A little bit of meta concerning this very forum...

[Naokaukodem]

I noticed that the threads are waaaay more frequented than the ones discussing the release of Civ6 (I noticed some threads going to 10 pages max in the Civ6 General Discussion first threads pages) and that the only early concern was about art style mainly, whereas there is lot more for Civ7. (and as Civ5 was a pretty solid game, everyone assumed that Civ6 would be an evolution of it, so there was not too much discussion about new mechanics except districts, which was pretty blurry as first)
So what can we conclude of this very forum to be way more frequented and that there is more early concerns about features too ? I have no clue to be honest.

 

[gdr_willter]

It means Civ 7 is hot and disputatious. What do you want to say anymore?

 

[Naokaukodem]

No crap, bro.
It's just paraphrasing what i said, the question here is : why ?

 

[gdr_willter]

No crap, bro.
It's just paraphrasing what i said, the question here is : why ?

Because it changed, and they showed it.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Maybe there are more users now than there were before?

 

[Naokaukodem]

Because it changed, and they showed it.

Again, no crap ? Every iteration changed from the previous one, even Civ6 that takes over many things of Civ5 to the point they are often compared plays way differently than this last. By that time users had no clue of what was awaiting them, and sadly it was for the lolesque. (PotatoMcWhiskey as an example) People wanna laugh, that's all.

Maybe there are more users now than there were before?

Considering the desert that has become Civ6 General Discussion (Ideas and Suggestions is more frequented, that says it all !), I doubt users are focused on the present. However, it's still 3-4 months before release, and they seem totally disinterested with Civ6. I mean, "Civfanatics" at least. People that come here seem more interested in new brand products like Iphones 16 Pro and expect something - anything - ``new`` that will fill up their lack of imagination. (mods, it's my opinion, can I emit it ? thank you) So it may be well a reflect of our society of consumption. In their defense, it's been a while no new Civ has been released, unexpectedly. So maybe a lot of people coming here have that in mind, what makes Civ7 more special than usual. 2c

 

[Voidwalkin]

Maybe there are more users now than there were before?

I have a hunch that the appetite for a new civ game is greater than past times.

6 brought in many new players. It's also not very deep. It didn't hold interest as long as past versions. They had real AI problems that they never fixed.

When 5 came people were content with 4, when 6 came people were still content with 5(or 4). Few are content with 6 and it's been ages since 4 or 5 were released. The number of players ready for a new one is greater, and it so happens they made a really controversial change in said new one. Many now root for it to fail, although I don't, I do think it might.

 

[Siptah]

I did not expect to be active here. For me personally, civ VI turned from a very interesting possibility around release to a huge disappointment over time. It‘s certainly the game with the least replayability for me and the biggest tiring effect. I thought I was done with the series, expecting the next one to be either a simple continuation of VI or a step back towards civ IV with a nod to the square people (not that it would go back to hexes).

I was very surprised that a studio as conservative and careful as FXS is willing to make such big changes to their main franchise. And these changes just give a lot to discuss, positively and negatively. Although, tbh, I see much more discussion of negative aspects/rejections than discussion of the wonderful opportunities that civ VII opens up.

 

[Voidwalkin]

I did not expect to be active here. For me personally, civ VI turned from a very interesting possibility around release to a huge disappointment over time. It‘s certainly the game with the least replayability for me and the biggest tiring effect.

It was like that for me too.

And these changes just give a lot to discuss, positively and negatively. Although, tbh, I see much more discussion of negative aspects/rejections than discussion of the wonderful opportunities that civ VII opens up.

Really coulda been avoided if they just let the player make their own civs.

Stellaris lets players create their own civs. Name em, give em bonuses, even get to pick leader portraits, make a backstory, and save them for future use. Nearly all of the controversy could have been avoided with a similar feature, which was actually present in the much older Galactic Civilizations 2.

The discussion is so frequent and often harsh because FXS is effectively making decisions for who the player has to play as, like it's still 1996. Their approach is antiquated.

 

[Evolena]

And speculating is fun.

 

[gdr_willter]

The discussion is so frequent and often harsh because FXS is effectively making decisions for who the player has to play as, like it's still 1996. Their approach is antiquated.

Someone said that FXS had to maintain the traditional forever-one-civ style, and now you're saying FXS have to abandon the preset civ itself. LOL
Now I really don't care about complaints, because they all just want THE-GAME-EXACTLY-WHAT-I-WANT, not Sid Meier's Civilization VII.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

When 5 came people were content with 4, when 6 came people were still content with 5(or 4). Few are content with 6 and it's been ages since 4 or 5 were released.

Well 5 made many departures from 4 so a lot of people stuck to 4, then 6 had that horrible cartoonish style which made some stick to 5 (I am one of them), so until 7 is released we can't say for sure whether people are fed up with 6

 

[Voidwalkin]

Someone said that FXS had to maintain the traditional forever-one-civ style, and now you're saying FXS have to abandon the preset civ itself. LOL
Now I really don't care about complaints, because they all just want THE-GAME-EXACTLY-WHAT-I-WANT, not Sid Meier's Civilization VII.

