7 Myths About CIV Players That Fooled Developers at Firaxis

[SupremacyKing2]

I found this interesting video from "Emotional Husky's Civilization Stories" on youtube that discusses 7 myths that he believes the devs fell for and led them to make design mistakes in civ7.

Time stamps:

00:00 Intro
00:59 If it Ain't Broke Don't Fix It
01:52 Myth #1: civ players crave realism and accuracy.
04:21 Myth #2: peace is preferrable to war
05:46 Myth #3: single player and multi-player are the same
06:58 Myth #4: civilizations need to be balanced.
08:07 Myth #5: winning is the objective
09:06 Myth #6: late game fatigue
10:29 Myth #7: players don't finish games
11:05 Conclusion

------------

Personally, I don't agree with myth #6. I do think that late game fatigue is real. I've experienced it many times in my games of civ6. If we are honest, I think we have to admit that the religious and culture victories in civ6 did involve a lot of tedious clicking. So I think it is fair to look at ways to reduce unnecessary and tedious actions in order to make the late game more satisfying for players.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think Myth#2 is part of the problem with AI and 1upt…1upt basically made War a “cheat code” because the AI was bad at it.

So making War more costly made sense to increase the challenge.

 

[Xur]

At this point, it feels a bit like beating a dead horse - but if you design a game like a board game, where you have to constantly interact with or click on everything because automation of tedious tasks isn't an option, then late-game fatigue is inevitable. Ed Beach created the problem in civ6 and then “solved” it in civ7 by removing large portions of what most players consider core features - while still clinging to the board game philosophy. Previous civ games also had late game fatigue to some degree, but builders with limited charges vs. workers that could be automated made a big difference. The districts also added to late game fatigue because some cities are just not interesting. Basicly all the new features of civ6 made late game even grindier. What works and is fun on a small map is not the same as what works and is fun on a huge map. Imagine playing chess on a 1000x1000 board - tedious.

 

[Gori the Grey]

And I'll add #8, from my comment in the other thread: Because they use the names "Cleopatra" and "Ghandi," players think of themselves as playing as and against the leaders, not the civs.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I think Myth#2 is part of the problem with AI and 1upt…1upt basically made War a “cheat code” because the AI was bad at it.

So making War more costly made sense to increase the challenge.

I think this also ties in with myth #1. If we want to be historically accurate, no civ has even come close to conquering the whole world. The world is just too big. The British Empire had the largest empire in history and it was only 23.84% of the world's landmass. The Mongol Empire was #2 with 17.81%. So if we want to be historically realistic, it should be a huge accomplishment for a civ to even cover 25% of the map. But on the flip side, it is a game, not a history simulator. It is certainly more fun to let players conquer as much of the map as they can. But to your point, I agree. 1upt makes war harder for the AI, especially on smaller maps where there is less room to maneuver.

At this point, it feels a bit like beating a dead horse - but if you design a game like a board game, where you have to constantly interact with or click on everything because automation of tedious tasks isn't an option, then late-game fatigue is inevitable. Ed Beach created the problem in civ6 and then “solved” it in civ7 by removing large portions of what most players consider core features - while still clinging to the board game philosophy. Previous civ games also had late game fatigue to some degree, but builders with limited charges vs. workers that could be automated made a big difference. The districts also added to late game fatigue because some cities are just not interesting. Basicly all the new features of civ6 made late game even grindier. What works and is fun on a small map is not the same as what works and is fun on a huge map. Imagine playing chess on a 1000x1000 board - tedious.

You make a good point about automation. Late game fatigue was less of an issue in say civ4 because you could just automate away the parts of the game that you found boring. The devs felt like automation is bad because it takes decisions away from the player. So they made the game smaller to make it more manageable and forced the player to do everything. But that will inevitably add grind to the late game.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I would add Myth #9: Players care more about beautiful map realism than readability.

