Official announcement: Hot off the presses. Next Civ game in development!!!!!!!

[Horizons]

Also, Civ VI shipped as a pretty damn good game with most of the features from Civ V and a bunch of new stuff, too. Sure, some things were cut and eventually added later (e.g. World Congress), but there weren't many features like that. I don't see why we should be expecting anything less from VII.

They will need to reimagine Civ7 in the same way Civ4 reimagined earlier civs. Just adding on layers of extra stuff doesn't work - as Civ6 in its final state proves.

 

[pokiehl]

Civ6 was the most feature complete release, but those features and systems were also among the worst implemented. I’d rather have a few good features/system than a lot of poor ones.

Did you also feel that Civ 5's baseline features were not well implemented?

 

[TreVor_ish]

No doubt about that. But in my experience, it’s more nakedly obvious when it’s a simple cash grab (like your FIFA example). For Civ, my gut feeling is that it’s simply unreasonable to expect Civ 7 on release have everything Civ 6 had after 6+ years of development, while at the same innovating new gameplay and refining those systems.

Quite right. If you want to get the equivalent of Civ 6 vanilla + RnF + GS worth of content WITH 1/3 changed and 1/3 new, then you should expect to pay in excess of what it cost to buy Civ 6 vanilla + RnF + GS all at once.

It turns out that not many people are going to drop over $100 for a game at once, even if it's loaded to the gills with features.

True and true.

Looking at how CIV V ended and CIV VI started/ends.
We still have a stale mid to end game in VI, while V had for instance ideologies. How long did it take to make AI use any kind of airplanes in VI? Also AI in VI is unable to play around any of the modes. Pathfinding is still atrocious and with 1UPT any kind of a bigger war makes my carpal tunnel happier. AI also doesn't know how to play it. There is no automation in building roads/railroads/fixing pillaged tiles, AI doesn't even fix their tiles for the whole game! I still can't build queue prerequisites and etc. of things I and many others mentioned along the years in here.
V feels less city builder, more empire builder, where VI the latter. In VI I have to plan when to put districts that are unmovable for a whole game, although can be modded. I know that many like the feature of planning for thousands of years before hand, and I admit at first it was an enjoyable gimmick, but after some time it's too tedious. Despite VI having much more content than V, for me V is still more enjoyable with Vox. There are too many things I would like to change in VI that I simply can't. When in V we have quite a community patch that I still add to in terms of house mod mods. I can also play with larger map size which is a big point for me in CIV game.

Looking at how CIV IV ended and CIV V started/ended.
That transition was horrendous. How V started could probably be compared to release of Leader Pass. Ed with team made pretty good job with dlc's and Brave New World was the best that could have happen to V. Transition from squares to hexes was good, however 1UPT started the mess with AI not being able to withstand any kind of tactical combat. Stacks of doom in IV were scary, but at least AI could fight back without having a large bonus to combat strength. Maps got smaller which started to worry me, however biggest are still quite enjoyable to play.
United Nations in IV was the best World Congress in a CIV game IMHO. IV also feels more like an empire builder and V started the transition to having smaller scale game. IV aged quite badly graphically and I don't think anyone getting into 4x would enjoy it nowadays.
Civ IV for me is what building a Civilization that would stand a test of time should feel like.

Scale is what I meant by my initial response to removing/adding things from a game, and looking at it I can understand why fans of CIV are divided by iterations.

I am in much wonder about how game modes would shape VII. Will Fxs introduce Paradox way of thousand small dlc's, with occasional large addition of things, we will see. For me if it's gonna be even more boardlike I'll probably sit that one out or buy it much later.

 

[Kwami]

Civ6 was the most feature complete release, but those features and systems were also among the worst implemented. I’d rather have a few good features/system than a lot of poor ones.

I strongly disagree. Vanilla Civ VI was actually quite good and surely better than vanilla IV or V both in terms of the amount of content and the quality of that content.

They will need to reimagine Civ7 in the same way Civ4 reimagined earlier civs. Just adding on layers of extra stuff doesn't work - as Civ6 in its final state proves.

