I understand that there was some strange kind of pick up in the competitive community in 6 that spiked its popularity in the last 3-4 years. It tapped into that zoomer streaming competitive games thing they have in that generation. Of course, I recall that Civ 2 had a version of this, starting with that one WWII mod which was massively popular. I'm not sure the franchise has ever repeated this, where Civ 4 BTS being such an exceptionally good DLC on top of the pinnacle of classic civ that it carried the popularity of the franchise through two less impressive games.
The hate for Civ7 will end the series, if not soon then eventually
- Thread starter aelf
- Start date
- Status
kaspergm
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,796
I don't think modding community will be able to make big changes to Civ6 gameplay at this point. Unless they decide to release the .dll at some point, I personally doubt there'll be much evolution to Civ6 from this point. There were some attempts at large-scale mods with the City Lights mod, but even though that project was moderately succesfull, it was still severely limited by not having access to the source code imo. It was simply forced to make some design decisions in the mod that made it less fun than it could have been given more freedom.
Elhoim
Iron Tower Studio Dev
There's a reason it was called Oblivion with Guns.
Lonecat Nekophrodite
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2019
- Messages
- 2,815
so you can say that civ6 modding community is no longer active ?
kaspergm
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,796
I'm not in a position to say that. I'm just saying I don't believe we'll see huge game-changing overhaul mods for Civ6 like we did for Civ5 (and I think Civ4) unless access to source code is given.
Lonecat Nekophrodite
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2019
- Messages
- 2,815
Then there's still a good future on it. even if the best mods only shift some units and readjust techs and not the whole game system.?
I would even argue Fallout 2 isn't a real Fallout. Series have gone such a steep downhill...
From my own memories Classic Civ was about stacks. You stacked armies, stacked cities with improvements and wonders.
You did (as others have said) get a little tactical with city placement and tile improvements. Linking cities with railroads was always fun for me fwiw.
But, it was very much about managing and balancing numbers, with the immersion of playing as a specific civ (and in later games — specific leader ).
The newer games are more tactical focused.
You did (as others have said) get a little tactical with city placement and tile improvements. Linking cities with railroads was always fun for me fwiw.
But, it was very much about managing and balancing numbers, with the immersion of playing as a specific civ (and in later games — specific leader ).
The newer games are more tactical focused.
thecrazyscot
Spiffy
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2012
- Messages
- 3,107
And yet, almost anyone talking about Fallout today is talking about the franchise from Fallout 3 onward, so... Fallout 3 is Fallout, regardless of internet navel-gazing.
Franchises should (I think) evolve. Hopefully it's good for them. Sometimes it's not.
Honestly, there's just a fundamental divide which means this will just be an endlessly looping discussion until everyone loses interest.
On the one side, you have people who view mechanical decisions as franchise-defining (mechanics-first). Is Fallout an isometric rpg with turn-based combat or a first-person rpg with real-time combat?
On the other, you have people who view themes, narrative, and general design choices as franchise-defining (framework-first). Is Fallout about a vault-dweller navigating the wasteland, making (hopefully) meaningful choices and telling the resulting story?
I find the mechanics-first approach to be arbitrarily limiting to a franchise's potential, ultimately resulting in tired retreads of the "same old thing" over and over again. The framework-first approach, in my opinion, allows for mechanical innovation and fresh ideas. It might not always work, but ultimately I still find it a more appealing approach.
New Vegas was built off fallout 3 and people seem to think it carries the spirit of the franchise well. One of the major substantive complaints about the direction of the franchise is that it was once a role playing experience with meaningful dialogue choices and now it’s just a hollow action game. New Vegas proves that the format issue isn’t as central to that complaint.
Civ 7 though isn’t even within that discussion, it’s on the level of Starfield, or worse Sim City or Kerbal Space Program 2.
Sure, but it's a bit different when you have an RPG with a story, lore, worldbuilding, etc. versus a 4x which has that in far, far lesser amounts. To the extent that you could say Civ had lore and worldbuilding, it likely would have been "to build a civilization that stands the test of time" (which was removed in this latest iteration). Thus, a series like Civilization will be almost solely defined by its mechanics, where RPGs like Fallout, Mass Effect, and The Witcher are not.
stealth_nsk
Deity
While I agree with your point, I'd say there are some pure narrative parts of the Civilization franchise, even if they are as small as "immortal leaders leading their civilizations from first agricultural settlement to space".
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,711
If it's narratives you're looking for, Civ7 has it in spades with the events, etc. That makes the story much more clear to me than what the symbol on the shield next to my guy is.
Civ is an easygoing strategy game with lots of flavor to it. And every iteration does it well. Even VII.
My gripes with the game focus solely on mechanics.
The game does not need story to it, you are the one creating it.
