Looks like Civ 6 is done: Kevin called April "final game update"

[aieeegrunt]

What more do you need than what you have for Civ6?

On console

Hilariously going back to Civ Rev I got my ass handed to me at first because I wasn’t used to AI that will actually build a military and use it

 

[Navelgazer]

EA owns the rights to SMAC; that's why Beyond Earth happened instead of SMAC2.

A few weeks ago I remembered that I have BE in my Steam library, and had never really played it because it wouldn't run properly on my MacBook when it first came out. And since it runs like buttah on my current machine, I got into it.

Really into it.

Like, really into it by my "Always has a Civ game running and a CivFanatics tab open, if not two" standards.

Especially with Rising Tide, it's simply fantastic (if incomplete - it really feels like there was supposed to be a second expansion for sure.) I can't imagine anyone at Firaxis or 2K would look at the Beyond Earth numbers and think that going back to that well would be worth the gamble*, but man that's a shame. There's just so much to love there. If you've never played it, or haven't played in a long time, it's very much worth the trip back.

*Note, however, that in the victory screen for the "Red Death" scenario in Civ6, the victor is flying away from earth in one of the Beyond Earth Seeding Ships, an apparently if you search for "Red death" in the Steam shoppe, BE and BERT are what come up. In short, conspiracy-fans can find hope in anything.

 

[Zaarin]

@Navelgazer I recall BE having some good gameplay ideas (as well as a beautiful game world and music), but the world building was so lackluster and shallow that I could never feel invested in it.

 

[Pfeffersack]

@Navelgazer I recall BE having some good gameplay ideas (as well as a beautiful game world and music), but the world building was so lackluster and shallow that I could never feel invested in it.

Maybe you have tried it already, but if not...there is a mod called Echoes of Earth, which I consider as a kind of a Vox Populi for BE(+RT):

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/echoes-of-earth-a-total-conversion-for-bert.561919/

 

[tsf4]

BE is great! I find it’s different enough from both 5 and 6 to be regularly played. Even if lore is shallow, gameplay is still great.

 

[Jkchart]

BE is great! I find it’s different enough from both 5 and 6 to be regularly played. Even if lore is shallow, gameplay is still great.

Definitely the most enjoyable victory conditions IMO, the late game is actually very exciting because of how active it is

 

[Haig]

Civ 6 was announced about six months before its release. I hope Civ 7 is announced at E3, it could arrive for xmas!

This year we got Xcom Chimeira squad so maybe no Xcom 3 yet.

 

[Leucarum]

I didn't feel invested at all in BE. I really wanted to like it as SMAC is my favourite game in the pantheon. I think for me also the Civ V base didn't help. That's the only entry in the main Civ series so far which I couldn't enjoy...

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I didn't feel invested at all in BE. I really wanted to like it as SMAC is my favourite game in the pantheon. I think for me also the Civ V base didn't help. That's the only entry in the main Civ series so far which I couldn't enjoy...

Had they started off with systems in Rising Tides I think it would've h elped them 100% in the quality. the fact that it really ended up as a re-skinned Civ 5 hurt the overall quality.

 

[PiR]

I think they're cooking up Sid Meier's Global Pandemic Management Volume I.

There's so many people who claim they would do better than their government (and a few may be right) that it is guaranteed to be a financial success.

 

[bbbt]

If they were to be a good , serious , heroes of might and magic , I'd buy that in a heartbeat. I've been missing one since Ubi gave up on the franchise. I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one, and we are talking of a generation of PC gamers with money .

I'm assuming you've played it, but if not, the Age of Wonders series is pretty similar to HoMM. Age of Wonders 3 scratched the itch HoMM used to.

 

[Navelgazer]

@Navelgazer I recall BE having some good gameplay ideas (as well as a beautiful game world and music), but the world building was so lackluster and shallow that I could never feel invested in it.

I didn't feel invested at all in BE. I really wanted to like it as SMAC is my favourite game in the pantheon. I think for me also the Civ V base didn't help. That's the only entry in the main Civ series so far which I couldn't enjoy...

I get this, especially being pretty familiar by now from these boards with what Zaarin is looking for in a Civ experience, and something like BE would likely never have the lore-immersion/RP aspects that you can get with a well-researched, well-designed CIv/Leader combo drawing from actual history (especially history that you know well or are curious about.) Apologies to Leucarum if this isn't what you mean by not feeling invested.

And BE/RT could have done better in this regard, though there are things I like about the lore and things I like less. In the plus column, having the different techs and affinity levels unlocking with quotes from the different Sponsor Leaders and key texts of different sorts from the fictionalized future (be they constitutions, academic journals, or folktale compendia) added a lot to the flavor, for me. Same with having to, for the most part, discover through playing what the Leaders' personalities and behaviors are going to be like. Arshia of Al Falah, for instance, has been the most loyal friend in every game I've played with her present as an NPC, and there's nothing stated outright that would make that seem like a given, nor does the lore say that Hutama of Polynesia is going to befriend you and backstab you later, though he usually will, and it makes sense. There's enough randomness thrown in that they don't play the same every game, but you learn what to likely expect, which is cool.