I think most civ players, especially the hardcore players, don't care about pretty graphics. They care about readibility and strategy. I feel like the civ7 focuses too much on graphics at the cost of readability and strategy. And I get it, in today's world, pretty 3D graphics sell games. And if you have a high end computer, you can zoom in and urban districts look gorgeous. But city sprawl makes the map a visual mess, especially in the late game. Cities merge together in a big messy blob that covers your empire empire. It can be hard to know what is what.

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting we go back to civ2 graphics. I think you could go back to cities just being a city center with maybe 1-2 adjacent tiles for urban sprawl, and have wonders on the map, the rest of the map could be tile improvements and still have a nice looking map. I don't think the entire map needs to be covered in super detailed buidlings and districts.

 

[UWHabs]

I watched some of this yesterday. It's a little on beating the dead horse, and I think some of the "myths" are not actually myths. Like, players do crave some level of realism, the civs do need some level of balance, and late game fatigue does exist.

Now, as with everything, whether those "myths" are problems or not is obviously under discussion. You need a level of realism, and I do think some of the changes in the last few iterations to get a little more realistic haven't necessarily hurt things. Not all campus locations are the same, it's kind of cool that you can only build the pyramids on desert tiles, etc.. Obviously we don't need realism to the level of "only Egypt can build the Pyramids", but keeping things with some historical flair is good for storytelling. Like, I'd say one of the best moves Firaxis has made over the last few years has been to hire an actual historian to the team, to make sure that things are representative.

And we do need some level of balance between civs. I don't want a civ that's clearly the best, or one that's clearly the worst. Now, the video mentioned some good points among this - some of the unit value scaling seems a little weak, where there's not really enough difference between some units that could naturally appear 500 years apart. But you also don't want it so the first civ to get a landship can just walk over everyone else without a fight.

I would add Myth #9: Players care more about beautiful map realism than readability.

I think most civ players, especially the hardcore players, don't care about pretty graphics. They care about readibility and strategy. I feel like the civ7 focuses too much on graphics at the cost of readability and strategy. And I get it, in today's world, pretty 3D graphics sell games. And if you have a high end computer, you can zoom in and urban districts look gorgeous. But city sprawl makes the map a visual mess, especially in the late game. Cities merge together in a big messy blob that covers your empire empire. It can be hard to know what is what.

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting we go back to civ2 graphics. I think you could go back to cities just being a city center with maybe 1-2 adjacent tiles for urban sprawl, and have wonders on the map, the rest of the map could be tile improvements and still have a nice looking map. I don't think the entire map needs to be covered in super detailed buidlings and districts.

This would be another one that I'd call a half-truth. You want a pretty map - there's a reason why people play on the regular view, and most don't play their games in the Empire view. But yeah, I think the way sprawl is handled currently in the game, and the same-ness of a lot of the map, does distract from the rest of the game. Having to constantly hover over a tile to figure out what's there is not good design.

 

[McSpank01]

Yeah I agree a lot of them are half truths rather than myths. I absolutely wanted a more realistic look to the game compared to Civ 6, it was hard to immerse myself in something that was so cartoonish. However that doesn't mean I want a UI that is incomprehensible and I can't tell the difference between districts. Its completely possible to make gorgeous diorama style landscapes AND make it easy to see what is what.

I also do want civilisations to feel somewhat realistic, I don't want the game to completely take me out of the immersion by doing something completely ahistoric. However, I always understood the limits of the game and the basic concept was always seeing a civ throughout time, and I was able to get my head around that before. I don't mind the layering approach, but it has to feel less gamey and artificial.

I do agree with the myths about winning and finishing games however. I think I finished about 3 games in my entire time playing Civ 6. Maybe I would like to change that, but I never finish any games I own. I have next to zero finished games on Warhammer Total War, I have yet to finish Baldurs Gate, can I play a whole CK3 campaign through to the end? Does it matter? Not really, I love those games.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

And we do need some level of balance between civs. I don't want a civ that's clearly the best, or one that's clearly the worst.

