7 Myths About CIV Players That Fooled Developers at Firaxis

[SupremacyKing2]

Or if you have leaders with no readily-identifiable distinguishing characteristics, which was the Humankind Problem.

100%. One of HK's biggest weaknesses is the use of these generic "nameless" leaders. I guess the idea was that the leaders would be avatars for the human player but I don't think that worked at all. This is where civ has it right by using actual historical leaders. it gives players something that they can relate and connect to since we all have some understanding of who these leaders were. And it can add a fun role-playing aspect as well. It is more fun to play as Abe Lincoln leading American civ than to play as "generic white guy" leading American civ.

 

[Gorbles]

Yes, players wanted less cartoony graphics. That is not the same as wanting super pretty detailed 3D graphics that make the map hard to read. I highly doubt that players who criticized civ6's graphics wanted cluttered maps that are hard to read.

You said the myth was that they care more about maps being beautiful than readable.

My point is that the reaction to VI disproves this premise. VI was very readable (I think there was some opinion about hills? But that was about it). But people wanted more details; more realism.

You saying "well actually people wanted something in the middle" is a different set of goalposts. It's not a myth for Firaxis to act on that explicit, exact feedback. Even if you think they didn't hit the mark.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

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 felt civs in Civ 5 were a bit too samey personally and I kind of get that feel in 7 thus far too. 6 just seemingly had much more unique designs

 

[Askia Muhammad]

You said the myth was that they care more about maps being beautiful than readable.

My point is that the reaction to VI disproves this premise. VI was very readable (I think there was some opinion about hills? But that was about it). But people wanted more details; more realism.

You saying "well actually people wanted something in the middle" is a different set of goalposts. It's not a myth for Firaxis to act on that explicit, exact feedback. Even if you think they didn't hit the mark.

I don’t think the number of people craving more realism and detail was that significant. Civ 6 is the series most popular game of all time. 5 and 7 are less popular.

There were certainly a cohort of vocal Civ 5 players who clamored to return to everything being a shade of brown and grey. I don’t know how they liked 4 then which had graphics (lower detail, much more vibrant color) more similar to 6 than 5.

I wouldn’t call Civ V a realistic art style either unless maybe you’re suicidal and every day is dark and suffering

 

[Gorbles]

I don’t think the number of people craving more realism and detail was that significant. Civ 6 is the series most popular game of all time. 5 and 7 are less popular.

They were popular here. I certainly saw similar takes elsewhere.

Did it stop the game from being successful? No.

I mean, I loved Civ VI. I was (and am) a defender of the art style for the facts that a) stylised graphics age better as a rule and b) readability.

But all that means is that myth #9 is still flawed.

 

[firadin]

I think this was a situation where the devs listened and believed players way too much. They heard fair and true complaints like "a game lasts too long / the end game is boring", but in reality players are happy to stop the game and reboot when it goes on too long - it doesn't actually stop them from playing. They were complaining, but it wasn't stopping anyone from playing the game. They heard that "Civs aren't balanced" and thought that players wanted equally powerful Civs, when actually players meant "my favorite civ doesn't get to shine enough." The solution wasn't to make every civ equally strong because then no one's favorite civ gets to shine.

It's unfortunate because I'm sure the devs thought they were doing the right thing, but players are famously good at complaining and awful at solutions.

 

[Haig]

They were popular here. I certainly saw similar takes elsewhere.

Did it stop the game from being successful? No.

I mean, I loved Civ VI. I was (and am) a defender of the art style for the facts that a) stylised graphics age better as a rule and b) readability.

But all that means is that myth #9 is still flawed.

Just played Civ VI today and admired the art and animation and life on the map.

All those people who years ago said that the stylized graphics stay fresh were absolutely right, the graphics dont look outdated at all.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I think there is only one solution, as discussed here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...t-a-civ-game-opinions-and-suggestions.697985/

1: RESTRICT every Civ swap to its NATURAL succession.
Leave the option to swap completely a civ to another, and maybe add a middle ground option, like shared borders, cultural exchange, but to ADD only Strict cultural proximity jumping, requires that all civs has a LINEAR optional choice in the first place...
2: RESTRICT Leaders to their Natural civilization. (And leave UNRESTRICTED Leaders as an option (as it was in Civ IV)).
3: Balance out the Age Reset and the tech reset... it is ok IMO if some civs still had to learn Writing in the MODERN AGE but had already unlocked Metallurgy....
but don't just plain the field at every reset as a Tech tree option for every civ should also get in a possible super-patch.


