So, what do you expect from Civ7 ?

[Naokaukodem]

Revolutionnary could be seen like ideas there is in my signature, IMO, where the idea is you can basically play every type of faction, especially barbarian/"classical" civs that would live into symbiosis. *But* this idea is mostly unachieved and would take a lot of time to mature possibly.

Evolutionnary would basically be a second Civ6, Civ6.5, where everything is improved included the end game, the AI (maybe by giving it even more advantages in Deity, or with deep learning, or simply better, more aggressive programmation like in Civ5), a better UI, better graphics, etc. The evolutionnary Civ7 could be seen as a mix of Civ5, Civ6, and Civ5/6 mods, with possibly some nice touches of previous iterations. (like Civ3 colonies/ethnicity, or Civ2 graphical leap forward)

 

[Jaybe]

It will be different, evolutionary and some revolutionary aspects, with things to like and others to dislike . I will strive to enjoy learning it and enjoy it afterwards regardless.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

In all likelihood, it will be a mix of both. Firaxians have their famous 33/33/33 recipe, after all. But at the moment, my tastes are running towards revolutionary.

I'm trying to avoid having specific expectations, however. That's a road that leads to disappointment.

 

[Naokaukodem]

It will be different, evolutionary and some revolutionary aspects, with things to like and others to dislike . I will strive to enjoy learning it and enjoy it afterwards regardless.

Obviously, if it's revolutionnary, there will still be elements we could call evolutionnary, otherwise it would not be Civ anymore. So I guess the evolutionnay bit comes without revolutionnary bits at all.

 

[Naokaukodem]

In all likelihood, it will be a mix of both. Firaxians have their famous 33/33/33 recipe, after all.

IIRC it's 33% New, 33% old, 33% modified ? Or something like that. Well "New" doesn't mean revolutionnary at all cost I would say.

 

[UWHabs]

IIRC it's 33% New, 33% old, 33% modified ? Or something like that. Well "New" doesn't mean revolutionnary at all cost I would say.

Yeah, new doesn't necessarily mean something fundamentally different from any iteration before.

The longer it goes, the more you expect something different. Like if it takes until next year and "all" you get is civ 6.5, that probably would be a little disappointing. But I still think it will look more like civ than any of the other 4x games that have been out recently. I'm sure there might be pieces from some of them, and there's bound to be some new concept that changes how you approach things, but I think 6 is a fairly solid basis to build from so I don't see them need to re-invent the wheel.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Was thinking about this a while back, and aside from the old 33/33/33 rule, as a Thought Experiment, I wondered how the outbreak of new Historicalish 4X games since Civ VI came out might influence what exactly gets changed and what remains the same.

After all, knowing what did and didn't work in Humankind, Millennia, Old World, et al gives us a pretty good indication of what will or won't appear in Civ VII.

So, we won't see fixed starting positions of any kind, thanks to Old World and Millennia.
We won't see successive Civs thanks to Humankind
We won't see the same graphics we saw in Civ V or VI, thanks to Millennia and Humankind and Old World. Like it or not, the graphics in all of those were criticized for one thing or another, just as Civ VI's graphics were grumbled about when it first came out. This is one place where I suspect they are trying very hard to come up with Something Really New.

Thanks to Old World and Crusader Kings III, they may be looking at some way to Personalize the Leaders, even have some kind of Dynastic mechanic instead of or patched onto the Immortal Leaderboards. How that would work I have no idea, but it would be building on the personification of individuals which is already a major part of Civ: named Leaders, Governors, Great People, etc.

Which you can be certain will be in Civ VII: compared to the blandness of characters in Millennia (where there aren't even any named Leaders) and Humankind (ditto) the plethora of named Everybody in Civ goes a long way towards helping the gamer identify with his Civ. I wouldn't be surprised to see some way of making some of the currently-ephemeral named characters more Permanent, like a University (or Madrasah) named after Sir Isaac Newton - but only if you get Newton as a Great Scientist.

And I would not be surprised to see Civ VII generally Double Down on Customizing Factions/Civilizations: ways to make your cities look individually different on the map, and your armies and navies and even civilian units specific to your individualized Civ/Faction, and named map features that, perhaps, you can name and rename during the game: Player Agency, whenever it has been curtailed, has been roundly panned in all the newer games, so don't be surprised if Civ VII emphasizes that in every way it can.

