Should we expect expansions?

[Camikaze]

they didn't??? How come my memory tells me otherwise? Vanilla was barebones compared to the final version of BTS, and we only saw the stripped features added later in paid content, as "expansions". Granted, those "expansions" saved the game from the Shafer disaster, but still...

I believe one of the Firaxicon talks either last year or the year (or some other interview) before addressed religion in particular. When Civ5 was initially being developed, it was thought that religion might be put in the game, so some barebones work was done. But then it was quickly decided that it just wasn't going to work with the vanilla design (at least not without far more development time/resources than could be spared). Some artefacts of the barebones religion system implemented extremely early in the game's development weren't completely scrubbed out, leading some people to think that it had been deliberately stripped out to be sold in G&K - but this wasn't the case - rather, there was a very early design decision not to include religion in Civ5. Had they decided to include religion in the base game, it likely would've been a poorly implemented mess. Alternatively, they could've delayed the game by a year or two, which is about the development time that was needed to eventually get religion in the game in G&K (under a new design, by a new designer).

The practice which most people would have a problem with is putting in effort to fully create features, and then deliberately withholding them so they can be sold as DLC. The constraints on developer time which prevent every system under the sun from being implemented before the base game is released are not remotely the same; there was no option for Firaxis to release religion as a Civ5 DLC on Day 0, because they hadn't actually developed it.

 

[Amrunril]

Expansions, yes. Zero sum games, NO. Big NO.

Any next version of any series, to remain honest to their long term customer base, must always include the main features of the last complete version. An EXPANSION has to be that: expand on the already existing main features and content, INCLUDING the previous version of the game's franchise.

What they did in Civ 5 is unacceptable: stripping the vanilla version from already well established features (religion, UN/World Congress mechanic, well known civilizations, etc) to only add them later in paid for "expansions" is a NO NO in my dictionary of honesty.

What they are claiming to be doing now (keeping all features from civ 5 Complete for civ 6 vanilla) is the only way to go, and should be the standard. Let us see if they comply.

I see this complaint a lot, but I don't find it very convincing. Every feature you complain about being removed and added back in worked in a different, usually more complex manner in the Civ V expansions than it did in Civ IV. Creating new mechanics takes work, as does adapting existing mechanics to an entirely new game system, and there's absolutely no reason to expect that a vanilla game will contain the same amount of content as game with two expansions.

Furthermore, even if you do disagree about whether Firaxis' treatment of these features was fair or reasonable, there's no reason to call it dishonest. Firaxis never claimed these features were present, and indeed it was perfectly clear from the information available in prerelease articles and discussion that they weren't present. You're certainly entitled to your opinion about whether Civ V contained enough content to be worth purchasing at release, but claiming there was any dishonesty about that amount of content is simply not justified.


Returning to the original topic, I see no reason not to expect expansions for Civ VI People speculated that Civ V wouldn't have expansions because of the advent of individual civ DLCs. People speculated that BE wouldn't have expansions because it was a spinoff and relatively poorly received. Both these games received expansions, and I fully expect that Civ VI will as well.

 

[dexters]

G&K launched in June of 2012, Vanilla Civ launched in fall of 2010 (September?) that's more than a 1.5 year spread. Patching for Vanilla didn't end until sometime in summer of 2011.

DLCs were launched in that time and at no point was there a major feature launched. Just new Civs/scenarios.

So the theory of 2K holding back features doesn't really make sense if you just examine the timing of the releases and what they actually released during that time.

 

[Aristos]

I had the same thought: that the devs are coming close to making Civ6 seem like a spectacular XP of Civ5, merely by keeping so much of what already works in 5.

As for sequels being required to carry forward the previous game's main features, I can only say 1 upt -- the feature most mentioned by players who prefer Civ5 over Civ4. Like it or not, this kills the rather unimaginative argument for needing to carry over all major aspects of a game.

Oh nonono, we are confusing features with execution of features, which is truly a mistake. Your argument being 1UPT as an example of new "feature" is weak, and rather unimaginative, I would say. The true comparison, in any case, is presence or lack thereof of Combat. 1UPT vs Stacks is the execution, the feature is combat. The feature is religion, the feature is some sort of World diplomatic organization, etc etc... if we see it that way, then sorry, but civ5 vanilla was stripped of FEATURES, and also executed others in a different way (1UPT, which I happen to like a lot, despite the AI limitations). Later expansions re-added lacking features, and ALSO executed them in a refreshing way (and again, I happen to like the new execution a lot), but it still was adding features stripped from the vanilla version. Whatever the motivation, it is hard to blame people, no matter the explanations, when they suspect foul play in such scenarios. To clarify, I am not suspecting foul play, but rather foul line of thinking from the original designer (I clearly remember the infamous words "Panzer General with cities" from the original designer, which speaks a lot about what he was "thinking", and which clearly has no room for nuisances like the religion FEATURE...).

We should not confuse these clearly different concepts to avoid misjudgments, me thinks.

 

[Txurce]

Oh nonono, we are confusing features with execution of features, which is truly a mistake. Your argument being 1UPT as an example of new "feature" is weak, and rather unimaginative, I would say. The true comparison, in any case, is presence or lack thereof of Combat. 1UPT vs Stacks is the execution, the feature is combat. The feature is religion, the feature is some sort of World diplomatic organization, etc etc... if we see it that way, then sorry, but civ5 vanilla was stripped of FEATURES, and also executed others in a different way (1UPT, which I happen to like a lot, despite the AI limitations). Later expansions re-added lacking features, and ALSO executed them in a refreshing way (and again, I happen to like the new execution a lot), but it still was adding features stripped from the vanilla version. Whatever the motivation, it is hard to blame people, no matter the explanations, when they suspect foul play in such scenarios. To clarify, I am not suspecting foul play, but rather foul line of thinking from the original designer (I clearly remember the infamous words "Panzer General with cities" from the original designer, which speaks a lot about what he was "thinking", and which clearly has no room for nuisances like the religion FEATURE...).

We should not confuse these clearly different concepts to avoid misjudgments, me thinks.

Oh yesyesyes. 1 upt introduced extensive tactical play to Civ by not carrying over the stack system. If you don't see tactical play as a feature built upon changing an existing one, I can't help you... just as I can't argue against your calling my pov "weak" because, uh, you say so.

 

[Aristos]

Oh yesyesyes. 1 upt introduced extensive tactical play to Civ by not carrying over the stack system. If you don't see tactical play as a feature built upon changing an existing one, I can't help you... just as I can't argue against your calling my pov "weak" because, uh, you say so.

Agree to disagree. I cannot help you either if you cannot see the difference between the feature and its execution, but I can argue against your calling my pov "unimaginative", and I did. In the end, though, they are just that: POVs.

 

[MadDjinn]

Ignoring the argument that mainline civ releases are just expansions....

Each dlc and expansion of civ v, as the recent example, was independent of the rest of the game. Didn't buy the expansion? You still got a vanilla patch and vanilla still played the same without the expansion.

That's the discernible point between Firaxis and paradox type dlc/expansions.