Both Stellaris and GC2 come with preset options. The player can just make a state they want to play as(or play against) in addition to the preset options.

If you want humans to be downright genocidal, filled in a galaxy with other downright genocidal states, like WH40k, you can make it. You don't HAVE to make it or anything at all.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

We know that the devs pay attention to these forums, and that honestly concerns me.
Those who frequent CivFanatics (and to a certain degree the subreddit as well) seem to represent a small but extremely vocal minority of the player base.
My guess would be that CivFanatics has actually impacted which civilizations and leaders the devs decided to include and exclude from the base game.

Nowhere else do I see the neologism 'Eurocentric' thrown about in sentences more frequently than the articles 'a' and 'the' combined
(which is especially weird as Civilization is not and has never been Eurocentric, and has persistently become more xenophilic.

This state of things has certainly made me more active on these forums.

Moderator Action: Edited to remove political points. Please keep politics to the Off-Topic forum

 

[gdr_willter]

This state of things has certainly made me more active on these forums

Well, I'm also one of the speaker for the silent majority, but my people seems not a same with yours.
I'm a Korean gamer, and there's a significant market in this country. But nearly no Korean participate in this forum.

We feels that the unfamous-in-western countries (including Korea) are always underrepresented in the western games against its presence in the local history. They mainly deal with the Europe and Colonial America, and just add drops of China, Japan and India only for the world-wide flavor. Civilization series was one of the game with this problem. However, FXS steadily tried to fix it and now have more various Civs from outside of European culture.

You and some more people surely want to see more European civs in this series. I understand it because they are big players in the real history and they are interesting to play and interact in the game.
But you also have to understand that there are the other people who surely want to see more various civs in this series, because they want to be represented in this enjoyable game and want to see the possibility of underrated cultures.

Moderator Action: Edited to remove deleted quote text

 

[Krikkit1]

Both Stellaris and GC2 come with preset options. The player can just make a state they want to play as(or play against) in addition to the preset options.

If you want humans to be downright genocidal, filled in a galaxy with other downright genocidal states, like WH40k, you can make it. You don't HAVE to make it or anything at all.

The ideal way to do this (I think) would be to have the flavor package separated from the gameplay package (like leaders and civs are separate)

So if I want Augustus to lead Rome with Legions(Roman unique package) that’s ok

if I want Amina to lead America with Legions (Roman unique) that’s also ok

So pick Leader (at beginning of game)
and each age
pick civ (package of uniques)
pick civ name (civ name /city list/ emblem)… civ name editable so I could play as “Texas” (French city list and emblem) using Ming uniques

That way they don’t have to make customizable uniques (which messes with game mechanics)

 

[Disgustipated]

I didn't even know about Civ 6 until shortly before it came out when a youtuber started releasing early access videos. So I wasn't involved in the pre-game buildup of that game.

As for this one, I am involved, but to a limited extent. I don't want to spoil too much, or burn myself out. And to be honest, until we get more information, my interest is waning a bit. It should perk up again when we get the exploration age gameplay video. Until then I'm just lurking mostly.

 

[stealth_nsk]

There are 2 things, actually:
1. Civ6 was, probably, the least revolutionary game of the series. Limited charge workers were already made for sea resources in Civ5. So the main innovations were placing district and wonders on actual tiles and civic cards. Both were seen as linear progress from previous features.
2. Internet changed in the last decade. I may sound nostalgic, but it was much more cozy back then. Things like bots and fakes were something extremely rare, now even fan forums feel like a battlefield. This style of communication surely reaches even this forum.

 

[fantsu]

Its completely new game again, so I think its the reason? 5 was really bad in release and people stuck with 4 for a long time. 6 was the same as 5 pretty much, better at release but needed expansions too.
This time there is enough difference to have an discussion. Just how I see it.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

There are 2 things, actually:
1. Civ6 was, probably, the least revolutionary game of the series. Limited charge workers were already made for sea resources in Civ5. So the main innovations were placing district and wonders on actual tiles and civic cards. Both were seen as linear progress from previous features.
2. Internet changed in the last decade. I may sound nostalgic, but it was much more cozy back then. Things like bots and fakes were something extremely rare, now even fan forums feel like a battlefield. This style of communication surely reaches even this forum.

I disagree about 6 being the least revolutionary in impact, though I'd probably agree in intent, I don't think it was meant to be revolutionary but i think it was.

I think the districts and adjacency porn quite fundamentally changed the nature of how to play civ compared to previous entries, and introduced much more of a sense of min maxing in the game even to more casual fans, and that has impacted people's expectations of what civ. I don't think we would have so many people on board with age switching if we hadnt had civ 6, I think that's incentivised people play civ in a manner which prioritises optimisation over experiential gameplay.