7 Myths About CIV Players That Fooled Developers at Firaxis

It was also a problem in Civ IV and Civ V. And probably Civs I-III, but I haven't played those ones.

Keeping the AI challenging in the late game is very difficult.
Civ 1 games were shorter because there were only Tier 1 and Tier 2 buildings, like the Marketplace and Bank. In the late game, you ran out of new buildings and had only the space project or world domination as options. You were semi-forced to finish the game.

Civ 2 added Tier 3 buildings, more units, and more tech to discover. It changed the end game and it became what it is now.
 
At the end of the day, its the Devs game. Not yours. It is their creation. Or using your reference. It is their dishes that you are eating and enjoying. You go there because you like their food, or want to try it out. If enough people dont eat or like one of their items, they either have to change it or remove it. Wasting $$$$$$$$$ on something that very few enjoy is not a sound business move. You dont own them. Those aren't your dishes. You can offer your opinion on what they should do/offer, but they dont have to listen to it. As a business, you make a product you think people are interested in, but at the end of the day it is your product. If you make a product people are no longer interested in, you either adapt or go out of business.

It is 100% relevant to the customer unless you care about nothing other than "is this yummy".
I am not interested in their business plan or spending. It is their internal discussion on where and how they spend money. If they spend money on something people don't enjoy, it is their problem. They fix it, or keep spending, I don't care. I don't work there.

Essentially, this is like a restaurant where customers loved the starters and main course, but the dessert was bad. Now they tried to fix their dessert, but in the process, they ruined their menu, and customers are still skipping the dessert.

And that is fine. I still don't work there and they have other restaurants with the old menu.
 
I don't why it's an issue for companies to spend money on things not everyone might enjoy.
Most games have an ending, but actually, most people don't finish every single game!

Story games like GTA, Hollow Knight, etc. have an ending that is very cool, masterfully crafted, lots of effort put in.
But around 30% of GTA 5 players finished that game (according to Google's AI at least) and around 17% for Hollow Knight.
Moreover these games are very highly reviewed.

So how do people enjoy a game they don't finish? Believe it or not, finishing a game is not the be all and end all of enjoyment.
In fact, just because content is not available to everyone during every playthrough doesn't mean that it is wasted content.
Secret bosses, secret areas, hidden endings and quests are all potential wastes of developer's time and money because quote "No one will see it".

You want people to reach the ending? Make the ending more interesting by adding higher stakes. Give the victory screen lots of flair - music, stats, interactive maps, collage, highlight moments.

The fun is in the journey and not the destination. A masterful Civ experience would have lots of naturally generated highs and lows, betrayal stories and comebacks. Not episodic predictable resets that feel the same every time.
 
Last edited:
From a devs perspective, people not finishing games is an issue. You are spending $$$$$$$$$$ to make all those late game assets, time researching the stuff needed for them, etc,. That is a lot of time and resources that isnt being used by the players. There was a discussion about what an old Civ dev(Johnson?) about the issues with late game. Mainly that you would almost need 2 separate games to keep it both fresh and competitive.

Anyways, im not going to say 7 did a good job at addressing these issues but it is something they have to try and address. We will see if they try and dial back the age transition rubberbanding, make it smoother, or make it less punishing. Im sure they will take a fresh stab at it in the next civ game.

As for AI. Making it competitive for 200-300 turns is a real challenge. Snowballing is an issue all strategy games have. You can try and find ways to rubberband players back together, but it also has to be done in a way that isnt unfair to the one playing really well. People love getting stuff. They hate having stuff they did undone or taken away.
I think it’s more that the devs feel personally hurt that people don’t finish the parts of the game they worked on rather than some money issue. I get it, they put a lot of time into it. But, the personal feelings of the devs should not dictate the direction of development.
 
I think it’s more that the devs feel personally hurt that people don’t finish the parts of the game they worked on rather than some money issue. I get it, they put a lot of time into it. But, the personal feelings of the devs should not dictate the direction of development.
I doubt that. If it's like any group endeavour I've worked on then the devs will all be a mix of features they like, features they are meh about, and features they implemented under direct orders. It seems like they welcome constructive criticism here, and the problems they tried to address were things we've been moaning on civfanatics about for a while!
 
I think that's a statement which could be applied to too many discussions on this forum.
This is some kind of gotcha? I think you could never expect to have Civ7 appeal to everyone, of course I won't ever blame them for trying to make a game.
But other people reserve the right to say that some changes are hampering their entire experience. That's different than complaining about the Devs putting in some content that not everyone will play (like the late eras, or scenarios, or secrets or endings depending on the type of game.)
 
That was a Civ6 issue because it had Governors, Era Score, Districts, National Parks, Missionaries covering half the map, Rock Bands
Basically tons and tons of 'busy work'
That's why no one liked the late game of that.

