[NFP] We need historical game modes too!

[Red Adept]

Nonsense, I paid for that update when I bought the game.

That may be true, but at some point you have to realise that your return on investment has well been satisfied and everything else you receive is gravy.

Consider a standard video game through most of their history. You make one purchase, you get the game.... that's it. If it's buggy... too bad, you bought it, that's what you get.

Now, not only are you complaining that you bought a game and years later, you're still getting updated content and that's considered 'not fair' that you got something you won't play... your argument tends to lose credence.

 

[The Civs 6]

That may be true, but at some point you have to realise that your return on investment has well been satisfied and everything else you receive is gravy.

Consider a standard video game through most of their history. You make one purchase, you get the game.... that's it. If it's buggy... too bad, you bought it, that's what you get.

Now, not only are you complaining that you bought a game and years later, you're still getting updated content and that's considered 'not fair' that you got something you won't play... your argument tends to lose credence.

I mean video games are now software as a service, as evinced by the fact that I'm paying to essentially rent a year of Civ content. Valve regularly makes incredible content that is available to everyone for free. The landscape is very different from the days when you paid $50 and you got your box, and that was it.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm not speaking for anyone but myself, and I know that I'm bringing in ideas from other games that aren't of interest to everyone, as far as the quality of the product goes. But I still think that few people who play Civ are very excited about fantasy.

And I'm not disagreeing on that point. Like I said, I'm not thrilled with the fantasy elements. I'm fine with the other Secret Societies, but I cringed when they showed the vampires. For that reason SS certainly isn't something I'll use every game--which will still be more often than Apocalypse mode, which I doubt I'll ever use. I still think Civ6, despite all its flaws, is the best Civ game by a considerable margin; I can appreciate that there are people who preferred earlier versions, though.

 

[The Civs 6]

And I'm not disagreeing on that point. Like I said, I'm not thrilled with the fantasy elements. I'm fine with the other Secret Societies, but I cringed when they showed the vampires. For that reason SS certainly isn't something I'll use every game--which will still be more often than Apocalypse mode, which I doubt I'll ever use. I still think Civ6, despite all its flaws, is the best Civ game by a considerable margin; I can appreciate that there are people who preferred earlier versions, though.

Yeah ultimately how I feel about Civ 6 is that it isn't the game i want it to be, but it clearly has a lot to love for a lot of people.

but i find spending time on fantasy to be baffling when people are generally tepid about it, and they go crazy for real new civs.

 

[Red Adept]

I mean video games are now software as a service, as evinced by the fact that I'm paying to essentially rent a year of Civ content. Valve regularly makes incredible content that is available to everyone for free. The landscape is very different from the days when you paid $50 and you got your box, and that was it.

True, but to drive home the point. You used to buy that box, play the game for a year or two (until you bought a new system or upgraded your DOS and couldn't play that game anymore) and then it would sit on your shelf. Now you spend your $50 and rather than just get a box with everything that's listed on the label, Firaxis rolls up and offers bug updates and occasional free content... as well as the opportunity for you to expand the game. Now it's back on you if you buy the updates. Nothing's changed with your original purchase, you still have that game and can still play it.

The complaint you seem to have is that when they described this latest content that the 'optional modes that include fantasy elements' weren't stressed more? They did let us know that was part of the package. If you purchased the pass, you knew that was involved. If you didn't, you have the option to not purchase this update as you don't want everything in it.

I mentioned previously, I don't play the scenarios...that is content that has absolutely no value to me. I'm not put out that I paid for that in addition to all the other stuff I wanted. It's like that biscuit you get with your fried chicken. (who wants that stuff anyway?)

I'm personally annoyed with the Fountain of Youth and the Bermuda Triangle. That's MY biggest gripe about the fantasy elements... They should be part of a fantasy mode that could be turned off to not ruin the 'historic' immersion. (not getting into how much the Fountain of Youth and Seven Cities of Gold may have led to the exploration of the New World... does that make them historical?) I'd be more upset about that rather than having 'comets' rained down on me (talk about fantasy!) because of climate change.

I admit that vampires are a bit silly with regard to the secret societies... they lost me a bit on that one as everything else seemed pretty awesome. They could have made an aggressive bellicose secret society using the Hashashim (Order of Assassins) which would have fit in nicely. But they didn't. Maybe a mod will take care of that problem.

 

[The Civs 6]

True, but to drive home the point. You used to buy that box, play the game for a year or two (until you bought a new system or upgraded your DOS and couldn't play that game anymore) and then it would sit on your shelf. Now you spend your $50 and rather than just get a box with everything that's listed on the label, Firaxis rolls up and offers bug updates and occasional free content... as well as the opportunity for you to expand the game. Now it's back on you if you buy the updates. Nothing's changed with your original purchase, you still have that game and can still play it.

