Should Game Modes become a recurring feature for Civilization?

[Linklite]

I'm torn.

I've always had the opinion that things should be optional so that I can create the experience that I want. Thee are parts of the game that I just don't want there, and other parts that I do. It would be nice to disable the parts that I don't want and move on. Game modes play into that concept, and it works brilliantly. Want a Legends and Heroes game? Great! Want to keep it realistic? That's great too! In some ways, I'd like to expand that to every aspect. Be able to pick which civs can be chosen at random and which can't. Choose a last era. Choose where civs start (without TSL). Disable certain techs. And so forth.

In the other hand, as we see with the various victories, this is hard account for. You can disable RV, but by gosh darn, Philip is going to go for it anyway. It's the same with all the various modes etc - one AI, and enabling/disabling it doesn't affect it's behaviour. The various systems are very difficult to balance both with and without the new rules, so one form will be broken.

If they were to do a proper job of it (and I'm not getting on my high horse about this, I appreciate that ain't dusting crops), then game modes would definitely be the way to go. The problem is that I don't believe that Firaxis will in the foreseeable future, so I think an integrated approach like the XPs is better. A light dusting of game modes for the more controversial parts, like Apocalypse or Heroes and Legends, so we can still have them but not necessarily ruin the flavour, might be reasonable, but not much heavier. Some could just be integrated directly into the game like M&C, so long as the numbers are fixed. I don't see why that couldn't be a permanent feature.

Also, can you add an option for torn? I'm not a yes, or a no, but I still have an opinion.

 

[Xur]

if vampires were part of every game, then this franchise would be dead to me. I like history, realism and all those less sexy things. Rockbands and magic religious fights is already too much. Good thing rockbands is just a unit and it can be modded out. Another good thing, is that the AI is too stupid for combat... so the magic rarely happens.

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

stuff like heroes and vampires should be modular , they are not for everyones taste , but monopolies is integral to gameplay and should not be modular , dramatic ages , tech shuffle , disaster can be modular since not everyone likes to tune up the difficulty.
also i agree with the sentiment on this discussion that the devs should focus on integrating the systems to create a working and encompassing game and not try to piecemeal everything. the AI is not no where where it should or could be and we know how much budget it gets in contrast to arts and advertising.

 

[InsidiousMage]

but monopolies is integral to gameplay and should not be modular

Really? I'm curious why you think that. I've only used it twice and so far the only thing I've noticed was that it turned my science victory into a culture victory because of a 330% tourism modifier. I had a truffle industry with like four or five gold producing tiles in my capital so I noticed some increase in my per turn gold but that was soon dwarfed by more trade routes and what not.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Really? I'm curious why you think that. I've only used it twice and so far the only thing I've noticed was that it turned my science victory into a culture victory because of a 330% tourism modifier. I had a truffle industry with like four or five gold producing tiles in my capital so I noticed some increase in my per turn gold but that was soon dwarfed by more trade routes and what not.

IMHO the tourism modifier is currently the only problem with the Corporation gamemode. Other than this problem, the gamemode has a good idea and works fairly well with the base game.

Another thing to note is that, the Corporation gamemode highly encourages "city specialization" - something existed back in Civ IV but disappeared since Civ V - which is worthy of becoming a core mechanism of the game.

 

[Futumch]

I voted no, I think this is where mods should come in. Have a solid base game and throw open some of the underlying code, then let the creative minds on the internet go nuts.

EDIT: This is a good question, by the way : )

 

[InsidiousMage]

Moreover, the Corporation gamemode highly encourages "city specialization" - something existed in Civ IV but disappeared since Civ V - which is worthy of becoming a core mechanism of the game.

I would definitely be interested in the game taking that kind of direction but I'm not sure the current bonuses with the mode are enough. Like, Rationalism is powerful enough that you want a lot of cities to have either high population or good campuses, if not both, while M&C relies too much on chance to really work well I think. One of my cities had a late game turtle industry but the only reason why the city had a great campus was because I was playing Hermetic Order but I was generating so much science at that point I didn't notice the increase from the industry. Industries are a good early game boost but seem to lose their value fairly quickly.

 

[Gedemon]

I suppose most people knows it at this point, but I'd prefer to have them simply allows modders do mod, not sell them, and concentrate their development resources on coherent gameplay at the core, stable releases and the assets (that only a few modders can match from scratch).

 

[Timberdoodle]

I think that game modes are a fun addition to the game, but I would prefer if they where just add-ons, and not part of the core game. As others have said, if you built a new civ game around game modes where all the different systems could be turned on or off, I think you lose a lot depth as many of the systems then can't interact with one another.

With Civ 6, I like that game modes sit on top of the core game and mix things up in interesting ways. In the future I could see them replacing scenario's somewhat in that regard. So when the next iteration of Civ rolls around, I don't think that game modes should be a core feature at release, but maybe something to develop afterwards.

I think they do have potential, maybe more than we're seeing right now. With NFP's monthly release schedule I feel that we've ended up with a lot of modes different that could have used a little more time in the cooker. I don't think we need 10 different modes taking the game in different directions, but 2 or 3 really solid ones later in development could be a nice addition.