The Husky video is painful to watch, as also reading through the comment section...
Nobody wants to talk about this game and no-one except maybe 1% sees as it is worth even
considering trying to patch it to a playable state...

the perceived gap is too large.

To me, civ 7 require a drastic solution, and that is before even talking about all the other issues like no workers, victory conditions, lack
of scenarios, no iron-mode equivalent, etc.

 

[Skojardu]

But to be honest, arguments in this Forum (and far too many other platforms) tend to devolve into binomial Either - Or types:

SOD versus 1UPT

Simple versus Complex graphics

Leader versus Civ changing

Changing versus Continuous Civs and Leaders

In almost every case, there are potential 'solutions' - or at least, different alternatives - that should be explored rather than assume the only answers are in simple A or B terms.

SOD vs COD (carpet of doom) - don't betray your preference for Civ: Chess mode

 

[Askia Muhammad]

I think there is only one solution, as discussed here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...t-a-civ-game-opinions-and-suggestions.697985/

1: RESTRICT every Civ swap to its NATURAL succession.
Leave the option to swap completely a civ to another, and maybe add a middle ground option, like shared borders, cultural exchange, but to ADD only Strict cultural proximity jumping, requires that all civs has a LINEAR optional choice in the first place...
2: RESTRICT Leaders to their Natural civilization. (And leave UNRESTRICTED Leaders as an option (as it was in Civ IV)).
3: Balance out the Age Reset and the tech reset... it is ok IMO if some civs still had to learn Writing in the MODERN AGE but had already unlocked Metallurgy....
but don't just plain the field at every reset as a Tech tree option for every civ should also get in a possible super-patch.


The Husky video is painful to watch, as also reading through the comment section...
Nobody wants to talk about this game and no-one except maybe 1% sees as it is worth even
considering trying to patch it to a playable state...

the perceived gap is too large.

To me, civ 7 require a drastic solution, and that is before even talking about all the other issues like no workers, victory conditions, lack
of scenarios, no iron-mode equivalent, etc.

I think I’m personally struggling to see a way they can alter the game to make it more palatable to the playerbase at large without significantly compromising their vision.

I genuinely don’t even think they are prepared to concede the age resets/Civ swapping/leaders untethered from civs isn’t as well accepted as they thought.

For me, they’ve left a nasty taste in my mouth and I’m left wondering if (for me) the game is salvageable. I really can only blame myself because I went ahead and purchased this game twice (I bought and refunded the founders edition, and caved and repurchased the base game) despite being viscerally turned off when they initially announced it.

I also thinks it’s entirely possible if this game is as big a success on console as some here would have us believe, the game is “successful” ,despite alienating a non-insignificant portion of the traditional fandom on PC

 

[moondog385]

"Civ players" aren't a monolithic blob so I think making a video like this is a bit silly. Still, I'll entertain them.

1. Civ players crave realism and accuracy: I certainly crave accuracy and I take issue with the creator's complaint that there's an academic bias at work. Of course as we learn more about a given subject, we should adjust our perspective accordingly.
2. Peace is preferable to war: Civ 7 has pushed me to war far more than 6 so I don't understand this complaint, though I can see where he's coming from that the Domination victory isn't as aggressive as it was.
3. Civilizations need to be balanced: Yes, generally I'd agree with this. I wouldn't call it a myth.
6. Late game fatigue: I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who didn't suffer from late game fatigue in 6 so another complaint I don't understand.
7. Players weren't finishing games: The creator puts forward that this isn't a problem, which doesn't make much sense to me as the point is to lead your Civ to victory, but eh.

 

[infiniterocks]

Players didn't finish the game, because the turns took too long late game if you had lots of units to micromanage and/or mods that force the game to move slowly. Also if you're winning and the AI was in no position to stop you, there's not much incentive to continue.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

"Civ players" aren't a monolithic blob so I think making a video like this is a bit silly. Still, I'll entertain them.

