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

[Takhisis]

Can't fit V-I-I into the word, Civilization, so I actually think they will jump to Civ 101.

sure you can, Ci-VIl-ization

At this point surely it would be easier with Arab numberals.

Civili7ation, for anybody who was alive in the 1990s.

 

[InsidiousMage]

its a possible explanation, certainly -- but occam's razor suggests they didn't say civ 7 simply cuz its not gonna be civ 7.

No, Occam's razor suggests they have a detailed marketing campaign planned out and the first part of that campaign is a teaser telling people to check back on a specific date to find out what the next installment of the franchise is going to be, like every other marketing campaign for a major video game franchise nowadays.

 

[TheCleanerDragon]

thoughtful take, BE 2 would indeed be a poor choice -- but I speculate the business plan is to use each engine for one standalone spinoff. We had colonization in 4 era, BE in 5 era, and now maybe something in 6 era.

If they are making a spinoff, then why did they wait so long to do it? Col was three years after 4. BE was four years after 5. So why wait 7 years, which is more than enough time to warrant a full on sequel just to make a spinoff?

 

[Tekamthi]

If they are making a spinoff, then why did they wait so long to do it? Col was three years after 4. BE was four years after 5. So why wait 7 years, which is more than enough time to warrant a full on sequel just to make a spinoff?

good point, i agree this leans against the idea of a spinoff -- but consider at end of life civ 5 complete edition was going for ~$10 on discount -- best i've seen for 6 anthology has been closer to $30, and still lists at $90 regular price: this suggests either a) a significant shift in pricing strategy for the franchise; or b) there's revenue still in the tank for 6. At close to zero marginal cost for that remaining revenue, spending millions to develop a direct competitor to a product that still commands a AAA price, as 7 would be to 6, strikes me as an odd move. Further, there's been few major developments in game tech between 2016 and now, for a new installment to exploit -- the franchise doesn't benefit from the high-FPS trend gaming sector has seen since 6's release, and has never hung its hat on cutting edge graphics and lighting.

The main civ games have covered ~4000bc to ~2050 ad nauseum at this point. BE picks up around 2200. Not my first guess, but seems there's gap in the story Sid Meier's been telling thus far...

 

[Zaarin]

The main civ games have covered ~4000bc to ~2050 ad nauseum at this point.

I wouldn't say it's "ad nauseum"; every version has brought something new to the table (sometimes better, sometimes worse). As you say, it's not like FPS games where they repackage the same game every year. We're also in a weird market space where there have been a glut of new 4X games in the historical market but none of them particularly good--Humankind was awful, Old World is a good game but not a direct competitor in scope to Civ nor everyone's cup of tea, and what I've played of the Ara technical alpha left me with very mixed feelings.

 

[Takhisis]

seems there's gap in the story Sid Meier's been telling thus far...

It's that legendary million-year Civ2 game, y'know.

 

[Tekamthi]

I wouldn't say it's "ad nauseum"; every version has brought something new to the table (sometimes better, sometimes worse). We're also in a weird market space where there have been a glut of new 4X games in the historical market but none of them particularly good--Humankind was awful, Old World is a good game but not a direct competitor in scope to Civ nor everyone's cup of tea, and what I've played of the Ara technical alpha left me with very mixed feelings.

Fair, that language was intended as illustrative and not derogatory; I love this franchise as much as any. Purely anecdotal, and maybe an outlier, but like many here, I am a long time fan of this franchise. A friend of mine in grade 3 stole the disks for his dad's game, and we loaded up civ 1 onto my family's 386 before i ever knew what software piracy was -- saved up every penny i could find to buy civnet on release in my early teens, and have paid full price for every iteration and dlc ever since -- until 6.

I still mean to get into 6, and I have the giveaway copy on epic -- but 5 was so good, its modding community so active, the video game market so saturated with interesting titles, and at this stage of my life time is so valuable, that I've been waiting til 6 was confirmed as 'complete' before purchasing and playing through it. If 7 drops this year I may just skip 6 altogether tbh, or maybe just forego 7 for the first half-decade of its release and play 6 finally. In my case at least, firaxis will cannibalize its own sales releasing 7 this year. A BE prequel that loads in your civ 6 save as starting point might get me to buy both. The game market in 2023 demands innovation and not iteration.

 

[Horizons]

Just in time! I'm pretty much done with Civ6. But if the game is as wantonly imbalanced and AI is as bad in 7 as it is in 6 I'm not sure I'll buy it

 

[Quintillus]

I agree that Civ VII needs to do something different to gain my interest. There have been some changes over the years (although I was not a fan of the changes in V, namely 1 UPT and the regressions in the AI), but who here hasn't played more games of Civ than they can count? A new coat of paint here and a tweaked mechanic there is not going to cut it.

