Should Game Modes become a recurring feature for Civilization?

[Tinkerture]

For me, my answer is entirely contingent on the execution. In theory, I'd say yes. In practice, perhaps no. One of the biggest criticisms of games in their later stages of development is that they are prone to feature bloat. I think modes have the potential to be an elegant solution to that problem. If Civ 6 had a base game and two expansions that were tightly integrated, I don't think that it is essential that the modes be integrated in that way. But because Civ 6's systems are weak on integration, the modes compound that problem. Additionally, I think that because the modes can be toggled on and off the developers have leaned too far in the direction of making them "wacky" at the cost of balance. While I do think modes are a good opportunity to make bolder choices, that should not be used as an excuse for lazy design.

In short, I have enjoyed what the modes add to Civ 6, but they have not satisfied my expectations. If Civ 7 is able to do a better job at integrating its base systems, and tightens up the design of the modes, I'd love to see them return.

 

[bbbt]

I'll add that I'd take game modes over scenarios, which I barely play. And I gather that's perhaps part of the intention with them.

 

[anonxanemone]

A lot of the comments are saying they are not a fan of the fantastical elements in certain game modes, e.g. heroes and vampires (though I think it's interesting other societies are not complained about as much). Civilization is a franchise that already is a history game with a heavy undertone of fantasy. Dido, Gilgamesh, and now Lady Trieu are semi-legendary figures; more well-established figures like Cleopatra, Hammurabi, and Jayavarman claimed to be god kings. History sort of blurs into "legends" with the passage of time. Heck, the avatar we take in the game are immortal leaders that live through the millennia. For this reason, I think more creative (some read that as "cartoony") depictions of characters in Civ VI works really well.

I guess the point of the game modes to adjust the level of fantasy to your liking since not all audiences have the same taste and expectations of the franchise. Expanding to a wider market has its appeal but to the "hardcore fans" might seem like pandering. In my book, taking such creative risks is healthy for the series as some ideas stick and some are not as popular, nonetheless better than being stale.

 

[8housesofelixir]

A lot of the comments are saying they are not a fan of the fantastical elements in certain game modes, e.g. heroes and vampires (though I think it's interesting other societies are not complained about as much). Civilization is a franchise that already is a history game with a heavy undertone of fantasy. Dido, Gilgamesh, and now Lady Trieu are semi-legendary figures; more well-established figures like Cleopatra, Hammurabi, and Jayavarman claimed to be god kings. History sort of blurs into "legends" with the passage of time. Heck, the avatar we take in the game are immortal leaders that live through the millennia. For this reason, I think more creative (some read that as "cartoony") depictions of characters in Civ VI works really well.

Guess you missed the almost massive outrage against the whole SS gamemode on the forum when the 4 SSs were revealed. Vampires, Ley Lines, Cthulhu elements, ahistorical names, etc., all these elements received heavy attacks.

There are people who can tolerate Teddy leading America since Bronze Age, or Apostles throwing lightings at each other, but cannot accept Fountain of Youth or Vampires, even if they are togglable. They will be still mad about "fantasy elements" in their "perfectly historical game".

I would say it is just a matter of taste instead of a design-level topic, since the devs just really cannot alter themselves to fit every single person's taste.

Still, I agree with your point: Togglable gamemode is a good way to bring these new elements into the game, even if there will be very vocal players who don't like it.

 

[InsidiousMage]

They will be still mad about "fantasy elements" in their "perfectly historical game".

I wasn't playing when the game first came out but how many complained about Gilgamesh being complete fantasy in a history based game?

 

[8housesofelixir]

I wasn't playing when the game first came out but how many complained about Gilgamesh being complete fantasy in a history based game?

IIRC not a lot. Probably because 1. there was a historical Gilgamesh, and the epic was based on him; 2. he is famous enough to left a positive image, unlike vampires (blood-drinking) or ley lines (pseudo-science) or Fountain of Youth (colonizers' wet dream) etc.

 

[anonxanemone]

Guess you missed the almost massive outrage against the whole SS gamemode on the forum when the 4 SSs were revealed. Vampires, Ley Lines, Cthulhu elements, ahistorical names, etc., all these elements received heavy attacks.

There are people who can tolerate Teddy leading America since Bronze Age, or Apostles throwing lightings at each other, but cannot accept Fountain of Youth or Vampires, even if they are togglable. They will be still mad about "fantasy elements" in their "perfectly historical game".

I would say it is just a matter of taste instead of a design-level topic, since the devs just really cannot alter themselves to fit every single person's taste.

Still, I agree with your point: Togglable gamemode is a good way to bring these new elements into the game, even if there will be very vocal players who don't like it.

I should say that I am not a big fan of the SS game mode (along with a few others) but fully support the developers making it. Sid Meier's design philosophy was "one-third old, one-third improved, and one-third new" so that means there's more to work with in the next iteration, right?

 

[InsidiousMage]

IIRC not a lot. Probably because 1. there was a historical Gilgamesh, and the epic was based on him; 2. he is famous enough to left a positive image, unlike vampires (blood-drinking) or ley lines (pseudo-science) or Fountain of Youth (colonizers' wet dream) etc.

I don't know, I like the more weird aspects of human history being represented in the game. Newton was an alchemist and people used to believe the gods lived on Mount Olympus and I don't mind stuff like that being in game personally.

 

[Myomoto]

I would say yes, but with the caveat that modes should more be in line of difficulty sliders: Make mechanics of the game more extreme/punishing, or require more micromanagement. That way a new player can slowly up the difficulty of empire management.