 

[Archon_Wing]

It could be, but as implemented is very poor. It's better to do a few things right, than to do a bunch of things poorly. All we have here is a lot of poorly balanced game mode while the main game itself suffers from major deficiencies. (eg, the World Congress).

Incidentally the changes to the main game are pretty decent, such as the new batch of great people.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

not if they don't fix it.
like Monopoly and corporation mod!

 

[conorbebe]

I'm undecided. As others have already said, I like the ability to toggle on and off certain features to my liking, but on the other hand, if that means said features are poorly integrated, I'd prefer not.

 

[m_mus]

Absolutely not. The modular design is only accentuating Civ6's biggest flaw, which is a lack of interaction among systems. Making systems modular only makes them less likely to interact. Civ7 needs to integrate its systems more, not continue down the modular bucket-filling route.

I can only second this wholeheartedly.
What in theory sounded like a great idea and would have allowed for meaningful customisation by turning certain modes off and on, is indeed a tremendously unbalanced mess the AI cannot cope with and which introduces new major bugs with every new mode. The tourism-bug has fully tipped the scales for me. I really looked forward to "Industries & Monopolies", as - together with "Dramatic Ages" and "Tech Shuffle" - these are the only modes not digressing into fantasy-territory. I am really asking myself how any DLC can drop with such an oversight. Is there no internal testing? I mean, it would have taken one testgame, wherein a player who had maybe hadn't even angled for a CV wins a culturve victory by accident and they would have known that this unreleasable.
"Gamerules" in other games by other studios lead down a similar treacherous path. In the end, there are so many variants of playing the game, that it is increasingly difficult up until impossible to "keep it all together". And if one raises the concern a certainf feature is unbalanced / buggy, one is simply advised to turn it off for the time being until a fix arrives ... and this indeed may take 2-3 months.

I like NFP for its new civilizations. That's all. They should have put them into a third expansion with maybe a more flashed out "Industries & Monopolies"-feature and a proper economic victory.
What we got now is a rather sad ending for CIV VI.

 

[kaspergm]

I'm undecided. As others have already said, I like the ability to toggle on and off certain features to my liking, but on the other hand, if that means said features are poorly integrated, I'd prefer not.

I feel this way as well. The idea of Game Modes looked good on paper, but in reality, I don't think it plays out very well. I suppose it would be possible to make a better implementation, but question is if it wouldn't be easier to just decide what's in the game and what's out and then focus on making that good.

 

[pokiehl]

I agree with those who have said that the major downside of the game modes is that they are less interconnected with other game mechanics. I think Civ needs more interconnected game systems to increase its depth, and I wager that having mechanics included in the game itself rather than as optional modes will provide a better impetus for the developers to more appropriately balance the content.

However, certain ideas (like Shuffle Mode) are perfect as game modes. They offer an interesting twist on the gameplay but they don't introduce new mechanics, so there's no need to intertwine them with anything else. I hope they keep stuff like this because it's really fun!

 

[Naeshar]

I vote Yes. If the "keep/modify/add one third" rule still applies, this should be under "modify".

I haven't bought all of the NFP content, just the Gaul/Byz pack with Dramatic Ages, so I cannot judge the others. But there are some very good mechanics that are good to sometimes switch off. A bit of modularity is welcome, however it should not be at cost of stripping the base game to bare bones, but to make sure the game works without and with them as well.
E.g. I'd like to play without the climate change as, say Hungary, and the game could be perfectly fine.

I would expect there could be a few (1-2) switches for the base game and DLCs as further switches. The Ruleset could then be utilised otherwise. And DLCs would also add other content (civs, wonders, districts), to keep them relevant.
There could be a basic game which would be the standard for which AI is optimized (or at least playable) and mechanics like random techs, diplomatic (WC), economic (Crp) or religious (combat) gameplay, which are not essential, to be chosen separately. But AI should be able to handle it, not like it handles Free cities in dramatic dark ages.

I wouldn't say recurring, but an established feature, even. Good for modding and customization.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

E.g. I'd like to play without the climate change as, say Hungary, and the game could be perfectly fine.

I'd love for the idea of climate change to be optional and it could have fit nicely into the Apocalypse mode.

I'd still keep the regular natural disasters.

 

[comatosedragon]

carrots

 

[AsH2]

Options are good. I only hesitate because of what I said before: if a mechanic is optional, the devs might be tempted to say, "Why make this feature interact with other features if it can be turned off?"

I was about to say yes i would love to be able to turn off World Congress but this exact point is the problem. Given that I think it is inevitable that some game features will be able toggle on and off I hope they really think it through. One of the smartest decisions Firaxis could make would be to realize they should start off with a well implemented game with fewer features that's designed to be expanded instead of putting out a game with more features that just need to be revised alter on.

I think Game Modes would fit well with Victory Conditions - tie them together and make sure AI is able to play them.
That way we can have a base game with well-interactable features there eg Religion is something "organic" that you'd respond to, while if turning on Religion GM/VC there would be more to do - like it is now in Civ6.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I suppose most people knows it at this point, but I'd prefer to have them simply allows modders do mod, not sell them, and concentrate their development resources on coherent gameplay at the core, stable releases and the assets (that only a few modders can match from scratch).

I feel like the problem with that for Firaxis is that they release the game on consoles and if they are serious about it growing their user base on them then having consoles appear to be a lesser version of the game could limit their sales.