The complaint you seem to have is that when they described this latest content that the 'optional modes that include fantasy elements' weren't stressed more? They did let us know that was part of the package. If you purchased the pass, you knew that was involved. If you didn't, you have the option to not purchase this update as you don't want everything in it.

I mentioned previously, I don't play the scenarios...that is content that has absolutely no value to me. I'm not put out that I paid for that in addition to all the other stuff I wanted. It's like that biscuit you get with your fried chicken. (who wants that stuff anyway?)

I'm personally annoyed with the Fountain of Youth and the Bermuda Triangle. That's MY biggest gripe about the fantasy elements... They should be part of a fantasy mode that could be turned off to not ruin the 'historic' immersion. (not getting into how much the Fountain of Youth and Seven Cities of Gold may have led to the exploration of the New World... does that make them historical?) I'd be more upset about that rather than having 'comets' rained down on me (talk about fantasy!) because of climate change.

I admit that vampires are a bit silly with regard to the secret societies... they lost me a bit on that one as everything else seemed pretty awesome. They could have made an aggressive bellicose secret society using the Hashashim (Order of Assassins) which would have fit in nicely. But they didn't. Maybe a mod will take care of that problem.

I mean I agree with your point in the first part, and I find the whining about pricing to be just atrocious and reeking of entitlement.

Honestly I thought they would be doing a lot more to balance the core gameplay, and that's where I find myself feeling motivated to complain on the forums about the content that NFP is putting out there. I'm not really offended by the mere presence of fantasy in the game, as as others have pointed out there have been official fantasy scenarios in past games (although I've never cared for those either).

But I can see that I erred because my expectation about what NFP would be was based on what I thought the game needed, rather than how it was advertised.

 

[Zaarin]

Yeah ultimately how I feel about Civ 6 is that it isn't the game i want it to be, but it clearly has a lot to love for a lot of people.

but i find spending time on fantasy to be baffling when people are generally tepid about it, and they go crazy for real new civs.

I agree. I think the devs are just trying to have some fun, but honestly a lot of what they're trying to do with fantasy content could have been done with more historical flavor.

I'm personally annoyed with the Fountain of Youth and the Bermuda Triangle. That's MY biggest gripe about the fantasy elements...

I could have lived with Paititi (which may have existed in some form, just not literally made of gold), and I could have lived with Fountain of Youth (just pretend it's some other wondrous location, as someone else suggested). The Bermuda Triangle is the baffling one to me: there's nothing wondrous about it, and science doesn't even bear out the urban legends surrounding it. However, what really annoys me about these three isn't so much their fantastic nature as that the world is filled with wondrous locations that could have been chosen instead.

 

[FinalDoomsday]

Sure, but "stylized" and "cartoonish" are not at all the same thing. There's nothing particularly cartoonish about Civ6's art direction, and at least back on release most of the complaints seemed to be centered around the fact that the color palette wasn't recycling Civ5's "fifty shades of mud." The entire industry has generally moved away from hyper-realism in the past decade because hyper-realism ages really poorly, really quickly. There's also been a general move away from the "reality is a shade of brown" trope.


Humankind looks lovely. It also looks very stylized. Just saying.

Humankind is stylised in a very different way to civ 6 bar perhaps the custom avatars which look somewhat similar to Civ 6's leaders from what I've seen of them.

Take a look at Civ 6 units they appear as small bands and pull off lots of over the top finisher kills like the spearman skewering a guy and chucking him over his shoulder, the rifleman leaps over the enemy and shoots him point blank and the swordsman does some Legend of Zelda style sword slashes.

Compare that with Humankind's combat which so far seems to be trying to look a little more grounded with actual formations of men fighting.

I'm quite suprised you don't consider the art direction cartoonish its really seems quite strong to me, putting the leaders aside the units lean quite a bit into exaggeration and a light hearted comic feel like this concept art for the Eagle Warrior:
Given he looks a bit more normal in game but they still kept the exagerated top-heavy muscular build and I think a lot of the military units go for that top heavy build you can go ahead and look at the other artworks for the unique units and I'd say they go pretty heavy into the toony look (the rough riders horse is visibly snarling) For me at least the concept art shows Firaxis was actively going for a toony look. Then of course later we got the Govenors from Rise and Fall.

