Checking in from the dev team: June update is almost here!

[CliffCo]

Wow, not sure if anyone signed off on that guy being quite so honest about fan reaction to the game 'it feels like homework' and 'its on rails'. Feels like there was a version of that which you could layer in some more corporate speak and diplomacy!

I guess at least it's honest.

Either way, I'm still mostly angered by this update. The more I hear about it, the more effort I'm seeing them going to for these changes, changes that simply pass over responsibility to the player to make the game good, the more angry I get.

Allowing players to simply customise the game to the point where you can barely even recognise it, is not good design, it's just cowardice. I'm sure even Sid Meier made comments about these sort of things long in the past and I doubt he's happy about it now.


The designers of the game need to believe in their vision of the game and stick to it, and then improve it to make it work. Sticking plasters like 'hey you can just turn this stuff off' is weak. I'd rather they stood their ground and say 'no, these legacy paths are going to be good, and we are going to tweak them until they are' rather than throwing their hands up and running away from the problem.

I love the new options, and I like to be able to customize my game experience, not everyone wants to play the game a specific way.

 

[Nikolai II]

Wow, not sure if anyone signed off on that guy being quite so honest about fan reaction to the game 'it feels like homework' and 'its on rails'. Feels like there was a version of that which you could layer in some more corporate speak and diplomacy!

I guess at least it's honest.

Either way, I'm still mostly angered by this update. The more I hear about it, the more effort I'm seeing them going to for these changes, changes that simply pass over responsibility to the player to make the game good, the more angry I get.

Allowing players to simply customise the game to the point where you can barely even recognise it, is not good design, it's just cowardice. I'm sure even Sid Meier made comments about these sort of things long in the past and I doubt he's happy about it now.


The designers of the game need to believe in their vision of the game and stick to it, and then improve it to make it work. Sticking plasters like 'hey you can just turn this stuff off' is weak. I'd rather they stood their ground and say 'no, these legacy paths are going to be good, and we are going to tweak them until they are' rather than throwing their hands up and running away from the problem.

Poor Firaxis cannot win, it seems. They don't change stuff, they lose. They change stuff, they lose. I think options are good!

 

[sonicmyst]

Thank God for more Gwendoline voiceovers.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Ah, I haven't played Isabella yet. This update should be a good opportunity to try her.

 

[McSpank01]

Essentially all they are doing is allow you to turn off the core mechanics of the game, to the point of not really even playing the game at all.. and then they throw out words like ‘sandbox’ so that punters can nod along and think they are being given what they asked for.

These changes are not going to fix any of the problems inherent in the game, they are a pure damage limitation measure to get some good will. It’s going to be short lived because they don’t actually improve the game enough to get people coming back.

 

[Brutus2]

Not sure how I feel about the new menu look. I liked being able to see the pretty civ art and it's more in the background now, but being able to see all the civ abilities is good of course. All the other changes are great - can't wait to dive back into the game!

I love that they included information about the Civ specific traditions on the new load screens since they are such a vital part of how a Civ plays and really important information to know. I just wish that information was available on the civ selection screen when starting a game.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

I don’t know how the rest of us feel, but especially with the added intro text and other features, this update feels like the game has finally launched.

Not to say I thought the game was sorely lacking before- but this update feels like crossing an exciting threshold!

 

[CliffCo]

Essentially all they are doing is allow you to turn off the core mechanics of the game, to the point of not really even playing the game at all.. and then they throw out words like ‘sandbox’ so that punters can nod along and think they are being given what they asked for.

These changes are not going to fix any of the problems inherent in the game, they are a pure damage limitation measure to get some good will. It’s going to be short lived because they don’t actually improve the game enough to get people coming back.

It's not just about being able to turn off certain things, it also gives you the option to tweak many existing and new options.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

It's not just about being able to turn off certain things, it also gives you the option to tweak many existing and new options.

Plus some great new presentation and balance changes.

 

[McSpank01]

It's not just about being able to turn off certain things, it also gives you the option to tweak many existing and new options.

Yes by ‘turning them off’

That is all that is happening here. The game came with a set of mechanics that the developers decided were how you play the game. Now you can decide you can turn them off if you want. The reason you would t turn them off isn’t because you are after ‘a sandbox feel’ (because the civ building element simply isn’t strong enough to support it, and you can’t anyway due to civ switching) but because those mechanics are not very good and need to be reworked.

