On 'One more turn...'

[The Doctor]

This is just my observation about this marketing phrase and a series of ideas I associate with it. I have seen Civ games marketed as having that 'one more turn' hook and my understanding of that phrase has always meant that the gameplay is so addictive that when you think you're done for the day, you'll find yourself playing 'one more turn'. That was certainly my experience of Civ 2 and 3 and I did indeed play until the early hours on occasion. That is what it means to me.

I will add here that I still get the 'one more turn' feeling when I'm playing Civ 7 and other games as well, not necessarily a 4X game but as I've gotten older, I'm no longer so addicted to playing computer games as I was back 20- 30 years ago and so I rarely do. So this 'one more turn' feeling no longer determines whether a game is good for me or not. I just save my game and return to it the next day. What I DO consider as a factor to make that determination is the time I spend thinking about what I will do in my next session outside of the game and I've definitely got that with Civ 7.

Back to the 'one more turn' phrase, I am also aware that when my game finished, I was given the option to play 'one more turn...' which meant I could continue to play after the victory conditions had been determined. I can count the number of times I have availed myself of this function since Civ 2 on one hand and still have two or three fingers left. I almost never did this and only did so to nuke an enemy and watch the chaos.

Perhaps this is hard coded into me from my early years but when the game officially ends, the winner is determined and I no longer see any value in continuing with it. The ref has blown the final whistle, the fat lady has sung and the competition is finished. I just can't see any value in playing a 'lost' game because it has no meaning for ME. Perhaps that is why this particular interpretation doesn't mean anything for me.

Anyway, in about two weeks, the option to play 'one more turn' will be restored but it's not going to make the majority of people who are angry about it not already being there happy. The game is no longer one continuous session where the option to play one more turn came at the very end but now has three eras and the option to play on will only be given to you at the end of the modern era. At least that is how I understand their description of the new functionality.

So the return of one more turn isn't going to make much difference to how the vast majority of us feel about the game. It's not a feature I'm looking forward to as explained above and I don't think thoise that want to play one more turn will be happy either.

[Bandit17]

I think they do plan to eventually have it for each Age. When? Who can say but I am in your camp where only once or twice have I ever used the One More Turn function and it was just to blow something up. I am happy for those really wanting it though. Just be aware that the longer an Age lasts usually the further the Snowball rolls.

I think in a true sandbox game One More Turn would have more appeal but in a smaller sandbox and with more strategy thrown in with multiple (3 for now) "Boxing" rounds I can see where the devs might have overlooked the One More Turn.

[JerBeware]

Originally posted by The Doctor:

This is just my observation about this marketing phrase and a series of ideas I associate with it. I have seen Civ games marketed as having that 'one more turn' hook and my understanding of that phrase has always meant that the gameplay is so addictive that when you think you're done for the day, you'll find yourself playing 'one more turn'. That was certainly my experience of Civ 2 and 3 and I did indeed play until the early hours on occasion. That is what it means to me.

I will add here that I still get the 'one more turn' feeling when I'm playing Civ 7 and other games as well, not necessarily a 4X game but as I've gotten older, I'm no longer so addicted to playing computer games as I was back 20- 30 years ago and so I rarely do. So this 'one more turn' feeling no longer determines whether a game is good for me or not. I just save my game and return to it the next day. What I DO consider as a factor to make that determination is the time I spend thinking about what I will do in my next session outside of the game and I've definitely got that with Civ 7.

Back to the 'one more turn' phrase, I am also aware that when my game finished, I was given the option to play 'one more turn...' which meant I could continue to play after the victory conditions had been determined. I can count the number of times I have availed myself of this function since Civ 2 on one hand and still have two or three fingers left. I almost never did this and only did so to nuke an enemy and watch the chaos.

Perhaps this is hard coded into me from my early years but when the game officially ends, the winner is determined and I no longer see any value in continuing with it. The ref has blown the final whistle, the fat lady has sung and the competition is finished. I just can't see any value in playing a 'lost' game because it has no meaning for ME. Perhaps that is why this particular interpretation doesn't mean anything for me.

Anyway, in about two weeks, the option to play 'one more turn' will be restored but it's not going to make the majority of people who are angry about it not already being there happy. The game is no longer one continuous session where the option to play one more turn came at the very end but now has three eras and the option to play on will only be given to you at the end of the modern era. At least that is how I understand their description of the new functionality.

So the return of one more turn isn't going to make much difference to how the vast majority of us feel about the game. It's not a feature I'm looking forward to as explained above and I don't think thoise that want to play one more turn will be happy either.

