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

[Zaarin]

If they give me something I don't want, it is their error.

It's not their "error," though. Nothing obliges you to like the game they're making, and nothing obliges them to make a game you like.

And again, I hope this was a decision they made knowing what would happen, and what the response would be.

I think it's safe to say they did.

 

[Nikolai II]

I think it's safe to say they did.

Yeah, the devs are not stupid, even if their choices are not approved by all.

 

[TheGrayFox]

It's not their "error," though. Nothing obliges you to like the game they're making, and nothing obliges them to make a game you like.

Nothing obliges them to make a game people like except the money, which long term fans of this series give them to devolop and continue devoloping their games.

 

[Zaarin]

Nothing obliges them to make a game people like except the money, which long term fans of this series give them to devolop and continue devoloping their games.

I said nothing obliges them to make a game any specific individual likes. Whether "people" like it remains to be seen.

 

[reddishrecue]

It seems like an open source programming experience particularly with all the modding which help out the developers improve aspects of the program.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Nothing obliges them to make a game people like except the money, which long term fans of this series give them to devolop and continue devoloping their games.

So you're totally square then, and they owe you nothing

 

[TheGrayFox]

So you're totally square then, and they owe you nothing

It's not about them "owing" us anything but rather about them making a quality product we as series fans want to buy and continue supporting... at the end of the day, Firaxis is obligated to their stockholders, they're not making a Civilization sequel out of the goodness of their hearts

 

[Gori the Grey]

I was talking about civilization for a moment there, not the game. Honestly Firaxis should have named the game Barbarism cause that better suits the playstyle of most of us. .

There is no document of civilization that is not at the same time a document of barbarism.

Walter Benjamin

 

[Thormodr]

I said nothing obliges them to make a game any specific individual likes. Whether "people" like it remains to be seen.

Nothing obliges them to make a game anyone likes but if the game bombs, there are going to be serious consequences. A lot of money is at stake, after all.

So, hopefully they'll try not to alienate their core fans. We are the ones who put the meal on their tables.

Note: Not saying the game will bomb or not.

 

[Thormodr]

There is no document of civilization that is not at the same time a document of barbarism.

Walter Benjamin

I believe, the discovery of a broken leg that had healed was touted as the definition of Civilization. Empathy and mercy.

 

[Zaarin]

Nothing obliges them to make a game anyone likes but if the game bombs, there are going to be serious consequences. A lot of money is at stake, after all.

So, hopefully they'll try not to alienate their core fans. We are the ones who put the meal on their tables.

Note: Not saying the game will bomb or not.

Naturally. But I'd rather see them take some risks than make the same game for twenty years like Bethesda has done.

 

[Thormodr]

Naturally. But I'd rather see them take some risks than make the same game for twenty years like Bethesda has done.

Sure. They do need to innovate and that is the fine line they have to straddle. We'll see if they get the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 just right.

The real gameplay videos will let us know what's what.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

It's not about them "owing" us anything but rather about them making a quality product we as series fans want to buy and continue supporting... at the end of the day, Firaxis is obligated to their stockholders, they're not making a Civilization sequel out of the goodness of their hearts

I don't really understand your point.

We all know that the success of Civ VII, for Take-Two, 2K, and FXS, is measured in sales.

But is that how you will measure the success of Civ VII? If the game sells well, will you change your opinion on switching? That seems highly unlikely, and quite right too, why should your opinion change just because it sells well?

Hence Zaarin's initial point: nothing obliges them to make a game you like.

If the game does poorly, we can have an interesting discussion about how much the whole switching idea contributed to poor sales, but we're realistically at least a year or two away from having the information needed for that discussion.

 

[Civinator]

Interesting is, that as present result in that poll, more than 3/4 of the voters are not satisfied by civ switching as it is presented now by Firaxis.

 

[Krikkit1]

Interesting is, that as present result in that poll, more than 3/4 of the voters are not satisfied by civ switching as it is presented now by Firaxis.

View attachment 702600

And more than 3/4 also thinks it could be ok (not important/ could be made good/likes it)

So there’s lots of room for this to be great or bomb (3x difference)

 

[UWHabs]

Interesting is, that as present result in that poll, more than 3/4 of the voters are not satisfied by civ switching as it is presented now by Firaxis.

View attachment 702600

I didn't vote in the poll because none of the options fit my mood/opinion. The options in the poll are skewed towards the negative. There's no option for "I'm unsure of the feature, but cautiously optimistic and will likely buy the game anyways". Or even a "I love the feature, but I'm probably not getting civ 7 anyways".

 

[Civinator]

And more than 3/4 also thinks it could be ok (not important/ could be made good/likes it)

So there’s lots of room for this to be great or bomb (3x difference)

Sorry, but I think here you are wrong. Please don´t mix up the two different items in that poll: The question if you like civ switching in Civ 7 as it is presented now and the question if you want to buy Civ 7 if it includes this form of civ switching as it is presented now to us civers.

Topic 2 is clear that you don´t like that idea in particular. If you buy Civ 7 despite that feature is not changing anything about the fact, that those voters don´t like that idea in particular. Therefore in my eyes it is completely wrong to add those 22,9 % to the contrary.

Topic 3 with the hope that civ switching can be fixed gives only a sense, if the voter thinks, that it is not fixed yet. This means those voters are not satisfied with the current form of the civ switching feature. Even your setting "could be made good" means that currently it is not good. Therefore in my eyes it is completely wrong to add those 28,7 % to the contrary.

Btw., as everybody can see, I voted in that category - and I had to change my vote from "I love that civ switching feature" to that category, after realizing, that Civ 7 is not switching the leaders (and the different forms of the civ that those leaders are representing) but keeps that goofy immortal leader and allows really drastical changes of the civs with that goofy leader. I hope Firaxis will fix this to a "three-civ-solution" for all civs as it is for India now.

Topic 4 is very clear: Those voters don´t like that idea.

So the current result of that poll stays, that more than 3/4 of the voters at present are not satisfied with that feature. Even your own formulation "could be ok" shows, that the current state is, that it is not ok. My post only refered to the present result of that poll. It can only take into account what those civers voted for, not why any civers didn´t vote in that poll. Even the hope by me, that Firaxis will fix that feature, is not changing the result, that at present I am not satisfied, how that feature is handled.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I didn't vote in the poll because none of the options fit my mood/opinion. The options in the poll are skewed towards the negative. There's no option for "I'm unsure of the feature, but cautiously optimistic and will likely buy the game anyways". Or even a "I love the feature, but I'm probably not getting civ 7 anyways".

Sure, this poll is not a scientifically perfect, but let's also not split hairs here. I mean, how many registered CivFanatics Users are out there, who do love the Civ Switching Idea, but will not buy the game anyway!?
What ist the big difference between "cautiosly optimistic and will buy the game" and "do not care about the idea in particular and will buy the game"?
Nevertheless, If anyone out there wants to set up a scientifically more accurate poll about this, I will happily participate! I doubt there will be a major different outcome overall, though.

 

[Monstella]

I'm all for it, i can't wait to get my hands on it and try it out

 

[Siptah]

I hope Firaxis will fix this to a "three-civ-solution" for all civs as it is for India now.

Why exactly is Maurya>Chola>Mughals fixed? What is better there compared to, e.g., Romans>Normans>French Empire?
Note: I don't think there is something wrong with any of these, or that the switching as far as we know it needs to be fixed. Just curious why this would be considered "fixed" when they both seem equally "drastically" to me.