Agreed. There needs to be some balance. You don't want one civ to clearly be the best. But at the same time, I think the video feels that you don't want civs to be so perfectly balanced that that they all end up being very bland and same. The idea is that there should be a little unbalance to make things fun. I guess where things get a bit subjective is when you debate how balanced a civ is, ie is this specific civ ability too OP or not. So deciding if the balance is right or not, is where things get tricky.

 

[Kwami]

00:59 If it Ain't Broke Don't Fix It

Yes, let's never innovate ever. Also, plenty was broken in previous games.

01:52 Myth #1: civ players crave realism and accuracy.

But, they do. Have you not seen all of the threads here about inaccurate units, for example? Or the complaints about using the wrong name for a civilization (e.g. French Empire)?

04:21 Myth #2: peace is preferrable to war

It is! Obviously, we all have different preferences, but I almost never go to war in my games because I find peace to be more fun. And that was true in every previous Civilization game that I've played, too.

05:46 Myth #3: single player and multi-player are the same

I don't think that anybody actually thought this was true. Ever.

06:58 Myth #4: civilizations need to be balanced.

They kind of do, though. If one civilization is too weak or too strong, then people complain about it. They don't have to be perfectly balanced, but they need to be somewhere in the same ballpark.

08:07 Myth #5: winning is the objective

It literally is.

09:06 Myth #6: late game fatigue

This is absolutely real.

10:29 Myth #7: players don't finish games

And "myth #6" is why this is also real. I almost always finish my games, but a lot of players don't. Firaxis has the stats to back that up.

And I'll add #8, from my comment in the other thread: Because they use the names "Cleopatra" and "Ghandi," players think of themselves as playing the leaders, not the civs.

But isn't that kind of true? Even in IV and VI, you could play the same civilization with different leaders. And when you got mad at an opponent, didn't you think of the character rather than the civilization? I did. "Genghis Khan is such a jerk!"

I would add Myth #9: Players care more about beautiful map realism than readability.

There were approximately ten million threads on the Civilization VI board complaining about the less-than-realistic art style in that game. So, yeah, I think that a lot of players apparently do care more about realism than readability.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I myself feel differently than he does about Myth #5. I do like trying to win, even in SP. I realize that winning there is a matter of putting my resource-leveraging skills up against the AI's extra resources, but at the level I play (deity on civ 5), that actually does prove to be a challenge for me, and the very challenge that keeps me playing the game.

But isn't that kind of true? Even in IV and VI, you could play the same civilization with different leaders. And when you got mad at an opponent, didn't you think of the character rather than the civilization? I did. "Genghis Khan is such a jerk!"

Here was my line of reasoning:

Post in thread 'Discussion On Why Civ 7 Doesn't Feel Like A "Civ" Game'

Wednesday at 8:00 AM

I think one flaw in their reasoning comes here:

Players often say that they're making alliances or waging war against Cleopatra, Gandhi, or Montezuma - not Egypt, India, or the Aztecs. (emphasis added)

When the civs were linked to the leaders and it wasn't even conceivable to think of the apart from one another (as they were 1-6)* one could use either way of referring to the civ and it would amount to the same thing. In circumstances like that, the tendency might even be to favor the leader name, because our minds more easily conceive of agency in connection...

• Gori the Grey

• 

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

The civ fan base is pretty broad, but I'm surprised to find that Emotional Husky found 7 "myths" that I disagree with them about completely. Like, just randomly they should have complained about something that I agree with them about, considering my dislike of Civ 6. Or maybe that's it, and Emotional Husky thinks all civ fans want all civ games to be more like Civ 6.

Anyway, I personally think the problems with recent Civ iterations is not enough realism or accuracy, too much of a benefit for war versus peaceful building, not a rigorous enough single player game to allow multiplayer/hotseat games, too much focus on "cool" civ uniques (at the expense of making abilities that should be available to all unique to one) and therefore not enough civ balance, not enough focus on making the game a fun challenge to win at higher difficulty levels, the amount of tedious work does not scale over time making the late game a slog, with players not finishing games being a symptom of the last two points.

