[NFP] POLL: Civilization: historical or fantasy game?

[oSiyeza]

This kind of sounds like a post hoc rationalization for what has come out rather than some sort of dev strategy in response to market research.

They did a poll a survey on how we the fans wanted new content to be.

If that is not market research I dont know what is.

Edit: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/answer-an-official-survey-for-civ-vi.648318/

 

[acluewithout]

The developers stated that adding another expansion on top of the previous two would probably make the game really feature bloated if they added in any more new game mechanics.

I’m unconvinced by the “another expansion would make the game bloated” rationalisation for NFP. I know that’s sort of what FXS said, but I’m not buying it.

I’m not going to do the full 12 bullet point summary, but Civ VI post Gathering Storm seemed set up for another expansion focusing largely on the end game. I don’t think that would have bloated the game, precisely because I think the game was designed to have space for the sorts of mechanics a third expansion would have introduced. Then, for some reason, FXS seems to have changed course.

My guess is that the real problem was that bringing out a third expansion would have been the end of Civ 6. The game would basically feel “complete”, and so people would have little interest continuing to invest in the game.

So, instead, FXS maybe shelved a third expansion and, while people still wanted more from Civ 6, tried out a new content model that could maybe be kept going for a few years and extend Civ 6’s lifespan.

I think the season pass / game mode model has a lot going for it, and I hope FXS stick with it for a few additional Seasons. But I also hope they aren’t really done with the base game, and will eventually look to fill out the end game even if it’s not quite via a third expansion type deal.

The diplomatic district gives me hope that they haven't totally forsaken substantive changes in favor of superficial ones.

Completely agree.

I find it hard to believe FXS won’t expand the base game when there is so much obvious stuff that can be added to the base game, like additional “purple” districts, most of which the base game seems designed to have included and much of which players like me would clearly love to see (and would pay to have) in the game.

For better or worse, I don’t think NFP has been driven by concerns about making the Civ base game bloated or a shortage of ideas. I think it’s much more about changing the audience’s expectations so they’re willing to accept a content model that allows for a longer lifespan for the game. And, you know, I’m on board with that, so long as I also get more development of the base game.

TL;DR I want Ideologies and Trebuchets. But yes, I’ll also buy Aliens, Vampires and Comets too. Just don’t nerf England again.

 

[oSiyeza]

This has little to do with taste.

The primary driver behind this the fact that the base game (with expansions) feels unfinished.

Thus, when you see how much graphics design and coding went into adding new game modes, many (myself included) get more irritated than usual. Like... "really, you could add a whole new game mode but you can't make dams easier to plan for?".

To conclude, Vampires, Leylines etc. are a problem because I feel I was given something I might or might not like, in place of something they already know I want. And to be honest, it doesn't feel good at all. I understand their motivations behind this, but it still doesn't feel right. You can't buy just one icecream if you have two kids. It's really that simple.

Give me two long overdue district overhauls for each vampire, and we're good, Firaxis. I'll even settle for one per.

Again, this has been discused to death.

1) Long time game problems, that have been present for years are not an issue related to the new content. Fxs, had and still has the chance to address those issues with the free patches.

2) Dev resources do not work like this, less resources to NFP new content do not imply more resources to fix old game problems. Again, they had and still have the chance to do it. Whitout the NFP, they may had clossed the game and not have the chance anymore. But hardly matters if they don't want to address those issues for profit related or whatever other reasons.

3) When you preorder new undisclosed content you agree to buy content you might or might not want. Fxs described fairly accurately what kind of content we could expect.

I’m unconvinced by the “another expansion would make the game bloated”

Look at the post with the poll about that issue in the forum, most people disagrees with you and feel the game is already bloated.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/is-there-a-danger-that-civ6-becomes-bloated.660513/

Also, again. We decided we wanted this type of content with a survey done by Fxs themselves. I voted I wanted another expansion, the majority of the community decided they wanted a set of DLC in a season like model instead. They are doing what we asked them to do.

Edit: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/answer-an-official-survey-for-civ-vi.648318/

 

[acluewithout]

Oy vey! Why did I wade into this thread!?! Such a foolish thing! So much arguing and kvetching!

Oh well...

snip

Okay, I guess. Although I wouldn’t read too much into polls, particularly when they’re self selecting like that and have such a small sample size. Indeed, asking the same question in a different way might have produced a very different answer, eg do you want a third expansion? do some of the game’s mechanics need to be fleshed out more? does the game need more end game content?

I also don’t recall if the FXS Questionnaire asked if people wanted a Third Expansion as such - the entire questionnaire seemed to assume some sort of season pass model from the outset. I also don’t think we know what were the results of the questionnaire - I’m not aware of FXS making the results public.

