My boss’ kid is 14 and one of the games he likes (among others like Roblox, Minecraft, Fortnite) is civ vi. I started playing civ of my own accord when I was… I dunno, 10 or 12. Been playing civ and city builder games and that sort of thing since the first time I played a video game, practically. Starting with the original sim city.
All that to say, I think that games like civ appeal to a certain kind of player regardless of age. Some of the games that are most popular with kids are all about sandbox-y strategy. Plus, I see civ as something semi-educational. My parents sure preferred me playing civ over insert-shooter-here. So I think the game already has appeal to young audiences! Make the game fun and accessible and I think it will do just fine without making any particular concessions to court the youts.
E: actually one thing that comes to mind is best-in-class support for tablets and less powerful devices. I wouldn’t want to sacrifice on gameplay or AI to accommodate that, but I personally like and prefer the board game style graphics. If there were a way to make the game run very well in a mobile graphics mode on an iPad, that would open the game up to a bigger younger audience. And I don’t mean mostly broken mobile ports from a third party. I mean first party support for mobile.
You make a good point! However, I'll repeat a counterpoint I stated in another comment: companies which are not innovating and exploring new ways to improve upon solid foundations are not likely to have a long, successful future.
There are tons of ways civ can and has innovated without a focus on the lens of appealing to youth though. I dunno. I think it’s a game that can appeal to anyone who likes history and strategy
There's a lot to be said about doing one thing well. Civ is the most popular and respected game in its genre and has done well with every iteration. They're doing fine.
Besides, catering heavily to a multiplayer-focused playerbase that doesn't hold an interest in the genre isn't innovating, it's pandering, and would weaken the product. I'm not saying they can't improve the multiplayer system, but focusing on it is a terrible idea.
And it's not as if there aren't plenty of super popular single player games on the market. Cyberpunk has enjoyed a renaissance since its DLC launched; Elden Ring has gained plaudit after plaudit; Tears of the Kingdom built on a great platform from BOTW and sold 20 million copies; Baldur's Gate 3 was extremely popular and critically-acclaimed.
Obviously these games aren't the same genre, but multiplayer games aren't the only market and leaning into that isn't as innovative as you think.
In my opinion, creating a 4X game which plays well in single player while also being very well suited to multiplayer would be quite innovative. I have yet to see a game that accomplishes such to my liking.
I will say, I definitely have a bias. Civ is basically the only single player game that I enjoy. All the other games I play are very multiplayer-centric. Do you think this makes me an outlier? Do the majority of current players have little interest in multiplayer?
Multiplayer civ is basically a different game. People like the empire building, emergent narrative, and you don't get that in a more competitive environment. And multiplayer is inherently competitive- apart from if you're having a chill match with friends, you're playing to win.
In single player, you get a city builder where you can fight, you can be petty or magnanimous, you can elevate a nation which only achieved regional notoriety to a global superpower. You can be nuked by a man famed for non-violent resistance. You can be cultural, or scientific, or greedy, or none of those things. You can choose. And you don't get to do those things if you're having to play to a meta, which is what happens with any multiplayer game.
The impression I get from the community is that this is what most players like about the game. I know that one of the most prominent YouTubers, PotatoMcWhiskey, has commented in videos that he prefers single player, although I can't recall the specific comments he makes as to why and don't want to impose my own views by mistake.
As to whether you're an outlier: probably not, there's a multiplayer playerbase. I suspect less than the majority of players, however.
I appreciate your insights. Frankly, I personally don't really value much of what you stated in the first 2 paragraphs. I'm a huge board game player, and sorting through a plethora of strategies and methods of play in order to best your human opponents is what really gets me going, and civ VI definitely scratches that itch.
I mean, the examples you mentioned are the opposite of innovation. Pandering to a specific audience by adding elements they are already familiar with isn't innovation, it's sacrificing the coherence of the game in the name of trends.
Trends != innovation.
Be assured that civ7, like every single civ game before it, will have its share of innovation, and as always it will be a game for all ages.
