Is Civ a Narrative Game?

[GeneralZIft]

If anything is to be gleamed from the way they are presenting Civ7 and all the new mechanics and systems I would suggest that they're looking to have a "narrative" experience

What do I mean by this? It seems like the game forces a "story" to happen by injecting events and crises into a game arbitrarily.

---

Concept: Every nation falls at the end of an era, due to a mix of crises chosen by the player.

Execution: No matter what you do, your empire will fall. Narratively speaking, you will always expect it to happen. And it happens to ALL empires in the game at the SAME TIME.

Critique: First of all, once something is guaranteed to happen, it becomes predictable. There's no point in a story that plays out the same every time.
The game is better served by letting it tell its own story. I can't believe I'm saying this, but Civ6's Ages system is actually relatively more authentic than forced crises.

Analysis: this mechanic exists solely to justify civ-switching. If that mechanic wasn't there, you wouldn't have this one either.
The choose-your-poison is also very gamey and takes away from the supposed narrative that the game is trying to tell.
You don't choose what life throws at you, you choose how you react to it.

Comparison:
In Rimworld, they have a similar system to throw players into loops. In that game you run a colony in a narrative simulator where sometimes crises happen and you have to prepare and recover.
In some ways the crises are also "forced" here but the difference is the lack of "choose-your-poison" which is so evidently anti-narrative.
This narrative system also likes to throw positive events at you to mix it up.

Conclusion:
All of which has me wondering.
What are you trying to do with Civ7?
I'm not totally sold that this narrative system won't get old in a couple weeks.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

In one of the YouTuber videos (Ursa Ryan I believe), he mentions that crises are different for each civ in a playthrough and that even if it's the same crisis event (like the barbarian invasion), how your civ responds/what negative policies you can implement seem to be tied to how you played the age.

He gave the example that he had been playing an Antiquity Era as Rome focused on militarism/expansion, and his barbarian invasion focused on things like a malus to far flung settlements.

There could be enough permutations between crisis type/how you played the era, that the only real constant you have is that you know the era will end in a crisis, but it's always gonna play out a little bit differently.

 

[user330977]

Good narratives emerge organically through satisfying mechanics and enjoyable gameplay. Nothing should feel forced - things should happen in game because of choices made by the player or opponents. In a Civ context, this could be the rise of a handful of empires, but only a couple have access to iron and horses. They destroy the weaker civs, themselves growing much larger, until all-out conflict between these powers breaks out. One civ has access to more gold and silver mines, boosting their economy and allowing for a larger army, eventually allowing them to conquer the continent. They then sail away to different continents and the story develops from there.
Games shouldn't beat you over the head with THIS IS A NARRATIVE EVENT and force something to happen. The forced switching of eras for all civs is a fine example of forced gameplay. In my example, the victorious civs with horses and iron will use their new land and cities to grow more powerful, leaving the defeated civs to wither as insignificant backwaters. It's organic and much more immersive in my view.

 

[MasterPaw]

I disagree with your analyse that crisis exist to justify civ switching

I think the main point of the age system (and so crisis) is a pacing issue. It about controlling the pace of the game better, offering early, mid and late game challenges, limiting snowballing, and having more distinct feels. Some influencer mentioned a dev said a lot of players don't end their games and would rather restart and they were trying to fix that; I think it make sense.
It also has a pro of allowing shorter game age specific which can be good for MP

The civ switching probably came up after the age system

So I rather see this as a pacing system than a narrative one

 

[GeneralZIft]

I disagree with your analyse that crisis exist to justify civ switching

I think the main point of the age system (and so crisis) is a pacing issue. It about controlling the pace of the game better, offering early, mid and late game challenges, limiting snowballing, and having more distinct feels. Some influencer mentioned a dev said a lot of players don't end their games and would rather restart and they were trying to fix that; I think it make sense.
It also has a pro of allowing shorter game age specific which can be good for MP

The civ switching probably came up after the age system

So I rather see this as a pacing system than a narrative one

Except a pacing issue does not need a forced crisis.
You can fix it with many other means.

But If they really wanted a narrative system, they could have done that.

Simply give Positive Events to Losing players and the Crises to the Winning players.
This would actually do well to level the playing field, no?

This way, the "story" isn't so predictable.
But no, it needs to be a Crisis every time because they need to justify a new Civilisation popping up every time.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

In one of the YouTuber videos (Ursa Ryan I believe), he mentions that crises are different for each civ in a playthrough and that even if it's the same crisis event (like the barbarian invasion), how your civ responds/what negative policies you can implement seem to be tied to how you played the age.

He gave the example that he had been playing an Antiquity Era as Rome focused on militarism/expansion, and his barbarian invasion focused on things like a malus to far flung settlements.

There could be enough permutations between crisis type/how you played the era, that the only real constant you have is that you know the era will end in a crisis, but it's always gonna play out a little bit differently.