I agree. For me at least, I associated it the same way. It was addictive in nature and kept you playing later/longer than you first intended... sometimes into the wee hours of the morning.

It's been rare since I've wanted to go past a victory or loss (unless there was something specific I wanted to see or achieve), but it was few and far between.

Given the current implementation of ages and the limitations to the earlier ages, I would also agree, I just don't see any point in it outside of the modern age. Sure you can conquer your little land mass in the ancient age, but to what end?

And while I may be wrong, I think you hit the nail on the head so to speak. Not sure how many people are really going to be 'meaningfully satisfied' or have an opinion change... But if nothing else, that's one less thing for people to complain about.

[Bhole]

You'd think SOMEBODY at Firaxis or at least 2K would have looked at progress points on this catastrophe and be the adult in the room to say... uh... boys and girls... this ain't CIV.

[WeirdWizardDave]

Well, mostly it was the symbolism of not including the "one more turn" continue the game option at the end, compounded by the game stopping in the 1950s. In practice I've only finished one game of Civ 7, and while I did want to continue (it felt very sudden and unsatisfying) that one option not being there was more of an insult to injury moment than a massive issue in and of itself. It spoke of a lack of understanding and care for what the Civ series has always been for me than anything else, and for such a minor easily implemented feature. It genuinely boggled my mind.

But yes, the far greater and more fundamental problem is splitting the game up into 3 sub games with massive historical gaps and a soft reset between them. That is what needs fixing, adding in the one more turn option isn't going to make any difference to me otherwise.

[The Doctor]

Originally posted by WeirdWizardDave:

Well, mostly it was the symbolism of not including the "one more turn" continue the game option at the end, compounded by the game stopping in the 1950s. In practice I've only finished one game of Civ 7, and while I did want to continue (it felt very sudden and unsatisfying) that one option not being there was more of an insult to injury moment than a massive issue in and of itself. It spoke of a lack of understanding and care for what the Civ series has always been for me than anything else, and for such a minor easily implemented feature. It genuinely boggled my mind.

But yes, the far greater and more fundamental problem is splitting the game up into 3 sub games with massive historical gaps and a soft reset between them. That is what needs fixing, adding in the one more turn option isn't going to make any difference to me otherwise.

But what does that marketiing slogan, 'one more turn', actually mean? I think it describes the addictiveness of the gameplay (obviously I'm talking about the older games) as this is a slogan that is often applied to other games outside the franchise. 'One more turn' means 'addictive gameplay'.

While some folks do from time to time, most of us don't regularly play on after victory is determined, so I doubt that is what it means to most of us. The devs would have statistics generated by Steam to determine this factor so I don't know for sure how many do and how often. But that might well have determined the priority attached to this feature during pre-release development.

Because it's an industry and it's possible to know a little about it if you are so inclined, my mind is not boggled by its exclusion until afterwards at all just as it isn't by the lack of a Hall of Fame, a feature which has been added later in development since Civ V at least. While I may not always agree with their decisions, I appreciate that it's all about prioritising what they think are the most important features. Mistakes are bound to get made.

I'm sorry to hear that you don't like the new ages feature but it's here to stay as far as I can see. It could definitely do with some tuning though.

[WeirdWizardDave]

Originally posted by The Doctor:

But what does that marketiing slogan, 'one more turn', actually mean? I think it describes the addictiveness of the gameplay (obviously I'm talking about the older games) as this is a slogan that is often applied to other games outside the franchise. 'One more turn' means 'addictive gameplay'.

Sure I agree, the phrase "one more turn" applies to the feeling of just playing one more turn instead of saving and going to bed, which becomes another and another and suddenly its 3am and you're still playing. It being used at the end of the game for the option to keep playing is a nod toward that not the origin or primary meaning of it.

But the point is not the phrase its the understanding that playing on after the main victory condition has been met is a part of sandbox gameplay design. Just as you can continue playing Skyrim after you finish the games main story. While many, probably most people don't its still an important element of the philosophy of the game. If a sequel comes out that doesn't understand that then its going to cause issues for people.

In Civ 7 as I say its more symbolic than a practical issue for me, but given how trivially easy it would have been to include from the outset its emblematic of the fundamental shift, or lack of respect for the foundations of what makes a civ game. To me at least. The injury is the Ages system (and some of the other issues like the UI), the lack of an ability to decide when the game is over for myself is just an insult. But an insult is still not something devs should be including in their game.