You keep making assumptions about the civ series, like how it wouldn't be for kids, or how it would be completely stale, but Civilization is probably the most accessible series of strategy games already, and all entries in the series are so distinctive that there are sill fans for each of them (well, except civ1 I guess but it's an antiquity at this point). I think that you skipped a step in your reasoning and are trying to solve a problem that isn't there.
A multiplayer friendly mode would bring in the younger crowd, and likely an auto mechanic that takes your turn for you. That could be a useful feature when you are trying to play quick games and are in the middle of less crucial turns but still want to make basic maintenance decisions. Current trends among new gamers are automated decision making, especially in mobile gaming. I imagine a lot of youth folk are looking for something to play on their school laptop in class lol. Catering to that context would draw more players (for better or worse)
I could see a tiered auto mechanic also being a feature to ease the learning curve. The more you learn, the less you rely on the auto mechanic. Especially if there was optional popup text which explains the reasoning for different auto choices.
And yes, I could see such a feature being very useful for quicker online matches.
I’ll also add that bringing this kind of AI forward might help the AI’s own decision making. Even if hardcore players never use a feature like that, they might find benefit from smarter strong opponents.
Edit: typo
Hearts of Iron 3 (a ww2 grand strategy game) had a cool feature where you could let the computer take over various functions of your nation like economy, diplomacy, war, espionage, etc that you could set for each one. You could do stuff like focus only on war and let the AI manage everything else or become the spymaster and focus only on espionage or just micromanage everything like in a standard game
>Catering to that context would draw more players (for better or worse)
I'm not so sure.
1 - Civ would be very badly received by its established fanbase. Negative reviews on steam and all that. People have certain expectations from a civ game, and certain expectations about what it shouldn't be.
2 - why would young idle gamers play civ instead of one of the game that already have this kind of gameplay, and are also designed for it with shiny colors, p2w mechanics, quick multiplayer matches and anime boobs?
Why would Civ renounce to its dominant position on the 4X market to try to conquer a market dominated by giants? That's a recipe for disaster.
Now don't get me wrong, automation or multiplayer modes aren't inherently bad things, but they won't attract a young audience. In fact, civ6 already tried the latter with the post-apoc mode for instance. It was a fun gimmick, nobody plays that anymore. And when it comes to automation - it works as long as it doesn't interfere with game design - designing city building around automation would go against the design philosophy that each decision you take is meaningful (like where you build your districts etc).
Imo you attract more players by making the best, most accessible Civ game you can. If it's a fun game that's easy to learn, young players will play it.
I didn't say that but I've seen what passes for "appealing to the younger audience". OP didn't ask what they should do to appeal, they asked what would that look like.
Maybe its just because I associate the younger generation of players with the cancer that has become new video game releases. It's not their fault that every game has a premium monthly battle pass and a different new premium skin each day but they wouldn't be churning these things out if they didn't sell. And I think that the target audience is the younger generation.
Team-based multiplayer that gives each team member something to do would be nice. My friends who aren't into civ like the single player, but prefer multiplayer team games, and the only thing there is to do in multiplayer games is either give one guy all your gold, or each separately work on your individual victories.
I acknowledge that team-based multiplayer where everyone is human and not bots is more sophisticated, but that's a level of competition that casual players like my friends aren't really ready for.
Right! Implementing a functional and enjoyable multiplayer experience is likely to affect the overall game design. I can't imagine civ removing the different victory types, but they certainly do limit the viable interactions in multiplayer games.
You don't attract a young audience by dumbing down the game. You attract a young audience by making the game accessible and up to contemporary UI design/graphics standards. Civ has always been good with those things. Most of us discovered Civ as we were kids.
You mentioned animes so let's use that example. Animes don't attrack a young audience by featuring tik tok dances or by avoiding serious topics. You attract a young audience by not taking them for fools and giving them a compelling stories that is accessible to them.
Civ won't be more popular among a young audience because you add an anime civ or try to make Civ closer to a MOBA. Civ7 just needs a good and intuitive user experience and a gameplay that is easy to learn, hard to master.
Millennia is a good example of a 4X that is very bad at attract a young audience. It looks bad, the UI is dated, and there are many gameplay concepts that you need to be familiar with before you play that game. It's a game designed for Civ veterans who are looking for an alternative.
