So if the even numbered Civs are the better ones, your expectations for 7

[Gorbles]

Oh, no, my argument is invalidated because they made a couple moderate-sized changes more than a decade ago! No company the size of 2K will ever take the kind of risks necessary to redefine the game. That's why big companies don't make good games. Of course they will introduce new ideas; they do actually want you to buy a sequel. Not all AAA games are CoD. But bold decisions and corporate culture do not walk hand in hand.

But you're proving my point. You framed the changes I mentioned not just in your own interpretation of how major they are, but also with regards to time.

Redefinition isn't inherently good. Being risk-averse isn't inherently bad. But risky changes absolutely happen. Now, sure, they're often made in service of making a game. To sell. For example Mass Effect: Andromeda. I'm not here to rag on the game, I quite liked it and regardless of its issues a lot of work went into it. But the setting was created to get around the plot of the original trilogy. To sidestep it, but also be able to tell (and sell) a Mass Effect game.

Let's take different example. Dawn of War II. I can confirm with "I heard this directly from the game lead" (back when I was a young DoW fan who lucked into some pre-release events) that he wanted to design the game as different from the start. He had a specific vision of a more micro-based, action-driven RTS. The game was polarising on release. It worked out in the end, and the game certainly had a fair amount of support, but it was absolutely polarising. It split the franchise fanbase roughly into two groups. A small overlap of folks who preferred both, but to this day there are people who swear on the original and people who swear on DoW II.

They tried something new with DoW III, back in 2017, and it didn't pan out. At all. It couldn't reconcile the two types of fan with a third version that mixed elements of both. There's no direct correlation, but it's interesting to see that their next two projects (Age IV, now released, and Company of Heroes 3, still in active development) are more conservative when it comes to delivering on design principles (keeping the multiplayer more purist while saving experimentation for the SP portions of each game).

What I'm trying to demonstrate is you can't generalise as easily as you're trying to. Being conservative with changes in an established franchise depends heavily on the studio, the publisher, and the existing fanbase. A fanbase that might not even be shared for different products the studio has developed.

As a result, big companies can still put out good games. But that's just opinion vs. opinion. And I think you're strongly underselling the impact of a conservatively-minded fanbase's impact on the product. I like developers that try new things even if they don't turn out perfect, or even good. I'm a big fan of trying and failing vs. not trying at all. This view puts me in conflict with fans far more than it does the games I buy.

 

[Zaarin]

Redefinition isn't inherently good. Being risk-averse isn't inherently bad.

I agree, but nothing of quality gets made by making safe choices. There's a reason why there is a wild variety of quality from horrible to great in indie games, while AAA games are all generically on the low end of mediocre.

For example Mass Effect: Andromeda. I'm not here to rag on the game, I quite liked it and regardless of its issues a lot of work went into it. But the setting was created to get around the plot of the original trilogy. To sidestep it, but also be able to tell (and sell) a Mass Effect game.

Andromeda was the game that made me consign BioWare to oblivion; it killed the last vestige of apprehensive interest I had in DA4. I don't count on great plots from BioWare generally speaking, but I do expect sharp dialogue and memorable companions. The only companion I can recall from MEA I remember because I wanted to shove him out an airlock without a space suit. It didn't help that I swear Ryder wasn't a day older than fifteen.

And I think you're strongly underselling the impact of a conservatively-minded fanbase's impact on the product.

No, I'm not. Fans who want "more of the same" are precisely why big companies refuse to take risks. I'm of the perhaps elitist opinion that fans don't actually know what they want and should probably be ignored, but corporate "the customer is always right" mentality will continue to repackage the same game over and over as long as they can continue to get away with it. That's absolutely as much the fault of the fanbase as the company.

I like developers that try new things even if they don't turn out perfect, or even good. I'm a big fan of trying and failing vs. not trying at all. This view puts me in conflict with fans far more than it does the games I buy.

I agree. This is also why successful devs often end up leaving the big companies to start or join smaller ones where they have more creative freedom (see, for instance, BioWare hemorrhaging all its talent over the past few years).

 

[AsH2]

Fans who want "more of the same" are precisely why big companies refuse to take risks. I'm of the perhaps elitist opinion that fans don't actually know what they want and should probably be ignored, but corporate "the customer is always right" mentality will continue to repackage the same game over and over as long as they can continue to get away with it. That's absolutely as much the fault of the fanbase as the company.

What about your "double down on leaders"?

