Civ Switching - Will it prevent you from buying Civ 7?

[thecrazyscot]

 

[TheGrayFox]

Motivation does matter. Your claim that Ed Beach is "destroying the franchise" assumes acting in bad faith, which there is no evidence for. He's not destroying the franchise; he's making a game you don't like. There's a big difference. (Also, malice and quality have no relationship. The Last Jedi is probably the highest quality production in all of Star Wars; it's also pure malice.)

No he didn't say or assume anything was bad faith. that's you putting words in his mouth because you didn't like hearing his negative criticism of the dev team's work or calls to not buy the game with the intent of influencing future devolopment via good old market capitalism

 

[Civinator]

Ed Beach

Congratulations! You correctly answered the question in this post.

 

[lt22677]

Motivation does matter. Your claim that Ed Beach is "destroying the franchise" assumes acting in bad faith, which there is no evidence for. He's not destroying the franchise; he's making a game you don't like. There's a big difference. (Also, malice and quality have no relationship. The Last Jedi is probably the highest quality production in all of Star Wars; it's also pure malice.)

Ed Beach did an excellent job with the Civ 5 expansions, but unfortunately when they gave him the development of Civ 6 he made too many mistakes and the results were negative, while Civ 5 with the expansions and Mods is a good Game, Civ 6 with all the expansions leaves me with a feeling of an incomplete game that has many features, but which are poorly linked (and not even the mods have managed to pass through also because there is no MOD that manages to improve significantly AI)

 

[Zaarin]

I don't bear him any ill-will, you're the one making assumptions here. I just don't want this team on any Civ games going forward.

Again, Ed Beach has a solid track record on the Civ franchise; there's no reason to assume he's making a bad Civ game, even if it's a Civ game you don't happen to like.

 

[Cywil]

If, hypothetically, the game launches really smoothly and word of mouth, buzz, etc, is very strong, and it's apparently just a blast to play each era, would that change your opinion?

Like if they somehow successfully make it so each third of the game is as compelling as the early game and the endgame doldrums are gone, would that be enough? Pick up on a steam sale? Keep an eye on what they do with expansions?

If you asked me, I will follow the discussion of course, but i doubt my opinion would change. For me it's not about an execution, it's about an idea itself (I'd just like to keep my starting civ). When Humankind revealed their civ/culture switching feature and people were excited about it I was like "Nah, not for me". I didn't need to test/play it to know what I want. I watched youtubers and followed discussions and I was more and more sure about my first opinion.

Changing civs isn't a feature I wanted...but it's connected to mechanics I find interesting so I'm willing to give it a chance. Changing leaders would be a non-starter for me. What you suggested was not a "middle ground." It was an alternative you like better, which is fair enough, but just the opposite extreme of what we're actually getting.

@Zaarin - In 2021 as Humankind's beta-tester you gave following opinion:

"Two features I absolutely love in Humankind that I nevertheless do not want to see in Civ are the changing cultures and the customizable leaders. These things make Humankind feel very unique and give it a lot of personality, but they don't fit Civ's model in my opinion".

What do you think now about the idea in Civ's model? Do you see it as a problem of the idea's execution or as a problem of the idea itself?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That doesn't remotely justify your ill will against him, especially since he has a solid record in the Civ franchise: he made Civ5 a playable game (lead designer on both expansions) and he made Civ6 and GS. He deserves at least the benefit of doubt.

Speaking of that I wonder if this new direction was the main reason that maybe Anton resigned? At least to me he seemed like he was going to be next in line to possibly be the lead for the next civ game after being the lead for R&F. He then left shortly after the NFP, so I assume that was his last project while many of the others worked on the new game.

Ed Beach did an excellent job with the Civ 5 expansions, but unfortunately when they gave him the development of Civ 6 he made too many mistakes and the results were negative, while Civ 5 with the expansions and Mods is a good Game, Civ 6 with all the expansions leaves me with a feeling of an incomplete game that has many features, but which are poorly linked (and not even the mods have managed to pass through also because there is no MOD that manages to improve significantly AI)

I think base game Civ 6 was great. It fell sort of off with R&F, but that wasn't Ed Beach. GS then came along made the game way better, even better implementing some of the gameplay features from R&F.