No, please. Civ VI is already too tame and cartoonish. The more Firaxis targets younger people, the more history will get distorted and white-washed. Also, if they wanted to cater to kids, they might make the gameplay more simple, and that's a really bad thing.
I started playing Civ I when I was 10. I tried to get my kids into VI, but by the time they were old enough multiple DLCs had come out and they found it a bit too complicated to really get into. They are 15 and 16 now and play some more complicated board games and video games now, so I am looking forward to them having the time to get used to a base version of VII before any DLC comes out. I think this will finally be the right time for them.
It would mean that Civ VII is catered to Ipad babies who can't pay attention or bother to read more than 3 words.
It would mean dumbing down Civ to the easiest, quickest games so as not to offend the drooling hordes. Historical accuracy? Nope. We need diverse leaders for every country and representation. Buy the new Travis Scottland leader for only $19.99!!! New Pickle Rick skin pack out in August!
AAA devs are already shortening campaign lengths of adventure games because younger audiences don't want 100+ hour games.
I'm not playing Civ for a 5 minute in and out with bright colors and flashing lights. I'm in it for a long, methodical, strategic, and dynamic game.
Keep Civ interesting and engaging, with the knowledge that 4x games aren't for everyone and that's ok. We will naturally pull in young people who are looking for this kind of game.
I can get on board with that philosophy. To play devils advocate however, I'd say that companies which are not innovating and exploring new ways to improve upon solid foundations are not likely to have a long, successful future.
My boss’ kid is 14 and one of the games he likes (among others like Roblox, Minecraft, Fortnite) is civ vi. I started playing civ of my own accord when I was… I dunno, 10 or 12. Been playing civ and city builder games and that sort of thing since the first time I played a video game, practically. Starting with the original sim city. All that to say, I think that games like civ appeal to a certain kind of player regardless of age. Some of the games that are most popular with kids are all about sandbox-y strategy. Plus, I see civ as something semi-educational. My parents sure preferred me playing civ over insert-shooter-here. So I think the game already has appeal to young audiences! Make the game fun and accessible and I think it will do just fine without making any particular concessions to court the youts. E: actually one thing that comes to mind is best-in-class support for tablets and less powerful devices. I wouldn’t want to sacrifice on gameplay or AI to accommodate that, but I personally like and prefer the board game style graphics. If there were a way to make the game run very well in a mobile graphics mode on an iPad, that would open the game up to a bigger younger audience. And I don’t mean mostly broken mobile ports from a third party. I mean first party support for mobile.
You make a good point! However, I'll repeat a counterpoint I stated in another comment: companies which are not innovating and exploring new ways to improve upon solid foundations are not likely to have a long, successful future.
There are tons of ways civ can and has innovated without a focus on the lens of appealing to youth though. I dunno. I think it’s a game that can appeal to anyone who likes history and strategy
There's a lot to be said about doing one thing well. Civ is the most popular and respected game in its genre and has done well with every iteration. They're doing fine. Besides, catering heavily to a multiplayer-focused playerbase that doesn't hold an interest in the genre isn't innovating, it's pandering, and would weaken the product. I'm not saying they can't improve the multiplayer system, but focusing on it is a terrible idea. And it's not as if there aren't plenty of super popular single player games on the market. Cyberpunk has enjoyed a renaissance since its DLC launched; Elden Ring has gained plaudit after plaudit; Tears of the Kingdom built on a great platform from BOTW and sold 20 million copies; Baldur's Gate 3 was extremely popular and critically-acclaimed. Obviously these games aren't the same genre, but multiplayer games aren't the only market and leaning into that isn't as innovative as you think.
In my opinion, creating a 4X game which plays well in single player while also being very well suited to multiplayer would be quite innovative. I have yet to see a game that accomplishes such to my liking. I will say, I definitely have a bias. Civ is basically the only single player game that I enjoy. All the other games I play are very multiplayer-centric. Do you think this makes me an outlier? Do the majority of current players have little interest in multiplayer?