But it's not a CIV ISSUE necessarily, that's my personal opinion.
Agree with this. Especially because there were so many cities, most of them unimportant, and considering there was a policy iirc to have builders be able to contribute to district projects (i.e. just to get the science victory done with quicker) shows this pretty clearly.

That's what I liked about Civ V. The end game, while not usually all that interesting, didn't take forever to get through because you usually didn't have so many units and cities to manage at a certain point if you were just going for a science, diplomatic or cultural victory.
 
I am not interested in their business plan or spending. It is their internal discussion on where and how they spend money. If they spend money on something people don't enjoy, it is their problem. They fix it, or keep spending, I don't care. I don't work there.

Essentially, this is like a restaurant where customers loved the starters and main course, but the dessert was bad. Now they tried to fix their dessert, but in the process, they ruined their menu, and customers are still skipping the dessert.

And that is fine. I still don't work there and they have other restaurants with the old menu.
You as a customer dont have to know about their inner workings, but if you like their product(s), you will value the company being viable and making sound monetary decisions.

I agree with the last part. They didnt do a good job fixing desert, and hurt the rest of their menu instead. They saw they had issues, but did a bad job at addressing them. I dont agree with ignoring them.
I think it’s more that the devs feel personally hurt that people don’t finish the parts of the game they worked on rather than some money issue. I get it, they put a lot of time into it. But, the personal feelings of the devs should not dictate the direction of development.
Idk if that is the primary cause of Civ 7s issues. Im sure it would suck personally if you made something cool and no one tries it out. Idk the break down of costs per era, but i would image the late game makes a large chuck of that, do the extra mechanics, models and other stuff that the early and mid game doesnt have. You spend all that time and money for something no one plays or enjoys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: j51
Personally, if the whole game is cool and i enjoyed it but I"m prevented to see the end because X or Y reason (most of the time a too hard boss - Neverwinter Nights 2 ? - or a too hard mission - Watch Dogs ? - ), I can't help but break the game in my critics on the internet. Sometimes that's just because I really wanted to know the thin word of the story, but I have to admit that most of the time this is because it hurts my pride, lol. And/or I feel incomplete. Just like those persons who want to "platine" all their Playstation games, except I don't even try to do that or I would be disgusted of video games. (they are called "completists", I can be one too but not with disconnected and high skill demanding feats that the game doesn't even ask to be completed normally, unless it's a bad game, again :p)

However, back to Civ7, not only I never completed a single game even on difficulty 1, but I highly disliked the "journey". Not because of civ switching, although the rough era change I'm not a big fan of. (as it has been done) But how the whole game works (or doesn't). It's a little bit like my experience with Civ6, I see minor details as huge disappointments from games to games. For example in my last game I had no "goody huts" : "WTH" ? Was this a bug ? I immediately started another one. Also, lame, insidiously ponderous features or bugs are undermining my morale. (I'm still looking for those happiness boosts in the "next celebration") I don't know what to do with the dichotomy Cities/Towns, that's so confusing. Yields are generally poor. (rural ones) The wonders... why bother except maybe the Hanging Gardens. I'm probably too impatient and want to play the game like an Arcade game, as I ever did with Civ. (except 5, 6 and 7, but I somehow "tamed" 5 by watching a lot of youtube videos, things that I rarely do otherwise, I prefer to rely on my own self - proudly and genuinely -. That said, I did the same with 6 but never ended to enjoy it as much, by far - still hating it) There is simply too many things going on, and if the Devil is in the details, then the 2 last iterations of Civ are Evil. (I mean, people may like them but for the wrong reasons - exploits ? Civs abilities, blah blah blah)

I do think I pretty much summed up my feelings on Civ. Relieved. [EDITED : whoops, wrong topic :D ]
 
Last edited:
- and not just very difficult in Civ games.

Play EU (any number) from first to last, and the last part of the game, unless you have completely screwed up, is your Mega-Empire rolling over the world.
Most 4X type games, and paradox strategy games, have this issue. The player is rewarded for outplaying the AI at every stage of the game, and inevitably that means they open up a huge gap by the end if they play well early. "I know the game is already over" is just as common a reason for players not finishing as "it's too much micro." The only way you can solve this is by constraining how big a gap there is between civs/factions/etc.

I think the devs were right to include rubberband mechanics in civ7. I advocated for them years ago. But the issue is always that you can't really show players that's what you're doing, because for whatever reason it drives people crazy if they notice it.
Civ6 is the best looking game in the series, and at least as far as the map goes probably the most functional one, I always instantly know what I am looking at

It’s also the only art style that is aging well
And yet, this was one of the aspects of civ6 that got a lot of public hate. There were people who didn't even buy the game because of the art style. It was so commonplace they released a civ5 tileset for civ6 so you could make it look more like the previous game.

