lophiaspis
Arbiter
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 379
I don't think that you can meaningfully compete with Civilization by adding new things and features. To begin with, the problem with the recent Civ games is that they have an excess of fiddly subsystems built on top of the base game, slowing the game down, so developers are tempted to reduce the number of cities you have and the amount of units you have to keep the game flowing properly. With the reduction of scope, the game becomes less dynamic and less deep, while the focus turns instead to tedious micromanagement tasks that do not amount to anything genuinely strategic. Adding automation is no solution - the end result would most likely be something like Master of Orion III, a bland, boring game that plays itself.
A genuine contender to Civilization should do avay with this superfluous junk so it can once more be fun, dynamic and reasonably quick to play, with simple and elegant game mechanics that give rise to interesting emergent situations when the game has enough scope. In the first place, Civilization gained the status it has because the essential core of Civilization is tremendously fun - so fun that the game remains engaging even when you add oodles of superfluous junk on top. A deceptively simple game like the original Master of Orion is much more likely to manage the same. Sophisticated, "realistic" extra features should be a secondary concern.
My dream "Civ-like" game is essentially an empire builder set in the ancient world that deals almost exclusively with building and warfare, in that order. The premise is that you can quite easily conquer cities, but keeping them from rebelling against your rule is only possible with cultural dominance, which requires building palaces and temples to assert your dominance, for which you need hard-to-attain raw materials, luxury goods and specialist craftsmen, so you have to go on military campaigns to gain the resources you need for your building projects. This way, the empire turns quickly into a pyramid scheme on the verge of toppling that you have to struggle to keep running, while rebellions inevitably emerge to check your growth and cause weaknesses for rival empires to take advantage of, resulting in a natural "rise and fall" cycle. You could conceivably add some extra stuff like diplomacy or religion to a game like this, but the way I see it, you probably shouldn't add a lot, since there's a very real risk is losing sight of what would make the game fun in the first place.
This. What nuCiv needs is LESS complexity, not more. Adding more cruft is a common design mistake, also seen outside videogames, that stems from catering to your most jaded hardcore fans at the expense of everybody else. See also: Why nerds ruin everything.
Go back and play Civ 1. Isn't it shocking how quick and fluid it is? You can finish a whole game in a few hours. Civ 1 plays ten times faster than Civ 3-6. Why can't we go back to that?
If Firaxis was smart they would make a Lite version of Civ, with
-complexity level somewhere between Civ 1 and 2.
-F2P, without any P2W elements, funded by ads (which can be removed by paying) and buying customization elements like ability to make your own civ.
-fully cross platform like Fortnite with a focus on PC/Mac and Tablet/Mobile.
-singleplayer, but also exploiting Tablet/Mobile 'simultaneous' multiplayer, which is really just PBEM done right.
This is what they should have done instead of their retarded 'civ for consoles' gambit. They could keep the 'big civ' line for PC going at the same time as the cross platform F2P 'lil civ'. This is the best way to revitalize the brand and reach loads of new players. However it seems like all the smart people left Firaxis a while ago, so I doubt they will ever understand this.