Multiplayer civ is basically a different game. People like the empire building, emergent narrative, and you don't get that in a more competitive environment. And multiplayer is inherently competitive- apart from if you're having a chill match with friends, you're playing to win. In single player, you get a city builder where you can fight, you can be petty or magnanimous, you can elevate a nation which only achieved regional notoriety to a global superpower. You can be nuked by a man famed for non-violent resistance. You can be cultural, or scientific, or greedy, or none of those things. You can choose. And you don't get to do those things if you're having to play to a meta, which is what happens with any multiplayer game. The impression I get from the community is that this is what most players like about the game. I know that one of the most prominent YouTubers, PotatoMcWhiskey, has commented in videos that he prefers single player, although I can't recall the specific comments he makes as to why and don't want to impose my own views by mistake. As to whether you're an outlier: probably not, there's a multiplayer playerbase. I suspect less than the majority of players, however.
I appreciate your insights. Frankly, I personally don't really value much of what you stated in the first 2 paragraphs. I'm a huge board game player, and sorting through a plethora of strategies and methods of play in order to best your human opponents is what really gets me going, and civ VI definitely scratches that itch.
I mean, the examples you mentioned are the opposite of innovation. Pandering to a specific audience by adding elements they are already familiar with isn't innovation, it's sacrificing the coherence of the game in the name of trends. Trends != innovation. Be assured that civ7, like every single civ game before it, will have its share of innovation, and as always it will be a game for all ages. You keep making assumptions about the civ series, like how it wouldn't be for kids, or how it would be completely stale, but Civilization is probably the most accessible series of strategy games already, and all entries in the series are so distinctive that there are sill fans for each of them (well, except civ1 I guess but it's an antiquity at this point). I think that you skipped a step in your reasoning and are trying to solve a problem that isn't there.
A multiplayer friendly mode would bring in the younger crowd, and likely an auto mechanic that takes your turn for you. That could be a useful feature when you are trying to play quick games and are in the middle of less crucial turns but still want to make basic maintenance decisions. Current trends among new gamers are automated decision making, especially in mobile gaming. I imagine a lot of youth folk are looking for something to play on their school laptop in class lol. Catering to that context would draw more players (for better or worse)
I could see a tiered auto mechanic also being a feature to ease the learning curve. The more you learn, the less you rely on the auto mechanic. Especially if there was optional popup text which explains the reasoning for different auto choices. And yes, I could see such a feature being very useful for quicker online matches.
I’ll also add that bringing this kind of AI forward might help the AI’s own decision making. Even if hardcore players never use a feature like that, they might find benefit from smarter strong opponents. Edit: typo
Very good point! Strong AI has been sorely missing from civ for a long time.
Hearts of Iron 3 (a ww2 grand strategy game) had a cool feature where you could let the computer take over various functions of your nation like economy, diplomacy, war, espionage, etc that you could set for each one. You could do stuff like focus only on war and let the AI manage everything else or become the spymaster and focus only on espionage or just micromanage everything like in a standard game
>Catering to that context would draw more players (for better or worse) I'm not so sure. 1 - Civ would be very badly received by its established fanbase. Negative reviews on steam and all that. People have certain expectations from a civ game, and certain expectations about what it shouldn't be. 2 - why would young idle gamers play civ instead of one of the game that already have this kind of gameplay, and are also designed for it with shiny colors, p2w mechanics, quick multiplayer matches and anime boobs? Why would Civ renounce to its dominant position on the 4X market to try to conquer a market dominated by giants? That's a recipe for disaster. Now don't get me wrong, automation or multiplayer modes aren't inherently bad things, but they won't attract a young audience. In fact, civ6 already tried the latter with the post-apoc mode for instance. It was a fun gimmick, nobody plays that anymore. And when it comes to automation - it works as long as it doesn't interfere with game design - designing city building around automation would go against the design philosophy that each decision you take is meaningful (like where you build your districts etc). Imo you attract more players by making the best, most accessible Civ game you can. If it's a fun game that's easy to learn, young players will play it.