I would hope it is clear with hindsight why the devs made civ6 look that way - for readability. But why couldn't players see that in 2016? Good design is often easy to miss. In my opinion a lot of the game mechanics people are heavily criticizing in civ7 are not inherently flawed mechanics. They simply aren't presented the right way or lack polish. Just like civ6's art style, many of the good design decisions in civ7 are hard for us to notice right now.
 
many of the good design decisions in civ7 are hard for us to notice right now.
I suspect this is right, and the most interesting thing for me to follow regarding Civ 7 will be how big of an audience it eventually finds who love those positives and don't care about (or even enjoy) the things that turn other players off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: j51
I think the devs were right to include rubberband mechanics in civ7. I advocated for them years ago. But the issue is always that you can't really show players that's what you're doing, because for whatever reason it drives people crazy if they notice it.
I think the most effective rubber banding is from the settlement limit (and the town/city split slows you down a little).And I think that is low-key one of the best additions to the game. I do not miss infinite city spam..


Eras were touted as a rubber band but as implemented are a little weird. Since they rubberband everyone but it's way easier for a human who knows what they're doing to rebound harder, they do constrain newer players, but once a player is used to them I don't think they continue to function as rubber bands any more... If anything you can game them very easily to turn them into a snowball mechanic as you get more relatively powerful than the AI each time.
 
Most 4X type games, and paradox strategy games, have this issue. The player is rewarded for outplaying the AI at every stage of the game, and inevitably that means they open up a huge gap by the end if they play well early. "I know the game is already over" is just as common a reason for players not finishing as "it's too much micro." The only way you can solve this is by constraining how big a gap there is between civs/factions/etc.
Good analysis.
Here's an idea out of left field:
One way to make the end game more challenging could be creating Stellaris-type end-game crises, i.e., emergence of very powerful entities that overwhelm the unprepared, and may even need collaboration to withstand.

It would need some imagination to get it to fit the Civ environment, and perhaps try to fashion different scenarios targeting different game styles.
Some ideas:
- (the obvious) extraterrestrial invaders, even Mars-men ;-)
- a powerful previously undetected civ with large technological/military advantage (would need a limitation on how much of Earth can be explored), but to could also be an undetected "marine" or subterranean civ
- AI uprising creating armageddon
- Emergence of a Financial Giant/Cartel "secret" organization that messes up economies across nations
- Drastically increase impact of the current end of era crises, like a Bioweapon running out of control, enough to scramble existing balances of power
etc.
 
Good analysis.
Here's an idea out of left field:
One way to make the end game more challenging could be creating Stellaris-type end-game crises, i.e., emergence of very powerful entities that overwhelm the unprepared, and may even need collaboration to withstand.

It would need some imagination to get it to fit the Civ environment, and perhaps try to fashion different scenarios targeting different game styles.
Some ideas:
- (the obvious) extraterrestrial invaders, even Mars-men ;-)
- a powerful previously undetected civ with large technological/military advantage (would need a limitation on how much of Earth can be explored), but to could also be an undetected "marine" or subterranean civ
- AI uprising creating armageddon
- Emergence of a Financial Giant/Cartel "secret" organization that messes up economies across nations
- Drastically increase impact of the current end of era crises, like a Bioweapon running out of control, enough to scramble existing balances of power
etc.
Actually, "very powerful entities" just has to be tweaked to include 'very powerful Events and Forces' to apply to a historicalish 4X like Civ:

The Industrial Revolution introduced an entirely new social/population class, the Industrial Worker, which took a century or more for governments and societies to come to terms with (if then), and it up-ended politics and society and led to the 'Ideology' crisis that wracked the early 20th century with warfare.

Ideologies, already used as an excuse for disliking your neighbors in Civ VII, could be expanded to show their real impact, as they warped governments and societies both. While the impact of Fascism and Communism were obvious on Germany and Russia, FDR's New Deal of government intervention in the USA was almost equally radical, and a new American civil war or revolution was avoided by a smaller margin than is usually suspected.

The growth of and interdependance of Governments and NGOs (Non-Government Organizations) is nothing new, but getting more intrusive recently: international bankers and traders started warping government decisions by at least the 15th century CE, and kings and governments borrowing from international bankers and then not paying their debts brought massive instability to both governments and the banks. And the series of financial 'crisis' events occurring almost like clockwork since the early 19th century that disrupt society show that no government controls them, no matter how they 'tweak' their control over their economies - there are too many Outside The Government factors at work

The impact of humans on the planet expanded and accelerated in the past century, and even if the overall planetary impact is ignored (as many are attempting to do today) local impacts have been massive in things like the Dust Bowl in the USA or the on-going drought and starvation in north-central Africa. Climate Change, even temporary, has been a factor in human settlement since the beginning of the Neolithic, with major disruptions or contributions to making the disruptions worse for societies and governments from the 5th to the 17th centuries CE.

So there are a lot of ways to provide an End Game Crisis or set of calamities to challenge the gamer - some on-going throughout the game, like the planetary or semi-planetary climate/ecological variations, and some Unique to the late game as individual Civs and governments become more susceptible to Outside Factors they cannot ignore.
 
Back
Top Bottom