Importance of continuous gameplay in Civ

[poiuyt]

Civ is/was an immersive game. People play it and suddenly it's three a.m. Civ is immersive because the player's skin is in the game. They're right there - in the very game battling, striving, etc. Civ is immersive because it found a way to insert the player into the game. If Civ stops being immersive, then Civ will be the Civ killer.

The issue with era's is not new in Civ. I can recall when an early Civ game had a period of chaos before you changed governments. I though it to be important part of the Civ experience. Latter Civs removed this feature - no chaos - which, in my view made it a tad gimmicky - like an exploit, a software loophole.

But does the Civ 7 implementation force an era change all once, for all players at the same time? I hope not. A player's (AI) enemies should be able to take advantage of the chaotic period and strike or intervene, as they say in polite society. All Civs progress at a different pace, eras cannot occur at the same time. Chaos at varying intensities is an idea worth looking into in the manner of natural disasters. Barbs running amok, imminent bankruptcy, too ancient a government form. etc. all good causes.

If you take the player out of the game, bring him/her up for air like during an artificial era change, it will be time to go to bed, and Civ will lose.

 

[CrackerJack45]

I think Civ 7 looks really cool actually. Also, it's pretty important to get a good nights rest.

 

[Kilroy Was Here]

You are describing what they have already established to be a core gameplay mechanic of 7. Era changes are preceded by a big tumultous event.

Also I think you are saying "immersive" when you mean to say "fun"?

 

[Disgustipated]

But does the Civ 7 implementation force an era change all once, for all players at the same time?

Yes it happens all at once. It's not necessarily a bad thing. Enemies can still try to exploit your weaknesses during the crisis period, or you theirs. I'm not sure if you'll be able to see what cards they have slotted, however, so I'm not sure if anyone can see what your weaknesses are.

 

[poiuyt]

You are describing what they have already established to be a core gameplay mechanic of 7. Era changes are preceded by a big tumultous event.

Also I think you are saying "immersive" when you mean to say "fun"?

Fun and dread.

 

[poiuyt]

Yes it happens all at once. It's not necessarily a bad thing. Enemies can still try to exploit your weaknesses during the crisis period, or you theirs. I'm not sure if you'll be able to see what cards they have slotted, however, so I'm not sure if anyone can see what your weaknesses are.

Granted there could be an era change that happens to all - roughly at the same time, like the Bronze-age collapse in the Mediterranean basin and a bit beyond. But I bet China was nor affected.
The more Civ departs from reality, the more trivial it becomes.

 

[poiuyt]

I think Civ 7 looks really cool actually. Also, it's pretty important to get a good nights rest.

Sleep is for the weak

 

[Arent11]

Civ is/was an immersive game. People play it and suddenly it's three a.m. Civ is immersive because the player's skin is in the game. They're right there - in the very game battling, striving, etc. Civ is immersive because it found a way to insert the player into the game. If Civ stops being immersive, then Civ will be the Civ killer.

The issue with era's is not new in Civ. I can recall when an early Civ game had a period of chaos before you changed governments. I though it to be important part of the Civ experience. Latter Civs removed this feature - no chaos - which, in my view made it a tad gimmicky - like an exploit, a software loophole.

But does the Civ 7 implementation force an era change all once, for all players at the same time? I hope not. A player's (AI) enemies should be able to take advantage of the chaotic period and strike or intervene, as they say in polite society. All Civs progress at a different pace, eras cannot occur at the same time. Chaos at varying intensities is an idea worth looking into in the manner of natural disasters. Barbs running amok, imminent bankruptcy, too ancient a government form. etc. all good causes.

If you take the player out of the game, bring him/her up for air like during an artificial era change, it will be time to go to bed, and Civ will lose.

It might work if you create your own follow up civ or just upgrade your civ without changing the name But even then the discontinuity might be annoying.

 

[Thormodr]

Granted there could be an era change that happens to all - roughly at the same time, like the Bronze-age collapse in the Mediterranean basin and a bit beyond. But I bet China was nor affected.
The more Civ departs from reality, the more trivial it becomes.