I quite like VI as it turned out. Apparently, so do a lot of other players. So, I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Of course, the developers will come up with new ideas to change the way VII works compared to previous games. Otherwise, why bother at all? But I'm not expecting a radical change on the magnitude of IV to V.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

V feels less city builder, more empire builder, where VI the latter. In VI I have to plan when to put districts that are unmovable for a whole game, although can be modded. I know that many like the feature of planning for thousands of years before hand, and I admit at first it was an enjoyable gimmick, but after some time it's too tedious. Despite VI having much more content than V, for me V is still more enjoyable with Vox. There are too many things I would like to change in VI that I simply can't. When in V we have quite a community patch that I still add to in terms of house mod mods. I can also play with larger map size which is a big point for me in CIV game.

I see a lot of people saying that the only reason why they enjoy Civ 5 over Civ 6 is only because of the very popular mod. If the mod didn't exist, or Civ 6 had something similar, I feel like it wouldn't me much of a contest.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I see a lot of people saying that the only reason why they enjoy Civ 5 over Civ 6 is only because of the very popular mod. If the mod didn't exist, or Civ 6 had something similar, I feel like it wouldn't me much of a contest.

Exactly. And while I truly enjoy Vox Populi, what I hear is people saying: "Firaxis did a better job at Civ V than Civ VI because modders who aren't part of Firaxis gave something to Civ V that could be done to Civ VI but hasn't".

Like, if anything, it's something that should make us disappointed in modders, not devs. Devs did a pretty good job: in term of unmodded game, I find Civ VI much more enjoyable than Civ V. Are there systems of Civ V that I miss? Sure. But as an overall experience? Civ VI is way better.

 

[TreVor_ish]

I see a lot of people saying that the only reason why they enjoy Civ 5 over Civ 6 is only because of the very popular mod. If the mod didn't exist, or Civ 6 had something similar, I feel like it wouldn't me much of a contest.

So, You only take a part of things I mentioned and say it's only about moddability? No it isn't. Plenty of things in VI half baked it's what makes most of discontent.
Yeah, we don't have an access to dll which would maybe gave us the possibility of larger conversion, only if we already didn't hit an engine limit, which with asset limit we probably already did.
Not mentioning Rhye's and Fall for CIV IV.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So, You only take a part of things I mentioned and say it's only about moddability? No it isn't. Plenty of things in VI half baked it's what makes most of discontent.
Yeah, we don't have an access to dll which would maybe gave us the possibility of larger conversion, only if we already didn't hit an engine limit, which with asset limit we probably already did.
Not mentioning Rhye's and Fall for CIV IV.

I'm not saying it's only about being mod friendly, but from what I've seen that's a big factor, if not the major factor. I didn't mean to single you out because I've seen it mentioned as being the only thing from other people.

As for Civ IV I've seen plenty more people say that they enjoy Civ IV, even without the mods. The same isn't necessarily true for Civ 5, from what I've seen.

 

[TreVor_ish]

I'm not saying it's only about being mod friendly, but from what I've seen that's a big factor, if not the major factor. I didn't mean to single you out because I've seen it mentioned as being the only thing from other people.

As for Civ IV I've seen plenty more people say that they enjoy Civ IV, even without the mods. The same isn't necessarily true for Civ 5, from what I've seen.

Yeah, like I mentioned earlier. CIV IV gives me the best feeling of building a civilization.
With unmodded CIV V vs unmodded CIV VI I would only polemize if could remember the time playing any of them that way.
CIV VI is actually quite friendly to mod. The only calamity being, the most restrictive.

 

[Thormodr]

I see a lot of people saying that the only reason why they enjoy Civ 5 over Civ 6 is only because of the very popular mod. If the mod didn't exist, or Civ 6 had something similar, I feel like it wouldn't me much of a contest.

The mod made by the community actually made that travesty of a game somewhat playable. The community saved Civilization 5 from a much more ignominious fate.

Civ VI can stand on its own. It does not need a mod to bail it out. There are some pretty good mods for it, too.

Civ IV has some fantastic mods like Rhye's and Fall from Heaven I and II. Also, Civ IV is a fantastic game.

 

[Naokaukodem]

But as an overall experience? Civ VI is way better.