 

[McSpank01]

Agreed. There needs to be some balance. You don't want one civ to clearly be the best. But at the same time, I think the video feels that you don't want civs to be so perfectly balanced that that they all end up being very bland and same. The idea is that there should be a little unbalance to make things fun. I guess where things get a bit subjective is when you debate how balanced a civ is, ie is this specific civ ability too OP or not. So deciding if the balance is right or not, is where things get tricky.

I want civs that play differently, that specialise in certain things, and are weaker in other areas. I don't really want generalist civs where everything is bland and generic. That is kind of how it feels right now. Each civ kinda plays the same way, I rarely feel like I need to lean into one playstyle because I am a certain civ.

 

[Kerosene31]

The problem is generalizing a large community. Making sweeping generalizations about a large group is flawed. Personally, I don't care about history or accuracy. I will play as Ghandi and nuke everyone just for fun. That's just me though, I know many people do value this. Nobody is right. Different people, different wants.

I'm also one of those notorious "doesn't finish games" types. Late game fatigue is a thing, and has been in Civ (and any game like this). For me, the early game is so much fun, then you get exploration, then you get... less fun. That doesn't mean the late game can't be fun, but for me, it is the part that gets me to quit (also combined with the "I don't really care about winning"). Again, this is JUST ME. (although I wonder if they have stats for players finishing games from past games).

This is why there's still people playing Civ 6, 5 and probably 4 still (I'm guessing). We don't all agree, never will, and never need to. That's why there's multiple civ games, and mutliple other games in a similar genre.

This is super common for any video game franchise with sequels, unless the sequel is just a straight up copy of the previous game with better graphics. I wouldn't have wanted Civ 6 copy/pasted with better graphics, but maybe some people did?

 

[UWHabs]

I want civs that play differently, that specialise in certain things, and are weaker in other areas. I don't really want generalist civs where everything is bland and generic. That is kind of how it feels right now. Each civ kinda plays the same way, I rarely feel like I need to lean into one playstyle because I am a certain civ.

A couple of the civs play a little different, but I do agree that more civs or leaders could shake things up even more. Give me an "anti-Carthage" where every town is like super expensive to maintain and my goal should be to convert them all to cities. Give me a civ that doesn't get relics from the science tree, but gets them from the culture tree instead. Give me a civ that cannot found a religion, but gets their exploration era relics in a completely different manner. Give me a civ that throws specialist yields completely upside down.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

That is kind of how it feels right now. Each civ kinda plays the same way, I rarely feel like I need to lean into one playstyle because I am a certain civ.

It is interesting that you say that because I feel like civ7 actually doubled down on trying to make civs more unique. Civs not just have unique abilities, buildings and units but also now they have their own unique civics tree with unique traditions and some have unique great people too. And civs can play differently if you focus on their uniques. For example, with Rome, you want to get to legions and slot traditions to buff their combat strength. You want a very military focus. With Egypt, you want to build cities near navigable rivers and focus on wonders. So there are clear differences.

But maybe to your point, the civ uniques do not fundamentally alter the gameplay. So the civs only play differently if you play to their unique abilities. The game does not force you to do that so it is possible to play the civs the same and maybe not really feel the differences due to their uniques. Unlike other strategy games where the playable factions play fundamentally differently. You might have the faction that cannot do research and can only get techs through espionage or trade, or the faction that cannot grow population with food and can only get population by converting production, or the faction that cannot settle their own cities and can only conquer other cities. These make the civs play fundamentally differently. Civ does not do this. The civs play by the same rules, they just get bonuses, uniques or abilities to encourage different playstyles.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I wouldn't have wanted Civ 6 copy/pasted with better graphics, but maybe some people did?