I personally think the end of the series will be when the mechanics arent good enough. VII needs some work still. Some things I just dont personally enjoy, ever. But this might still work in grand scale just like V or VI if they pour their minds and souls to it.
Any negatives hopefully pushes them more, not just drain all willpower to keep the studio alive surely? It seems they have some chemistry left? People enjoying their work?
My gripes with the game focus solely on mechanics.
The game does not need story to it, you are the one creating it.
I personally think the end of the series will be when the mechanics arent good enough. VII needs some work still. Some things I just dont personally enjoy, ever. But this might still work in grand scale just like V or VI if they pour their minds and souls to it.
Any negatives hopefully pushes them more, not just drain all willpower to keep the studio alive surely? It seems they have some chemistry left? People enjoying their work?
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,711
Yeah, there are some mechanics I don't care for much. That's been the case for me going back to earlier versions too, and that hasn't stopped me from liking them.
MutilationWave
IDDQD
In civ you can write your own narrative. It can be as complex or basic as you want it to be. You can let it live in your head or write it down for others to read like we've been doing since the new patch. For some, civ switching breaks the narrative. I think it makes it more interesting.
In my current game, my poor, culturally and scientifically backwards people were devastated by the power of the horse. They adopted chariots to fight back, but they saw that the power of well-trained and armed horsemen could defeat chariots with ease. Since they never reached this level of training or weaponry in game, in my narrative they focused on honing the tactics, armor, and weapons between ages, so they start exploration as Mongols, ready to bring the fight to the technologically advanced people that had harmed them in the past. They don't have much in the way of gold, treasure, or resources. What they do have is an army of vicious psychopaths on horseback, bent on revenge for their people's past suffering.
Most of that narrative happened in my head, guided by the way antiquity played out.
Civ 7 offers plenty of meat for you to build your narrative. And with the new patch the AI can kick your ass, which I love, and that provides more narrative.
In my current game, my poor, culturally and scientifically backwards people were devastated by the power of the horse. They adopted chariots to fight back, but they saw that the power of well-trained and armed horsemen could defeat chariots with ease. Since they never reached this level of training or weaponry in game, in my narrative they focused on honing the tactics, armor, and weapons between ages, so they start exploration as Mongols, ready to bring the fight to the technologically advanced people that had harmed them in the past. They don't have much in the way of gold, treasure, or resources. What they do have is an army of vicious psychopaths on horseback, bent on revenge for their people's past suffering.
Most of that narrative happened in my head, guided by the way antiquity played out.
Civ 7 offers plenty of meat for you to build your narrative. And with the new patch the AI can kick your ass, which I love, and that provides more narrative.
Last edited:
thecrazyscot
Spiffy
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2012
- Messages
- 3,107
Fallout 3 came out 17 years ago, it was wildly popular, redefined the franchise, and any complaints about it weren't significant enough to impact its reception, success, or longevity. There's no point in arguing about whether it feels like Fallout, because it set the standard of "what Fallout is" since then.
My point is that mechanical pivots can be successful for a franchise, and wildly so. Obviously Civilization 7 has clearly not had the same successful reception, and it remains to be seen whether it will be turned around enough to have any longevity. It could be an experiment which is ultimately deemed a failure. Or, it could be a pivot point for the franchise that defines the next several iterations. Ages and civ switching could be viewed as franchise features in 5-10 years. We just don't know yet.
If it is a failure, I (to bring it back to the OP 15 pages prior) do think there's a real chance it ends up being the last Civilization. I hope not, but corpos don't seem to like even marginally successful investments any more, the way things are going it seems every large company pulls the plug on anything not wildly successful.
Last edited:
thecrazyscot
Spiffy
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2012
- Messages
- 3,107
I agree that different genres have different framework expectations, but not that the 4x framework is as specific as you seem to be saying.
I don't even think we agree on the interpretation of "to build a civilization that stands the test of time". The operative word, of course, is "civilization", and I don't interpret it in a way which requires, say, leading the Aztecs from pre-history to the stars. I don't want to risk a major off-topic tangent, so I'll leave it at that, with the simple addendum that I also recognize the game itself can't seem to settle on a consistent interpretation of the word either, which really muddies things.
Askia Muhammad
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2019
- Messages
- 252
I’ll have to strongly disagree. The narrative events are a jumbled mess with virtually no cohesion. I find them to be immersion breaking rather than contributing to a story.
Anytime I’m shoehorned into a pre created narrative (and one with tons of random unrelated pop ups at that) it’s not going to be very immersive - especially with a loading screen between ages ..
They definitely focused on MP first over a SP narrative style game
They're not good. They rarely appear. One that I think is meant to follow on another really gives no sense that there's any connection. Civ 7 is an unfinished or underbaked game. It had bad development. It's not the concepts.
- Status
Similar threads