Depends on if you consider the mad map generator... and tighter yet space to expand. (although that can be configurable but still need a bit of luck) I admit I didn't quite put much effort in playing 6 beside winning a Deity game with Korea. On the other hand, I did the exact same thing with 5 haha. Once I beat Deity in 5 with Korea, I litterally stopped playing it. Yes, I'm terrible at playing those games. The meta is way more difficult to figure out than say Civ2. I complained, but now I'm realizing that my game design wishes are different from my player ones. Or, at least, my player wishes are different from the past to the present. How can I know ? Games take so long to develop. How on earth could I know if my past player wishes were according with my present ones or not or if that's just the two wishes that are different ? (player and game design) Anyway, now I'm more focusing on emergeant revolutionary elements, because I took Civ design as a way to toy with my new passion for ancient history (created by Civ, and Civ design). I don't know about how far I got it in that letter I sent to Firaxis there's about 20 years ago, but there is sure some elements that didn't get exploited yet. (I learned in this very forum that I was "Civ someone" or crap, only explanation is that letter compiled and synthesised within hundreds of more or less short notes. You can't imagine how a prowess that was considering my terrible ratings in philosophy -except one occurence that inspired me-, my borderline schizophrenia and my inability to think. I guess, Civ inspired me. And to be honest, I don't think i've changed that much) I guess Sid had my letter framed on the wall behind the armchair from where he smokes his fat cigars, and read it again wheneven it's about to develop a new Civ.

All that to say that both games are pretty much equal to each others. And that's where it hurts. At least, gameplay wise and, for me, who is sticking to old school general public console games. I've never been that hardcore. I thought a lot about video games, but it's because they are fascinating. But, I've always neglected the hardcore experiences. Maybe I thought I could do an exception with Civ, but I think I got too overconfident to how I could play a deity game of Civ2 and win easily. Civ2 was definitely the easiest of the series. I imagined Firaxis could make the sequels harder. Like, like in multiplayer. But multiplayer with unknown people (my entourage doesn't play video games despite all my efforts) is quite horrible. Especially with all the uniques to memorize. (that's why I wish there'd be an option to desactivate uniques in MP. Come on, just an option. As to the meta game, even on "mirror" maps and the likes, I guess who is the luckier wins, or who founds a better-but-odd way to play wins, as there may always be. Because I think that multiplayer in such games are just experiments. Look at Starcraft. The strategies evolve, are copied, and suddenly everything changes again. It's insane. And it's worldwide ! That may explain much)

As now Civ single player is worldwide. That's why some people think Civ6 is horribly easy in Deity. On the other hand, i'm a humble little player in my sphere of comfort, not too good at playing, certainly not too imaginative, and I wish I can beat the hardest difficulty mode. There's no other way around. That's why (and the challenge the game opposes has a great role in its appreciation I believe) Civ6 Deity let you win. For some (a lot ? More and more ?) players, by a comfortable margin. This is worldwide for you dude. You're in the first tier ? Then Firaxis needs to develop a separate hardcore difficulty(ies? like a new set of 8 harder and harder ones, but at that point people would complain The AI cheats probably) (DLC ?) for you. But honestly, there's no such thing as multiplayer for you. I know a game of Civ is long. But I would bet you could not face the challenge instead. Or the contrary ? There is multiplayer communities around here, with ranks and all. You need time to think ? PBEM (Play By E-Mail). I know this one seems moribund, to be kind, but who knows ? That said, there is the players that like to win, and the others who like to play ; if both are in the first category it might turn short. No uniques, mirror maps. (first to settle in the center wins ? I don't know lol) Hold it ! Multiplayer is a waste of time. What happens happens, and we see if we can make the things change for some turns. If not, then it's GG ! It may be the reason of all those unpredictable factors, alike the different victory types.

OK. Enough rantin' for now.

 

[Zegangani]

I think it's a false dilemma to propose that it was some choice between "game modes" and "bug fixes." Getting that additional content was some devil's bargain in lieu of "easy bug fixes." Adding zombies didn't make them not fix bugs.

I agree with @PiR here, but I wouldn't say there was a "choice". Rather, having the Devs work on a Game Mode, takes away much of their Time they could have spent on fixing Bugs and balancing the Game, so there was a "Cost Opportunity" there. Which is especially grueling in hind sight when you see that they haven't even done those quite well (apart from Secret Societies and Barbarian Clans, pretty much all other Game Modes weren't really worth it (very buggy/unbalanced, not best designs...etc), for me at least. I'm even including SS even though I'm not a big fan of it, but it's the best one done ngl).

