Is Civ VII "dumbed down" for ease of play on non-computer platforms?

[DSYoungEsq]

Something noted elsewhere made me think of this. Apparently, there is a relatively small number of players you can have at the start of the Ages of Antiquity and Exploration (5), and a slightly larger number of players in the Modern Age (8). That's not many players, though it's not clear if that limit applies to AI players as well as human MP players. Then there's the whole map size thing (literal expansion, whatever that means). Given that I personally love to play Civ VI on huge maps over extended timelines with lots and lots of players, this isn't sounding very enticing.

In the video for the Showcase, there was a definite point made about making sure that the game would run quickly across platforms. This makes me wonder if some of what has driven the game design is sacrificing the size of the game for the speed of the game, especially on non-computer platforms. If they end up nerfing the game as a whole, just to make it able to be played on your PDA, I would probably stop playing it.

 

[pokiehl]

I doubt it. There are infinite examples of demanding games playing on console. This whole "Firaxis is dumbing down/cartoonifying the game/appeasing console peasants" is all part of the same strange elitist strain of thought. Putting the game on more platforms so more people play their game isn't a bad thing. It's actually how businesses make money!

If anything would compel them to 'sacrifice performance' it's the large contingent of you folks with enterprise laptops from 2012 with integrated graphics cards and 6 gb of RAM.

 

[Haig]

It's now a tradition that when a new Civ rolls out there are accusations for it being dumbed down.. (see: Civ IV, Civ V, Civ VI)

 

[pokiehl]

It's now a tradition that when a new Civ rolls out there are accusations for it being dumbed down.. (see: Civ IV, Civ V, Civ VI)

With how much people idealize Civ 4 here, it's so funny to go back to the threads from 2005 and see the same rage we have now.

" They're simplifying the game! It's so cartoony! The giant units look like board game pieces!! I'm sticking with Civ 3!!!! "

 

[ombak]

It's now a tradition that when a new Civ rolls out there are accusations for it being dumbed down.. (see: Civ IV, Civ V, Civ VI)

Oh, this is a tradition greater than Civ itself! Every big franchise gets accused of this when trying to expand to other platforms, and, like Civ, they continue to be accused of that in future editions that are announced on those same platforms they already expanded to.

 

[wesplaysciv]

From what I've seen, they are "dumbing down" some controls / micromanagement but giving more strategy/choices (at least that's the goal)

I'm all for that -- while I don't expect to play on the console, I've installed Civ 6 on both my iPad and Steam Deck but never got into playing it because the controls felt too tedious

 

[Haig]

I think streamlining is a better word. Sometimes it goes wrong, but sometimes it removes annoying chores.

Example: When Civ 5 was released, I remember being angry that units turn into transport boats when entering sea but soon I didn't notice it.

Imagine doing an naval invasion in Civ 5/6 while having a need to build transport boats like Civ 4. Imagine AI trying it!

 

[ehecatzin]

If anything there seems to be more complex now, commandeers have upgrade trees, leaders have upgrades, civilizations have unique civics trees, with masteries, and we haven't touched upon religious bonuses yet. makes me happy they are actively getting rid of redundant clicking like workers to make up for it.

 

[Krajzen]

If anything, civ7 seems more complex than civ6 in terms of mechanics themselves. Less meaningless noise civ6 revelled in (tons of different currencies and separate minigames, crazy micromanagement, swarms of bonuses with no penalties to customize your snowballing victory) and more mechanics that, how to express it, create strategic dilemmas and dramatically impact ingame world.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Oh good, "dumbed down" making a comeback

 

[SammyKhalifa]

One real thing I would add, some of the choices here (no workers, fewer cities in later eras etc) might affect performance for sure, but if so it will probably also benefit the AI.

 

[ehecatzin]

Oh good, "dumbed down" making a comeback

*Snip*

Jokes aside, OP might be on to something, I think getting rid of workers not only has the benefit of getting rid of redundancy (same thing with tile improvement), but also easing for console and tablet, and honestly I don't have a problem at all with that, as long as it doesn't sacrifice relevant mechanics, and we seem to be getting a lot of mechanical complexity, so It's a fine trade off.

Moderator Action: Off-topic comment removed. ~ LK

 

[Thormodr]

Looks to be streamlined and simplified in some areas, yeah.

Is it dumbed down? Time will tell. However, they have a tradition of starting simpler and add more complexity later.

 

[moysturfurmer]

Console games can’t reach the same levels of depth as PC games.

What does Console have? Minecraft, Fortnite, God of War, Rocket League.

What does PC have? Cities Skylines, Disco Elysium, Crusader Kings 3, Baldur’s Gate 3

Open your eyes, sheeple

 

[Thormodr]

Damn, guess I definitely have to buy the almost $300 collectors edition now to prove these people wrong.

The collectors edition does not come with the game, IIRC.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

The collectors edition does not come with the game, IIRC.

There's two options, one includes the game and one doesn't.

 

[dagriggstar]

Meanwhile I’m just like
“There are so many bonuses and thing to upgrade and keep track of”
Like I don’t even know how I begin to explain stuff to my non civ friends for online play…..

 

[DSYoungEsq]

You know, not one single response to my OP addressed the example of reducing the complexity of the game I raised. If you're going to knee-jerk dismiss a concept, you're worse than the people you accuse of raising the idea each time. It would be nice if someone would address the bit about there being a ridiculously limited number of players when discussing the question of reducing the game's complexity.

 

[thecrazyscot]

You know, not one single response to my OP addressed the example of reducing the complexity of the game I raised. If you're going to knee-jerk dismiss a concept, you're worse than the people you accuse of raising the idea each time. It would be nice if someone would address the bit about there being a ridiculously limited number of players when discussing the question of reducing the game's complexity.

I expect the player limit of 5 in the Antiquity Age is not to do with complexity but about saving space for additional civs to appear when the map expands in the subsequent ages. We don't know for sure, but it seems heavily implied.

Additionally, given the civ switching mechanics it may be that the player limit of 8 is due to needing to place limits on potentially conflicting civ progression paths. Again, speculation, and maybe wrong.

From a systems perspective, this actually seems like a pretty complex iteration of civ. We will find out more soon, but I wouldn't expect the systems to be the limitation here, but moreso graphical complexity. It sounds like they are trying to provide a stripped down version of the game for the Switch and keep the full featured game for all other systems (the other consoles are more than powerful enough to handle a game of civ's complexity).

Hope that gives you some food for thought.

 

[Disgustipated]

Console games can’t reach the same levels of depth as PC games.

What does Console have? Minecraft, Fortnite, God of War, Rocket League.

What does PC have? Cities Skylines, Disco Elysium, Crusader Kings 3, Baldur’s Gate 3

Open your eyes, sheeple

I'm not sure if this is a joke post or not. Sometimes I can't tell. Games such as BG3 are on multiple platforms. And it's not a good example since that's a game dumbed down for the masses as well (though I like it). Pathfinder is a hardcore RPG, and guess what? Those are on consoles as well.