 

[evonannoredars]

Adding a toggle for switching off legacy paths is probably wayy less work and faster to implemenet than reworking them. I think we can safely assume they will be reworked and improved in the future, this seems like a decent solution for the time being for people who dislike them enough to want to disable them.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yes by ‘turning them off’

That is all that is happening here. The game came with a set of mechanics that the developers decided were how you play the game. Now you can decide you can turn them off if you want. The reason you would t turn them off isn’t because you are after ‘a sandbox feel’ (because the civ building element simply isn’t strong enough to support it, and you can’t anyway due to civ switching) but because those mechanics are not very good and need to be reworked.

Your first statement is simply false.
Changing the hostility level of IPs, including making them all Hostile, is not 'turning off'. Adding larger map sizes does not 'turn off' any other map types and sizes.

The game came with a set of mechanics. Big Deal: every game does, and most if not all recent games wind up with multiple DLCs modifying those mechanics, sometimes dramatically and completely. Go back and look at the discussions in these Threads about the changes made by DLCs just to Civs V and VI for starters.

 

[evonannoredars]

Also, new load screen looks so good, curious whether the tips will always be relevant to the civ or if they'll also provide generic info too. There's bits of the game UI that feel so refined, eg the slideshow on first starting the game and now this load screen - looking forward to when the rest of the UI is up to the same level!

 

[Sagax]

Wow, not sure if anyone signed off on that guy being quite so honest about fan reaction to the game 'it feels like homework' and 'its on rails'. Feels like there was a version of that which you could layer in some more corporate speak and diplomacy!

I guess at least it's honest.

Either way, I'm still mostly angered by this update. The more I hear about it, the more effort I'm seeing them going to for these changes, changes that simply pass over responsibility to the player to make the game good, the more angry I get.

Allowing players to simply customise the game to the point where you can barely even recognise it, is not good design, it's just cowardice. I'm sure even Sid Meier made comments about these sort of things long in the past and I doubt he's happy about it now.


The designers of the game need to believe in their vision of the game and stick to it, and then improve it to make it work. Sticking plasters like 'hey you can just turn this stuff off' is weak. I'd rather they stood their ground and say 'no, these legacy paths are going to be good, and we are going to tweak them until they are' rather than throwing their hands up and running away from the problem.

I get where you come from, but at the same time “sticking to your vision” is tricky for an extremely divisive design. Read through the forums carefully, and you’ll notice that while the criticis share a general sentiment and direction, they aren’t necessarily agreeing on the precise details of the issues and how they’d like them solved.

Personally, I don’t mind the toggles. I can keep some annoyances off and turn them back on when they actually deliver the proper overhaul.

Will Firaxis actually work on improving the legacies? For now, I believe they still will. Why haven’t they done that already? Well, I speculate that their rework plans go beyond the scope of a patch. Expecting any major shakeup to the core game mechanics in a patch instead of an expansion was never going to be realistic (and honestly, neither is expecting some big rebound in player numbers). With the knowledge that a) they’ve acknowledged the criticism of the current legacies; and b) they’ve acknowledged room for improvement on some mechanics like religion, I think for now they still have enough goodwill for me to believe that they are indeed working on actually improving the legacy paths, instead of just planning to leave it to players to toggle on/off. Heck, they didn’t need to improve Treasure Convoys if that was the real intent.

 

[McSpank01]

Your first statement is simply false.
Changing the hostility level of IPs, including making them all Hostile, is not 'turning off'. Adding larger map sizes does not 'turn off' any other map types and sizes.

The game came with a set of mechanics. Big Deal: every game does, and most if not all recent games wind up with multiple DLCs modifying those mechanics, sometimes dramatically and completely. Go back and look at the discussions in these Threads about the changes made by DLCs just to Civs V and VI for starters.

The big changes here are switching legacy paths on and off, clearing the requirements for civ switching. Yes there are some tweaking to stuff like AI and IS aggressiveness, but all of these are doing the exact same thing. They are handing over the responsibility to the player to make the game fun, because the devs can’t work out how to do it. It really is about turning off the stuff they implemented.

They can’t work out the right level of City States aggression? Nah you sort it out

Can’t fix legacy paths? Nah you sort it out.

Can’t make civ switching fun? Nah you sort it out.

I get where you come from, but at the same time “sticking to your vision” is tricky for an extremely divisive design. Read through the forums carefully, and you’ll notice that while the criticis share a general sentiment and direction, they aren’t necessarily agreeing on the precise details of the issues and how they’d like them solved.