Compared to the early Civ games, some elements have been 'double downed' and made fans polarized:
like units or leaders - too much content to just move around or to skip around.


Having Ed Beach as Lead designer again, for what reason?
To make Civ 7, a new better version of Civ 6?!?
Will be interesting to see fans' reaction then..

 

[Zaarin]

What about your "double down on leaders"?

What about it? I specifically said change for change's sake isn't good; obviously they should keep the elements that work well. There are also certain elements that are part of a franchise's identity that shouldn't change. I also said I don't realistically expect major changes.

 

[kaspergm]

I agree, but nothing of quality gets made by making safe choices. There's a reason why there is a wild variety of quality from horrible to great in indie games, while AAA games are all generically on the low end of mediocre.

I don't fully agree with this. As pointed out earlier in the thread, Civ2 and Civ4 stand as some of the best of the series exactly because they were fairly conservative. Now I'm not saying that no major changes should ever be made, but experience shows that when a major change is made, they usually don't get it right in the first try. Hence the "follow up" iterations to polish off things.

So I guess the two questions are:
1) Do we consider Civ6 and Civ5.2 in the same way that Civ2 can be considered a Civ1.2 and Civ4 can be considered a Civ3.2? I'm not sure myself whether the question to that is yes or no. In some ways, Civ6 is very much a Civ5.2 - it inherits hexes, 1UPT, much of terrains and improvements and unit system, etc. - but in other ways, it made big changes in its own right - districts, most noticably - and I also have some doubts with regards to my next question, which is:
2) Do we feel that Civ6 has fulfilled its own full potential in the same way that Civ2 or Civ4 did - i.e. do we need a "shake the bag" iteration of the game, or do we need a "polishing off" iteration of the game?

Personally, I'm leaning more towards a "polishing off" for the next iteration, because as much as Civ6 did many good things, it also did many things horribly wrong. However, I doubt that is what we'll get. My fear is that if they shake the bag with Civ7, they'll build on all the wrong things from Civ6 (looking at you, NFP, *shudders*).

 

[Zaarin]

I don't fully agree with this. As pointed out earlier in the thread, Civ2 and Civ4 stand as some of the best of the series exactly because they were fairly conservative. Now I'm not saying that no major changes should ever be made, but experience shows that when a major change is made, they usually don't get it right in the first try. Hence the "follow up" iterations to polish off things.

I don't see "conservative" and "bold" as contradictory. Making a bold choice is not the same thing as making reckless change for its own sake. As I've stated repeatedly, I'm not at all asserting change for change's sake as a positive thing.

Personally, I'm leaning more towards a "polishing off" for the next iteration, because as much as Civ6 did many good things, it also did many things horribly wrong. However, I doubt that is what we'll get. My fear is that if they shake the bag with Civ7, they'll build on all the wrong things from Civ6 (looking at you, NFP, *shudders*).

I agree with all of this. Civ7 building on Civ6's good ideas and improving them with a few targeted new ideas (e.g., overhauling religion and diplomacy, bringing back AI personalities) would be ideal IMO. I'm crossing my fingers that, despite NFP's commercial success, the developers are aware that NFP was not well received.

 

[reddishrecue]

Civ 1 was good but civ 2 was better. Civ 4 was even way better than 2 and civ 5 had the good sounds. Civ 6 was even better and was the biggest expansion yet. As for Civ 7, I have no idea what could happen since one civ that came out after the last one was better. As a pattern civ 7 could be better, yeah, but the question is in what? since civ 5 was better in some of its soundtracks that sort of sounded like the godfather, civ6 had us going with the new frontier passes, civ 6 is the best, the most recent and this could happen to civ 7 also even though the soundtracks in 5 could be better than the sounds that appear in civ 6.

 

[Gorbles]

I agree, but nothing of quality gets made by making safe choices. There's a reason why there is a wild variety of quality from horrible to great in indie games, while AAA games are all generically on the low end of mediocre.

I don't agree with this necessarily. Look at Horizon (Zero Dawn / Forbidden West), or even something relatively safe like Jedi: Fallen Order. They're both success stories, managed by two of the biggest publishers going (Sony and EA respectively).

I think maybe we went through a spell of this, and it's certainly embodied by certain big-name franchises, but in the past few years I've noticed more risk-taking on things like new IPs and whatnot. Or re-inventions of a franchise that (imo) do it well (Assassin's Creed, for example). There's quality there for sure. But I don't know what mediocre looks like for you. I don't know what you expect from a game (not criticising that either, but would love to know).

