You wrote that another person's perspective is against the grain in the community and that many players like a big victory moment that they build up to. Backed it up by the fact that civ6 is probably the most commercially succesful strategy game and has victory conditions.
I pointed out that it is false correlation.
I will repeat myself. In general writing a preference and backing it up with "majority thinks alike" (even if it would be a truth) is unneeded/low. It's a trick to make your opinion looks bigger. Completely unnecessary in a civil discussion.
The truth is not a "trick" and it is civil discussion to speak the truth even if it isn't what some people want to hear. I know what it is like to have my opinion be against the grain of the community. Civ 4 released and I didn't like the new model initially. There are threads of me discussing that here in the archives and most users here trashed Civ 3, my favorite at the time. The BTS Expansion cured a lot of my issues with 4 and it to this day remains my favorite Civ game to date. Civ 5 had so many issues with it from my perspective that never got better from my perspective, but it was a bigger seller. It brought in many new people to the series. Despite my disdain for the game, it was a great addition to the series because the community loved it and it grew the fanbase. I sat back and waited for Civ 6 while the community enjoyed 5. Civ 6, I was excited for - but it mostly disappointed me in the end. Yet, it is held in very high regard with the community.
Being against the grain isn't an insult unless you have an unhealthy desire to be in the majority for validation. However, being against the grain is knowledge worth knowing if you can accept it. The devs aren't going to shift the entire game's design for the minority of fans, nor should they, if we want to see Civ 10.
For the record, you pointed out what you THINK is a false correlation, I do not. I can support my view with examples of game developers who admit to copying Civ's formula. Civilization has been a market leader for a while, and while I think multiple aspects of Civ have catapulted it to the top of the sales charts. Multiple victories being one of them.
As this is a civil discussion, it would be ideal for you to offer a perspective, supported by examples (even if merely conjecture) so we can discuss it. Not simply tell me I am mean and wrong with no counter perspective as though this is an argument and not a civil discussion.
What is more a poll of 27 votes, without options like "I don't care about any victory" or "I never go for any victory" from the game without split ages, is irrevelant. I hope you understand that.
Was it even a multi-select poll? For people who like both military/score victories?
I just searched favorite victories and grabbed one from Civ 6. There are a lot more polls and discussion threads on the subject here and it always turns out the same. Everyone talks down on score victories in the discussion as "participation trophies". It is relevant because people have long held opinions of favorite victory types and why. Split Ages is just you adding criteria in an effort to invalidate the point. Being a sequel, this game had to be developed on the criteria (like victory preference) provided by previous iterations of the game. If you want to see more, just search "favorite victory" using the website's search function. It is conjecture reference data used to loosely support my perspective, something you have not provided to help me understand your perspective better. I am legitimately trying to understand your perspective, but you seem to not be interested in explaining your perspective, just rather are spending your time trying to invalidate my views on your perspective.
For example:
I say "By what criteria do you even form strategies?" if you find it extremely boring to ask "
will I benefit or not benefit from it in next age?" because that is the primary question most people use to form strategies.
You respond:
I feel like I am repeating myself but the most interesting criterias are based on current in-game situation (interaction with other players, eventually a map).
If an option A is always a green button then it is not a good strategy game.
Maybe third time you will not interpolate my response into some nonsense and then answer it.
"Based on current in-game situation", "interaction with other players" and "eventually a map" does not in any way form a strategy. Those aren't even complete sentences. Where is this green button you keep talking about? Use actual examples of gameplay so I can better understand. Don't just make up a pretend green button. Use Civ 1-6 examples. Reference the gameplay videos you say you haven't watched, watch them real quick, skip the little progress bar at the bottom to what you are wanting to reference to give me an example so we can actually have a civil discussion, and you don't say random things not based on actual game knowledge and expect me to just be able to know what you are talking about.
I have no choice but to
extrapolate what you are trying to say because you only offer incomplete ideas or metaphors like "green buttons" and give no proper context to relate it to the actual game mechanics that have been revealed. You don't even reference a genralized mechanic. Is the green button referring to legacy points? Civ switching? Attribute points? Victory Conditions? I don't know because you won't make a direct statement.
Nobody here knows "how a transmission works", do you mean that we shouldn't discuss anything at all?
Threads' topics are fluent, not only limited to title or even an opening post. We are also discussing victory conditions, leader attributes, snowball, civ switching... and more.