So the Game Modes weren't worth it IMO, I would have them rather spent that Time/Resources on fixing Bugs, instead of introducing new Ones bc of the Game Modes. Which is another Reason why the Game Modes affected the Game negatively, bc I'm sure it was them that were the cause of the Asset Limit Bug (biggest Bug from NFP), which is most likely a result of some edits specifically for the Special Effects, most likely the Disasters from Apocalypse Mode, since it was Gathering Storm, which came with Disasters, that made the use of larger modded Maps impossible (the biggest Bug pre NFP), and I found disabling the Disasters Mechanic fix the Issue for me. But Apocalypse must have messed up with Graphics in some other shape or Form that can't be fixed. Not to mention all the Stability Issues of the Game that was only due to NFP. And I highly doubt new Leader Models, Units and Infrastructure could have been the cause instead.

So, imagine if they never made any of those Game Modes, but instead just introduced new scenarios, like they used to do with previous DLC. We wouldn't have these Game breaking Bugs, that have negative effects on the Modding Community, but instead got new modding tools due to Scenario Scripts, which could have seen good use in Mods and especially overhaul mods.

Though, I wouldn't say the Concept of Game Modes in general is a bad one, No. But I think those Corona Times and restrictions, Time/Resource pressure, perhaps B Team... and all that have had a negative effect on the Final Product. But a better approach/organisation of such a Project for Civ7 might work. Maybe. But I would rather have them not try it again. At least not for Game Modes or hurried Bug Fixes/Game Balance.

tl;dr: NFP Game Modes = more Bugs + less Stability + less Time to fix Bugs + less Time to balance stuff = not worth it.

 

[HktkNban]

The majority of Civ players are just casual players who buy games cheaply on Steam sales, play for only 100 hours, and then get bored and play another game.
They are therefore oblivious to the game's bugs and balance issues.
Except, of course, for the avid fanatics who play Civ for thousands of hours, but as a percentage of the population they are an overwhelming minority.

No additional fees can be charged to players for balancing the game or fixing bugs.
In contrast, a series of novel game mode DLC can make some money, even if it is buggy, incomplete, and defective.

It is an unpleasant reality, but the goal of game developers is not to make great games, but to maximize profits.
It is a rational business decision to leave the game unbalanced and buggy if fixing it is not expected to be profitable enough.

Judging from the quality of NFP, unfortunately, I have to be pessimistic about the quality of Civ7 and its AI and game balance.
However, I sincerely hope that NFP is something of a mistake and that Civ7 will be a great game.

 

[Vandlys]

The majority of Civ players are just casual players who buy games cheaply on Steam sales, play for only 100 hours, and then get bored and play another game.
They are therefore oblivious to the game's bugs and balance issues.
Except, of course, for the avid fanatics who play Civ for thousands of hours, but as a percentage of the population they are an overwhelming minority.

No additional fees can be charged to players for balancing the game or fixing bugs.
In contrast, a series of novel game mode DLC can make some money, even if it is buggy, incomplete, and defective.

It is an unpleasant reality, but the goal of game developers is not to make great games, but to maximize profits.
It is a rational business decision to leave the game unbalanced and buggy if fixing it is not expected to be profitable enough.

Judging from the quality of NFP, unfortunately, I have to be pessimistic about the quality of Civ7 and its AI and game balance.
However, I sincerely hope that NFP is something of a mistake and that Civ7 will be a great game.

"Only 100 hours". I feel like I play many games, have always played many games, but in my current Steam library only have 10 games that I have put over 100 hours in. Three of them are 4X, 5 of them have some kind of crafting/survival mechanic, 1 is a city builder, and the last is GTA V.

Certain types of games just automatically take longer to feel like you've played them, but I wouldn't say "casual" is anywhere around 100 hours. Games like Horizon: Zero Dawn you can finish twice in 100 hours, having discovered all secrets and really taking your time, but I wouldn't say finishing the game 100% twice is casual.

 

[Gorbles]

They are therefore oblivious to the game's bugs and balance issues.

Anyone who plays any game for 100 hours is going to notice issues. Like, pretty much guaranteed.