In the minus column, the lore and personalities are shallow, particularly in comparison with standard Civ games, if only because - again - those are drawing on actual history. The things that make the Leaders' personalities distinct also make them one-note (Suzanne Fielding talks in business-speak, Hutama's a schmoozer and a wheeler-dealer, Daoming Sochua puts everything in terms of analytical models, etc. And... that's it. That's the things about each of them.) Moreover, the text is riddled with typos and similar mistakes, which doesn't bother me terribly, but makes a lot of this aspect feel that much more rushed and under-thought.

BUT! If you're going down the rabbit hole with this (and spending time recently with the handful of other folks still keeping the lights on at the BE Forums on this site, I totally am), Firaxis seems to be setting the story in place that the Red Death (from the eponymous Civ6 scenario) = the "Great Mistake" that leads to the seeding in BE. With several games in development for 2021, it's possible that a BE successor is in the works. I don't see it as likely, but this would be a great chance to take what worked and improve on what didn't, because there's still a lot of meat on dem bones.

 

[Zaarin]

There's so many people who claim they would do better than their government

That's setting the bar awfully low.

what the Leaders' personalities and behaviors are going to be like. Arshia of Al Falah, for instance, has been the most loyal friend in every game I've played with her present as an NPC, and there's nothing stated outright that would make that seem like a given, nor does the lore say that Hutama of Polynesia is going to befriend you and backstab you later, though he usually will, and it makes sense. There's enough randomness thrown in that they don't play the same every game, but you learn what to likely expect, which is cool.

The AI personalities is one thing I miss from Civ5, and I hope something like them returns in Civ7.

 

[Leucarum]

I get this, especially being pretty familiar by now from these boards with what Zaarin is looking for in a Civ experience, and something like BE would likely never have the lore-immersion/RP aspects that you can get with a well-researched, well-designed CIv/Leader combo drawing from actual history (especially history that you know well or are curious about.) Apologies to Leucarum if this isn't what you mean by not feeling invested

That was what I meant, but I'd say that SMAC proves that a BE type game could easily have better RP than an historical Civ game. Basing the factions more around ideology than Earth geography was an inspired choice, while the storyline was extremely well written and engaging, and reflected through by the in game factions' abilities.

That said, I imagine the backstory for SMAC was never read by the majority of players. Still, it meant that a lot of immersion was there for players who wanted it. And I would argue it topped any Civ game or BE in that regard.

BE managed to retain good elements of civ customization, but the factions themselves felt pretty lifeless. What meaning would 'future-australasia' have on an alien world in comparison to space-environmentalists or new spartans? I guess they didn't want to pidgeonhole? But in doing so they took away what made the factions immersive. I think if that had been there I would have stuck out past the CivV-ness of the game.

 

[Navelgazer]

The AI personalities is one thing I miss from Civ5, and I hope something like them returns in Civ7.

What's missing from Civ6 in this regard that you're referring to? (Genuinely curious as to the distinction, not being weirdly defensive about Civ6 or anything.)

 

[tsf4]

That's setting the bar awfully low.


The AI personalities is one thing I miss from Civ5, and I hope something like them returns in Civ7.

I wanted 6 to have random personalities like 5 could have. That way each game didn’t have Alex, genghis, etc as warlike every game. Every game I play, they are the ones making war and I miss the randomness. Agendas are neat but they are not random enough.

 

[Alaindor]

I don't mind that myself, I find it consistent to have semi-defined personalities. Since I have random different opponents every time.

 

[Zaarin]

What's missing from Civ6 in this regard that you're referring to? (Genuinely curious as to the distinction, not being weirdly defensive about Civ6 or anything.)

In Civ6 every AI plays more or less identically except for their agendas, which can best be described as neurotic fixations. In Civ5 you could reliably know that, with variable parameters, Nobunaga was going to be isolationist, Monty and Attila and Shaka would be raging warmongers, Hiawatha would be a loyal friend, Pocatello can be standoffish but loyal once befriended, Dido would be a backstabber, and so forth. It created a sense of meta-game relationship, whereas any such perception in Civ6 is simply projecting onto the AI (yes, even my aversion to Dom Satan ). The agendas were an interesting idea, but I consider them a failed experiment.

 

[Guynemer]

@Navelgazer I recall BE having some good gameplay ideas (as well as a beautiful game world and music), but the world building was so lackluster and shallow that I could never feel invested in it.

Yeah, it dramatically lacked the personality of SMAC. The leaders didn't really feel unique in the same way, and the lack of leader quotes for techs and wonders mean they weren't fleshed out at all.

EDIT: By lack of leader quotes, I mean quotes read in the voice of the leader who says it. You get so much of the SMAC leader's personalities through their voices in the tech and secret project quotes, while the BE leader's voices are restricted to the diplomacy interface. The woman who narrates all of the tech and wonder quotes does an excellent job, but we don't get any of the actual leader personality from them.

 

[Guynemer]

The quest system was really good and something I was hoping Civ6 would incorporate.

The unit promotion system was really bad and something I was hoping Civ6 would NOT incorporate.


Welp.