Is Civ VII an RPG game now?

[Lazy sweeper]

Diplomacy, influence, Leaders more important than the actual civilization chosen...
There's a lot going on that now needs to be tracked down exponentially more seriously than any
other previous Civ iteration. And as for some things improved that is actually good and there will soon
be mods to nerf thins influence bias, as time goes on, the game has become so focused on the Persona,
that it is almost feel like playing an RPG and not a Grand Strategy game.

I try to explain it with more descriptions added in this video if anyone has time to consider watching.
The root of the point remains basically the same as descripted here.

 

[Cymsdale]

There is a lot to unpack here.

Diplomacy, influence, Leaders more important than the actual civilization chosen...

Unsure if true. Unsure how this makes it an RPG.

There's a lot going on that now needs to be tracked down exponentially more seriously than any
other previous Civ iteration

Unsure if true. Unsure how this has anything to do with your thesis.

And as for some things improved that is actually good and there will soon
be mods to nerf thins influence bias,

Huh?

as time goes on, the game has become so focused on the Persona,
that it is almost feel like playing an RPG and not a Grand Strategy game.

I guess this is really the root of your point. But how is the game 'focused on the Persona'. The persona is basically just a unique bonus you pick at the beginning of the game and that's it. In my last completed game I played Harriet Tubman, but I wouldn't say that choice really had a disproportionate impact on how the game flowed. It affected how much influence I spent on espionage and made it bad for others to declare war on me. It didn't drive which victory condition I pursued (economic), which was far more impacted by my civilization choices along the way.

 

[Siptah]

I guess this is really the root of your point. But how is the game 'focused on the Persona'. The persona is basically just a unique bonus you pick at the beginning of the game and that's it. In my last completed game I played Harriet Tubman, but I wouldn't say that choice really had a disproportionate impact on how the game flowed. It affected how much influence I spent on espionage and made it bad for others to declare war on me. It didn't drive which victory condition I pursued (economic), which was far more impacted by my civilization choices along the way.

Before I played the game, I underestimated the importance of your leader's attributes. As they are responsible for the endeavors you have access to (and which quests you get), they have quite an influence throughout the game.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

And as for some things improved that is actually good and there will soon
be mods to nerf thins influence bias,

Huh?

It's the time, the streamline, the flow that is most impacted. Mods like no War weariness for Civ VI helped with the flow. Same game the mod that removed loyalty. Two different ballparks, same theme.
Influence and Leaders Personas hidden bonuses hinder the flow.
Some medium relationship Persona Bonuses are just a guestimate at this point and in the future, but the whole package unfolds in a uniquely convoluted way that I don't know if it will ever be
possible to even address with mods in the future, being so at the core of the new Ai engine.

Negative bias expired after say 20 turns in Civ 3, by the time Civ IV kicked in, there already was this new negative bias threshold introduced that impacted your relationships.
Now it's 100% better, or worse. It depends from the observer position.
We are a very small pale blue dot, remember?

 

[ThichN]

the game has become so focused on the Persona,
that it is almost feel like playing an RPG and not a Grand Strategy game.

I would argue the Civilization franchise has never been a "grand strategy game." That moniker is better applied to Paradox offerings. Looking at the background of 4x games, the persona or leader has very frequently been at the forefront of gameplay. I would even say that the games that do this are more interesting than the ones that do not, but that is purely subjective. If the release of Civ7 has taught me anything, it's that the Civ franchise means something different to other camps of interest. I have never had any inclination for example to play on a true-earth start map. When playing a Civ game, you come to dread running into certain leaders, their faces front and center, egging you on.

I do think that Civ7 has leaned into the leader a bit more heavily, not just thru mechanics like attributes, but also narrative events. They keep it broad enough. I am reminded again of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (imho the best 4x game ever made), and how essential the personas/leaders were to that game both in gameplay and (light, guiding) story. Personally, I even wish Firaxis would lean deeper into this and provide us with more little cues of our leader going thru the world's history.

Whether or not any of this makes it an RPG, I have no idea.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I would rather say that the Civilization franchise started to move away from grand strategy with civ5 when they reduced the scale of the map to that of a tactical one (hexes and 1UPT). From that point, I don't believe "Grand strategy" has ever been Firaxis priority, unless I missed something.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I would argue the Civilization franchise has never been a "grand strategy game." That moniker is better applied to Paradox offerings.

