[POLL updated on request] About Civ6 finishing and Civ7 initiation

[SammyKhalifa]

I hear you, but I think would be better done but refining what they have in Civ VI.



Yeah, I could see this too, but don’t want to get my hopes up. Indeed, I could see a mini-expansion, and then they might keep releasing standalone game modes and or do additional season passes, perhaps focusing more on alt leaders and persona modes rather than new Civs.

I think it’ll just hinge on how successful NFP is, the feedback they get, and whatever else they are working on.

Ed’s been pretty quiet since GS. Is he just taking a break / working on some board games? Is he doing management stuff? Or is he working on Civ expansion and or new IP? Who knows, right?

I agree but at some point refining stops paying the bills.

 

[acluewithout]

I agree but at some point refining stops paying the bills.

Don’t tell Paradox that. Endless refining is literally their business model.

 

[Xur]

None of the above poll options. They should work on civ7, but not base it on 5 or 6. Take the best from 5 and 6 obviously but it’s not a great base for the game imo. Don’t rush it either. Don’t want a repeat of features trickling in via patches 3 years later (build queue, world builder etc). Focus on making a PC game - not a boardgame.

Whatever they do, they do not have the same goodwill and trust after all the things they promised pre-launch civ6. That in mind and humankind around the corner, I feel like they need to do better... a lot better.

 

[AriochIV]

A more integrated and coherent design? That's the number one thing I want out of Civ7. Civ6 has great ideas, but none of them works together.

What makes you think that Civ 7 will have that when it'll be made by the same people who made Civ 6? I remember when the Civ 5 haters put all their hopes in Civ 6, which turned out to have almost all of the same systems they hated in Civ 5.

 

[Zaarin]

What makes you think that Civ 7 will have that when it'll be made by the same people who made Civ 6?

I don't particularly, but Civ7 has a much higher probability of having that than Civ6 does at this point, since Civ6 basically has none. Also there is some hope that Civ7 will take Civ6's good ideas--because Civ6 does have good ideas--and ask itself, "Now what if these interacted with each other instead of functioning discretely?"

 

[Naokaukodem]

It misses the option : START CIV7 TO BEGIN WITH, AND RELEASE IT WHEN READY.

 

[AsH2]

It misses the option : START CIV7 TO BEGIN WITH, AND RELEASE IT WHEN READY.

Tomato-potato.. That would kind of be "rushed" from current situation.

 

[ZarduStar]

I used to think I want them to move on with Civ7 so that they could shake things up and hopefully make it more like Civ5 in terms of artstyle and UI. However, after Humankind came into the picture, it looks like that game has exactly what I am looking for so I am feeling very much indifferent right now.

If people want more Civ6 content, then why not make another frontier pass? And if Humankind proves to be a significant competitor (I hope so), then that can push the developers to take risks and innovate with Civ7.

 

[Red Adept]

A more integrated and coherent design? That's the number one thing I want out of Civ7. Civ6 has great ideas, but none of them works together.

I think that's the most I want out of Civ VII.

Civ VI's a good design to tack things onto, but Civ VII should be a revolutionary change up. The two competitors that are gaining the most buzz, Old World and Humankind both have distinct gameplays that differ from the standard Civ turn. I'd love to see some growth from Civ to take things up a level away from the 'board game' aspect and towards an interactive, multi-dimensional game.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Tomato-potato.. That would kind of be "rushed" from current situation.

What do you mean ?

 

[AsH2]

What do you mean ?

The options were chosen not to be accurate but for distinction.
Here "release asap" do not exclude "release asap when ready".

 

[Naokaukodem]

I don't get you.

 

[AriochIV]

Maybe we're splitting hairs here, but "release as soon as possible" has a distinctly different meaning than "release when ready."

 

[Naokaukodem]

Maybe we're splitting hairs here, but "release as soon as possible" has a distinctly different meaning than "release when ready."

Yeah... in ASAP there's a notion of hast. (and we know many many -too much- games released "ASAP" full of bugs, not working properly or being simply bad) And AsH2 talked about "being rushed" so I still don't get his point.

 

[AsH2]

Fine.. There we go..

Edit: Added option to poll.

 

[The Civs 6]

I think that's the most I want out of Civ VII.

Civ VI's a good design to tack things onto, but Civ VII should be a revolutionary change up. The two competitors that are gaining the most buzz, Old World and Humankind both have distinct gameplays that differ from the standard Civ turn. I'd love to see some growth from Civ to take things up a level away from the 'board game' aspect and towards an interactive, multi-dimensional game.

as long as there is no tactical combat.

 

[AsH2]

Fine.. There we go..

Edit: Added option to poll.

Shouldn't there be more ticking that option?

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

[1] and [2] (3 after editing pool) I don't think it's time for Civ VII now. Especially Civ VII will be the same snowballing race for resources needed to flat win condition. This is the core philosophy of the game.
In new Passes they should focus on two main problems.
- replayability (Civs, mods, redesigns)
- competitivity (AI, difficulty level - Deity + difficulty I once mentioned would help here)
You guys are too focused on balancing. Those kinds of asymmetrical games will never be balanced. Some Civs and tactics will always be better and more efficient. And buffs are a terrible idea because they increase power creep and in a single game with AI just makes the game easier... I don't believe in a unicorn solution: stronger AI vs.stronger and equal efficient Civs... This is a pipe-dream. The only solution is just constantly pushing meta by new mods, redesigns etc. And fixing Civs by nerfing, not buffing. (in a reasonable way. Simple and strong civs are still needed for beginners.)
Any deeper changes like win condition etc. need not only a new game, but also new design philosophy and as a result not Cilivilization VII, but Civilization 2.0. It is a very risky business decision. I wouldn't expect it nor encourage Firaxis to do it.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Shouldn't there be more ticking that option?

Well,

1. As Firaxis already figured with a poll of their own, more players want Civ6 to be continued, hence the NFP.
2. You added Jon Shafer to your poll, wasn't he the guy who made Civ4 ? Probably people are not too kind to want him eagerly as we are in a Civ6 forum, and maybe they don't even know him.

 

[xaiviax]

God no, Jon Shafer did not make CIV 4. He... (I"ll be nice and stop there). But I agree, not sure why he would be on this poll.