Who misses Soren...?

[Aristos]

Or, maybe the right question is, who doesn't?

Fascinating Interview:

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/04/06/soren-johnson-4x-strategy-interview/

At the center, Victory Conditions and their pros and cons, and a potential re-make of the concept.

 

[blackbutterfly]

In the interview he says he was disappointed with R&F.

 

[MrRadar]

In the interview he says he was disappointed with R&F.

‘He’ here is Adam Smith, the journalist. Soren does not say that.

 

[Victoria]

“But I’m very conflicted about the existence of victory conditions in a game like Civ. I feel like it distorts the game in a lot of ways”

This has always been my sentiment. Many seem to think civ is about winning one of the 5 victory conditions, I just wanna have fun.

 

[Prester John 2]

Thanks for the link, Aristos!

Johnson said: "“In 4X, the early stages where you have just a few cities or units work really well. What I want is a way for the game to put you back into that situation a few times. At that point, you know you have a few interesting options and the longer you play, the more they get pared back."

I always found that Rhye's and Fall handled that very well. New civilizations would come into the game all the time and you had the option to stay with your old civ (though facing destabilization and mass defections/new civ) or choose to start afresh with a new civ. The crucial challenge from the game designer's point of course was how to even the chances for the old and the new civ, giving each a chance to succeed. Rhye handled that very well in RFC but it was much more difficult to do in RAND, where a random map was involved because you couldn't just preplace certain events and cities for new civs.
The RevDCM basically tried a similar technique by using defections and civil wars but the new civs had it quite hard and it became a strain. I always used the options to develop new civs from barbarian cities.
What I would really love is if the Civ series expanded on that: changing horses midgame, starting afresh with new civs, giving major challenges not just with lame barbarian spawn but large scale triggered invasions. We all know that the AI has serious problems coordinationg large scale invasions and city capturing so it might be good to turn the challenge around. Expand on the loyalty meachnism and have cities declare their independence, thus forming new civs. And give players the option to take over new civs.

 

[Siptah]

To be fair, the late game would be very boring without victory conditions in civ games. Again, something that EUIV found a better solution for (without victory conditions, by introducing new mechanics and events as the game progresses).
Somehow I don‘t trust Soren to make a good game again. I feel like he had his hits with III and IV and don‘t expect him to get close to that quality again.

 

[Uberfrog]

It was an interesting interview, and I'm excited to see what Soren comes up with for Ten Crowns. I fully agree that the 4X genre needs some fresh ideas, and I'd love to see a historical game with some bright new ideas. I particularly agree with the fact that victory conditions need a rethink, as the long slog towards apparent victory has been a complaint levelled against all Civ games.

But it's clear that his game is so early in the planning stage, that... there's nothing really to get specifically excited or wistful about here. It's extremely easy to yearn for the supposed golden age of Soren Johnson (Civ IV is still available to play) when all he's doing is waxing lyrical about what his game might vaguely be. We have no idea how Ten Crowns is going to work out.

Furthermore, while Civ VI is hardly without fault, I have a lot of time for the design approaches of Ed Beach and Anton Strenger too, and there's a lot of features in both Civ VI and Rise & Fall that are innovative and enjoyable, and keep me playing (obviously).

In the interview he says he was disappointed with R&F.

It's worth mentioning also that Adam Smith really enjoyed Civ VI, even if he was disappointed with the expansion. You can find links to both reviews in the article.

 

[Victoria]

To be fair, the late game would be very boring without victory conditions in civ games.

sure it can be boring without targets, one must always have something to aspire to but must it be 3 of 5.
Where I think VI fails is not having something new late game, be it UN, violin concerts or ideological conflict. I think personally that a mercantile element should come into play mid game and a corporation element late game. The ability to think and play beyond civ borders once they have settled down would be spicey.
Virtual borders within the machine.
Cornering the luxuries, boycotting the soya, selling off that city to another corporation.
From waste management to wind farms there is so much opportunity.
Take it all, take it now, before some other civ gets their foot in the door.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

The most interesting thing to me was Soren's comment about spending his time right now making sure that the game is fun and challenging to play when you're the only civ in the game, and wanting to get that right before adding the next layer of having to deal with other civs.

I find the district system goes a long way towards doing that in Civ 6, making each city and empire a puzzle to fit together. I'm curious to see how Soren handles it.

 

[tedhebert]

Personally, I have played 4X games where victory conditions were less important or even inexistent, like stellaris for example, and honestly, for me, the lack of a specific goal was
not something I liked... Especially as you are learning the game, which makes it difficult for you to set realistic goals... I do play for fun, but I don't want to feel like I'm playing
a simulation ! I want to play a game, and to me, a game HAS a victory goal.

 

[Katakanja]

It's worth mentioning also that Adam Smith really enjoyed Civ VI, even if he was disappointed with the expansion.

Perhaps he was annoyed that Firaxis nerfed his namesake's great merchant ability in R&F

 

[Uberfrog]

Perhaps he was annoyed that Firaxis nerfed his namesake's great merchant ability in R&F

Ha, I read RPS, and Adam’s writing there, a lot and never made that connection before...