It's totally the question of terminology. To me Paradox games are more simulations than strategy games. They care about history (or, in case of Stellaris, for example, sci-fi tropes) more than about things like balance.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I would argue the Civilization franchise has never been a "grand strategy game." That moniker is better applied to Paradox offerings. Looking at the background of 4x games, the persona or leader has very frequently been at the forefront of gameplay. I would even say that the games that do this are more interesting than the ones that do not, but that is purely subjective. If the release of Civ7 has taught me anything, it's that the Civ franchise means something different to other camps of interest. I have never had any inclination for example to play on a true-earth start map. When playing a Civ game, you come to dread running into certain leaders, their faces front and center, egging you on.

I do think that Civ7 has leaned into the leader a bit more heavily, not just thru mechanics like attributes, but also narrative events. They keep it broad enough. I am reminded again of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (imho the best 4x game ever made), and how essential the personas/leaders were to that game both in gameplay and (light, guiding) story. Personally, I even wish Firaxis would lean deeper into this and provide us with more little cues of our leader going thru the world's history.

Whether or not any of this makes it an RPG, I have no idea.

As someone else said, give us the choice to stay with the same civ for all ages, I also suggested, let Leaders die with their age and civ also.

Or, parithetically, give us the option to play a Civ game without Leaders completely, like a King and Queen mode, where the Leaders are actual units, like the commanders.
Remove all those diplomatic influence mathematical Leaders bias nightmare and let us play a simple game with basic interactions as an alternative. An option.

At the same time if one likes Leaders Quests more, and there is room for that, Alexander the Great war with Persia, Bactria, Babylon, Egypt, is alone worth a single Scenario worth
the base game price, if it was well done... with the Oxus river Civilization, Zoroastrian temples, Pericles voyage...

I don't like to be forced into a diplomatic nightmare game that to me feels like an RPG because I have to Master each Persona individually.

 

[ThichN]

As someone else said, give us the choice to stay with the same civ for all ages, I also suggested, let Leaders die with their age and civ also.

Or, parithetically, give us the option to play a Civ hame without Leaders completely, like a King and Queen mode, where the Leaders are actual units, like the commanders.
Remove all those diplomatic influence mathematical Leaders bias nightmare and let us play a simple game with basic interactions as an alternative. An option.

At the same time if one likes Leaders Quests more, and there is room for that, Alexander the Great war with Persia, Bactria, Babylon, Egypt, is alone worth a single Scenario worth
the base game price, if it was well done... with the Oxus rive Civilization, Zoroastrian temples, Pericles voyage...

I don't like to be forced into a diplomatic nightmare game that to me feels like an RPG because I have to Master each Persona individually.

I'm not sure if I follow.

But why not play a previous Civ iteration that fits your play style and interests a bit more than this one? You might also like "Old World," though that would also be an RPG by your definition.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I'm not sure if I follow.

But why not play a previous Civ iteration that fits your play style and interests a bit more than this one? You might also like "Old World," though that would also be an RPG by your definition.

What's the point of a critic it's like asking me for the meaning of life...
I love Skyrim, Baldurs Gate 3, I don't like Old World exactly because it overwhelmingly feels like an RPG and Skyrim is what an RPG is. Again, Scenarios in Civ and RPGs mechanics go well together, they tell a Story, it was we pay for.
Civ VI Scenarios are meh. Civ V Scenarios meh. Civ III Alexander the great Scenario? OMG! They struck a balance there that was just pure alchemical perfection...

Baldur Gate 3 battle system is a turn based system also. It doesn't have cities to conquer and micromanage, but it's an excellent tactical game and RPG combo in all regards.
No more Hexes, just movement points like Old World. But free movement otherwise. Maybe that could be a direction. Idk.
I'm not against RPG, or Civ VII, it is just an observation.

 

[Lebo44]

I actually think that Civ series is slowly leaning towards Anno as it is becoming more focused on city development (districts!) and resource management. Even the scale of the maps resemble archipelagos more than real continents.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I actually think that Civ series is slowly leaning towards Anno as it is becoming more focused on city development (districts!) and resource management.

