Professor Phobo
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 255
Consoles and PC games, aside from some niche titles like Escape from Tarkov, have hit design parity for like...fifteen years now?
Is Civ 7 as a strategy game less deep than previous Civs?
- Thread starter Cywil
- Start date
Consoles and PC games, aside from some niche titles like Escape from Tarkov, have hit design parity for like...fifteen years now?
Is there mods for playstation Civ6?
moondog385
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2024
- Messages
- 217
I see no reason to assume why this would be the case. Lots of cool mechanics at play and that's just what we've seen so far.
No sure I understand , a game designed for all platforms at launch with smaller features and a three games in one, with limited MP , Mmm
Civ 6 was it cross-play ? Civ 7 ?
Why is "civ" being punt out as three games in one , if not to attract (and nothing wrong with that for perhaps increased sales ) a more casual, less time, less of a complex
strategy game
Olleus
Deity
Bigger market =/= more casual. I know several very serious people who've played hard-core games (including civ) for decades who now prefer to game on a console and TV than on a gaming PC. Having a release on console is likely there to capture that audience. Think about it: the bigger the potential market, the more niche your audience can be while still making enough sales. A smaller share of a bigger pie kind of thing.
Complexity =/= strategy. Busy work is not strategy. Simple rules and few elements, provided they interact in interesting ways, can provide endless strategy. Chess and Go are games with very simple rules, but an endless font of strategy.
Complexity =/= strategy. Busy work is not strategy. Simple rules and few elements, provided they interact in interesting ways, can provide endless strategy. Chess and Go are games with very simple rules, but an endless font of strategy.
Professor Phobo
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 255
None of those conclusions are supported by anything we know about the game. Three eras with changing rulesets could quite easily make the game the most daunting entry in the franchise to master we've seen so far - you have to learn three separate metas!
Being available on consoles for cross play says precisely nothing about the underlying complexity of a game.* Console/PC parity has been the norm for quite some time. Many strategy games are available on console without any degradation in design. We're not talking about adapting to the SNES or something.
*Except for control inputs; something like Tarkov needs so many more keybinds than a controller has available, for example. But you can do pretty much anything in Civilization by clicking on it. A console player won't have as many hotkeys, but that just means they play slower, not that they have fewer options.
Being available on consoles for cross play says precisely nothing about the underlying complexity of a game.* Console/PC parity has been the norm for quite some time. Many strategy games are available on console without any degradation in design. We're not talking about adapting to the SNES or something.
*Except for control inputs; something like Tarkov needs so many more keybinds than a controller has available, for example. But you can do pretty much anything in Civilization by clicking on it. A console player won't have as many hotkeys, but that just means they play slower, not that they have fewer options.
Mr Jon of Cheam
King
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2017
- Messages
- 957
I thought about it, and I dismissed it entirely.
aieeegrunt
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2021
- Messages
- 1,538
Reducing micro might actually make the game more demanding.
“Fewer decisions, but each one has more impact” is why I play on tiny maps.
“Fewer decisions, but each one has more impact” is why I play on tiny maps.
Professor Phobo
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 255
If a decision doesn't have a significant consequence or opportunity cost, it shouldn't be part of a strategy game, IMO. I make some room for the "brick by brick" decisions that might have attenuated consequences or only marginal opportunity costs, but it shouldn't ever be a trivial "oh this doesn't matter I just want the UI to stop bugging me about it" decision.
Wasn't Civ 1 also released on the SNES? I guess they've all been casual games, so problem solved.
I've played as much strategy games on consoles as I have casual games on the PC, so I don't think that's the issue. We live in a world today where most games are expected to release across all platforms, that's all.
Olleus
Deity
Why do you extrapolate from "beginner friendly" to "lack of depth/strategy"? Beginner friendly just means that the initial climb on the learning curve has been smoothed out, it says precisely nothing about how high that curves climb.
Professor Phobo
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 255
Beginner-friendly and depth are not mutually exclusive! They refer to very different things.
ombak
Warlord
Not really. There are plenty of games that are very beginner friendly, but also achieve strategic depth. "Easy to learn, difficult to master" is a common refrain that reflects what a lot of devs aim for in games like this.
When CivV came out, didn't people discuss it being dumped down compared to CivIV?
From little we've seen from CivVII so far, it at least looks more complex than CivVI base game. But again we don't know enough to make any conclusive statements. I'd personally revisit this topic once we know more.
From little we've seen from CivVII so far, it at least looks more complex than CivVI base game. But again we don't know enough to make any conclusive statements. I'd personally revisit this topic once we know more.
Hannibal XIII
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2008
- Messages
- 141
I voted too early to tell but if anything it has more depth for the simple reason that the switching mechanic creates the space for a whole new style of metagaming, with no prior Civ games to draw experience from.
We don't even know which combos are going to be best, what yields to aim for, the best and worst crisis policies....
We don't even know which combos are going to be best, what yields to aim for, the best and worst crisis policies....
King of Prussia
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2011
- Messages
- 324
Too early to say. We dont have enough info even on the stuff we know about.
I wouldnt say removing false choices like should i build a mine on a hill 99.99999% of the time a bad thing.
I wouldnt say removing false choices like should i build a mine on a hill 99.99999% of the time a bad thing.
Vincent_lacruz
Warlord
Well, mabe the base game will be. But just wait for the 1st big expansion, and it will become more... well, you could say "meaty", I think.^^
It has always been that way for the CIV games since at least CIV IV. So if you fear it will be too "easy" at launch, just wait a year or so...
Hope so, but spider sense's say that not the case , everything is smaller in terms of say size of your empire ( bar the cities they look like mountain ranges - and the unit size lol ) number of cities less number of units less number of opponents less
A cap on city limits and a hard re-set on each age/game a map that fills in with time .. hardly fills me with confidence
is there any official sources ?
Similar threads
