I've just listened to an interesting podcast about the pros and cons of "board game" versus "simulation" style strategy games. One of the participants is Soren Johnson, the designer of Civ 4.
There is a discussion about the Civ series starting around 1:05:00. One of the presenters makes quite an interesting statement: "I would hazard a guess that Civ 7 will have more focus on characters, just because every time I've talked to Ed Beach about where he thinks the franchise has room to grow, he's brought up characters" Other contributors disagree that the ability to change leader would be a good idea for Civ 7. Soren then says that he is not envious of the designers of Civ 7, which I thought was quite amusing.
Anyway, I thought that was interesting given that we know that Ed is continuing to lead on Civ 7. I have previous stated that my preference is to nudge Civ 7 in a direction that is slightly less boardgamey and slightly more immersion focused, but I would still be very cautious not to move it so far that it loses the essence of what the Civ series stands for.
What are everyone's thoughts?
There is a discussion about the Civ series starting around 1:05:00. One of the presenters makes quite an interesting statement: "I would hazard a guess that Civ 7 will have more focus on characters, just because every time I've talked to Ed Beach about where he thinks the franchise has room to grow, he's brought up characters" Other contributors disagree that the ability to change leader would be a good idea for Civ 7. Soren then says that he is not envious of the designers of Civ 7, which I thought was quite amusing.
Anyway, I thought that was interesting given that we know that Ed is continuing to lead on Civ 7. I have previous stated that my preference is to nudge Civ 7 in a direction that is slightly less boardgamey and slightly more immersion focused, but I would still be very cautious not to move it so far that it loses the essence of what the Civ series stands for.
What are everyone's thoughts?