 

[reddishrecue]

I'm not sure what to expect... I just don't have the predictability to know what could happen next. All I know is that when civilization 7 does come out I will try to get it if I have enough money.

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

i expect it to be fun to play. i expect to be entertained. i will leave the how to firaxis.

 

[vorlon_mi]

I expect the core of Civ to remain: build cities, improve them, link them together to forge an empire. Both military and diplomatic tools will be available to deal with neighboring civs. Pursue one of (at least) 5 victory conditions. Make decisions about how to allocate resources, including city production and currency/gold. Progress through a tech tree to learn new skills.

I expect some items that were very successful in Civ6 to remain: districts, a.k.a. unstacking cities; many leaders from all over the world, released as DLC or expansions; customizable religions and governments. Even though it's not my favorite aspect, I expect that global climate change will be present (in some form) in Civ7.

I expect Civ7 to have a diplomatic victory condition, but it will be different. In each game from Civ3 through Civ6, the details of the diplomatic victory has been different. I expect Civ7 to be different again. I expect Civ7 to have a science victory, but it will be different. Again, the details of the science victory have varied from Civ1 to Civ6.

I expect innovation in Civ7 in the areas of culture and religion. Both of those areas seen much innovation since Civ3, when they were first introduced.

 

[Naokaukodem]

i expect it to be fun to play. i expect to be entertained. i will leave the how to firaxis.

If you don't know what would be fun to you, how can you expect a tier, Firaxis, to know in advance for you ?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

If you don't know what would be fun to you, how can you expect a tier, Firaxis, to know in advance for you ?

Don't all gamers expect Game Developers to know exactly what each individual wants and give it to them?

And complain long and loud when they don't get it?

Personally, I expect Firaxis to use Swamis. Lots and lots of Swamis . . .

 

[InsidiousMage]

If you don't know what would be fun to you, how can you expect a tier, Firaxis, to know in advance for you ?

Its Firaxis's job to make good games and not everyone has (hyper-)specific ideas of what constitutes fun and some people, in fact, prefer to try things they wouldn't have thought of in the first place. Personally, I would much rather Firaxis trying something new that hasn't been thought of over them trying to appeal to the, sometimes, hyper-specific ideas/demands the fanbase has.

 

[AntSou]

If you don't know what would be fun to you, how can you expect a tier, Firaxis, to know in advance for you ?

We would all still be playing Pacman if creativity and game design was left to the average player.

"Can you imagine, in the future, there will be like a giant map for Pacman to roam, and different types of enemies, and maybe the map will even be randomly generated! What astounding possibilities the future of gaming holds!" - Joe Shmoe, circa 1981.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Don't all gamers expect Game Developers to know exactly what each individual wants and give it to them?

And complain long and loud when they don't get it?

Personally, I expect Firaxis to use Swamis. Lots and lots of Swamis . . .

Yeah that's why I took the bull by the horns and send them a letter (20 years ago if not more, so hey the ideas don't come from Sid but from me for the most part ) and giving suggestions in the place they read like here.

Its Firaxis's job to make good games and not everyone has (hyper-)specific ideas of what constitutes fun and some people, in fact, prefer to try things they wouldn't have thought of in the first place. Personally, I would much rather Firaxis trying something new that hasn't been thought of over them trying to appeal to the, sometimes, hyper-specific ideas/demands the fanbase has.