Oh that's good to hear, Crisis System seems to be completely neglected in discussions.

Glad to see it's different for each civ at least, makes replayability better.

 

[nakzox]

I disagree with your analyse that crisis exist to justify civ switching

I think the main point of the age system (and so crisis) is a pacing issue. It about controlling the pace of the game better, offering early, mid and late game challenges, limiting snowballing, and having more distinct feels. Some influencer mentioned a dev said a lot of players don't end their games and would rather restart and they were trying to fix that; I think it make sense.
It also has a pro of allowing shorter game age specific which can be good for MP

The civ switching probably came up after the age system

So I rather see this as a pacing system than a narrative one

What I don't understand quite yet (I haven't watched YTers discussing the game just yet) is how long each Age is supposed to be?

Are we talking 100 turns or so per Age? If that is the case, how much can you actually even build up in Antiquity before it ends? You probably won't be able to have 4-6 cities by then, while also building everything up and getting prepared for a crisis at the same time. Unless you don't build settlers anymore? And then what happens when an age actually ends? What is left? It could actually be interesting to pick up the pieces of a fallen empire, but I am not sure I like the idea of building up and having things fall because of a staged crisis.

It seems like the point of Ages/restarting after each Age is more so focused towards multiplayer. You can play 100 turns in, what an hour or so, at least in Civ V and VI? So you don't have MP games taking hours upon hours, but I always assumed Civ was more of a single-player game.

 

[GeneralZIft]

What I don't understand quite yet (I haven't watched YTers discussing the game just yet) is how long each Age is supposed to be?

Are we talking 100 turns or so per Age? If that is the case, how much can you actually even build up in Antiquity before it ends? You probably won't be able to have 4-6 cities by then, while also building everything up and getting prepared for a crisis at the same time. Unless you don't build settlers anymore? And then what happens when an age actually ends? What is left? It could actually be interesting to pick up the pieces of a fallen empire, but I am not sure I like the idea of building up and having things fall because of a staged crisis.

It seems like the point of Ages/restarting after each Age is more so focused towards multiplayer. You can play 100 turns in, what an hour or so, at least in Civ V and VI? So you don't have MP games taking hours upon hours, but I always assumed Civ was more of a single-player game.

Each age is 200 turns at most

 

[Verdant]

My hope is that crises are not only age-specific but also somewhat tailored to your actions during the age.

For example, if you conquered a civ, your crisis could be uprsings in your puppet cities. Or if you're above the settlement cap with high populations, your crisis is a plague. Or in the Exploration age, a bunch of minor civilizations band together and revolt against the tyranny of the world's major civilizations.

Or if you have several religions battling for control of your cities, your crisis could be a crusade.

It'd also be interesting if some crises involved multiple civs, like civ6 emergencies.

 

[MasterPaw]

What I don't understand quite yet (I haven't watched YTers discussing the game just yet) is how long each Age is supposed to be?

Are we talking 100 turns or so per Age? If that is the case, how much can you actually even build up in Antiquity before it ends? You probably won't be able to have 4-6 cities by then, while also building everything up and getting prepared for a crisis at the same time. Unless you don't build settlers anymore? And then what happens when an age actually ends? What is left? It could actually be interesting to pick up the pieces of a fallen empire, but I am not sure I like the idea of building up and having things fall because of a staged crisis.

It seems like the point of Ages/restarting after each Age is more so focused towards multiplayer. You can play 100 turns in, what an hour or so, at least in Civ V and VI? So you don't have MP games taking hours upon hours, but I always assumed Civ was more of a single-player game.

Ursa talked about it in his 2h video I'd I'm not mistaken

The goal was between 150/200 turn per age and 450/600 per campaign

Also I think it's possible to have city cap up to 7 in age 1

The civ7 website has some info about age transition, that's all we know I believe

Ages gameplay explained | Civilization VII

Learn more about how Ages work in Sid Meier's Civilization VII!

civilization.2k.com

 

[MasterPaw]

My hope is that crises are not only age-specific but also somewhat tailored to your actions during the age.

For example, if you conquered a civ, your crisis could be uprsings in your puppet cities. Or if you're above the settlement cap with high populations, your crisis is a plague. Or in the Exploration age, a bunch of minor civilizations band together and revolt against the tyranny of the world's major civilizations.

Or if you have several religions battling for control of your cities, your crisis could be a crusade.

It'd also be interesting if some crises involved multiple civs, like civ6 emergencies.

Yeah that would fix the fact you can chose you own penalties to me and make thing more interesting

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I did not get the impression that your civ will always fall during a crisis. In fact, the devs have talked about how satisfying it will be when your civ comes through a crisis and starts a new era. I think whether your civ "falls" during a crisis will depend on how you are playing. If you have a strong civ and you prepare for the crisis, your civ will probably survive the crisis pretty well. But if you don't play well and don't prepare, your civ might get hit really hard by the crisis and you might make it to the next era but really battered and bruised.