1. Civ players crave realism and accuracy: I certainly crave accuracy and I take issue with the creator's complaint that there's an academic bias at work. Of course as we learn more about a given subject, we should adjust our perspective accordingly.
2. Peace is preferable to war: Civ 7 has pushed me to war far more than 6 so I don't understand this complaint, though I can see where he's coming from that the Domination victory isn't as aggressive as it was.
3. Civilizations need to be balanced: Yes, generally I'd agree with this. I wouldn't call it a myth.
6. Late game fatigue: I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who didn't suffer from late game fatigue in 6 so another complaint I don't understand.
7. Players weren't finishing games: The creator puts forward that this isn't a problem, which doesn't make much sense to me as the point is to lead your Civ to victory, but eh.

That’s one of my primary complaints about his video - history is ever changing as new evidence and new lines of questioning are utilized. He uses some sort of poster that is clearly dated in its understanding of history and also very Eurocentric.

 

[Bug Repellent]

"Civ players" aren't a monolithic blob so I think making a video like this is a bit silly.

Husky actually made this point himself and did specify that these are his views and he doesn't claim to speak for the entire fanbase. He conceded he's an older guy that perhaps has to make room for a younger player base that Firaxis is right to court. His videos are very thoughtful, but are the views of a middle aged man that has been a fan of the franchise for a long but who is disappointed with the latest installment. That's all. I don't understand why so many players that like Civ 7 have such a hard time accepting that others are critical about the game. Especially older players, like Husky, myself, and even Brandon Sanderson. You see this clearly in the r/civ sub on Reddit where every post critical of Civ 7 automatically gets downvoted into oblivion and the OP immediately insulted.

 

[Bug Repellent]

He uses some sort of poster that is clearly dated in its understanding of history and also very Eurocentric.

It's called the Histomap. Is it dated? Yes, it was first printed in 1931 in Chicago. I find it quite beautiful and informative, despite its age. You can find large scans with a google image search.

 

[Kwami]

I don't understand why so many players that like Civ 7 have such a hard time accepting that others are critical about the game.

I think we're just tired of seeing the same small group of posters jump into every thread to tell us how much they don't like the game that the rest of us are enjoying.

 

[Bug Repellent]

I think we're just tired of seeing the same small group of posters jump into every thread to tell us how much they don't like the game that the rest of us are enjoying.

The good news is that after disappointment comes acceptance and finally, apathy. So you won't have to read too many complains going forward. Not sure this is good for the franchise, but as long as Firaxis is happy, all is good. Enjoy the game!

 

[King of Prussia]

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.)

Its very common for games, as they mature over time to release new content that turns the conventional rules on their head, giving a vastly different playstyle. NFP has a lot of civs/leaders that did this, and those are among my favorite to play. Assuming 7 gets the chance, they too will find new ways to spice up how you play. It's a great way to add replayability and let devs spread their wings a bit.


As for the myths in the OP. I disagree a lot of them are myths.

 

[user746383]

I think we're just tired of seeing the same small group of posters jump into every thread to tell us how much they don't like the game that the rest of us are enjoying.

I think this entire forum is just a small group of the same posters in every thread, whatever their opinions may be. I personally find it way more annoying having people showing up exasperated that people they disagree with have the nerve to post their thoughts here rather than reading posts from people I disagree with, which I often learn a lot from and are way more interesting. These days you can easily set up an LLM-powered forum where all the other posters agree with you and love to tell you how smart and correct your subjective opinions are, if that's what floats your boat.

 

[UWHabs]

But to be honest, arguments in this Forum (and far too many other platforms) tend to devolve into binomial Either - Or types:

SOD versus 1UPT

Simple versus Complex graphics

Leader versus Civ changing

Changing versus Continuous Civs and Leaders

In almost every case, there are potential 'solutions' - or at least, different alternatives - that should be explored rather than assume the only answers are in simple A or B terms.

You missed mentioning Wide vs Tall, another forum favorite.

It's the natural flow of online message boards, to end up polarizing. It's worse in the current culture, but it's definitely been around even all the way back to those original polarizing arguments around civ 5.