 

[pokiehl]

Did you feel in the previous Civ titles that any Civ that didn’t have ancient era bonus was a “waste of time?”

I'm not sure why you quoted the phrase "waste of time" since I never said it. Anyway, the difference is context. In Civ 7, the game is designed around every civ in every age having a fully usable kit. Playing a dummied civ with nothing to do for that age probably won't be very fun.

This is the only place I’m seeing a lot of positive reception for this mechanic. There is certainly a lot of excitement though.

I'm seeing a ton of positive reception for it.

 

[queenpea]

You don't change leaders at all. At the end of each Age (of which there are three), there is a crisis. There will be penalties, attacks, etc. You then "wake up" again afterwards with your cities in ruins, your units dead, your population reduced, and many of your precious buildings useless for the new challenges. To compensate, you get a new civ with abilities, civics, units and buildings fit for the era. And you also revert to some of the skills and achievements that were previously achieved in your land: some are static (= from your old civ), some are dynamic (you can choose based on what the old civ did/how much it excelled in that). I'm sure FXS will include a narrative or little movie for the transition.

Thinking about the crises, the fade to black, and the tabla rasa reset is giving me serious anxiety. Is anyone else with me?

I know that the reset won't be total, but it is freaking me out a little bit. This feature will have to be pretty finely tuned in order to avoid creating a disincentive against development. Also, I'm the kind of player that hates when sh*t goes wrong during their games, and I don't want to feel like I'm losing at the end of each age.

 

[Zaarin]

@Zaarin - In 2021 as Humankind's beta-tester you gave following opinion:

"Two features I absolutely love in Humankind that I nevertheless do not want to see in Civ are the changing cultures and the customizable leaders. These things make Humankind feel very unique and give it a lot of personality, but they don't fit Civ's model in my opinion".

What do you think now about the idea in Civ's model? Do you see it as a problem of the idea's execution or as a problem of the idea itself?

Well, I'll prefix this by saying I was optimistic that Humankind's beta problems would be resolved on release because I loved Endless Space 2. That didn't end up happening, and both culture changing and customizable leaders proved weaknesses rather than strengths in the long run. As a concept, I don't love the idea of civ switching. I'm keeping an open mind because I trust Ed Beach (and since HK I've learned to trust devs, not companies) and because I like some associated mechanics--and because I'm confident that Civ7 cannot possibly be as banal as HK.

Speaking of that I wonder if this new direction was the main reason that maybe Anton resigned? At least to me he seemed like he was going to be next in line to possibly be the lead for the next civ game after being the lead for R&F. He then left shortly after the NFP, so I assume that was his last project while many of the others worked on the new game.

I also assumed Anton was being prepped to take over and that his departure is why Ed Beach is lead dev again. I'm not complaining; I thought R&F was the weakest part of the Civ6 dev cycle short of NFP.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I also assumed Anton was being prepped to take over and that his departure is why Ed Beach is lead dev again. I'm not complaining; I thought R&F was the weakest part of the Civ6 dev cycle short of NFP.

True. Though isn't he the reason that Assyria got in Civ 5?
Maybe he at least worked on an Assyrian civ before he left.

 

[Zaarin]

True. Though isn't he the reason that Assyria got in Civ 5?

No, the Assyria guy left after Civ5. I don't remember his name.

 

[ColtSeavers]

These forums are often read by some FXS people. I'm sure they will read through these threads that deal with the announcement and note the criticism that is voiced.

I would be very, very surprised if things change too much until release - for once, it seems too late for fundamental changes and then is this other things that some people follow their own ideas and visions regardless of criticism. So, yeah...looks like you won't buy this game anytime soon, which is totally fine, and thanks for letting FXS and us forumers know.

I'm afraid you are right about this one, I would also expect only minor changes like making some of the most controversial stuff optional. Still wondering, whether FXS expected this kind of backlash, from my point of view they take quiet a risk alienating a significant part of their longtime fanbase.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Thinking about the crises, the fade to black, and the tabla rasa reset is giving me serious anxiety. Is anyone else with me?

