Pre-Release CIV VI Discussion

[Brian Shanahan]

I personally think that Civ games should focus on the large-scale decision making, which is why I have no complaint about the SoD in Civ 4. But to say that 1UpT completely failed, or "ruined" Civ 5, is simply ignoring the fact that Civ 5 was a massive departure from previous Civ games. Civ 5 would simply not work without 1UpT (just as Civ 4 would not work with it), and no-one can argue that Civ 5 was not a successful game. Civ 6 was never going to be a return to Civ 4, since Firaxis wants to make money, so I don't know why anyone is surprised or disappointed that Civ 6 will continue to develop on the mechanics introduced in Civ 5, and add mechanics that fit that kind of game.

Problem is, Civ 5 didn't work with 1upt, because in order to accomodate it the designers had to strip down every other aspect of a nation building strategy game, the logistics, the production, the city management, the pop management &c. Even by the end of the second expansion all that was on the table was an ok game which rewarded passive play overly much.

[LKendter]

Even by the end of the second expansion all that was on the table was an ok game which rewarded passive play overly much.

That was the problem I noticed in the handful of Civ5 games I played. Just sit around and wait for your next bonus from a city state, next culture award, etc.
Tiles were too alike. No more finding the civ3 settler factory thanks to grassland, irrigated wheat. No more civ4 early bonus city due to flood plains with gold knowing you had an income monster.

[Mr. Cairo]

I personally think that Civ games should focus on the large-scale decision making, which is why I have no complaint about the SoD in Civ 4. But to say that 1UpT completely failed, or "ruined" Civ 5, is simply ignoring the fact that Civ 5 was a massive departure from previous Civ games. Civ 5 would simply not work without 1UpT (just as Civ 4 would not work with it), and no-one can argue that Civ 5 was not a successful game. Civ 6 was never going to be a return to Civ 4, since Firaxis wants to make money, so I don't know why anyone is surprised or disappointed that Civ 6 will continue to develop on the mechanics introduced in Civ 5, and add mechanics that fit that kind of game.

Problem is, Civ 5 didn't work with 1upt, because in order to accomodate it the designers had to strip down every other aspect of a nation building strategy game, the logistics, the production, the city management, the pop management &c. Even by the end of the second expansion all that was on the table was an ok game which rewarded passive play overly much.

I guess I wasn't clear in what I meant. I don't think that Civ 5 was ever meant to be a serious nation-building strategy game. It was meant to be a casual strategy game that focused as much on the tactical decision-making of unit positioning as the nation-building. That's why they simplified everything. And, as a casual, tactics-focused, strategy game, it was extremely successful. It was not, nor was it ever meant to be, a true sequel to Civ 4, and to judge it based on how it compares to Civ 4 is, IMO, incorrect. It may not be mine or your cup of tea, but that doesn't make it a bad game. The numbers do not lie, it was, and has been, and will remain, immensely popular.

[greenline]

It may not be mine or your cup of tea, but that doesn't make it a bad game. The numbers do not lie, it was, and has been, and will remain, immensely popular.

equating popularity with quality is a dangerous road to go down...

[Mr. Cairo]

It may not be mine or your cup of tea, but that doesn't make it a bad game. The numbers do not lie, it was, and has been, and will remain, immensely popular.

equating popularity with quality is a dangerous road to go down...

But the argument seems to be that Civ 5 is a failed game, that the 1UpT ruined the game, that it was filled with almost nothing but flaws and bad mechanics. That is only really true if you expected Civ 5 to be just like Civ 4.

[v8mark]

But the argument seems to be that Civ 5 is a failed game, that the 1UpT ruined the game, that it was filled with almost nothing but flaws and bad mechanics. That is only really true if you expected Civ 5 to be just like Civ 4.

I think you can quite safely say that Civ5 doesn't have the strategic depth that Civ4 has, and that's pretty close to RB's definition of a 'successful' game - at least as we're discussing it here. We've noted several times that this definition is only very loosely correlated with commercial success and popularity.

[Mr. Cairo]

But the argument seems to be that Civ 5 is a failed game, that the 1UpT ruined the game, that it was filled with almost nothing but flaws and bad mechanics. That is only really true if you expected Civ 5 to be just like Civ 4.

I think you can quite safely say that Civ5 doesn't have the strategic depth that Civ4 has, and that's pretty close to RB's definition of a 'successful' game - at least as we're discussing it here. We've noted several times that this definition is only very loosely correlated with commercial success and popularity.

That's kinda my point. Civ 5 lacked strategic depth, and if Civ 5 was trying to have strategic depth, then yes, it would be fair to say it "failed". But I don't think that it was ever mean to have strategic depth. When Civ 5 first came out I hated it for all the reasons that people have listed on this thread, and ultimately all those reasons can be coalesced into a single complaint: Civ 5 was not Civ 4. But Civ 5 was never meant to be Civ 4, and I've come to suspect that was for financial reasons.

