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

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Thanks for the clarification. Based on this concept though, I guess colonial powers like the British would have literally dozens of historic paths available?

This is ultimately what I'm hoping for... It might take some time to get there though.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Do you have any data to prove to that "on all available media, enthusiasm is low"? And what about the substantial group of players who don't engage with CF, Reddit, YT?

Happy to see it, if you do.

Of course not. Dunno of any such data collection on Civ7. Firaxis itself may not even be actively measuring opinion. It probably isn't, I'd imagine.

I'm mostly taking your word for it. If Reddit, YT and to a lesser extent CFC are all pretty mixed on this, well, what other sites are there that you could include when you're assessing community opinion?

I don't buy the idea that Reddit, CFC and YT aren't representative of the user base as a whole. Most Civ players will have spent time in previous installments. They shouldn't be assumed to be casual, even if they only log 10 hours on the game. I did that with 5, but I easily have 3000 hours between 4 and 6.

IMO they're representative. Roughly, anyway. Especially because absolutely brand new players aren't part of the community as of now, at least. The skepticism... well, it is what it is. It's not relevant to me. I'm buying regardless. I just don't see the logic in presuming there's a silent majority out there when actual observable opinion in the prominent communities is pretty mixed.

 

[leif erikson]

IMO they're representative. Roughly, anyway.

Maybe? For some perspective, please go to the forums of the earlier version of Civilization, 4-6, and read the comments from between when the game was announced and when it was released. This is nothing really new.

For another look, watch the YouTube video in this post.

edit - post corrected.

 

[Patine]

Maybe? For some perspective, please go to the forums of the earlier version of Civilization, 2-6, and read the comments from between when the game was announced and when it was released. This is nothing really new.

For another look, watch the YouTube video in this post.

Sorry, to correct you, here, but I do get your point, but to be pedantic, CivFanatics came online after Civ2 and Civ3 had been released and out for a while.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

actual observable opinion in the prominent communities is pretty mixed.

I mean, I don't disagree, isn't it just exactly what I said?

 

[Trengilly]

I told this many times before, why don't you just come up with your own poll then, if you think that this one is so misleading!? I really would be curious, if you could come up with a scientific poll yourself, and if the results really would be that much different after all?

I don't like polls at all. They are basically meaningless.

The sample size is way too small and in no way representative of the overall Civ gamer community. Not to mention the Non-Civ gamers Firaxis is trying to attract into the franchise.

 

[chaosprophet]

I don’t think the poll here is very meaningful. The options are definitely biased towards the negative. There is no option reflecting “like” or “neutral” and buying, and the wording is loaded to be negative or over-the-top positive in the first choice.

In general poll options should have fewer words and be less editorializing.

Heck, if people want to validate pools that much, then there is an earlier overall impressions poll on this thread, which had a bigger amount of voters than this one, a better variations of options and where 49.9% of the people were more positive than negative, 25.4% more negative than positive, 16.5% in the middle, and 8.3% wanting more more info. Which means at least half of the voters are mostly positive about the game, even if they may dislike the civ switching mechanic. Again, as long as those polls are worth any salt.

 

[aieeegrunt]

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

Civilization is built by empathy and destroyed by Narcisissm. Again, and again, and again

That which has been is what will be. That which is done is what will be done. And there is nothing new under the sun.

At the end of the day, the poll tells us something, and we should definitely recognise that. The results are big fat raspberry in the general direction of switching.

But we shouldn't overstate the significance of a poll that has been answered by a tiny fraction of CF members, who themselves represent the extreme end of a rather tiny fraction of the Civ player base.

I think the poll confirms that switching is contentious, and that many people are not happy with the idea. Quelle surprise, if you've spent any time here, or Reddit, or YT comments, then you'd already know this. I don't think we can conclude much more than that though. I.e., it would be wrong to extrapolate from this poll that 3/4s of all Civ players dislike the feature.

One thing is for certain, it will be fascinating to see how it sells.

I have to say that I like all of the mechanics and changes I’ve seen so far, and am even willing to give the Mandated Crises/Soft restart a chance, except for Civ Switching.

And it’s enough to make me not want to buy the game.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I don't like polls at all. They are basically meaningless.

The sample size is way too small and in no way representative of the overall Civ gamer community. Not to mention the Non-Civ gamers Firaxis is trying to attract into the franchise.

Agree to disagree. At the end of the day, if you want Civ to become a Sales success, ar first you need to convince your existing fans and people who played the previous titels. Non Civ gamers will buy this game later, once it gets great reviews and others tell them how great this game is.
It has been mentioned before. If you seriously do not believe, that the Civ Switching mechanism is highly controversional among a significant amount of Civ Fans, and all the comments in YouTube Videos, this forum or this poll are meaningless, than you are just ignoring the hard truth, that this feature could seriously endanger the game's overall success, depending especially on how exactly it is implemented.
FXS went into the right direction by making the historical choice the default setting, in my opinion, that could get at least some critics back on board.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Maybe? For some perspective, please go to the forums of the earlier version of Civilization, 4-6, and read the comments from between when the game was announced and when it was released. This is nothing really new

I pondered it, and I think what may differentiate this is that it may interrupt the emotional connection a player has to their civ. That element isn't really present with past versions, which were mostly gameplay concerns. This might be a little new in that aspect.