I know that the reset won't be total, but it is freaking me out a little bit. This feature will have to be pretty finely tuned in order to avoid creating a disincentive against development. Also, I'm the kind of player that hates when sh*t goes wrong during their games, and I don't want to feel like I'm losing at the end of each age.

I think it's a legitimate concern, for sure. Personally I'm more optimistic than pessimistic on how the mechanic will play out, but I am intensely curious as to just how far they will go in resetting your civ. In general I think you have to be really careful taking things away from players as that can rapidly get very discouraging or frustrating. We have just enough info right now to wildly speculate but not much more...hopefully by the end of this upcoming weekend we will have more substantive details on the Age Transitions.

 

[Siptah]

I'm afraid you are right about this one, I would also expect only minor changes like making some of the most controversial stuff optional. Still wondering, whether FXS expected this kind of backlash, from my point of view they take quiet a risk alienating a significant part of their longtime fanbase.

I'm sure they aren't surprised of the many negative reactions and that they are confident that they can convince over the next months and get 80%+ of the player base back for release. Just make people more familiar with what is actually happening in the game instead of the comically "it's HK 2". Show off the cool new things. Get people to watch good examples rather than bad ones. And all that, the usual marketing stuff. I'm sure some people worry. But I'm also sure that they expected more backlash than before. Every civ got it at the beginning and this one is a fair bit more adventurous with its changes.

 

[lt22677]

Speaking of that I wonder if this new direction was the main reason that maybe Anton resigned? At least to me he seemed like he was going to be next in line to possibly be the lead for the next civ game after being the lead for R&F. He then left shortly after the NFP, so I assume that was his last project while many of the others worked on the new game.

I think base game Civ 6 was great. It fell sort of off with R&F, but that wasn't Ed Beach. GS then came along made the game way better, even better implementing some of the gameplay features from R&F.

I believe that basic Civ 6 had a HORRIBLE AI that couldn't manage the mechanics of the game and it was very easy to win (and everyone complained about it and it's still like that now since they couldn't solve the problem even with the DLC)

 

[Siptah]

Thinking about the crises, the fade to black, and the tabla rasa reset is giving me serious anxiety. Is anyone else with me?

I know that the reset won't be total, but it is freaking me out a little bit. This feature will have to be pretty finely tuned in order to avoid creating a disincentive against development. Also, I'm the kind of player that hates when sh*t goes wrong during their games, and I don't want to feel like I'm losing at the end of each age.

I think that they might have a slider, like for the catastrophes in civ VI. Maybe three levels: tough, normal, mild (= lose no cities).

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I'm reading the "reset" as being more of a "zooming out" of focus, from the micro level out to the macro level. Maybe what was considered a "city" in the first chapter is more of a nearby mining town as part of your capital, etc.

 

[pokiehl]

Still wondering, whether FXS expected this kind of backlash, from my point of view they take quiet a risk alienating a significant part of their longtime fanbase.

Gaming audiences are more vocally polarized online than ever. We're in the era of rage campaigns, review bombs, sockpuppeting accounts, etc. I'm sure they anticipated that some people would feel very strongly.

Look at these forums. Every other post is someone swearing up and down they'll never buy the game because of XYZ. The price, the civ switching, the return of 1UPT, the pop-up events, the cartoony graphics, the realistic graphics...

They literally dealt with it for the entirety of Civ 6. First with the art style, then with the accusations of "wokeness" due to the female leaders and climate change, etc.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I'm sure they aren't surprised of the many negative reactions and that they are confident that they can convince over the next months and get 80%+ of the player base back for release. Just make people more familiar with what is actually happening in the game instead of the comically "it's HK 2". Show off the cool new things. Get people to watch good examples rather than bad ones. And all that, the usual marketing stuff. I'm sure some people worry. But I'm also sure that they expected more backlash than before. Every civ got it at the beginning and this one is a fair bit more adventurous with its changes.

this is assuming they have good examples to show and that there "It's HK2" showcase isn't the entire gimmick the game is designed around