Yes. Some people defend the ahistoricity of 7 by saying Civ has always had immortal leaders and George Washington was in 4000 BC. That somehow justifies piling on even more ahistoricity. Not only will you still have immortal leaders but now they will move around to historically unrelated empires and Egypt can turn into Songhai and then Buganda. *Ugh*

"The more Civ departs from reality, the more trivial it becomes." Very good.

 

[Gedemon]

Civ stopped being "immersive" for me when AI players stopped acting like leaders and the game was stripped back to a boardgame.

It can't get worse, and Civ7 may even bring back some immersion from my PoV.

You are describing what they have already established to be a core gameplay mechanic of 7. Era changes are preceded by a big tumultous event.

Also I think you are saying "immersive" when you mean to say "fun"?

"addictive"

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

But does the Civ 7 implementation force an era change all once, for all players at the same time? I hope not. A player's (AI) enemies should be able to take advantage of the chaotic period and strike or intervene, as they say in polite society. All Civs progress at a different pace, eras cannot occur at the same time. Chaos at varying intensities is an idea worth looking into in the manner of natural disasters. Barbs running amok, imminent bankruptcy, too ancient a government form. etc. all good causes.

If you take the player out of the game, bring him/her up for air like during an artificial era change, it will be time to go to bed, and Civ will lose.

I think what they're trying to do with the crisis idea is ensure that the global era change does not feel so artificial or sudden, it builds to a climax.

Remains to be seen how well that works, but it doesn't sound like something that will impact the "one more turn" feeling of Civ, they described a feeling of "relief" at the beginning of a new Age. If anything, it has potential to increase that "one more turn" feeling by reducing the snowballing effect that plagues the end game.

I do think something is lost if Civs cannot progress at different paces, but if it makes the end game more engaging then it is worth it, and I'm not sure this idea of civs progressing differently will be entirely lost. Obviously everyone starts at the beginning of the tech tree with each new Age, but the Ages are long, you can still fall behind during an individual Age. We also don't know what the effect of doing poorly in the previous Age will be; there was mention of "dark paths" and I think free techs for Civs who research future tech a lot. There's a lot that we still don't understand.

 

[Thormodr]

Civ stopped being "immersive" for me when AI players stopped acting like leaders and the game was stripped back to a boardgame.

It can't get worse, and Civ7 may even bring back some immersion from my PoV.


"addictive"

Yes. I hated the play to win AI of 5. Civ IV was so much better in that regard.

Will see what 7 brings. Hopefully a more interesting immersive AI.

Civ Anonymous. So good!

 

[Krikkit1]

They wanted to play an Egypt-flavoured game, and 1/3 of the way through they have to switch to a Mongolia or Songhai flavour: they wanted chocolate ice cream but were forced into Neapolitan. To me personally, the idea of playing with a Civ-flavour that changes to match the time-flavour of every era sounds pretty cool.

I think that the ability to preserve the flavor of your civ (and of some of your AI opponents) is key to how well this does.

 

[Gorbles]

Yes. Some people defend the ahistoricity of 7 by saying Civ has always had immortal leaders and George Washington was in 4000 BC. That somehow justifies piling on even more ahistoricity. Not only will you still have immortal leaders but now they will move around to historically unrelated empires and Egypt can turn into Songhai and then Buganda. *Ugh*

Civ. always has had immortal leaders and George Washington did turn up in at least one Civ. game in 4000 BC. These are true statements. Factually-so.

But I don't think it's a justification of "anything goes", as you're trying to present it as. It's demonstrating the existing wiggle room that the new systems can fit within. The thing is, as has often been said, that this wiggle room is dependent on personal opinion; e.g. our own individual sense of immersion.

So it's not "piling on even more ahistoricity". It's "operating within the roughly same amount of alternate history that the game always has". The difference is this specific change is a dealbreaker for you and other posters, just as other things have been dealbreakers in the past for other players. 33% new, 33% changed, and 33% the same. That's how Civ. has always progressed. Your opinions are in no way invalid, but you also don't need to misinterpret arguments in favour of the route Civ VII seems to be taking in order to defend said opinion.