What I tend to see repeatedly is people saying that they could buy into the ideas behind Civ 7, even eras and civ switching, but that the implementation is just bad. You can’t please everyone, but if Firaxis we’re convinced enough of their idea when the signed off on it, they should still be convinced of that vision. If they need extra time and effort to make it work, then I’m all for it. This all just feels like appeasement and a lack of willpower from them.

I’m sure they will fix it eventually, but I’m mostly angered by the messaging of these changes, like they are doing us a favour. Maybe it’s the reaction from pundits and YouTubers that has wound me up more than anything, who have gushed over these changes, when really I find them incredibly inconsequential. I almost certainly will never use any of these new options.

 

[Core Imposter]

If you were looking for mea culpa from the company, you got it. Ed Beach got this poor guy to wave the white flag while remaining in hiding.

Let me steal a quote from my sister, two quotes. "This game is a hot mess". And second, it looks like the strategy is to keep throwing stuff in there and "hope it all pans out".

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Essentially all they are doing is allow you to turn off the core mechanics of the game, to the point of not really even playing the game at all.. and then they throw out words like ‘sandbox’ so that punters can nod along and think they are being given what they asked for.

These changes are not going to fix any of the problems inherent in the game, they are a pure damage limitation measure to get some good will. It’s going to be short lived because they don’t actually improve the game enough to get people coming back.

I don't see it any different than turning off victory conditions in previous games. Most people it seems disabled religious victory in Civ 6 all the time. Now they can do it again by disabling the culture legacy path in the Exploration. Whether it will improve the game who knows, but at least the option is there?

 

[Shirotora Kenshin]

Nice changes, they will certainly improve the game. Though it‘s still not what i wanted.

I think a lot of people will enjoy these changes and the game more than ever before… but i also think that the only thing that could really save the game would be to remove certain core mechanics (Civ-switching for instance).

Tcha… they really do not seem to consider it. Maybe Civ8… Anyways, have fun guys.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The big changes here are switching legacy paths on and off, clearing the requirements for civ switching. Yes there are some tweaking to stuff like AI and IS aggressiveness, but all of these are doing the exact same thing. They are handing over the responsibility to the player to make the game fun, because the devs can’t work out how to do it. It really is about turning off the stuff they implemented.

They can’t work out the right level of City States aggression? Nah you sort it out

Can’t fix legacy paths? Nah you sort it out.

Can’t make civ switching fun? Nah you sort it out.

What I tend to see repeatedly is people saying that they could buy into the ideas behind Civ 7, even eras and civ switching, but that the implementation is just bad. You can’t please everyone, but if Firaxis we’re convinced enough of their idea when the signed off on it, they should still be convinced of that vision. If they need extra time and effort to make it work, then I’m all for it. This all just feels like appeasement and a lack of willpower from them.

I’m sure they will fix it eventually, but I’m mostly angered by the messaging of these changes, like they are doing us a favour. Maybe it’s the reaction from pundits and YouTubers that has wound me up more than anything, who have gushed over these changes, when really I find them incredibly inconsequential. I almost certainly will never use any of these new options.

New Flash: No two gamers will ever agree on precisely what makes a game "fun". I've posted that before, but it bears repeating here.

The best any game design can do is try to appeal to the greatest number well enough to get them to buy the game.

And I will agree with anyone that it is self-evident that Civ VII has failed in that regard, when compared to its ancestors in the series.

Exactly where and how badly it has failed has been the subject of most of the threads started since before the game was released, so it is also self-evident that we don't agree on most of the details of how and why it failed, either.

Pertinent to this discussion, you see the changes as Surrender of Initiative by the game designers to the gamers. I see them as recognition of the fact that each gamer has their own opinion about how they want to play the game, and I regard the more choices given to the gamer as to how to initialize the game and its features as a Positive Thing.

Are there still fundamental problems with the game? Certainly, and others have noted that these changes are largely stop-gaps until they can make fundamental changes to everything from Civ switching to Ages, Crisis periods, and Victory paths and conditions. I expect them, but I also suspect that making them will require a lot more time and work than they could accomplish in a few months since release, so we get this Patch in the meantime.

Meanwhile, while the success of the game means everything to the designers, none of us are really invested in it. If the patch does not do enough to keep the game enjoyable, there are several other games stacked up waiting my gaming time from now to the end of the year, and I suspect the same holds true for most on this Forum and every other platform. The old adage, originally about university politics, also holds true for games:

"People get so emotional about X, because it is so trivial."

 

[sonicmyst]

I am not entirely sure why others are still not happy about these changes. Its as if they want a Civ 6 or older versions of civ... and call it civ 7? I dunno.