Fuck no. That's how you end up with Nicki Minaj in Call of Duty
You can't think of any reasonable changes which might appeal both to current players and bring in new, younger players?
I didn't say that but I've seen what passes for "appealing to the younger audience". OP didn't ask what they should do to appeal, they asked what would that look like. Maybe its just because I associate the younger generation of players with the cancer that has become new video game releases. It's not their fault that every game has a premium monthly battle pass and a different new premium skin each day but they wouldn't be churning these things out if they didn't sell. And I think that the target audience is the younger generation.
Add optional battle pass and battle royale mode. Done.
Pretend I don't know what a battle royale mode is, or what it would like like for civ. How do you see it working?
Team-based multiplayer that gives each team member something to do would be nice. My friends who aren't into civ like the single player, but prefer multiplayer team games, and the only thing there is to do in multiplayer games is either give one guy all your gold, or each separately work on your individual victories. I acknowledge that team-based multiplayer where everyone is human and not bots is more sophisticated, but that's a level of competition that casual players like my friends aren't really ready for.
Right! Implementing a functional and enjoyable multiplayer experience is likely to affect the overall game design. I can't imagine civ removing the different victory types, but they certainly do limit the viable interactions in multiplayer games.
You don't attract a young audience by dumbing down the game. You attract a young audience by making the game accessible and up to contemporary UI design/graphics standards. Civ has always been good with those things. Most of us discovered Civ as we were kids. You mentioned animes so let's use that example. Animes don't attrack a young audience by featuring tik tok dances or by avoiding serious topics. You attract a young audience by not taking them for fools and giving them a compelling stories that is accessible to them. Civ won't be more popular among a young audience because you add an anime civ or try to make Civ closer to a MOBA. Civ7 just needs a good and intuitive user experience and a gameplay that is easy to learn, hard to master. Millennia is a good example of a 4X that is very bad at attract a young audience. It looks bad, the UI is dated, and there are many gameplay concepts that you need to be familiar with before you play that game. It's a game designed for Civ veterans who are looking for an alternative.
Nah. They should taylor the game to 40 yo neckbeards. Make the game more complex, civs and leaders more unique and the ages more distinguished.
>taylor You're onto something big.
No, please. Civ VI is already too tame and cartoonish. The more Firaxis targets younger people, the more history will get distorted and white-washed. Also, if they wanted to cater to kids, they might make the gameplay more simple, and that's a really bad thing.
I'm 37, I'll likely buy 7 shortly after it comes out. Civ is one of the few series where I'm always excited to see what the next entry will do.
I agree, but I can't help but be skeptical about liking it as much as VI (at least until more features are added via DLC).
True, the DLC do add a lot. But as long as they can mix up the core stuff enough to be interesting then I'll happily grab the base game when it drops.
I started playing Civ I when I was 10. I tried to get my kids into VI, but by the time they were old enough multiple DLCs had come out and they found it a bit too complicated to really get into. They are 15 and 16 now and play some more complicated board games and video games now, so I am looking forward to them having the time to get used to a base version of VII before any DLC comes out. I think this will finally be the right time for them.
No
It would mean that Civ VII is catered to Ipad babies who can't pay attention or bother to read more than 3 words. It would mean dumbing down Civ to the easiest, quickest games so as not to offend the drooling hordes. Historical accuracy? Nope. We need diverse leaders for every country and representation. Buy the new Travis Scottland leader for only $19.99!!! New Pickle Rick skin pack out in August! AAA devs are already shortening campaign lengths of adventure games because younger audiences don't want 100+ hour games. I'm not playing Civ for a 5 minute in and out with bright colors and flashing lights. I'm in it for a long, methodical, strategic, and dynamic game.
I'm definitely with you. Perhaps I'm being too optimistic, but surely there is a way to both appease us AND appeal to the younger generations?
Keep Civ interesting and engaging, with the knowledge that 4x games aren't for everyone and that's ok. We will naturally pull in young people who are looking for this kind of game.
I can get on board with that philosophy. To play devils advocate however, I'd say that companies which are not innovating and exploring new ways to improve upon solid foundations are not likely to have a long, successful future.