I wonder how the AI will handle the crisis mechanic. I imagine the human player will probably learn to handle the crisis pretty well after playing a bunch of games. So the crisis might weaken the AI more than the human player. If so, that could give the human another advantage over the AI.

Also, I wonder if crisis will get predictable over time. In other words, after a bunch of playthroughs, will the human player know what crisis to expect and figure out the best way to prepare for a crisis and so every game will be the same because the player will know what to do before the crisis happens to best prepare?

 

[ombak]

Also, I wonder if crisis will get predictable over time. In other words, after a bunch of playthroughs, will the human player know what crisis to expect and figure out the best way to prepare for a crisis and so every game will be the same because the player will know what to do before the crisis happens to best prepare?

More than the Civ-switch, this is the feature that I want to know how it feels. It could be like adding quests to 4X, which becomes repetitive and unexciting. How will they keep these crises exciting for so many playthroughs? Or will it be something that sooner or later I just click through to get it over with?

 

[SupremacyKing2]

The choose-your-poison is also very gamey and takes away from the supposed narrative that the game is trying to tell.

It is gamey but I can see the gameplay purpose. Without negative crisis cards, a player with a strong civ would likely not face much challenge when a crisis hits. For example, say a barbarian invasion happens but you have a strong military. You easily crush the invasion with no damage to your cities. What would even be the point of having the crisis mechanic if they don't affect you? But if you are forced to pick a card that weakens your military, now that invasion is more of a challenge and so the crisis becomes more meaningful.

 

[Ornen]

Games shouldn't beat you over the head with THIS IS A NARRATIVE EVENT and force something to happen. The forced switching of eras for all civs is a fine example of forced gameplay. In my example, the victorious civs with horses and iron will use their new land and cities to grow more powerful, leaving the defeated civs to wither as insignificant backwaters. It's organic and much more immersive in my view.

is that what happened in real life? with the Egyptians, the Romans, the Greeks?

the game will include historical transitions, such as Han to Ming or England to UK. but Han and Ming China were very different, just like Egypt and Abbasids are very different

 

[GeneralZIft]

It is gamey but I can see the gameplay purpose. Without negative crisis cards, a player with a strong civ would likely not face much challenge when a crisis hits. For example, say a barbarian invasion happens but you have a strong military. You easily crush the invasion with no damage to your cities. What would even be the point of having the crisis mechanic if they don't affect you? But if you are forced to pick a card that weakens your military, now that invasion is more of a challenge and so the crisis becomes more meaningful.

The game should automatically pick the crisis that suits you the best instead of having you be able to pick, because then you will just pick the ones that don't affect you. Surely that would be better?

 

[Siptah]

The game should automatically pick the crisis that suits you the best instead of having you be able to pick, because then you will just pick the ones that don't affect you. Surely that would be better?

From what I've seen and heard, the available cards depends on what you've done in the age. Still, there seem to be around 6 options for just 1 slots in the first stage. But the slots apparently increase over time (2 then 3 then 4?). It seems easy to choose 1 or 2 cards that don't affect you much. But I assume at some point you really have to put in cards that you really aren't prepared for. It would also be good to know what happens when you run out of money in civ vii, as this seems to be likely to happen in a crisis. Are you troops disbanding? Are buildings destroyed? Cities spawn hostile units?

Spoiler example screenshot :

 

[SupremacyKing2]

The game should automatically pick the crisis that suits you the best instead of having you be able to pick, because then you will just pick the ones that don't affect you. Surely that would be better?

I am not aware of the player getting to pick the crisis itself. The game picks the crisis for all players AFAIK. The player picks the crisis cards that give them a negative penalty. The crisis cards are not the crisis itself, the cards just give you a penalty to make it harder to respond to the crisis event. So the player picks how they want to be penalized during the crisis, but not the actual crisis. So for example, the crisis might be barbarian invasions. The player might pick the card that makes military units more expensive to build or the card that reduces combat strength for military units.

 

[user330977]

I am not aware of the player getting to pick the crisis itself. The game picks the crisis for all players AFAIK. The player picks the crisis cards that give them a negative penalty. The crisis cards are not the crisis itself, the cards just give you a penalty to make it harder to respond to the crisis event. So the player picks how they want to be penalized during the crisis, but not the actual crisis. So for example, the crisis might be barbarian invasions. The player might pick the card that makes military units more expensive to build or the card that reduces combat strength for military units.

This sounds like abysmal game design. The game forces you to go through an arbitrary bad event and also arbitrarily hobbles your ability to get through it. Can the developers really not think of any other way to provide challenge?

 

[kryat]

I think it’s disingenuous to say that having a forced narrative event is bad game design. If it were, there wouldn’t be bosses at the ends of levels.