Anyway I'm aware I'm going off topic here and looking back I really shouldent be suprised at the direction Civ 6 has gone considering the tone was set pretty early and I concede the series always has had whimsy seeping in from the edges (I started with Civ 4 cant speak for anything earlier) it just feels its becoming more prominent as of late.

 

[The Civs 6]

Humankind is stylised in a very different way to civ 6 bar perhaps the custom avatars which look somewhat similar to Civ 6's leaders from what I've seen of them.

Take a look at Civ 6 units they appear as small bands and pull off lots of over the top finisher kills like the spearman skewering a guy and chucking him over his shoulder, the rifleman leaps over the enemy and shoots him point blank and the swordsman does some Legend of Zelda style sword slashes.

Compare that with Humankind's combat which so far seems to be trying to look a little more grounded with actual formations of men fighting.

I'm quite suprised you don't consider the art direction cartoonish its really seems quite strong to me, putting the leaders aside the units lean quite a bit into exaggeration and a light hearted comic feel like this concept art for the Eagle Warrior:
Given he looks a bit more normal in game but they still kept the exagerated top-heavy muscular build and I think a lot of the military units go for that top heavy build you can go ahead and look at the other artworks for the unique units and I'd say they go pretty heavy into the toony look (the rough riders horse is visibly snarling) For me at least the concept art shows Firaxis was actively going for a toony look. Then of course later we got the Govenors from Rise and Fall.

Anyway I'm aware I'm going off topic here and looking back I really shouldent be suprised at the direction Civ 6 has gone considering the tone was set pretty early and I concede the series always has had whimsy seeping in from the edges (I started with Civ 4 cant speak for anything earlier) it just feels its becoming more prominent as of late.

I have animations turned off, so I had no idea about all that until this post. Imagine all of the resources that went into that...

And I think there is a big difference between having whimsy at the edges (like having the x-com guys or whatever in the uber late game) and having it front and center, like having vampires in your marketing videos, but also freaking hockey rinks and Wilfred Laurier talking about toques.

I think this is relevant to this conversation. The designers could have just as easily made a game mode that fits into Civilization's traditional aesthetic. They could have taken something like international corporations. Heck it might have been palatable enough to, I dunno, make into an actual mechanic in the actual game lol. The very fact that these are optional modes kind of says something about them...

 

[Zaarin]

Humankind is stylised in a very different way to civ 6 bar perhaps the custom avatars which look somewhat similar to Civ 6's leaders from what I've seen of them.

Indeed. The general point being that there are numerous styles that developers of games can pursue; neither Civ6 nor Humankind, thankfully, have pursued hyper-realism.

I'm quite suprised you don't consider the art direction cartoonish

I wouldn't call the in-game art style cartoonish, especially since most people who use the term mean it as a pejorative. The environment art style, despite its vibrant palette, is far more detailed than one would expect of a cartoon. I actually have to criticize Civ6's art direction as far as leaders go because they haven't really stuck to a single style: on the one hand, you have leaders who are mostly realistic with only slight stylization (TR, Poundmaker, Genghis Khan, Tomyris, etc.), then you have leaders who are extremely stylized and arguably "cartoonish" (Cleopatra, Gilgabro, Pedro, Wilhelmina, etc.), with most leaders falling somewhere in between those two extremes. I really think they should have spent more time choosing a specific, distinct art style for the leaders.

The designers could have just as easily made a game mode that fits into Civilization's traditional aesthetic

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Civ5 was the odd one out with its dingy "realistic" art style (in quotes because honestly Civ5 was and is an eyesore), majestic leader screens, and general gravitas in its tech/wonder quotes. I think Civ4 is much more representative of the franchise as a whole: a stylized art direction and a mix of serious and humorous tech/wonder quotes (granted in much better tastes than most of Civ6's puerile attempts at "humor"). In that regard, Civ6 is much more like Civ4 than it is like Civ5, though again I will freely acknowledge that Civ6's attempts at humor are poor (and even when not attempting to be humorous many of Civ6's pre-GS tech quotes are just bizarre--the Ginger Rogers quote for Advanced Flight being the worst IMO).

 

[The Civs 6]

Indeed. The general point being that there are numerous styles that developers of games can pursue; neither Civ6 nor Humankind, thankfully, have pursued hyper-realism.


I wouldn't call the in-game art style cartoonish, especially since most people who use the term mean it as a pejorative. The environment art style, despite its vibrant palette, is far more detailed than one would expect of a cartoon. I actually have to criticize Civ6's art direction as far as leaders go because they haven't really stuck to a single style: on the one hand, you have leaders who are mostly realistic with only slight stylization (TR, Poundmaker, Genghis Khan, Tomyris, etc.), then you have leaders who are extremely stylized and arguably "cartoonish" (Cleopatra, Gilgabro, Pedro, Wilhelmina, etc.), with most leaders falling somewhere in between those two extremes. I really think they should have spent more time choosing a specific, distinct art style for the leaders.