If I want more diplomatic options I play Europa Universalis, which also has hundreds of nations in the game versus Civ's dozens. If I want good economics I can play Anno 1800 or Victoria III. If I want a Civ-adjacent game but with story elements and a much better AI, I can play Old World. Or if I want to build something I can play Timberborn and have a beaver city that's even more adorable than the foxes on the furs graphic in Civ V.

It will be interesting to see if Firaxis goes for the "comfortable incumbent" successor or something more ambitious. I'd like to think that the presence of Humankind, however imperfect, may light a fire under Firaxis to start thinking outside the traditional box, but I'm not confident that's what will really happen.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Civili7ation, for anybody who was alive in the 1990s.

I bet that's how they'll actually do it: work an Arabic 7 into the Z.

And I'm calling Civiliz8ion for eight years from now!

 

[legalizefreedom]

If they are making a spinoff, then why did they wait so long to do it? Col was three years after 4. BE was four years after 5. So why wait 7 years, which is more than enough time to warrant a full on sequel just to make a spinoff?

If said spin-off were to be released in about a year, it would be about the same timeframe between the last DLC/Expansion of Civ5 and BE's release.

 

[TheCleanerDragon]

If said spin-off were to be released in about a year, it would be about the same timeframe between the last DLC/Expansion of Civ5 and BE's release.

True, if we're talking about all DLC. But only considering expansions, the last one for Civ6, Gathering Storm, was three years ago so by that measure there is a difference.

 

[Mykytka]

I'm trying to measure whether "why has Russia been in the game more than Ukraine" is actually a serious question. To start with, the early Civ games were based on a very shallow, pop culture perception of history. The Cold War was just over. Of course Russia was on Americans' minds, whereas I doubt much of the casual audience had even heard of Ukraine until last year because Eastern European history is not most Americans' best subject. Aside from that, even disregarding the USSR, one cannot seriously contend that Ukraine has been remotely as influential as Russia, whether politically or religiously as Russia took over leadership of the Orthodox world when Constantinople fell and the ecumenical patriarch became a hostage of the sultan.

At any rate, I said that for me it wasn't a matter of deserving but personal interest. The Cossack Hetmanate is going to look a lot like Civ6's Byzantium: aggressive cavalry with a little side of religion. That's not the kind of civ that interests me.


I think this is an important thing to remember. Until the 18th century, people were not invested in their national identity. They cared about their religious identity and their local identity--their family and community. National identities only became important with the rise of nationalism, and as often as not they were artificially created to advance...certain political interests.

No, i totally understand that Russia was and still more popular than Ukraine. It was a rhetorical question. But now, in the newest part of Civ 6, i think Ukraine should to be added. Not just the Hetmanate, because it's only one of the periods in Ukrainian history.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

No, i totally understand that Russia was and still more popular than Ukraine. It was a rhetorical question. But now, in the newest part of Civ 6, i think Ukraine should to be added. Not just the Hetmanate, because it's only one of the periods in Ukrainian history.

I wouldn't say it's a case of Russia being more popular than Ukraine, simply that they've been extremely influential in world history for a long period of time as well as having a very distinctive identity from the rest of the civilisations that usually get trotted in the game. They're one of the few civilisations I would accept as staples for the series.
As for Ukraine, Ukrainian identity as distinctive from other neighbouring Slavic cultures only arose around the 1700s, and Ukraine was hardly ever a single unified state (that existed for a really significant amount of time) until the breakup of the USSR. I find nothing really compelling about its history that makes them a must-have inclusion in the game.

 

[Starina]

No, i totally understand that Russia was and still more popular than Ukraine. It was a rhetorical question. But now, in the newest part of Civ 6, i think Ukraine should to be added. Not just the Hetmanate, because it's only one of the periods in Ukrainian history.

What are the other periods?
And is it possible in this case to seriously talk about adding such civilizations to the game as: Bavaria, Catalonia, Texas or Taiwan. Oh oh oh, ok, Taiwan of course not, you yourself know why))))

I would be very happy if Rus' were added, but only if it was not the "father" of modern Ukraine, i.e. without a trident, like an icon and a yellow-blue color of civilization. It's not that I'm daydreaming about the idea of the Russian world or something like that, no. But why separate the history of Ukraine from the rest of it so much as to add it as a separate civilization? For the sake of the current political situation?

The game has Macedonia. And we know that Macedonia is part of Hellenistic Greece. But they have Alexander! And at its core, Macedonia is a civilization named after Alexander. Yes, not everyone liked it, but I think it's a great solution.
Columbia is in the game. And yes, Bolivar. Not as great as Alexander... But this area was not occupied by anyone. And not everyone welcomed Colombia warmly.
Is there a truly outstanding leader of the Hetmanate?