No, I'm not. Fans who want "more of the same" are precisely why big companies refuse to take risks. I'm of the perhaps elitist opinion that fans don't actually know what they want and should probably be ignored, but corporate "the customer is always right" mentality will continue to repackage the same game over and over as long as they can continue to get away with it. That's absolutely as much the fault of the fanbase as the company.

Ah, for once I'm in good company

I agree. This is also why successful devs often end up leaving the big companies to start or join smaller ones where they have more creative freedom (see, for instance, BioWare hemorrhaging all its talent over the past few years).

This . . . depends. I mean obviously all I have are anecdotal stories based on my proximity to and history with various developers, but there are very few truisms when it comes to job movement in games, except "being made redundant" (which overwhelmingly impacts the lowest-rung jobs on the market, junior talent, QA, etc). Just look at Blizzard for recent evidence of less-than-great developers making the jump to their own place (before they got pushed).

A good example I like to fall back on are the Torchlight developers - Runic Games (originally). TL1 was good fun, TL2 was great fun, and TL3 though far more polarising I think they did as good as job with as they were able (before Perfect World pulled the plug). TL3 was technically made by Echtra Games, founded by one of the founders of Runic, with a bunch of folks from Runic (and Blizzard). Two of the other main folk at Runic left earlier, and founded Double Damage Games (Rebel Galaxy - never played it though). These movements are common and not necessarily related to losing talent, or whatever. Though obviously Runic wasn't a huge studio in the first place.

It's complicated, at the very least. Sometimes it's just as simple as getting the chance to make that one game they've always wanted to make. This tends to happen at the senior role and up because they have the most financial mobility and flexibility. And at the same time, they're the most visible as they tend to be established names that at least some people recognise.

 

[Zaarin]

I don't agree with this necessarily. Look at Horizon (Zero Dawn / Forbidden West), or even something relatively safe like Jedi: Fallen Order. They're both success stories, managed by two of the biggest publishers going (Sony and EA respectively).

Fallen Order was a great game, and I say that as someone with no affection at all for Star Wars. But it wasn't a safe game. First, EA believed there was no profit in single player games and was absolutely astonished people liked it. What's more, it was sharply critical of many SW tropes--no doubt thanks to having Chris Avellone on the writing team. Can't comment on the Horizon games as I haven't played them.

in the past few years I've noticed more risk-taking on things like new IPs and whatnot.

As someone who loves Morrowind and has been pretty apathetic to everything Bethesda has done since, I'm eagerly awaiting the results of Bethesda's first foray into a new IP in...forever basically. I'm expecting them to crash and burn, but if anything can save them from their malaise this would be it.

But I don't know what mediocre looks like for you. I don't know what you expect from a game (not criticising that either, but would love to know).

I admit I have high expectations, and being a chiefly narrative gamer my highest expectations are on story and worldbuilding--which is probably why most "big name" games I play are strategy games, where those things still apply but to a much smaller degree. More directly related to the subject at hand, the future of Civ, what I want from a historical 4X game is tight, well-integrated game play, a healthy dose of historical flavor, and a gorgeous soundtrack and art style. Civ6 does really well on the latter two and not so great on the first so that's what I'm hoping for Civ7's future: tightened up gameplay that feels better integrated with its own systems. (More broadly, though, I'm willing to tolerate a lot if the story is good. I've played Brothers - A Tale of Two Sons many times with a mouse and keyboard. )

This . . . depends. I mean obviously all I have are anecdotal stories based on my proximity to and history with various developers, but there are very few truisms when it comes to job movement in games, except "being made redundant" (which overwhelmingly impacts the lowest-rung jobs on the market, junior talent, QA, etc). Just look at Blizzard for recent evidence of less-than-great developers making the jump to their own place (before they got pushed).

A good example I like to fall back on are the Torchlight developers - Runic Games (originally). TL1 was good fun, TL2 was great fun, and TL3 though far more polarising I think they did as good as job with as they were able (before Perfect World pulled the plug). TL3 was technically made by Echtra Games, founded by one of the founders of Runic, with a bunch of folks from Runic (and Blizzard). Two of the other main folk at Runic left earlier, and founded Double Damage Games (Rebel Galaxy - never played it though). These movements are common and not necessarily related to losing talent, or whatever. Though obviously Runic wasn't a huge studio in the first place.

