Will Civ7 be a diamond?

Bibor

Doomsday Machine
Joined
Jun 6, 2004
Messages
3,143
Location
Zagreb, Croatia
I really wish for Civ 7 to be designed as a generic game. Like crystals, grown from a single atom to a structure, from a single idea to a full game. Created with carbon vapor put under pressure of creative minds at Firaxis to grow a diamond.

To have no Civilization brand to uphold an image, no existing playerbase to think of, no historical figures or events to take inspiration from. No budgeting of marketing gimmicks like very expensive intros. Designed with placeholder icons, created with game mechanics with placeholder names. If Civ4 had blue marble, let this game be in the spirit of white marble. Like Michelangelo's David.

Once the skeletal structures are carved out, joints refined to work without friction, movement scopes defined, then it's time to add sinew and meat, and eventually skin and clothing.

In the last few years, we've seen in everything around us how shallow, dangerous and ultimately fatal it is, when one creates from outside in. When starting with a superhero or fantasy book character mold and then drilling a hole in it, hopelessly trying to add substance to what is essentially an empty shell.

We, as a species, live (and die) for stories. One might argue that our lives are reduced to basic functions without them. But, the truly great stores let us participate. To become a part of the story, and expand it. In our minds, our hearts, our dreams. What isn't said, and is left to our imagination, is just as important – if note more, than what's already presented.

I, for one, would prefer a brilliantly functioning wooden puppet over a plastic, molded, colored but empty shell. I'll add the clothes myself, if need be. I'll add the story myself, if need be. I can turn a wooden puppet into a pirate one day, or into a space marine the next. With plastic molds, I'm stuck with what I have. And I was never a big fan of figurines.

That's all I wanted to say :)
 
Last edited:
I have some trouble deciphering parts of the message hidden behind the lyrical presentation.

Anyway, in regards to your wooden puppet and plastic shell:
In Civ VI, many systems seem to run parallel to one another, regardless of how "well carved" each system is independently (which often they aren't, like the World Congress). But a game developed with mechanics that are better integrated doesn't automatically mean it's superior to one with a more modular approach. So, bottom line, I'll favour systems which feel well designed. To use parts of your metaphor, I'll have my legos over some wooden carved monstrosity.

As for this bit:
To have no Civilization brand to uphold an image, no existing playerbase to think of, no historical figures or events to take inspiration from. No budgeting of marketing gimmicks like very expensive intros. Designed with placeholder icons, created with game mechanics with placeholder names. If Civ4 had blue marble, let this game be in the spirit of white marble. Like Michelangelo's David.
How can anything be created outside some frame of reference?
 
How can anything be created outside some frame of reference?
I always find it weird when people seem to insist that things be judged without its context. Like, how would I know what a good Civ game is if I've never played a video game, a strategy game, or a previous Civ game? Everyone's idea of what constitutes a "good" Civ game is based in their own experiences with other games, Civ or otherwise.

Its impossible for anyone to start from scratch with Civ since everyone has expectations for what should be in a Civ game and those are going to have to be either met or subverted(in a clever way).
 
I have some trouble deciphering parts of the message hidden behind the lyrical presentation.

Anyway, in regards to your wooden puppet and plastic shell:
In Civ VI, many systems seem to run parallel to one another, regardless of how "well carved" each system is independently (which often they aren't, like the World Congress). But a game developed with mechanics that are better integrated doesn't automatically mean it's superior to one with a more modular approach. So, bottom line, I'll favour systems which feel well designed. To use parts of your metaphor, I'll have my legos over some wooden carved monstrosity.

As for this bit:

How can anything be created outside some frame of reference?
In hindisght, your Lego reference is superior to my puppet – yes, that's what I had in mind.

It can be created outside some frame of reference. To use your lego example, If you pick up a yellow lego brick, it can become a flower or a face. If it's a red brick, It might become a mask or a red pepper. No initial reference needed.
 
I always find it weird when people seem to insist that things be judged without its context. Like, how would I know what a good Civ game is if I've never played a video game, a strategy game, or a previous Civ game? Everyone's idea of what constitutes a "good" Civ game is based in their own experiences with other games, Civ or otherwise.

Its impossible for anyone to start from scratch with Civ since everyone has expectations for what should be in a Civ game and those are going to have to be either met or subverted(in a clever way).
Untrue. The first game I ever played was Forbidden Forest on C64. I took its for what it was, from graphics to mechanics. I had nothing to compare it to, it was completely new, to me. I took it at face value. I had no idea how game mechanics in other games worked, or whether the graphics was "good" or "bad". I guess the same is true for Diablo 1, my first ecounter with online gaming. Was it a good connection, bad connection? I had no idea. Took it for what it offered.
 
Untrue. The first game I ever played was Forbidden Forest on C64. I took its for what it was, from graphics to mechanics. I had nothing to compare it to, it was completely new, to me. I took it at face value. I had no idea how game mechanics in other games worked, or whether the graphics was "good" or "bad". I guess the same is true for Diablo 1, my first ecounter with online gaming. Was it a good connection, bad connection? I had no idea. Took it for what it offered.
What point are you trying to make here? Like, was the game good or bad? Did you like the games? Just because you liked something doesn't mean its good, just that you liked it. Not to mention, the people making those games made them based on what they considered to be good or bad ideas. Again, things don't exist in contextless voids of pure ideas, they exist in reality and are fundamentally bound by people's perceptions of those things. Even Civ1 couldn't have anything Sid Meier wanted it to be because it was always going to affected by what he considered to be a good or bad game, his understanding of history, and so on. Civ7 is going to fundamentally be shaped by not only every, single previous edition of the game but tons of other games as well. You can't create Civ7 outside of the context it already, and will always exist in.
 
Top Bottom