I never got into 5 because the combo of 1UPT and harsh penalties on expansion weren't things I loved. Those are gameplay concerns. I didn't love 1UPT in 6 either, but at least you could expand pretty freely.

This is a little different. Say a French player really just wants to be France. I think an argument can be made France has existed in all 3 eras. De Gaulle considered France to be born with the conversion of Clovis to Catholicism. Clovis defeated Syagrius, the Roman ruler. Is that close enough to give them a spot in antiquity? It might be?

If this player is playing as another civ because France is unavailable, is that gonna diminish the magic? I dunno. It might? Particularly if the player feels he should he able to be France, is he gonna go "oh bummer Rome" every time he starts a game? I dunno.

It might turn out to be change phobia that subsides. Or maybe the players with a main really will feel something is lost long after release. Time will tell. Only really a solvable retrospectively.

 

[UWHabs]

I pondered it, and I think what may differentiate this is that it may interrupt the emotional connection a player has to their civ. That element isn't really present with past versions, which were mostly gameplay concerns. This might be a little new in that aspect.

I never got into 5 because the combo of 1UPT and harsh penalties on expansion weren't things I loved. Those are gameplay concerns. I didn't love 1UPT in 6 either, but at least you could expand pretty freely.

This is a little different. Say a French player really just wants to be France. I think an argument can be made France has existed in all 3 eras. De Gaulle considered France to be born with the conversion of Clovis to Catholicism. Clovis defeated Syagrius, the Roman ruler. Is that close enough to give them a spot in antiquity? It might be?

If this player is playing as another civ because France is unavailable, is that gonna diminish the magic? I dunno. It might? Particularly if the player feels he should he able to be France, is he gonna go "oh bummer Rome" every time he starts a game? I dunno.

It might turn out to be change phobia that subsides. Or maybe the players with a main really will feel something is lost long after release. Time will tell. Only really a solvable retrospectively.

Yeah, I mean, I think a lot of this will really depend on what breadth of options we have. If we have like 15-20 civs available per era, and you have lots of fairly reasonable choices to make, then it might go well. It would kind of suck if every game you started as Rome you had to end as England or France if you follow the "traditional" path because we don't get that many choices to switch to. Or if the only ways to reach France is to play as a French leader, or follow that path starting with Rome. Like if your "natural" choices for England are to either come from the Rome->Norman->England line, or the Celt->Norman->England line, or maybe you do Celts->Scots->England, or Celts->Angles->England, etc...

If we do get a ton of options, then at some level you could always simply be like "I'm playing an England game", and then you just have a choice each era about which direction you want from them. But if we only have like 8-10 choices every era, and some of the paths are just trying to group too many disjointed tribes together, then it might be a pain. Like if you end up being forced to do Maori -> Majapahit -> Siam, not because those civs have anything really to do with each other, but that they just happen to be the only civs from a limited roster in loosely speaking the same part of the world, that would kind of suck.

 

[Krikkit1]

Yeah, I mean, I think a lot of this will really depend on what breadth of options we have. If we have like 15-20 civs available per era, and you have lots of fairly reasonable choices to make, then it might go well. It would kind of suck if every game you started as Rome you had to end as England or France if you follow the "traditional" path because we don't get that many choices to switch to. Or if the only ways to reach France is to play as a French leader, or follow that path starting with Rome. Like if your "natural" choices for England are to either come from the Rome->Norman->England line, or the Celt->Norman->England line, or maybe you do Celts->Scots->England, or Celts->Angles->England, etc...

If we do get a ton of options, then at some level you could always simply be like "I'm playing an England game", and then you just have a choice each era about which direction you want from them. But if we only have like 8-10 choices every era, and some of the paths are just trying to group too many disjointed tribes together, then it might be a pain. Like if you end up being forced to do Maori -> Majapahit -> Siam, not because those civs have anything really to do with each other, but that they just happen to be the only civs from a limited roster in loosely speaking the same part of the world, that would kind of suck.

Not just the gameplay options but also the UI elements (civ name, city names, flag) the first two should be customizable and you should be able to keep all three through age changes.

 

[Kev1916]

Agree to disagree. At the end of the day, if you want Civ to become a Sales success, ar first you need to convince your existing fans and people who played the previous titels. Non Civ gamers will buy this game later, once it gets great reviews and others tell them how great this game is.
It has been mentioned before. If you seriously do not believe, that the Civ Switching mechanism is highly controversional among a significant amount of Civ Fans, and all the comments in YouTube Videos, this forum or this poll are meaningless, than you are just ignoring the hard truth, that this feature could seriously endanger the game's overall success, depending especially on how exactly it is implemented.
FXS went into the right direction by making the historical choice the default setting, in my opinion, that could get at least some critics back on board.