Yes and no, it's still a Militaristic game at the Core and they could release a Full War campaign Scenario DLC per month, just focusing on a single war campaign, and struck gold.
Julius Caesar if they release his Persona without any scenario attached it would be a massive missed opportunity.
The fact the Base Game do not have a Napoleonic Europe Scenario included at launch but Napoleon is is very concerning...

Personas are now so important they transcend Ages...

 

[Leyrann]

No.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

No.

If AI plays for victory too much, it's called gamey and not roleplaying. If it's roleplaying too much - it's called dumb.


Straight to the point! Love that!

 

[Leyrann]

If AI plays for victory too much, it's called gamey and not roleplaying. If it's roleplaying too much - it's called dumb.


Straight to the point! Love that!

That's why I put it in my signature.

 

[wilcoxchar]

Huh? No, Civ 7 is not an RPG. Have you played RPGs?

Also, the Civ franchise has never been grand strategy. The term "grand strategy" as applied to video games was essentially coined to describe early Paradox games like EU2 to differentiate its more simulationist modeling of historical processes and higher level scope from more "play to win" strategy game genres like RTSes, tactical battle simulators like Total War, or from more traditional 4X games like, yes, Civilization.

I get that the term grand strategy has been appropriated by players and marketing departments trying to make their games sound sophisticated and put on airs, but that doesn't change that it just means "Paradox-like". If anything, the addition of the age system, crises, and civ switching has moved Civ 7 in the direction toward grand strategy, not away from it.

 

[Disgustipated]

Simple answer is no. But I do not like the "unlocks". If anything it's more of a looter shooter. It's very gamey. The game is already straying from any kind of historical realism (I know this is subjective and obviously things have to be made gamey for fun), but civ 7 has gone off the deep end with it abandoning any pretense of historical realism and just being a numbers fest. Don't get me wrong, I love civ 7 (what does that say about me), I just don't want to have to focus on "leveling" up my leader just so I can unlock something in the scientific tree (which in of itself is very gamey).

 

[The Economy]

Civ 7 is the opposite of an RPG. I don't know why you would even think this.

I'd even say it has the least amount of roleplaying opportunities than previous titles.

 

[Gorbles]

I would rather say that the Civilization franchise started to move away from grand strategy with civ5 when they reduced the scale of the map to that of a tactical one (hexes and 1UPT). From that point, I don't believe "Grand strategy" has ever been Firaxis priority, unless I missed something.

I don't think I'd call the original Civ, or SMAC, anything approaching "grand strategy". Civ 2 was pretty similar to SMAC, right? Which leaves III and IV, and while I've played little-to-none of either, they don't really seem to fit the bill. A common distinction seems to be that they're "real time" (Paradox games are a blend, right? I remember EU being a mix of turns and troop movements).

That said, I'm more comfortable calling any iteration of Civ "grand strategy" than I am calling VII an "RPG" because of some aspects around leader progression.

 

[Menocchio]

Simple answer is no. But I do not like the "unlocks". If anything it's more of a looter shooter. It's very gamey. The game is already straying from any kind of historical realism (I know this is subjective and obviously things have to be made gamey for fun), but civ 7 has gone off the deep end with it abandoning any pretense of historical realism and just being a numbers fest. Don't get me wrong, I love civ 7 (what does that say about me), I just don't want to have to focus on "leveling" up my leader just so I can unlock something in the scientific tree (which in of itself is very gamey).

Civ VII is definitely more of a historical game than any previous Civ game. Broadly speaking, no previous title had much of a historical thesis, whereas VII does - though it's a bit coy about it and doesn't commit completely to its idea of history. It's still a game, and can't fundamentally shrug off its Whiggish origins—and how much it leans on geographical determinism is good or bad in the eye of the beholder—but you can distinctly see the influence of, dare I say it, a touch of historical materialism in the game's historical philosophy. The fact that a large number of major leftist thinkers are used for the tech and civic quotes, to me, feels meaningful. And then there are things to be said about the narrative text of the crisis system... I'd like to pick Andrew Johnson's brain, and I wonder how influential he was on certain things.