Anyway. Do most people really think the Civ base game mechanics don’t need more development and expansion? Moreover, even if people don’t think the base game needs more content, is it possible they would actually end up really liking a “third expansion”?

I don’t know and I don’t think the poll you reference really answers the question in a robust way. My views might certainly be in the minority, but they might not be on some measures.

Ultimately, the only thing I can offer is just my view, for what it’s worth. And my view is that the game wouldn’t be “bloated” by adding some focused mechanics particularly around the end game - indeed, some better and expanded end game mechanics would really make the game. I also think that if FXS went down that route, perhaps in parallel with further season passes, people would buy into that.

I also don’t know why FXS have taken the season pass / game mode approach. It could be because they didn’t think the base game could support any more mechanics or that this wouldn’t be popular; it could be because some but not enough players wanted more mechanics, and so game modes provide a way to keep everyone happy. But personally my guess is that it’s more about creating a content model that extends the lifespan of Civ 6.

But my views aren’t based on hard data. They’re just my views.

 

[oSiyeza]

I also don’t know why FXS have taken the season pass / game mode approach

Honestly, the real reason is probably cause is cheaper to make and more profitable.

If the apocalypse mode told me something is that modular optional mechanics do not require in the opinion of Fxs to be integrated in the game or to be balanced properly, and they are also less deep than expansion mechanics, since "they are optional and independent". Also I think that the game has been undersupported for a long time, the expansion pass model gives them an opportunity to be less accountable for half cooked mechanics, and for balancing and polishing the content less.

I think the sootsayer alone, no mention the lack of disaster progression, the lack of balance with disaster rates and aid requests, the lack of new original mechanics related to disasters, comets being tied to climate warning... Etc...shows that they just did not care much for the new content.

Hope they just not keep going the same road and continue cleaning the mess they are constantly doing with better quality content.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I’m unconvinced by the “another expansion would make the game bloated” rationalisation for NFP. I know that’s sort of what FXS said, but I’m not buying it.

I’m not going to do the full 12 bullet point summary, but Civ VI post Gathering Storm seemed set up for another expansion focusing largely on the end game. I don’t think that would have bloated the game, precisely because I think the game was designed to have space for the sorts of mechanics a third expansion would have introduced. Then, for some reason, FXS seems to have changed course.

My guess is that the real problem was that bringing out a third expansion would have been the end of Civ 6. The game would basically feel “complete”, and so people would have little interest continuing to invest in the game.

So, instead, FXS maybe shelved a third expansion and, while people still wanted more from Civ 6, tried out a new content model that could maybe be kept going for a few years and extend Civ 6’s lifespan.

I think the season pass / game mode model has a lot going for it, and I hope FXS stick with it for a few additional Seasons. But I also hope they aren’t really done with the base game, and will eventually look to fill out the end game even if it’s not quite via a third expansion type deal.

I am one of those people that wanted a third expansion but I do know others, as it's already been mentioned, that already feel the game is bloated after GS. I can see that because it was a big expansion.

I also don’t know why FXS have taken the season pass / game mode approach. It could be because they didn’t think the base game could support any more mechanics or that this wouldn’t be popular; it could be because some but not enough players wanted more mechanics, and so game modes provide a way to keep everyone happy. But personally my guess is that it’s more about creating a content model that extends the lifespan of Civ 6.

Well many different gaming companies have decided to start doing that instead of big full on expansions. I think they just wanted to try something different. Of course I still don't see Firaxis not doing full on expansions to their games in the future either.
When they said they wanted to extend the lifespan of Civ 6 I'm sure it just means that they wanted to do something after GS. I don't necessarily know if it means a second season pass or not.

 

[Pietato]

I hope they add dragons, next.

 

[Equilin]

I hope they add dragons, next.

China will get a free one emerging from their civ symbol then?

 

[acluewithout]

I hope they add dragons, next.

I’m hoping for vampire dragons. That are also Aliens. Alien, vampire dragons.

England gets one for free every time they build a Dockyard.

Yes. English dragons. English dragons.

 

[The Civs 6]

Oy vey! Why did I wade into this thread!?! Such a foolish thing! So much arguing and kvetching!

Oh well...



Okay, I guess. Although I wouldn’t read too much into polls, particularly when they’re self selecting like that and have such a small sample size. Indeed, asking the same question in a different way might have produced a very different answer, eg do you want a third expansion? do some of the game’s mechanics need to be fleshed out more? does the game need more end game content?