 

[Kwami]

To be fair, the late game would be very boring without victory conditions in civ games. Again, something that EUIV found a better solution for (without victory conditions, by introducing new mechanics and events as the game progresses).
Somehow I don‘t trust Soren to make a good game again. I feel like he had his hits with III and IV and don‘t expect him to get close to that quality again.

Did EUIV really find a better solution, though? Many EUIV players also complain that the late game is boring and easy because of snowballing. I'm not sure that anyone has a good solution to that problem, yet.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

The multiple victory conditions in civ have always bothered me. For one, it's hard to make sure the victory conditions are equal. For example, who can tell if the science victory requires the same amount of effort and time as the culture victory in a particular game? As a result, some civs will have an easier time winning than others based on what victory condition they are pushing for. Basically, the victory conditions are like separate railroad tracks where each civ is a train on its own track and each track is a different length. Each civ is not really competing with the other civs, they are just playing their own separate mini-game and seeing who can finish it first but each mini-game is not the same difficulty level. I would much prefer a civ game with only 1 victory condition so that each civ is truly competing for the same goal and same prize. Of course, this victory condition should encapsulate the different playing styles and relate to the empire building theme of the civ franchise. My idea would be to have each era have "victory goals" that award "victory points". This could fit into the era system of Rise & Fall. There would be victory points for every aspect of the game from building cities (wide), to getting a lot of population (tall) to building wonders, to getting Great Works, to discovering a new continent, to having trade routes, to mining strategic resources, to being a suzerain to a city state etc... So players could win with lots of different play styles. Basically, you would play until the end of the game and whichever civ has the most "victory points" would be declared the greatest civ in history. I would also award more points in latter eras so that civs that are behind could catch up in the end game. This would make the end game more interesting since civs who are behind could potentially win at the last moment. For example, a civ that is in 2nd place might pull off a last minute victory by achieving several victory goals in the information era. You would not be able to assume that just because you are in the lead in the renaissance era that you are going to cruise to victory.

 

[Siptah]

Did EUIV really find a better solution, though? Many EUIV players also complain that the late game is boring and easy because of snowballing. I'm not sure that anyone has a good solution to that problem, yet.

It is if you play a conquering game without stopping. But if you don‘t...
this is different with civ, where the late game is always a drag and only archeology is a new mechanic that comes up through research. For EU it also depends on who you play as. Is it as good as the first 100 years or Europe during the religious wars and coalitions? No. But it doesn‘t fall too far from the rest of the game and they keep improving it (for example adding coal and industrialization with the newest patch).

 

[MonkeyPaw]

A good game should appeal to different types of players- victory conditions are fine for players who want to "beat the game", others just want a fun sandbox to build their world in. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[Disgustipated]

I would much prefer a civ game with only 1 victory condition so that each civ is truly competing for the same goal and same prize.

Not me. I can kind of see the appeal in that, and it might be interesting in some kind of optional mode (which we already have in a way, except the AI's don't actually ignore the other victory conditions when they are disabled). But honestly I like winning in different ways with different civs. I like the variety of civs we have now, in that some are good at one thing, while others are good at another. This is one thing Civ6 does better than Civ4, even if I consider Civ4 a better game.

 

[historix69]

VCs are optional. You can always disable VCs when starting a new Civ game and for example use only the score to determine the victor of a game.

In Civ1 it was important
- in which turn did you reach future tech (personal benchmark),
- what was your biggest city / city with highest science output (personal benchmark),
- in which turn did you win the game and
- what was your score. (-> Hall of Fame)

 

[historix69]

... “Sid [Meier] didn’t know he was inventing a genre back in ’91
... we began with Civilization. It’s the single settler at the beginning of the 4X genre, ...

Did he?

Civ 1 to some part was inspired by Empire, a 4X game being around in the 70s and 80s in different forms, and other games.
In (Classic) Empire you start with a city, produce military units, explore the map (X), find other cities, conquer other cities (X), produce more military units (X) and finally eliminate the other players or are eliminated (X).
Classic Empire already had the "One more turn"-quality. (Some people called it addictive.)
So 4X-games in a simpler form existed years before Civ 1. Civ 1 added a lot of new features like founding new cities (instead of conquering existing ones), research, trade, happiness, wonders, ... but all those new features did not affect the inherited 4X-qualities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_(1972_video_game)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4X
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_4X_video_games


Edit :
In march there was another interesting article about 4X and the problem of "perpetual growth" on RPS :
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/20...how-civilization-reinforces-a-dangerous-myth/

 

[Liufeng]

This has always been my sentiment. Many seem to think civ is about winning one of the 5 victory conditions, I just wanna have fun.

For me, it's the fact that we hgave VC conditions that makes the game more interesting, and not just an empire building simulator. Actually, I feel like the game would be even better to have more VC (especially an economic and a diplomatic), so that instead of focusing in one type of victory, you may concentrate in two or three before specializing, while avoiding the ai to win.