Is civ a sandbox game?

SupremacyKing2

SupremacyKing2

Deity
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
4,969
Location
Indiana
I thought this might be an interesting question to discuss. The reason I ask is because one complaint I've seen about civ7 is that the legacy paths force players to follow certain narrow strategies. This discourages players from building their civ anyway they want, thus reducing the sandbox feel from previous civ games. The argument is that previous civ games had victory conditions but they were at the end of the game. Players could still build whatever civ they wanted until the end whereas the legacy paths force certain strategies during each Age. For better or worse, civ7 definitely feels like it is the first civ game to "push" the player down certain paths. I can see how some players might like this while others might hate this. The advantage of legacy paths is that they reward the player for achieving key milestones and provide bonuses at the end of each Age that help the player progress towards their ultimate choice of victory. Lastly, the legacy paths are different in each Age, providing a stronger theme to each Age.

The counterargument might be that civ was never a pure open sandbox game to begin with since it did have victory conditions as well as optimal strategies. Furthermore, just because there are legacy paths does not mean players cannot ignore them and build the civ they want. So there is nothing preventing someone from playing civ7 as a sandbox game now if that is what they want. Sure, they might not win but that is their choice and the game might still be fun for them. Lastly, the "just one more turn" button allows players to continue past the end of the game. So they can play on in a sandbox-like mode if they want to.

I guess the question boils down to how much should civ encourage the player down certain paths or should civ be super open-ended and let the player do whatever they want? I know some players like more directed gameplay while others prefer a more sandbox style gameplay. I am curious what people think.

Thanks.
 
My favorite thing about civ is reading and optimising strategies, I don’t really create cities / my civ and imagine the people living in them, do any kind of role play, or aim for any aesthetic or anything like that. But I think it’s super cool that people do, and I especially love reading that kind of players stories in the stories and tales subforums.

I do play Age of Wonders 4 more like that, the civ designer makes it a lot of fun to do so.
 
AD1730 said:
I think part of what made Civ popular was the ability to accommodate the min/maxer and the sandbox player. With Civ 7, they definitely alienated the sandbox player.
Click to expand...
I don't know. I can usually do whatever I want on sovereign and below. It's different on Immortal where I need a very specific start (AWAY FROM AIs/Hostile IPs), but there are definitely ways to get your sandboxy builder game even on that difficulty setting (fewer AIs).

Besides, many of the legacy paths are very easy to complete with optimal gameplay anyway. The only truly hard ones are the Culture target in Antiquity and the Economic one in Exploration.
 
Civilization never was a sandbox game like Sims or SimCity. Civilization always had defined conditions for winning and losing. It's not even a historical simulator like EU - for Civilization games balance and gameplay was always more important than historical accuracy. Civilization is historically-themed strategic game.

The main indicator of sandbox game is having player-invented goals. Civilization always was bad at this - most of the things were done for winning, but to small extend it always had those goals and Civ7 is not an exception. For example, I've seen several posts like "look at my long wall". That's exactly the thing people do in sandboxes.
 
stealth_nsk said:
Civilization never was a sandbox game like Sims or SimCity. Civilization always had defined conditions for winning and losing. It's not even a historical simulator like EU - for Civilization games balance and gameplay was always more important than historical accuracy. Civilization is historically-themed strategic game.

The main indicator of sandbox game is having player-invented goals. Civilization always was bad at this - most of the things were done for winning, but to small extend it always had those goals and Civ7 is not an exception. For example, I've seen several posts like "look at my long wall". That's exactly the thing people do in sandboxes.
Click to expand...
I think the sandbox comes in the balance of different strategies.... I want American Communism, a Religious Crusading Mongol empire, etc.

So by having different labels that are on somewhat balanced things we can move labels around to build in the sandbox. Even in SimCity there are trade offs, you can't do X without doing Y unless you have a cheat code for free money.

I do think the legacy paths emphasize certain strategies, that aren't just generic development... and that creates some tension.
 
Krikkit1 said:
I think the sandbox comes in the balance of different strategies.... I want American Communism, a Religious Crusading Mongol empire, etc.
Click to expand...
Well, the question of terminology. You'll get different results depending on the definition.

Wikipedia uses this:
A sandbox game is a video game with a gameplay element that provides players a great degree of creativity to interact with, usually without any predetermined goal, or with a goal that the players set for themselves
Click to expand...
And so I'm basing on it. With this definition, any version of Civilization doesn't look a sandbox game.

Krikkit1 said:
So by having different labels that are on somewhat balanced things we can move labels around to build in the sandbox. Even in SimCity there are trade offs, you can't do X without doing Y unless you have a cheat code for free money.

I do think the legacy paths emphasize certain strategies, that aren't just generic development... and that creates some tension.
Click to expand...
In previous Civilization games, victory conditions also shaped the game from the start. Legacy paths just shape it in other way, that's the reason for negativity.

In my opinion, the only thing which decreases Civ7 variety compared to previous games are homelands and distant lands setup, because it affects how map is generated and how players interact with the map. It was possible to make legacy path without this part (i.e. base exploration age goals on the concept of continents from Civ6).
 
stealth_nsk said:
In my opinion, the only thing which decreases Civ7 variety compared to previous games are homelands and distant lands setup, because it affects how map is generated and how players interact with the map. It was possible to make legacy path without this part (i.e. base exploration age goals on the concept of continents from Civ6).
Click to expand...
I think the Age system also contributes to the loss of a sandbox “feel” in the game as it has introduced, in my experience for the first time in a Civ game, the concept of a time crunch, or at least a timed round.

I love antiquity, but I find it impossible to immerse myself totally in the game and to lose myself in an age lasting only about a hundred terms. I play with long ages, but it’s simply not enough time to explore the map, immerse yourself, and frankly goof around as you could in previous iterations where you had all the time in the world with your civ.