I also don’t recall if the FXS Questionnaire asked if people wanted a Third Expansion as such - the entire questionnaire seemed to assume some sort of season pass model from the outset. I also don’t think we know what were the results of the questionnaire - I’m not aware of FXS making the results public.

Anyway. Do most people really think the Civ base game mechanics don’t need more development and expansion? Moreover, even if people don’t think the base game needs more content, is it possible they would actually end up really liking a “third expansion”?

I don’t know and I don’t think the poll you reference really answers the question in a robust way. My views might certainly be in the minority, but they might not be on some measures.

Ultimately, the only thing I can offer is just my view, for what it’s worth. And my view is that the game wouldn’t be “bloated” by adding some focused mechanics particularly around the end game - indeed, some better and expanded end game mechanics would really make the game. I also think that if FXS went down that route, perhaps in parallel with further season passes, people would buy into that.

I also don’t know why FXS have taken the season pass / game mode approach. It could be because they didn’t think the base game could support any more mechanics or that this wouldn’t be popular; it could be because some but not enough players wanted more mechanics, and so game modes provide a way to keep everyone happy. But personally my guess is that it’s more about creating a content model that extends the lifespan of Civ 6.

But my views aren’t based on hard data. They’re just my views.

Absolutely. There is a difference between adding boring mechanics that are barely integrated into gameplay, like appeal, and adding focused mechanics, potentially like diplomatic districts. If you are saying "we don't need a whole new faith mechanic like Civ 5 dropped" I agree with that. Is there a clear line between those two? I dunno, but that's up to the devs, who are professionals, to figure out.

I mean just returning to this thread, how much cooler would a pack that added, say, 10 new spy missions have been than secret societies? That's not bloat that's just adding a little variety to a malnourished part of the game. Maybe the missions could have been tied into secret societies somehow. I dunno.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Absolutely. There is a difference between adding boring mechanics that are barely integrated into gameplay, like appeal, and adding focused mechanics, potentially like diplomatic districts. If you are saying "we don't need a whole new faith mechanic like Civ 5 dropped" I agree with that. Is there a clear line between those two? I dunno, but that's up to the devs, who are professionals, to figure out.

I mean just returning to this thread, how much cooler would a pack that added, say, 10 new spy missions have been than secret societies? That's not bloat that's just adding a little variety to a malnourished part of the game. Maybe the missions could have been tied into secret societies somehow. I dunno.

Depends on how you view secret societies. I always thought the governors mechanic was rather thin with only seven to choose from. Now we have four more to play around with.

I agree that there are several aspects of the game that feel underdeveloped, and perhaps Secret Societies didn't actually add much to the governor system. But I think the argument needs to be a little more nuanced in order to hold up against a DLC that technically improved a malnourished part of the game.

Also, I think if we got a fantasy unit in a "secret societies expansion," I think I would want a ninja. There's a lot of fantasy that has emerged out of the shinobi in a similar way to how vampire mythology evolved in the west.

Also, pirates. Pirates would be super fun. Maybe zombie skeleton pirates.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Well after seeing the way the Sanguine Pact works. I'm hyped for them.

Also, I think if we got a fantasy unit in a "secret societies expansion," I think I would want a ninja. There's a lot of fantasy that has emerged out of the shinobi in a similar way to how vampire mythology evolved in the west.

When they originally said it would be fantastical the first thing I thought of is ninjas with "supernatural" abilities.

 

[Red Adept]

England gets one for free every time they build a Dockyard.

Yes. English dragons. English dragons.

But only if they're voiced by Sean Connery. "I merely chewed in self-defence. I didn't swallow."

(Yes, I know the heresy of a Scot voicing an English dragon...)

 

[The Civs 6]

Depends on how you view secret societies. I always thought the governors mechanic was rather thin with only seven to choose from. Now we have four more to play around with.

I agree that there are several aspects of the game that feel underdeveloped, and perhaps Secret Societies didn't actually add much to the governor system. But I think the argument needs to be a little more nuanced in order to hold up against a DLC that technically improved a malnourished part of the game.

Also, I think if we got a fantasy unit in a "secret societies expansion," I think I would want a ninja. There's a lot of fantasy that has emerged out of the shinobi in a similar way to how vampire mythology evolved in the west.

Also, pirates. Pirates would be super fun. Maybe zombie skeleton pirates.

Well that's kind of another aspect of this - why did they focus on this weird like ***** view of history, when there is so much great material out there like ninjas, as you said, the assassins of the Middle East, Camelot etc?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Well that's kind of another aspect of this - why did they focus on this weird like ***** view of history, when there is so much great material out there like ninjas, as you said, the assassins of the Middle East, Camelot etc?