I've said it before and I'll say it again: Civ5 was the odd one out with its dingy "realistic" art style (in quotes because honestly Civ5 was and is an eyesore), majestic leader screens, and general gravitas in its tech/wonder quotes. I think Civ4 is much more representative of the franchise as a whole: a stylized art direction and a mix of serious and humorous tech/wonder quotes (granted in much better tastes than most of Civ6's puerile attempts at "humor"). In that regard, Civ6 is much more like Civ4 than it is like Civ5, though again I will freely acknowledge that Civ6's attempts at humor are poor (and even when not attempting to be humorous many of Civ6's pre-GS tech quotes are just bizarre--the Ginger Rogers quote for Advanced Flight being the worst IMO).

I guess I see Civ 6's "puerile" form of humor and whimsy, an excellent figure of speech for the situation, as the aesthetic approach that is inconsistent with the rest of the series, but I think reasonable minds can differ on that point. I think a parallel point about Civ 6's aesthetic is its deliberate and self-conscious attempt to emulate a board game (IE gov't cards) and I don't like that either.

 

[Zaarin]

I think a parallel point about Civ 6's aesthetic is its deliberate and self-conscious attempt to emulate a board game (IE gov't cards) and I don't like that either.

You won't get any argument from me there; Civ6 is quite unapologetic about emulating a board game (which probably shouldn't be a surprise with Ed Beach at the helm).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I wouldn't call the in-game art style cartoonish, especially since most people who use the term mean it as a pejorative. The environment art style, despite its vibrant palette, is far more detailed than one would expect of a cartoon. I actually have to criticize Civ6's art direction as far as leaders go because they haven't really stuck to a single style: on the one hand, you have leaders who are mostly realistic with only slight stylization (TR, Poundmaker, Genghis Khan, Tomyris, etc.), then you have leaders who are extremely stylized and arguably "cartoonish" (Cleopatra, Gilgabro, Pedro, Wilhelmina, etc.), with most leaders falling somewhere in between those two extremes. I really think they should have spent more time choosing a specific, distinct art style for the leaders.

Civ VI's art is not 'cartoonish', it is 'fantasy'. The over-emphasized upper bodies, oversized weapons, animations that are wildly extravagant - it is all the type of work seen in fantasy art. In fact, the depictions of unit figures in Civ VI reminded me instantly of the fantasy miniature figures manufactured by Games Workshop for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K fantasy and science-fantasy miniature games: people who look like grotesque bodybuilders wielding swords and spears big enough to rupture a great ape.

I suspect part of the reason for choosing that style is that the exaggerated depictions makes it much easier to identify every unit: no subtle differentiations of weapons to confuse those of us with old dim eyes or poor graphics cards. The same choice is in the terrain/map: relatively bright and exaggerated colors and land forms and vegetation making it easy to see what the map is showing you (except for the 'Fog of War' fiasco in the Vanilla game).

Note that in contrast, Humankind is going for a much more naturalistic map/terrain and units. It will be interesting to see if the natural terrain, as gorgeous as it is, also serves the utilitarian purpose of making all the terrain easily identifiable in-game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I guess I see Civ 6's "puerile" form of humor and whimsy, an excellent figure of speech for the situation, as the aesthetic approach that is inconsistent with the rest of the series, but I think reasonable minds can differ on that point. I think a parallel point about Civ 6's aesthetic is its deliberate and self-conscious attempt to emulate a board game (IE gov't cards) and I don't like that either.

Well I'm more of a board gamer than a PC gamer anyway so that's maybe why I've enjoyed the game far more than others have.

 

[Red Adept]

Honestly I thought they would be doing a lot more to balance the core gameplay, and that's where I find myself feeling motivated to complain on the forums about the content that NFP is putting out there. I'm not really offended by the mere presence of fantasy in the game, as as others have pointed out there have been official fantasy scenarios in past games (although I've never cared for those either).

But I can see that I erred because my expectation about what NFP would be was based on what I thought the game needed, rather than how it was advertised.

They usually don't make splash videos about updates to the core play and rebalancing unless it's a major change to game play. Any 'under the hood' changes they make tend to get released in patch notes. With the Ethiopia update, we do get some strong mention that diplomatic favor gains get changed, but we're still not sure just what that means.