In addition, Rus' would have its own unique set of cities. Cities that at one time were leading, and now these are small towns of 10-30 thousand inhabitants on the territory of modern Ukraine, Belarus and western Russia.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Is there a truly outstanding leader of the Hetmanate?

Yes, Bohdan Khmelnytsky.

 

[MrCynical]

It will be interesting to see if Firaxis goes for the "comfortable incumbent" successor or something more ambitious. I'd like to think that the presence of Humankind, however imperfect, may light a fire under Firaxis to start thinking outside the traditional box, but I'm not confident that's what will really happen.

I doubt Firaxis is too concerned about Humankind. A quick glance at Steam stats has Civ 6 still as one of the 20 most played games with over 60,000 in game right now. Humankind is languishing down at 554th with less than 1,000 in game. Even at it's all time peak when brand new it didn't have as many players as Civ 6 has right now.

I played a few games of Humankind back when it came out, but I can't really think of a mechanic I'd like to see imported from there. The whole constantly switching cultures mechanic was definitely a failed experiment. I'd say Civ 7 needs something to shake it up, especially in the latter half of the game though. I find games in Civ 6 have a rather passive and predictable feel after the first few ages. Too much time spent where the game is already won, and it's just a matter of hitting end turn. The AI's passivity and inability to cope with 1UPT warfare is the main cause of that.

 

[Starina]

Yes, Bohdan Khmelnytsky.

Of course I know him. This is what I wanted to exclude from the message, but for some reason I forgot (

 

[Kimiimaro]

I have two little wishes regarding Civ VII. My first wish is that the leaders take a step out of the strange black room and return to a bit livelier background. I don't necessarily call for the leaders to be as static as many of the Civ V leaders were, but I stand by the fact that in general, I prefer that game's approach to the leaderscreens. When I remember the beutiful sceneries like Ramkhamhaeng's garden, Theodora's balcony or Ashurbanipal's library and then compare them to the black room with a background that is hidden by the diplomacy/trade screen most of the time... And I would welcome if the leaders could response with something more than "hmph" or "haha" when we trade.

My second personal little wish for Civ VII is a return of war themes. Nuking someone while the Kongolese atomic theme is playing is rather strange, mood-wise.

 

[AntSou]

The score victory in Civ6 is basically what you want. You literally get points for doing everything that helps you win in all of the victory types except getting diplomatic points, tourism, and killing units. Covert cities to your religion? Points. Founding cities? Points. Building things? Points. Anything that gets you era score? Points. Playing the game well gets you points, which is basically what you want. The only thing that I think could be added is winning things like aid requests but otherwise? Everything you do to win in other victory types helps you will in a Score Victory.

You keep insisting on something that is subjective opinion, telling me I'll enjoy something I already said I don't

I've been playing with Score (Time) victory since Civ 4 because it's the only type of victory that feels immersive. But it's always been bad and immersion is eventually broken by the realization that the game just doesn't care much about it. So I feel compelled to play the game in the way it's clearly intended to. The integrated victory was the main reason I was so hyped for humankind, because it was a historical 4x which promised to deliver that which I had been hoping for for so long. It didn't.

I just think your view on Score Victory is superficial and nowhere near what I want. Only thing that could be added are points for things like aid requests? The relationship between culture or diplomacy and score is appalling. And then you get points for silly things like buildings or districts, which is rewarding the means, rather than the completion of objectives.

Examples of reasons why Score Victory in Civ isn't good:
- You get a handful of points for being the first to meet all Civs, and another handful of points for being the first to circumnavigate the planet. The reward for such achievements is put on par with doing things you'd do anyway, like founding a city... or constructing four or five buildings;

- No unique Civ specific ways to accrue points (or culture specific, like Humankind cultures, e.g. agrarian, etc);
E.g. A type of civ (Agrarian) or a specific Civ (Khmer) being the only capable of gaining points from Population, or having a higher multiplier than other Civs (just having bonuses towards generating food and housing isn't sufficient. Those can be taken by a domination oriented Civ.);

- Score heavily favours domination oriented Civs, which is not an inevitability, it's just a consequence of poor design;

- Score in civ 6 needs to fit and work around the main narrative of specialization towards specific victory paths. Is meeting all Civs a diplomatic, cultural or a scientific milestone? Having your religion nominated as World Religion in the world congress is a diplomatic, religious, cultural or scientific milestone? Is circumnavigation a military or scientific achievement? If I convert all people in the world through the use of radio and television, was that a scientific or religious achievement? These things aren't separated and impossible to design in a game that attempts to force a split between them.

I don't want to extend myself on this topic here, but suffice to say "you get a point for this little thing and another point for that little thing" is not what I mean or want in a Score Victory.

I'll add this: a game designed around Score Victory should permit a Civ to win a game even after being eliminated through conquest.