For example, a very obvious mode for such a system is something like Ironman. The game autosaves, and you cannot make any manual saves - whatever you do is what you'll have to live with.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that I think the Game Mode system is pretty smart, in that it lets you customize your game however you want, instead of forcing features that people may not want into the base game. It also gave them the option to really go out on a limb and try out some ideas that might have been less than entirely popular. Apocalypse Mode is a great example of that: it's fun every now and then, but I would hate it if I had to play it every game. Having the option to turn it on or off, is a great decision, imo.

If only the World Congress was a game mode

 

[Futumch]

If only the World Congress was a game mode

Absolutely. World Congress is dreadful, I'd always toggle that off.

 

[_hero_]

Guess you missed the almost massive outrage against the whole SS gamemode on the forum when the 4 SSs were revealed. Vampires, Ley Lines, Cthulhu elements, ahistorical names, etc., all these elements received heavy attacks.

There are people who can tolerate Teddy leading America since Bronze Age, or Apostles throwing lightings at each other, but cannot accept Fountain of Youth or Vampires, even if they are togglable. They will be still mad about "fantasy elements" in their "perfectly historical game".

I would say it is just a matter of taste instead of a design-level topic, since the devs just really cannot alter themselves to fit every single person's taste.

Still, I agree with your point: Togglable gamemode is a good way to bring these new elements into the game, even if there will be very vocal players who don't like it.

I think the outrage would have been worse had it not been toggleable. I also think that if the devs had introduced the game modes in a different order there might have been less outrage. Early on, when people were just starting to see what was in NFP, they could only react to what was known. The impression created by releasing a mode based around soothsayers and then a mode with vampires created the impression that the game modes were primarily going to be a fantasy-based thing. If they started off with Monopolies/corporations and tech shuffle and dramatic ages, the perception would be that the game modes are just an a way to make the gameplay feel more extreme and varied. Then if they introduced the more outlandish fantasy-based modes the people who have no interest in that wouldn't have felt that NFP was just loaded up with things they didn't want because they'd already gotten things that they found more appealing.

Personally, my attitude was always that I wanted to see the entirety of NFP before I formed an opinion about it but most people on the internet these days feel the need to rush to form an opinion with limited information.

 

[sonicmyst]

The problem with game modes is if it is overpowered or uninteresting, then bundled up with a civ you really like, is like paying for an overpriced DLC just for the civ with a meh mode.

 

[aieeegrunt]

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.

If Bethesda could make modding on consoles work with the Gamebryo engine of all things, nobody else has any excuse for not offering mods on console

 

[ViterboKnight]

I say "Yes".
In the latest installments of Civ (say, Civ5 and Civ6) I've found so many features and mechanics to make the game very complex, at least IMO.
I'd like to be free to play WITHOUT certain features that I don't find interesting (for ex., espionage, and the Ideologies of Civ5). I'd like to better focus on what I like and enjoy, without having my entire game been screwed up for some aspects I, honestly, don't like.

All this, for the sake of "Game customization". Every player be free to play the kind of game he likes more.


Edit: of course, game modes, to be well balanced with each other....!

 

[KayAU]

I voted no. My reasons are very much the same as for @Zaarin. It's not that it can't be fun to turn on a few toggles and shake it up, but the biggest flaw of Civ VI for me right now, is how little interconnection there is between systems. Another is how many systems are just dropped in there and never refined (like the World Congress, to name one). Instead we keep getting more and more content, much of it in the form of these new game modes. I'd much rather they worked on the core game, and if a new system was to be added, it should be properly integrated with the rest of the game, not just stacked on top of the pile.

 

[Abaxial]

Game modes like Heroes can be fun occasionally, but the big problem is this - it seems to be the case that when Firaxis produce a new game mode, they just code it up and dunp it into the game. What they don't do is reprogram the AI. This gives the player a big advantage, as the player reads the patch notes and understands the system that's been introduced. The AI can't read the patch notes, so doesn't understand what a cultist is or what an industry does, and will recruit a hero just to be the escort for a settler.

As someone said previously, one gets the impression that Firaxis only think of Civ 6 as a multiplayer game (in which case everyone has read the patch notes and knows what to do), whereas IRL most people play Civ 6 as a single-player game.

 

[ShakaKhan]

I say 100% yes. I respect the arguments made against game modes, especially being more modular and disadvantageous to the AI, but the key selling point for me is that if you don't like the new content, or even if you like it but it compromises the main premise of a strategy you want to apply to a particular game, you have the option of turning it off. Additionally, while making a great game is one of the developer's motivations which I feel they succeeded at, so is making money. And they do so by making the add-on content more appealing to the consumer, which leads to power creep. For example, I view the decision about whether or not to join a secret society as similar to the decision about whether or not to found a religion - they're both non mandatory options that you can pursue to augment your potential but at an opportunity cost or pass on completely, but the opportunity cost of founding a religion is much higher and the payoff for joining a society is much greater. I concede that comparing religions and secret societies is an apples to oranges comparison, but the point is the newer game mechanics are going to be stronger and more exploitable than the old ones, and it's nice to have the option to play without them.

 

[Piranga]

No absolutely not.

Corporations are the only new game mode that fit into Civ's historical 4x genre. While this game mode is fun and somewhat nostalgic of the corporations many loved in Civ4, this game mode lacks any depth in the overall strategy of the game. This should have been a full expansion feature with a financial victory linked with it.

I would take an expansion with one properly implemented, game changing, mechanic, over 6 small (out of genre) completely imbalanced (ai can't use most the features) anytime.



This game mode experiment was as complete failure to me.

 

[sonicmyst]

Game modes, I think are the dev's experiment to determine which feature will be included or refined in the next iteration of the game.