It's complicated, at the very least. Sometimes it's just as simple as getting the chance to make that one game they've always wanted to make. This tends to happen at the senior role and up because they have the most financial mobility and flexibility. And at the same time, they're the most visible as they tend to be established names that at least some people recognise.

Fair. Like I said, I specifically had BioWare in mind, who, over the last few years, has lost all of their original talent (Casey Hudson is still there, but, well, I said talent ), including developers who have been there for 15-20 years. I know the industry as a whole is complicated with a lot of turnover just due to the high pressure environment. BioWare's problems are another topic.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

Things I want from Civ 7:

Totally reworked world Congress - closer to Civ V than VI’s iteration. Random proposals just don’t work for me. I think anyone should be able to call a concern to Congress provided they have the diplomatic favor to do so.

I, unlike some people in the thread, vastly prefer very unique design between civs to 4 or even 5 where I felt like aside from some novelties civs were very generic with just slight leanings to one victory over another. So I’d like to see more civs like Mali, Babylon, Maori.

Reworked score victory (I don’t know how I’d rework it though)

Competent military AI + tiles accommodating two types at once such as 1 ranged and 1 melee can occupy the same tile at once or one siege and one melee etc. This may also be pie in the sky but I’d be willing to accept less overall civs if it meant they were programmed with their own Ais to take advantage of their benefits rather than a generic build order.

I doubt this will happen but - leader succession ala old world.

 

[Zaarin]

Totally reworked world Congress - closer to Civ V than VI’s iteration. Random proposals just don’t work for me. I think anyone should be able to call a concern to Congress provided they have the diplomatic favor to do so.

I'm not confident in the possibility to make it worthwhile. I don't remember how it worked in Civ4, but I hated it in Civ5 and hated it even more in Civ6. I'd rather see it gone entirely, never to return.

I, unlike some people in the thread, vastly prefer very unique design between civs to 4 or even 5 where I felt like aside from some novelties civs were very generic with just slight leanings to one victory over another. So I’d like to see more civs like Mali, Babylon, Maori.

I very much agree--at least on Mali and Maori. I think Babylon was a flavorless gimmick.

I doubt this will happen but - leader succession ala old world.

This would be a deal breaker for me. Old World and Crusader Kings 3 are great games, but dynastic succession is not a good model for Civ. If Civ wants to borrow from CK3, I'd much rather see it imitate CK3's religion and culture systems.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Old World and Crusader Kings 3 are great games, but dynastic succession is not a good model for Civ. If Civ wants to borrow from CK3, I'd much rather see it imitate CK3's religion and culture systems.

I'd almost be OK with Civilization VII just being Crusader Kings III but spread out from circa 4,000 BC - 2050 AD.

If it only takes one thing from Crusader Kings III, obviously it the Religion/Culture system (post-Royal Court).

But if it takes one other thing, I'd be interested in seeing if Civilization could successfully implement a Regions system.
I'd even be alright with only a single map with asymmetric and utterly unbalanced civilizations.

The one thing I'd want Civilization to keep over a Crusader Kings clone would be One Unit per Tile combat instead of Stacks of Doom

And if Firaxis won't give us that, maybe one day Paradox will create a direct competitor to Civilization and Humankind.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

I'm not confident in the possibility to make it worthwhile. I don't remember how it worked in Civ4, but I hated it in Civ5 and hated it even more in Civ6. I'd rather see it gone entirely, never to return.


I very much agree--at least on Mali and Maori. I think Babylon was a flavorless gimmick.


This would be a deal breaker for me. Old World and Crusader Kings 3 are great games, but dynastic succession is not a good model for Civ. If Civ wants to borrow from CK3, I'd much rather see it imitate CK3's religion and culture systems.

What don’t you like about leader succession? I don’t want the CK3 model, that’s a bit too in-depth for me. I’d like the succession system to replace both the era (not a fan of the era system) and policy cards. You can select successors that will play to what you want during their lifetimes etc

maybe I should preface this by saying I enjoyed 6 tremendously but felt it was far too board gamey. I’d hope they go a bit more toward immersion next iteration.

 

[Zaarin]

If it only takes one thing from Crusader Kings III, obviously it the Religion/Culture system (post-Royal Court).

Yes, agreed. Ever since I first played CK3, its religion system has made me want something similar in Civ, and the culture system added in Royal Court is also phenomenal.

But if it takes one other thing, I'd be interested in seeing if Civilization could successfully implement a Regions system.