I don't think segregating players into "casuals" and "not" is particularly helpful here. I'm a pretty "casual" player, simply because I can't sit and blow through a six (or sixteen) hour session anymore. I get an hour here, an hour there. Coincides with having kids, weirdly enough

But that doesn't mean I don't notice things.

----------------------------------------

This whole thing about NFP is interesting, but flawed, imo.

Features sell. Bug fixes don't. That's the long and short of it.

Ongoing support in any form for VI would've been predicated on income (I'm guessing) because that's how game publishers work. The pandemic will have complicated this, 100%. It will have made things worse, like it did for pretty much the entire industry. But I'd be wary of drawing lessons from the NFP when the pandemic made everything go sideways.

 

[CivLuvah]

So, You only take a part of things I mentioned and say it's only about moddability? No it isn't. Plenty of things in VI half baked it's what makes most of discontent.
Yeah, we don't have an access to dll which would maybe gave us the possibility of larger conversion, only if we already didn't hit an engine limit, which with asset limit we probably already did.
Not mentioning Rhye's and Fall for CIV IV.

Compared to when Civ5 was first released before the expansions, it was as bare as bones. Civ6 already felt complete by release, which is what gave it the advantage for me.

The mod made by the community actually made that travesty of a game somewhat playable. The community saved Civilization 5 from a much more ignominious fate.

So basically most who don't like Civ6 based on what they've played from Civ5 are basically using a modded version of a game rather than an original as their base standard of judgment. Right?

 

[Zegangani]

So basically most who don't like Civ6 based on what they've played from Civ5 are basically using a modded version of a game rather than an original as their base standard of judgment. Right?

That's my Impression too. I rarely see people say vanilla Civ V > vanilla Civ VI. The Majority of them always have Vox Populi in mind and as argument when they say Civ V is better and more challenging than Civ VI, especially the AI. Which is such a non-valid argument IMO.

Civ VI is a much better version of Civilization V overall. Yes, there are some things like Ideologies and Puppet States who are left out, but the majority of the other Mechanics are kept, improved upon and made much better (except World Congress ).

Hot take: after Civilization VI, I find Civilization V very boring (tried it a couple of times, but could never immerse myself into the Game), even with Mods, especially on larger Maps and on lower paced Speeds. I think that's bc most of the Mechanics in Civ V are just surface Level Mechanics and don't offer as much in terms of interaction and depth, as Civ VI's Mechanics do, which is quite enjoyable on lower paced Speeds, if the pacing is good (which is only the case with Mods). Civ V is great for fast paced Games, and bc the Mechanics aren't as fleshed out as in Civ VI, they are easy to learn and immersive. But if you want to take your Time while playing then I don't think you'll have much Fun.

 

[Naokaukodem]

@Zegangani About the single player Deity Civ5 is harder than Civ6 Deity. So maybe the AI isn't such as bad even with "vanilla".

The Majority of them always have Vox Populi in mind and as argument when they say Civ V is better and more challenging than Civ VI, especially the AI. Which is such a non-valid argument IMO.

Deity AI is threatening only because it has a handfull of free units early. And is impressive early with skyrocketting science and everything. Obviously you will need luck too and not provoke it. If you fullfill all those, and don't get discouraged, it should be doable.

About the pace 6 made it maybe a little bit overboard in contrast with 5. It can be harmful in multiplayer (especially religion choices and government changes) On the other hand I haven't that much experience with Civ5 MP, but from the few games I did it was a bit boring. The king in that aspect is Civ4, the action could go absolutely frenetic (body consuming, even, i mean sportive) when you multiple-declared but there was stacks so it was easier to handle. (but probably more stressing than Street Fighter or whatever) In Civ6 MP I feel nearly the same when I take Tomyris and go to war early with a dozen horsemen. But that's not the same, the hassle is far more important than the reward. (plus you can easily lose track of the meta game during your conquests and be too backwarded all of a sudden)

 

[Takhisis]

If Spain builds a religious wonder, the clergy will be satisfied. The citizens could also give mini quests and wishes.

Quests? What, like Baldur's Gate?

 

[pokiehl]

Quests? What, like Baldur's Gate?

No, like Civ 6. Or Civ 5.

I presume your tone is derisive about the concept, but the idea of completing objectives for a reward is nothing controversial for 4x games or strategy games. I think it’s a great idea to add more depth to population.