If Civ 5 was like Civ 4, but with better graphics and some interesting mechanics, etc. then the only people who would get it would be Civ 4 players. If however, you make Civ 5 simpler, and tactically focused, you can attract an entirely new crowd: people who like strategy games, but are not willing to make the kind of time investment that Civ 4 requires. RTS players for example, since RTS games require a very different mindset than TBS games. RTS players will plan 15 minutes ahead, sometimes even less, whereas to play Civ 4 well, you have to plan hours of real-life time ahead. To play RTS's well you need twitch reflexes, to play Civ 4 well you need patience. Civ 5 was, IMO, an attempt to bridge those two styles of play, by simplifying the empire-building mechanics, so forward planning isn't a necessity, and making warfare about time-condensed tactical decision-making.

I do want to make it clear, I'm not in any way defending Civ 5 here. To me, Civ 5 is barely even a proper strategy game, and the Civilization franchise spiritually ended with Civ 4. Civ 5 deserves criticism, but that criticism should be directed not at the game itself, which succeeded in doing what it was designed to do, but at the decision-making that resulted in Civ 5, in which most of what made the Civilization franchise resonate with so many people was discarded in an attempt to widen the appeal of the game.

[MJW (ya that one)]

mjw on 'Is Civ5 successful drama?':

90% of gamers cannot beat EMP on Civ5 (I've considered people who never finish games) so Civ5 is good enough for them. It has flaws but they don't matter for them. So the real question is if those 90% should count or not which actually has nothing to do with Civ5 itself. There's problems for not caring about the 10% (like your game being trashed as not "real") but they don't matter because Civ is the only AAA TBS left standing.

(I would not count the 90% because if you cannot beat EMP then LOL.)

[v8mark]

That's kinda my point. Civ 5 lacked strategic depth, and if Civ 5 was trying to have strategic depth, then yes, it would be fair to say it "failed". But I don't think that it was ever mean to have strategic depth. When Civ 5 first came out I hated it for all the reasons that people have listed on this thread, and ultimately all those reasons can be coalesced into a single complaint: Civ 5 was not Civ 4. But Civ 5 was never meant to be Civ 4, and I've come to suspect that was for financial reasons.

I'm really not sure about this. I don't think there was a conscious decision to make a less strategically deep game there. I think Shafer and crew were trying to make a strategy game that stands the test of time in the way Civ4 has. They just failed. I think the only commercial decision they made was to have something different from Civ4, and they chose 1upt. They just couldn't replicate the Civ4 model, especially having put all of their eggs in the 1upt basket - somewhat understandably, because the Civ4 bar is a high one to reach. You can say that perhaps they tried to shift the balance from strategy to tactics slightly, but the grand strategy aspect of the Civilization franchise is its core selling point. I don't think they threw that under the bus consciously.

You can point to the streamlined stuff, but Civ4 streamlined a lot of stuff from Civ3 (corruption!) and wasn't any the worse for it. It's generally a good design philosophy to strip out the unnecessary stuff from a game if you're looking to improve it; complexity =/= depth, after all. But 1upt didn't work, and by the time this was realised it was far too late in the process to remove it completely. Instead we got a gradual backpedalling (workers and settlers can be on the same tile as a military unit!). And I think we're seeing the continuation of this backpedalling in Civ6. I like T-Hawk's optimism though... I think it's very possible to make a compromise that suits everyone, and Beach seems like a good candidate to do it. One thing you certainly get from a board game background is a knowledge of how fundamental game mechanics play off against each other, so I imagine he'll have a fairly deep understanding of how to approach this.

[BRickAstley]

http://venturebeat.com/2016/05/11/sid-me...on-cities/

It doesn’t necessarily mean that the maps will be huge, with armies and cities spread out. You may wind up with a few cities or lots of cities. The happiness level will be focused on a city level, rather than on a global basis across your civilization.

“One city can only go out three tiles in all directions,” Shirk said. “One city with maximum land can’t build every Wonder. If you build every district in one city, you will not have enough farmland to support your population. You have to make these decisions city by city. We are unstacking the cities and taking that to the nth degree.”

That means you have to spread the different districts across multiple cities. That means you have to be able to defend multiple cities. The idea is to take full advantage of the terrain. Each hex that is near another can modify how your tile grows. You may get a bonus based on what is adjacent to the tile. Before, you could put down a building in a city and be done with it. Your districts can be containers for additional buildings. You can create a holy site that will eventually house religious buildings such as churches or temples. If you have a mountain pass, you may want to put a military encampment there to create an easily defended zone.