I have very mixed feelings about that. I'm fine with it in CK where it makes eminent sense, but I've never liked it in Endless Legends or Humankind--or even the fixed city locations in Old World. I want to be able to settle where I want.

What don’t you like about leader succession? I don’t want the CK3 model, that’s a bit too in-depth for me. I’d like the succession system to replace both the era (not a fan of the era system) and policy cards. You can select successors that will play to what you want during their lifetimes etc

I guess it depends on what we're talking about. A succession system like the Great Minister system @Boris Gudenuf has talked about I'd be fine with, where you get a succession of characters who are essentially glorified governors or akin to the Endless franchise's heroes. What I would be adamantly against is changing leaders during game, both for diplomacy reasons (it's much easier to form rivalries or attachments with "one leader, one civ") and for pragmatic development reasons (would you like the ten most obvious civs with five leaders each or would you like fifty civs?).

 

[reddishrecue]

I'm not confident in the possibility to make it worthwhile. I don't remember how it worked in Civ4, but I hated it in Civ5 and hated it even more in Civ6. I'd rather see it gone entirely, never to return.

Civ 4 had the apostolic palace and the united nations which made the leader and the person with most votes by population become leader to lead the proposals of the diplomatic screen. The world congress in civ 5 and civ 6 however were kind of annoying. For all 3, the most particular annoying thing was the return city to ... but what you could do in civ 4 is say NEVER and you become a world villain... Other than that you could abstain and not do anything but it did get kind of annoying because everyone would get mad at you including your citizens.

 

[Zaarin]

Civ 4 had the apostolic palace and the united nations which made the leader and the person with most votes by population become leader to lead the proposals of the diplomatic screen. The world congress in civ 5 and civ 6 however were kind of annoying. For all 3, the most particular annoying thing was the return city to ... but what you could do in civ 4 is say NEVER and you become a world villain... Other than that you could abstain and not do anything but it did get kind of annoying because everyone would get mad at you including your citizens.

The option to defy the UN/World Congress would be a big improvement. "Oh, you're banning all my luxuries? Enjoy your asceticism."

 

[Naokaukodem]

I would bet for an entire new system of city management, possibly without cities at start, for a pretty "long" period if the player chooses it, or during collapses. Otherwise I don't see the need to have a Civ7, Civ6 was doing pretty well (aside "overrandomization") and could have been upgraded even more. (plus it works pretty well on low power machines)

EDIT : so, maybe they will do a Civ7 designed specificly for high power machines, with superb graphics, so that it might have a point at least. (the same point I switched from Civ1 to Civ2, and Civ2 to Civ3, although there was multiplayer in 3 too)

 

[Zaarin]

so, maybe they will do a Civ7 designed specificly for high power machines, with superb graphics, so that it might have a point at least.

I don't see what benefit that would bring to a 4X game personally. You can make a nice looking 4X game without needing a NASA supercomputer to process the graphics.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Well, that was the major reason to have sequels... at least by the past. Because let's face it, why have a sequel if that's always the same thing ? I don't play Civ4 just because it's ugly, and it was ugly since the start. But I could play 5, 3 and I even re-installed 2 some time ago. No need for another "version" of what is the very same game at this point, with some tweaks.

Nowadays the Games As A Service (GaaS) model has done its proofs, maybe it would have been wiser from 2K to continue VI. Give me a good reason to make the same thing a little bit differently other than groundbreaking graphics.

You can make a nice looking 4X game without needing a NASA supercomputer to process the graphics.

But who talk about a NASA supercomputer ? My computer is nearly 12 years old, and I can run Civ6 smoothly on it, and many games of the PS4/XboxOne generation with some sacrifices. Just make the minimal requirements a computer of nowadays.
Old World runs terribly on my computer, and it's not even about the graphics, it's about how the game is processing with high demand on GPU and probably CPU too, just to avoid to take too many GB on your disk.

 

[Zaarin]

But who talk about a NASA supercomputer ? My computer is nearly 12 years old, and I can run Civ6 smoothly on it, and many games of the PS4/XboxOne generation with some sacrifices. Just make the minimal requirements a computer of nowadays.

I'm just saying that of all the things they could invest their time in, maxing out the graphics probably isn't the best choice. The engine has and will improve with each iteration; that's kind of a given.

Nowadays the Games As A Service (GaaS) model has done its proofs, maybe it would have been wiser from 2K to continue VI.

Please don't give them ideas.