and gain satisfaction exclusively from progress towards that goal.

They have always been making a game for both kinds of players (as well as many who fall somewhere in between), and there exists some tension between the two goals. For example, city development depth is a huge boon to the sandbox crowd, but it could be seen as a distraction to the competition crowd -- and could, theoretically, work against the competition crowd if it turned out that the AI develops cities very poorly.

Anyway, I'm optimistic that CIV VI is going to do well by both kinds of players. The benefits for sandbox players are obvious and overwhelming. Districts are more interesting to plan than just buildings, and cities will no longer be interchangeable vessels. City states will be interesting for the first time. Wonders will no longer tend towards all-or-nothing. Great People will be worth focusing on, not mere counters to accumulate. Governments and civics look fascinating, and I suspect will be modded to be even more so.

But yesterday's video gave me some insight as to how this will be a much better competitive game, also. Watching the ease with which Rome took an ideal spot from the Greeks (another civ that ought to be an early powerhouse), I muttered, "Here we go again." Unless you play at a very high level -- which has some real drawbacks -- military superiority is too easy. Then I watched the Congo segment, with the AI Sythians threatening to grab a rather early religious victory, and I realized what they have done. They have made the AI competition more competent, by designing the non-domination victory conditions around things that the AI can do. While also putting some speed bumps in the way of the human player who seeks a domination victory.

I'm very optimistic that this hybrid is going to work.

 

[Magil]

I can at least understand where the OP is coming from (the hostile responses early in the thread confuse me). It does seem like ever since Ed Beach took over the game has moved away from the roots of a very focused 4X experience (though you could see some of this starting in the Civ IV expansions too, so it's not just him). They added a bunch of new yields and systems which are hard to directly relate to the four Xs, which are explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate. I mean, technically just about anything can be "exploit" if you get general enough, so that's more of a gut feeling than anything. But mini-games like archeology, great work theming, "quests", religious combat... are these things really stuff that enriches the 4X gameplay, or are they unnecessary distractions? Sometimes I feel like the former, but I also sometimes feel like it's the latter. I understand why they were put into the game originally--the midgame peacetime lull has always been a problem in Civ games, and it was especially egregious in V, where economic management was basically nil, and everything had to be built so slowly in order to support 1UPT.

I would not go as far as to say that Civ VI is not a strategy game. I will say that it's hard for me to reconcile a lot of the new features with the core 4X experience. With that said, I still like what I'm seeing in VI and imagine I'll enjoy the game quite a bit. I can at least partially understand the position that VI is continuing a trend of moving Civ away from its core gameplay experience, though.

 

[Alphons Rodulfo]

I realized what they have done. They have made the AI competition more competent, by designing the non-domination victory conditions around things that the AI can do. While also putting some speed bumps in the way of the human player who seeks a domination victory.

Wow. How good of you to notice that. And if that is true, then hats off to the ingenuity of the designers. A cunning way to dampen the effect of the unavoidable stupidity of the combat AI.