My only wish for Civ VII

[Manol0]

The anticipation and the excitement is huge as we come closer to the day of the Civ VII reveal. My one and only wish is to see less or even better not at all fantasy elements and stay focused on realism and historical accuracy. The vast majority of strategy games out there are fantasy based; so I suppose that people who love fantasy already have enough titles to enjoy. I believe that Civilization belongs to us; the historical strategy gamers as we loved it all along. So fingers crossed for Tuesday.

If you dont mind leave a vote for my poll. I m curious to see the results

 

[Nikolai II]

I'd vastly prefer historical only, but I'll play anyway.

 

[pokiehl]

I believe that Civilization belongs to us; the historical strategy gamers as we loved it all along. So fingers crossed for Tuesday.

I don't agree. Fantasy/sci-fi has existed in Civ games for decades and I think the lightheartedness is important to the series.

Civilization 2 had the Fantastic Worlds DLC, in addition to sci-fi/fantasy scenarios. Civilization 3 had the spaceship and colonization of Alpha Centauri. Civilization 4 had the fantasy Fall from Heaven scenario as part of the game. Civilization 5 had fantasy/sci-fi scenarios like the Steampunk one, and fantasty wonders like El Dorado and Fountain of Youth. Civ 5 is also where we get the 'nuclear Gandhi' meme, GDRs, and XCOM units. I'm sure I'm missing things as well.

I truly don't get where people have created this notion that Civ is some super-serious history simulator. Civ has even looked goofy and silly for the majority of the series. That's my take on it, at least.

I am all for this silly and fun stuff returning in Civilization 7. I think the way Civ 6 handled fantasy stuff was perfect--most of it was optional game modes or natural wonders that could be toggled on and off. I hope Civilization 7 gives us more of this.

 

[Nikolai II]

I don't agree. Fantasy/sci-fi has existed in Civ games for decades and I think the lightheartedness is important to the series.

Civilization 2 had the Fantastic Worlds DLC, in addition to sci-fi/fantasy scenarios. Civilization 3 had the spaceship and colonization of Alpha Centauri. Civilization 4 had the fantasy Fall from Heaven scenario as part of the game. Civilization 5 had fantasy/sci-fi scenarios like the Steampunk one, and fantasty wonders like El Dorado and Fountain of Youth. Civ 5 is also where we get the 'nuclear Gandhi' meme, GDRs, and XCOM units. I'm sure I'm missing things as well.

I truly don't get where people have created this notion that Civ is some super-serious history simulator. Civ has even looked goofy and silly for the majority of the series. That's my take on it, at least.

I am all for this silly and fun stuff returning in Civilization 7. I think the way Civ 6 handled fantasy stuff was perfect--most of it was optional game modes or natural wonders that could be toggled on and off. I hope Civilization 7 gives us more of this.

I think we speak across each other here. Alpha Centauri has been since Civ1 and is not fantasy. It's scifi fundamentally part of the game. Scenarios is also ok. I think the OP means base game, unavoidable content. That's how I read them at least.

 

[pokiehl]

I think we speak across each other here. Alpha Centauri has been since Civ1 and is not fantasy. It's scifi fundamentally part of the game. Scenarios is also ok. I think the OP means base game, unavoidable content. That's how I read them at least.

Alpha Centauri is sci-fi--same bucket as "fantasy" here in that it's not realistic.

I think these posts are a reaction to the NFP modes in Civ 6, which are entirely optional but some people have complained about them a lot. What in Civ 6 was fantasy but not optional? Civ 5 had more "forced fantasy and sci-fi" than Civ 6 did.

 

[Nikolai II]

Alpha Centauri is sci-fi--same bucket as "fantasy" here in that it's not realistic.

I think these posts are a reaction to the NFP modes in Civ 6, which are entirely optional but some people have complained about them a lot. What in Civ 6 was fantasy but not optional? Civ 5 had more "forced fantasy and sci-fi" than Civ 6 did.

But Alpha Centauri has been in all civ titles except 6, where it was replaced with Mars. It's pretty much ingrained in Civ.