We have had all 3 Ages mechanics revealed. We do know how a transmission works. We don't know how it works in tandem with the motor, we can find some areas where we don't know how the whole automobile works as a whole, but we do have enough information to get a good idea. The fluency of these threads makes it even more vital that you be specific with your comments. It is unfair for you to be vague and then mock someone for not understanding exactly what you meant.
I care more about a general gameplay loop and concepts than a specific balance. We have a simple abstract situation. Game split into 3 ages with hard resets, lingering bonuses, victory rules that apply only in third age, reward trees. I don't need details to discuss it. If anything the knowledge that option A is available at B and has value of C is irrevelant to me.
I disagree because that is how all the pieces connect. Not all "transmissions" connect to all "motors" universally. You can't just plug any gameplay concept into another and end up with the same result. For example, your initial comment where you were summarizing you stated:
I think I can summarize concerns:
-Creating a gameplay in which you are rewarded from specific actions in future eras will create very narrow experience...
Every strategy game does this. Obtaining horses allows you to create cavalry moving forward, building a library allows you to make more science faster in the future, collecting resources, etc. Skyrim allows you to get better at using swords in the future if you use a sword often. RPGs in general allow you to level up and make decisions. Now days, they even allow you dialogue decisions with varied rewards you can't undo as it appeals to the market for replay value.
A statement as vague as this has to be extrapolated. This describes every game after Atari. Pac-man and Pong did not do this. "Rewarding specific actions" goes all the way back to Mario with hidden warp zones. This is a blanket statement that summarizes video games as a whole almost. Really, even any game with a win state has this. "Do this specific action" > "Reward = Win". If you want to have civil discussion, you need to be able to speak about specific aspects to help paint a picture of the bigger picture. You can't paint everything with a huge brush that covers all of video games and then get offended by someone failing to see your point.
I am sorry, I wrote my previous response in the same style you write your posts. Glad you noticed it.
Though the part about thinking was not targeted at "anyone like you" but at "anyone" or even more at "anyone like me who claim they would like to think during game".
However the concept that players may actually don't like "a good strategy game that makes them think", even if interesting, probably does not belong to this thread.
All your posts remind me of journalism. You ignore/twist arguments and data. I admitted that I do not know details and you immediately bold it and attack me like it is a big deal. "You are not an expErT - stay silent!" Again, it is just low.
We can be better than american media.
Don't worry, I don't get offended sharing my views with others. Good conversation challenges our perspectives. I point it out because hypocrisy destroys civil conversation. If you want to mock my argument, feel free, I appreciate a good joke at the expense of my limited perspective. Sometimes I can be shortsighted and miss obvious details or can explain something in a silly/unclear way and I can't get mad at someone making fun of that. Additionally, it isn't worth getting mad at the many online that just want to hate the opinions of others and have nothing to add to a conversation except their emotional views. It is for this reason I try to discourage such discussion and try to help it move forward in specific ways we all benefit from. But pride is an unstoppable force online and so I am going to have fun with it. My words are never meant to make you feel bad but they are meant to challenge your views. To some, pride makes this feels the same.
I also would like to think during a game. However, your views on this game's mechanics (that you have not specified) seem to be at odds with mine somehow. I try to get you to further explain your view by pointing out where your comments are vague and extrapolate a guess only to be mocked and dismissed. And the only explanation you have given is it is because you like to think. This would imply that you believe that I do not like to think.
Just because you say I am twisting your argument doesn't mean its true. You seem to be twisting the argument to be about me, my morals, and my personality - and not the game. I keep trying to get you to give a more detailed explanation of your view of the game so I can understand it. You keep giving vague statements that don't directly apply to Civ 7 or any game or mechanic. You don't give any specific examples of anything. You just say random metaphors or basic concepts like "green button" or "predetermined best decision" or "based on current situation". This isn't even gameplay design discussion, it is ironically, journalism buzz phrases. Kinda funny you accused me of that.
Not knowing details of a game design you are
arguing against IS a big deal in a discussion about the details of the game design. I have asked you to elaborate, not stay silent. I have pointed out problems with your explanation or potential misunderstandings in your perspective. All in an effort to get you to better explain your view - as that is what I am more interested in. If your next post is simply to discredit my personality with no real conversation about the game, I will be satisfied to just leave this conversation to cobwebs.