I would not want that either but there are definitely people who do. In the civilization 7 facebook group, there are a bunch of people who say they just wanted civ6 with better graphics. As a result, they absolutely loathe civ7. I can see people who grew to really love civ6 who might feel that way. It is natural to want to stay with what feels familiar. Change can be unsettling.

 

[Gori the Grey]

t is interesting that you say that because I feel like civ7 actually doubled down on trying to make civs more unique. Civs not just have unique abilities, buildings and units but also now they have their own unique civics tree with unique traditions and some have unique great people too.

But here's where that insight in the video linked by kaspergm a week back comes into play

I know it's not a new video, but I think this video has some excellent points on many of the things you address here - specifically about the last part and why it's not necessarily more fun to have each civ have uniques in all eras (I think it's in the part called 4x vs. RPG, from 18 minutes onwards).

If every civ gets its own uniques in every age, and the developers work to balance them, then they effectively cancel one another out. If everyone has a UU in Exploration, your UU doesn't feel special.

I myself kind of go back and forth on the question of civs that are highly specialized. I play Civ V, and I usually play on Pangaea. That reduces Venice's Uniques to double trade routes, and that drives them far in the direction of a diplo victory. I played Venice once. Really really enjoyed their double trade routes and how much money was rolling in. I did win as diplo. Now when I'm rolling civs, if I see Venice, I think to myself "oh I know the game I would play if played them" and I roll a different game.

BUT

Now and again, I say to myself, "no, you should play them, and see if you can do something different with that extra advantage." (military victory, e.g.) (with the challenge of protecting all of those trade routes)

Here what's important is a dimension of Civ games that I think is key to this kind of enjoyment, and that is that various systems are partly fungible. If you don't have high production, you can make up for it with high gold. You can steer a tech advantage into a military advantage, so if you're a civ suited to science, you can still use it to play a conquest game. So highly specialized civs can make for their own kind of game challenge.

 

[McSpank01]

It is interesting that you say that because I feel like civ7 actually doubled down on trying to make civs more unique. Civs not just have unique abilities, buildings and units but also now they have their own unique civics tree with unique traditions and some have unique great people too. And civs can play differently if you focus on their uniques. For example, with Rome, you want to get to legions and slot traditions to buff their combat strength. You want a very military focus. With Egypt, you want to build cities near navigable rivers and focus on wonders. So there are clear differences.

But maybe to your point, the civ uniques do not fundamentally alter the gameplay. So the civs only play differently if you play to their unique abilities. The game does not force you to do that so it is possible to play the civs the same and maybe not really feel the differences due to their uniques. Unlike other strategy games where the playable factions play fundamentally differently. You might have the faction that cannot do research and can only get techs through espionage or trade, or the faction that cannot grow population with food and can only get population by converting production, or the faction that cannot settle their own cities and can only conquer other cities. These make the civs play fundamentally differently. Civ does not do this. The civs play by the same rules, they just get bonuses, uniques or abilities to encourage different playstyles.

True, there is technically greater differentiation between them, what with all the different units and tech trees and buildings. And yet they don't feel all that unique. I don't really play especially differently depending on which civ I am. Each civ gets a unique unit which is usually really good, sort of cancelling out the unique units of other civilisations. Many of the civs just seem to mirror each other or feel equally strong. Any civ I play I can pretty much go with any style of play and it will work just fine. In that way there isn't much replayability. Many of the differences are 'under the hood' giving you buffs somewhere but not really changing your gameplay style.

I do like the more unique civs, I like the way Carthage pumps out colonists rather than settlers. That is the sort of difference I want to see.

 

[Kwami]

But how different was each civilization in previous games, though? I don't remember many complaints about replayabiity in IV, V, and VI when the civilizations were even less unique.

(V got better towards the end with Venice. VI got better towards the end with some of the NFP releases. But for the most part, the civilizations in those games were all very similar, or at least very similar to the other civilizations in the same set (e.g. the culture civs). IV was basically a unit, a building, and two attributes. Not much differentiation there.)