 

[pokiehl]

But Alpha Centauri has been in all civ titles except 6, where it was replaced with Mars. It's pretty much ingrained in Civ.

Yeah, I think sci-fi/fantasy/unrealistic stuff is ingrained in Civ in general.

 

[Xandinho]

The fewer fantasy elements, the better. And those that exist, make them optional.

 

[Leucarum]

It doesn't bother me as long as the core historical elements are covered. I suspect it'll be pretty grounded at launch then get more fantastical with expansions

 

[Manol0]

I don't agree. Fantasy/sci-fi has existed in Civ games for decades and I think the lightheartedness is important to the series.

Civilization 2 had the Fantastic Worlds DLC, in addition to sci-fi/fantasy scenarios. Civilization 3 had the spaceship and colonization of Alpha Centauri. Civilization 4 had the fantasy Fall from Heaven scenario as part of the game. Civilization 5 had fantasy/sci-fi scenarios like the Steampunk one, and fantasty wonders like El Dorado and Fountain of Youth. Civ 5 is also where we get the 'nuclear Gandhi' meme, GDRs, and XCOM units. I'm sure I'm missing things as well.

I truly don't get where people have created this notion that Civ is some super-serious history simulator. Civ has even looked goofy and silly for the majority of the series. That's my take on it, at least.

I am all for this silly and fun stuff returning in Civilization 7. I think the way Civ 6 handled fantasy stuff was perfect--most of it was optional game modes or natural wonders that could be toggled on and off. I hope Civilization 7 gives us more of this.

Futuristic stuff is not a problem as far as it has some kind of realistic potential in the future... GDR's and XCOM units (spacemarines) could be a reality in the future... For example there were plans of creating Giant tanks even since ww2 by Germany. As fantasy I specify gremlins goblins vampires zombies aliens dragons leprechauns monsters etc which in my humble opinion they dont belong in Civ series or seeing Lancelot killing tank armies with his sword.

 

[CivLuvah]

I’d rather have less of the fantasy stuff and more of the futuristic sci-fi stuff for the late game instead. It’s more realistic for me.

 

[pokiehl]

Futuristic stuff is not a problem as far as it has some kind of realistic potential in the future... GDR's and XCOM units (spacemarines) could be a reality in the future... For example there were plans of creating Giant tanks even since ww2 by Germany. As fantasy I specify gremlins goblins vampires zombies aliens dragons leprechauns monsters etc which in my humble opinion they dont belong in Civ series or seeing Lancelot killing tank armies with his sword.

I like the fantasy stuff more than the sci fi. But at any rate, Civ hasn’t really ever forced fantasy on anyone. It’s always optional.

 

[TempusFugit]

I voted "pure historical civ", yet I also recently suggested elsewhere than an additional gamemode, where the gods and supernatural elements of religions are real and interact with one another, could have have been an interesting addition to the game. So this is obviously not a binary choice for me. But I agree with the OP that the main gamemode should try to be historical and feel plausible. Some people seem to like the lightheartedness of the series, but for me, the main draw of it, in addition to the strategy, has always been the pretense of watching an alternate history of the world unfold as I play the game. And this should in my opinion be the main focus of the game, when it comes to theme and atmosphere.

I think fantasy based scenarios and extra game modes are nice to have as well. There are usually not much negative aspects with adding these, only positive ones, but I do see one, which is part of the reason why these got criticized by some players in Civ 6. The problem or "problem" with these in Civ 6, was simply that some players felt that so many of the new gamemodes were fantasy based. And if they were unwilling to play them themselves, or at least not using them for most games, they felt "left out". This criticism could both be described as fair or unfair depending on your perspective, but it was probably the amount of fantasy-based game modes, rather than any single one that led to these complaints.

This aspect of Civ 6, along with some others, both in that game and Civ 5, does all factor together into making the recent entries of the series feel less serious and realistic than the earlier games. This a combination of several things:

The aforementioned game modes.