Wait isn't there something called "player feedback" that has always existed and is supposed to enlighten the devs about why a random game had success ? In the case of Civ, it's "one more turn", "caveman to cosmos" (not the Civ4 mod) (although that one may have been the core design at the source by Sid Meier, just an idea that worked) and strategy thinking ? Thing is the last enjoyable Civ solo I played was Civ3, and yet I was no convinced by the Deity mode, which I quickly rushed but in an ironman mode so my starting location was kind of terrible (between two portions of water). To me, the most enjoyable Civ is a Civ we can beat in Deity without feeling overwhelmed. [Difficulty wise, and feeling-I'm-done-with-it wise, which is kind of hard to figure out with Civ6 with so many very different civs : you want to try to win with every one in Deity ideally] (Civ2 and a little bit of 3, but just more from the journey than the destination, i.e. playing lower difficulty levels and harder and harder, I mean, my best plays were not in Deity that's for sure) OTOH, I wrote to Firaxis that Civ2 Deity was too easy, because when I completed a couple of games in that modes, I considered to be done with it. Maybe I wanted more replay-value for that kind of trip, I mean, the "one more turn" I don't take care anymore, the "caveman to cosmos" is still enjoyable although I'm a bit accustomed with it by now (hence the need to magnify it by any mean), and the strategy thinking I learned to appreciate it with Civ5 and Civ6 in solo but that's definitely not my playstyle, where I voluntarily let me carried by the turns that follow one another and rarely say myself "stop ! I need to think here" and finds myself in inextricable situations where the game is simply lost. (not counting all the frustrations that make me quit because Civ6 is a bad game overall IMO) But I keep coming to it, with no success though. I guess that those youtubers are really viral after all.

We would all still be playing Pacman if creativity and game design was left to the average player.

"Can you imagine, in the future, there will be like a giant map for Pacman to roam, and different types of enemies, and maybe the map will even be randomly generated! What astounding possibilities the future of gaming holds!" - Joe Shmoe, circa 1981.

True. I keep repeating it, which is sometimes badly received. But I'm not an average player. (more the kind of creative player, although not all my own ideas suit me as a player, because Physics I guess. )

 

[InsidiousMage]

Wait isn't there something called "player feedback" that has always existed and is supposed to enlighten the devs about why a random game had success ?

And there is good feedback and bad feedback, hence why I wrote "hyper-specific," which is the bad kind of feedback. "Diplomacy is weak and boring and I would like it be more impactful" is the good kind of feedback while "Here is my 12-point plan to make diplomacy the greatest" is the bad kind of feedback. Players do not, and should not, need to know what exactly the want from a sequel other than to improve on the previous installment, that is literally the job of the devs, who I trust to do better job of designing a game, since its literally their job, than someone on a forum posting a mini-manifesto about what should or should not be in Civ7.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Uh well uK.

The problem of "mini-manifesto"-s is that they are most of the time a collection of isolated ideas with no link with what will be the actual core of the next game. From that basis, you obviously can't predict right whether your ideas will suit the new game or not. (spoiler : not) They just can try to assume that they work on the basis on a previous iteration, and I do it some times.

Now there is another type of "mini-manifesto" where you really interest yourself in the core of the game, like I did with the idea in my signature. I don't say it will be adopted by Firaxis, and the more we talk about it the less it will be likely to be so, but if something like that, at least of the same 'magnitude', is not done for Civ7, I will for sure pass on it.

 

[pokiehl]

And there is good feedback and bad feedback, hence why I wrote "hyper-specific," which is the bad kind of feedback. "Diplomacy is weak and boring and I would like it be more impactful" is the good kind of feedback while "Here is my 12-point plan to make diplomacy the greatest" is the bad kind of feedback. Players do not, and should not, need to know what exactly the want from a sequel other than to improve on the previous installment, that is literally the job of the devs, who I trust to do better job of designing a game, since its literally their job, than someone on a forum posting a mini-manifesto about what should or should not be in Civ7.

Well said. Some of the hyper-specific feedback here feels like it would just kill the game.

Edit: I also think that giving too much credence to fan feedback during the beta stages is what killed Humankind ultimately. Fans aren’t designers and are ultimately quite capricious.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Well said. Some of the hyper-specific feedback here feels like it would just kill the game.

Do you have any kind of example of "hyper-specific feedback" that "would just kill the game" ? Because I don't get you at all here...

 

[pokiehl]

Do you have any kind of example of "hyper-specific feedback" that "would just kill the game" ? Because I don't get you at all here...

I don’t want to call anyone out specifically or hurt peoples’ feelings. Just go read the Ideas subforum.

There are long diatribes about very specific, granular details, like modeling soil health or overcomplicating any given system of the game for the sake of realism.

I appreciate that the feedback is enthusiastic and stems from peoples’ excitement about their pet subject or whatever, but the average fan just doesn’t have a background in game design or enough experience to give actionable and realistic
feedback.

Knowing a bunch of facts about history doesn’t make your videogame ideas good, unfortunately.