The wide arch of history from antiquity to death robots allows you the freedom to play and experiment more than what we have in VII, which is essentially three mini-games, each with four to-do lists (and a ticking timer in the upper left corner reminding you to hurry up, to boot).

Again, we return to subjectivity/objectivity—but to me, at least, “sandbox” can be both an objective design and a vibe.
 
stealth_nsk said:
In my opinion, the only thing which decreases Civ7 variety compared to previous games are homelands and distant lands setup, because it affects how map is generated and how players interact with the map. It was possible to make legacy path without this part (i.e. base exploration age goals on the concept of continents from Civ6).
Click to expand...
I agree with this observation -- the distant lands / homelands distinction was not present in previous Civ games, so the player interacts differently with settlements and resources depending on *where* they are, not just what they are.

Playing on standard speed, I had Civ6 games that lasted 350-400 turns, Civ3 games that lasted more than 300 turns, and BERT games that lasted nearly 400 turns. For the first 150-200 turns, I have a great deal of flexibility about which cities to found, when to go to war, when to switch governments. An exception would be Civ4 BTS, where the AI could easily start to run away, so I would need to plan for near-term and medium-term wars to keep from losing. The actual victory conditions would not apply for another 100 turns, so they felt very sandbox-y. For Civ6 in particular, achieving a cultural/tourism victory or science victory requires getting deep into the game; it's hard to end the game early.

Civ7 does change that model. I have quantitative, visible measures of how I'm doing, compared with the other players, in each age/era. While I might have ignored the "score" in Civ3/Civ4/BERT/Civ6, I get popups in Civ7 that tell me if someone has achieved a milestone or if I am falling behind. I have short-term and medium-term goals that are explicit in Civ7. I always had mental/internal goals in the other games, e.g., having 8 cities by 1AD in Civ3, but Civ7 makes them explicit. I like them (mostly), leading to clearer decisions along the way. For example, one neighbor seems very willing to form alliances with her neighbor. Should I attack now, or wait until the start of the next age, when the alliance won't have formed yet?

In sum, it's harder to play Civ7 without keeping short-term goals in mind. It was/is easier to play Civ3/Civ6 with fewer definite short-term goals.
 
Devs announced that update 1.2.2 coming on June 17 will allow players to turn legacy paths on or off for a true sandbox style game:

  • Turn Legacy Paths on or off - You can now turn off Legacy Paths, either per Age, or for all of them at once. With this change, you can now play a Civ VII game without Legacy mechanics to enjoy a full sandbox-style game. Or, if you want to focus on just one or more Legacy Paths, you can turn specific ones on or off. This option also includes the ability to turn off Score Victories. We definitely want feedback on how this one in particular feels, so let us know in our official Discord!
Click to expand...

Source: https://civilization.2k.com/civ-vii/news/civ-vii-update-check-in-jun-10/
 
Interesting! I won't complain about that feature, but I wonder whether this sets up the possibility to pick which ages you finish (win) the game in future updates.

EDIT: independent power hostility is also a huge one, btw. Spawning near hostile indeps can throw a wrench in many plans.
 
Lord Lakely said:
Interesting! I won't complain about that feature, but I wonder whether this sets up the possibility to pick which ages you finish (win) the game in future updates.
Click to expand...
They already mentioned that in the past, so it’s safe to assume this is somewhere on their roadmap.
 
bitula said:
Will this eliminate the issue with resetting ages? I mean for sandbox style the transition should be smooth I guess.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. The only change will be that without legacy paths, there won't be any legacy bonuses. So you will start the next Age without any legacy bonuses. But the Age "reset" will still happen.
 
I don't know if it's a sandbox game.
What I like about Civ:

It feels like a totally different experience every time if you change all the settings.
I like feeling challenged by opponents and having to consider my opponents when I play.
I like being able to learn history from the game, and have history reflected in bonuses/abilities.
I like the feeling of continuity, where I reach the end and my choices at the start feel like they mattered.

I Absolutely don't like a streamlined experience, where it always feels the same no matter what you change.
And the game is most fun (online), as a party game and not a competitive game.
 
I like the legacy path idea and it helps the AI play the game. I do feel the balancing is off. Ursa Ryan makes some great suggestions in this video below.
That if you reach a goal in the legacy paths, it should make the others harder.
Make the game more dynamic and have that sandbox feel.
Being able to score too many legacies each game limits that feel and rewards.

For me I find the attribute system over powers the game.
Late game your more playing with the acquired attribute points and not the leader or Civ. Thus look forward to turning of legacy paths just to limit attribute points.

 
I guess I've always played Civ as a sandbox game, which might be one of the reasons I rarely finish a game. That might actually be one of the missing bits of the puzzle the devs misunderstood when they saw how few people completed games.

Usually I just like playing as a civ, create a cool idea behind the civ I am working with, and see where it takes me. It always felt like more of a creative experience than a competitive one.

So I might want to play Kupe and create a crazed eco warrior civ, or Montezuma as a crazed slaver.. that kind of thing. I find it boring otherwise to just try and 'win'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

remconius
Strategy speculation: path-maxing/turtle vs growth/Rush
2 3
Replies
40
Views
3K
Fluffball
F
stealth_nsk
Problems of modern age will soon become problem of every age
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
WillK96
WillK96
K
Civ 7 is a step away from the casual fanbase
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
vorlon_mi
vorlon_mi
F
Is there an era to play after Modern age? Hints from what we saw in the streams
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
Taefin
Taefin
M
Individualized Crises
Replies
16
Views
725
Krikkit1
K
Back
Top Bottom