The higher amount of game mechanics in Civ 5 and onward, that feel abstract and game-like, vice versa those that feel like they could have a "simulation" rationale behind them. 1UPT, districts, certain culture mechanics are some that contribute to this.

The sterile and cartoon-like visual style in Civ 6 makes it feel less serious. This is by far the thing that is causing the most problems for my immersion.

Some other minor things, like the giant death robots that arrived with Civ 5.

 

[Quintillus]

The vote is even more heavily pro-pure-historical than I would have guessed (22-1 currently, with three neutral). I suppose it speaks to Civ's audience. I'm in that majority; there's a reason I've only purchased historical Total War titles. The historical settings is part of the appeal.

I see a distinction between Sci-Fi and Fantasy as well. Civ has always extended a bit into the future, and thus always had some sci-fi elements. This can be seen in the Downloads Database as well; for Civ2 through Civ4 (the versions with enough scenarios to have them sub-categorized), Sci-Fi Scenarios and Fantasy Scenarios are separated out. Some people love that genre, and that's great. But it's also a minority of community-created scenarios - about 15% for Civ4, 15% for Civ3, and 20% for Civ2: Test of Time. It's only Civ2: Multiplayer Gold Edition where a slight majority of scenarios, about 55%, are sci-fi or fantasy, and about 60% of those are sci-fi.

I agree with Nikolai as well - sci-fi elements should be optional. Is it immersion-breaking that in my current Secret Society enabled game, Russia is sending vampires to attack Babylon? Yeah, a bit, it would make more sense if they were sending, say, Cossacks. It's nice to have new mechanics to try out, but I tend to favor the historical ones, and am hopeful there will be more historical scenarios for VII (at least with expansions).

 

[TempusFugit]

Yeah, I think sci-fi/fantasy/unrealistic stuff is ingrained in Civ in general.

You could describe science fiction as "fantasy" in a wider sense of the word, along with proper fantasy, horror, fairy tales and some other genres. But there are some big differences between them. Science fiction varies a lot in how much effort and focus in spent on trying to create a plausible scenario. But it usually tries to at least create a feeling of the scenario being described as something that is plausible in this world. And that is something that it has in common with the Civilization series. Alternate history, which I would say is the literary genre that Civilization aligns with, is often described as a subgenre of science fiction, even if there are no futuristic gadgets or space travel.

Civilization has always had some futuristic science fiction aspects too it as well, but it is probably best for the series to try to remain primarily within the realm of history that has already played out. Creating inspired science fiction that doesn't just feel as tired reuse of TV show tropes, seems to be hard for strategy game developers. Alpha Centauri stands out as a game that feels inspired and creative. But most 4X space games don't.

 

[pokiehl]

I guess I don’t understand what prompts this question.

Civ has never really forced fantasy on anyone, but people seem really worried about it being forced on them in Civ 7. I think the series should just keep doing what it’s been doing.

 

[Leucarum]

I think the most egregious inclusion of fantastical elements in civ 6 were the giant death robots since they were not optional and the main innovation for the future era millitary. If more games actually got to the late game they might have felt a bit out of place to me. As it is I didn't really mind but they came close to being over the top.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I guess I don’t understand what prompts this question.

Civ has never really forced fantasy on anyone, but people seem really worried about it being forced on them in Civ 7. I think the series should just keep doing what it’s been doing.

I've heard people also hate the inclusion of apostles having "lightning" battles or having not realistic natural wonders, such as the Bermuda Triangle. The degree of what is considered "fantasy" is obviously something that is debatable. I don't necessarily mind these inclusions. The "lightning" battles to me are obviously an abstraction representing religious debates. I do agree that most of the fantasy elements in Civ 6 are hidden by the optional game modes.

That being said, one could argue that Babylonians existing to the modern era and fielding tanks are also "fantasy".

 

[Nikolai II]

And, of course, immortal leaders and playing an unchanging (feature and name wise) civilization.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Civ 6 got this right for me. "Fantasy" such as a leader like Kupe who may or may not have existed is fine. Optional mode with fantastical elements? Sure.

I'm ok with the the "future technology" because I don't put those in fantasy.