Good points , sticking head in sand is your call, but from various places utuber's , Steam, fan sites , this "idea" is going to bomb big time .
Firaxis should start praying that mobile , casual user's can generate enough interest sale's wise to stop the flood of players ( at least initially ) from staying with Pc Civ 5/6

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Good points , sticking head in sand is your call, but from various places utuber's , Steam, fan sites , this "idea" is going to bomb big time .
Firaxis should start praying that mobile , casual user's can generate enough interest sale's wise to stop the flood of players ( at least initially ) from staying with Pc Civ 5/6

Mobile? Casual? What?

I'm curious, for those who don't like the switching mechanic: are you hoping the game will fail?

 

[Kev1916]

Mobile? Casual? What?

I'm curious, for those who don't like the switching mechanic: are you hoping the game will fail?

Have a look about various sites , reviews, "Civilization 7 seems to be more approachable for casual players compared to its predecessors"

"Civ 7's Civ-Switching might not be an ideal Mechanic", "Cleopatra lord of the mongols"

CivKind if your not aware is being released for the first time on all platforms so ok hybrid device my bad

Casual ofc it will be, they taken a tried and tested method and split the format into now having three seperate games that's got to encourage more casual play, particualy if they also introdude for the first time a meta and bonus system .
Civ swapping made humankind feel completely absurd , I kept forgetting who my rivals and neighbors were and I couldn't recognize my own civ between eras. Civilizations should have a stable identity, without that, everything becomes meaninless in its anonymity.

Maybe humankind will be the real Civ killer after all , this model should have be a side project

Test of time Na

 

[TheGrayFox]

Mobile? Casual? What?

I'm curious, for those who don't like the switching mechanic: are you hoping the game will fail?

I'm hoping that it either review worse, sells worse, or has trouble maintaining a comparable playerbase to its predessecors so that Firaxis starts to walk back some of their more contentious game design decisions, yes.

Does that mean I want Firaxis to completely crash and burn? No.
Does it mean I think that NO ONE should have fun with the game? No

 

[aieeegrunt]

Mobile? Casual? What?

I'm curious, for those who don't like the switching mechanic: are you hoping the game will fail?

No. I mean just because it isn’t for me doesn’t mean someone else can’t have fun

 

[Trengilly]

Agree to disagree. At the end of the day, if you want Civ to become a Sales success, ar first you need to convince your existing fans and people who played the previous titels. Non Civ gamers will buy this game later, once it gets great reviews and others tell them how great this game is.
It has been mentioned before. If you seriously do not believe, that the Civ Switching mechanism is highly controversional among a significant amount of Civ Fans, and all the comments in YouTube Videos, this forum or this poll are meaningless, than you are just ignoring the hard truth, that this feature could seriously endanger the game's overall success, depending especially on how exactly it is implemented.
FXS went into the right direction by making the historical choice the default setting, in my opinion, that could get at least some critics back on board.

Oh I totally agree that Civ Switching is highly controversial. I just don't think polls like this add anything meaningful to the conversation (and are far more likely to present results that distort the overall reality).

We didn't need a poll to know its controversial.

I picked the first positive option . . . not because I think 'Civ Switching' will necessarily be good or bad. But because I am a 'former' Civ player.

I stopped playing Civ because I got bored with Civ 5 and Civ 6. And I have nothing to lose if Firaxis screws up Civ 7 because they have already lost me as a gamer. I haven't played Civ in over 4 years.

The fact they are trying something new and different at least has me interested to return to Civ again. So I am in the 'curious to see what they do' camp.

 

[abj9562]

Civ has never been about immersion to me. It is after all an ahistorical game no matter what you do. It's about a 4X game being played the way you want. It should not be a game where my path is dictated to and reset at different ages. Thus, stripping me of hard earned gains (in emperor or above). Yes, you get to carry very few bonuses forward but to have other changes forced down your throat ...

I need to see it in its entirety. Originally, they announced the playthrough would cover the transition in its entirety. However, that description seems to have been changed. So, hopefully the dev playthrough on (September 12) should enlighten us all. Maybe it will answer a lot of questions.

 

[Trengilly]

Civ has never been about immersion to me. It is after all an ahistorical game no matter what you do. It's about a 4X game being played the way you want. It should not be a game where my path is dictated to and reset at different ages. Thus, stripping me of hard earned gains (in emperor or above). Yes, you get to carry very few bonuses forward but to have other changes forced down your throat ...

I need to see it in its entirety. Originally, they announced the playthrough would cover the transition in its entirety. However, that description seems to have been changed. So, hopefully the dev playthrough on (September 12) should enlighten us all. Maybe it will answer a lot of questions.

Yes we need more information. However tomorrow's stream is: Civ Streams: The Antiquity Age so I'm remaining cautious and not expecting to see too much yet. I feel we already have a pretty good idea how the Antiquity Age works (except how it ends). The age transitions and later age rules are what most of us want to find out right now.