Well if they focused on all of those particular societies they would kind of overlap. All of those would be militaristic and there might be minor differences such as ninjas focused on espionage, assassins maybe on faith, and Camelot/Knights of the Round table on culture.

If they wanted another historic secret society that might not overlap a Mafia might do. I can see you recruiting them to work in another civ's territory to basically do their criminal organization there causing chaos and sabotaging why you reap the benefits back home in your civ.

 

[Josephias]

Well that's kind of another aspect of this - why did they focus on this weird like ***** view of history, when there is so much great material out there like ninjas, as you said, the assassins of the Middle East, Camelot etc?

I'm under the impresion it may have been even because of ratings. (Yep, maybe strange in a game that has tobacco and wine as luxury resources, but...). Sanguine pact could have been covered by any society as presented by Alexander's Hetaroi above, but they wanted a purely militaristic one, and having it be assasins or some kind of mafia might have been seen as "glorifying" crime, so they pulled back from that.
Vampires can suggest on "adult" players the idea of "goreness", while still being safe play on young audience due to they have ben memified to death and can be managed as well with a bland portrayal (hey, I don't know you, but my first math teacher in TV -and I guess for many- was a Vampire)

 

[Abaxial]

Well, just a tip from Marketing 101. If you advertise something as "we are fixing something we already delivered to you", you can't expect to make a lot of money. Most of the market will answer "you should give that for free", and a big part of the ones that do not say so, it will be because they go to the, -even worse- "you should pay us interest for the time it has not ben fixed since we paid for full".

Sadly, this is absolutely true and always has been. It's why software never gets fixed. The history of Microsoft Office is a case in point. It's always "we added new features!" rather than "we fixed the bugs!". But actually, it's the bug-fixing that most people would really appreciate. Yes, it's true that it shouldn't need a NFP update to do it, but some of the bugs and annoyances and broken features are so long-standing and have never been fixed that I'm not hopeful they ever will be.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Well that's kind of another aspect of this - why did they focus on this weird like ***** view of history, when there is so much great material out there like ninjas, as you said, the assassins of the Middle East, Camelot etc?

Well the Hermetic Order feels vaguely Arthurian to me, but that's neither here nor there.

The obvious answer is they went with more resonant secret societies in western culture. But I hope that if secret societies does well they will come out with a more global expansion with things like a Haitian voodoo cult or the White Lotus. There's a lot of fun to be had with the concept.

We now have a pretty good idea of the vampire unit abilities:

* starts with the strength of your strongest unit.
* gains combat strength when adjacent units perish.
* will teleport back to your capital when it reaches zero HP.
* intimidates adjacent units (reduces their combat strength) after Industrial Era.
* can only have four vampires and four castles max.

Again, mechanically speaking this really isn't that fantastical. It has the intimidation effect others mentioned as being "more realistic." It can't die and teleports between cities, so it's like a great person with the ability to engage in combat. A far as flavor goes, it's about on par with religious units engaging in theological combat.

If anyone wants a "nonmagical" explanation, it's basically an assassin unit that can hop across a global network of bases, gets better at killing with practice, and is so elusive that it can't be killed, only maimed, at which point it retreats and regroups.

 

[The Civs 6]

Well the Hermetic Order feels vaguely Arthurian to me, but that's neither here nor there.

The obvious answer is they went with more resonant secret societies in western culture. But I hope that if secret societies does well they will come out with a more global expansion with things like a Haitian voodoo cult or the White Lotus. There's a lot of fun to be had with the concept.

We now have a pretty good idea of the vampire unit abilities:

* starts with the strength of your strongest unit.
* gains combat strength when adjacent units perish.
* will teleport back to your capital when it reaches zero HP.
* intimidates adjacent units (reduces their combat strength) after Industrial Era.
* can only have four vampires and four castles max.

Again, mechanically speaking this really isn't that fantastical. It has the intimidation effect others mentioned as being "more realistic." It can't die and teleports between cities, so it's like a great person with the ability to engage in combat. A far as flavor goes, it's about on par with religious units engaging in theological combat.

If anyone wants a "nonmagical" explanation, it's basically an assassin unit that can hop across a global network of bases, gets better at killing with practice, and is so elusive that it can't be killed, only maimed, at which point it retreats and regroups.

That I actually like the secret societies mechanics makes its clumsy aesthetic approach all the more frustrating for me. As I mention in another post, I'd like to see Civ just repackage religions using the secret society mechanics. This would liven up the incredibly dull religious game while giving secret societies an acceptable aesthetic veneer.

 

[GIO888]

As long as the real whacky stuff stays as a Scenario, the more the merrier. Having vampires and Zombies in the main game would really twist my nether garment, however. The GDR is bad enough......