Civ VII Post-mortem: Crafting a redemption arc

[Gorbles]

The thing is, Civ VII wont stop being unpopular without changes. Its not like suddenly people will start liking what they didnt like before

I mean, that can happen. We call such movies cult classics, for example. Video games are also capable of developing a cult following.

But I agree that VII will do better with changes. Again, it's a matter of "what changes".

I dont even want the current design to be removed, i want Classic MODE, a new Mode without Age transition and Civ swithing, alternative to the current one

I don't think such a mode is as easy to implement as you think. Maybe that's what the devs are aiming for. In that case, I'll be disappointed. Homogenising design for the sake of popularity is how genres stagnate like RTS has, imo.

Even if progress means mistakes along the way.

Thing is, BE and C&C Generals didnt change, and they remained unpopular (at least for the target audience, i think Generals got some popularity from people that were not previously part of the C&C community).

BE changed a fair amount with the Rising Tide expansion. It wasn't enough to make it a success.

Not sure it's a good data point in that respect.

 

[Crashdummy]

I mean, that can happen. We call such movies cult classics, for example. Video games are also capable of developing a cult following.

But I agree that VII will do better with changes. Again, it's a matter of "what changes".

I don't think such a mode is as easy to implement as you think. Maybe that's what the devs are aiming for. In that case, I'll be disappointed. Homogenising design for the sake of popularity is how genres stagnate like RTS has, imo.

Even if progress means mistakes along the way.

BE changed a fair amount with the Rising Tide expansion. It wasn't enough to make it a success.

Not sure it's a good data point in that respect.

I am not saying Classic Mode is easy, but its not as hard as some people try to make it. Again, there are very rustic mods made by single modders in a few weeks. They are not even close to be enough, but they were made by a single dev in a few weeks, a dev that probably has a real job too

Firaxis could make a very complete Classic Mode in a year of development with just assigning a small team to it. In any case, i dont think the dirction they are taking of making very small changes to the Ages transitions is working

I agree changes need to be attempted, but those changes cannot alter the fundaments of the franchise (which in Civ VII was to build a civilization to stand the test of time with a sandbox feeling, in Halo it was being a single player FPS without any sandbox, etc). Such changes need to be implemented in NEW IPS if you want to make them. You cant introduce any feature you want in an already established franchise. Can ages transitions and civ switching work? Maybe, in another franchise. Can sandbox FPS work? Maybe, but not in the Halo franchise

 

[Gorbles]

I am not saying Classic Mode is easy, but its not as hard as some people try to make it. Again, there are very rustic mods made by single modders in a few weeks. They are not even close to be enough, but they were made by a single dev in a few weeks, a dev that probably has a real job too

Firaxis could make a very complete Classic Mode in a year of development with just assigning a small team to it. In any case, i dont think the dirction they are taking of making very small changes to the Ages transitions is working

Close isn't good enough.

I appreciate the logic that if modders can get close, developers can get closer, but that's not always the case.

What if rewriting something fundamental takes six months? What if adding options means completely ceasing development on the current design? Options might be good, but options at the cost of ongoing support for the current design might not be.

And that's before we get to "what if a year is too long"?

Don't you think the developers know this? I get it's become popular to throw shade at Firaxis, but the simple reality is that they have a lot of data that we won't. At the same time, our input is valuable. No doubt in my mind. But valuable input doesn't equal well-scoped or even well-defined goals.

"but if they have the data, they wouldn't make mistakes"

Projects of this size are never that easy. Assumptions are baked in months, if not years ahead of delivery. I don't know what you do professionally, but the product I work on is finalising the 2026 roadmap. And we already have some (mainly support) work planned for Q1 2026. That's a six month lead time on a specific, detailed, year-long customer-facing plan. Product are getting feedback from development now.

Imagine what that's like for a project that's in-development for years. That has to be kept under wraps, and can't be leaked . . . for years.

It's trickier than you might think!

Such changes need to be implemented in NEW IPS if you want to make them. You cant introduce any feature you want in an already established franchise. Can ages transitions and civ switching work? Maybe, in another franchise. Can sandbox FPS work? Maybe, but not in the Halo franchise

Do you really consider Age that much of a difference? I hate to keep bringing up 1UPT, but there are people that feel as strongly about that.

(in fact, 1UPT and its consequences on the tactical / strategic balance are probably why a number of people stick on IV and don't move further than that)

My point is to not say you can't feel that way. My point is that thousands of people feel thousands of ways. Popularity is an indicator, but it can't rule design. Otherwise all we get is CoD, forever. New things can't be vetoed as "needing to be implemented in new IPs". 33% new, 33% change, 33% the same. That's been Firaxis' method for a while now.

It just so happens this time, the thing you don't like is in the new part. Presumably there are other new things you've been okay with. The same goes for anyone, unless there's somebody out there who refused to move on from Civ 1

 

[Crashdummy]

Close isn't good enough.

I appreciate the logic that if modders can get close, developers can get closer, but that's not always the case.

What if rewriting something fundamental takes six months? What if adding options means completely ceasing development on the current design? Options might be good, but options at the cost of ongoing support for the current design might not be.

And that's before we get to "what if a year is too long"?

Don't you think the developers know this? I get it's become popular to throw shade at Firaxis, but the simple reality is that they have a lot of data that we won't. At the same time, our input is valuable. No doubt in my mind. But valuable input doesn't equal well-scoped or even well-defined goals.

"but if they have the data, they wouldn't make mistakes"

Projects of this size are never that easy. Assumptions are baked in months, if not years ahead of delivery. I don't know what you do professionally, but the product I work on is finalising the 2026 roadmap. And we already have some (mainly support) work planned for Q1 2026. That's a six month lead time on a specific, detailed, year-long customer-facing plan. Product are getting feedback from development now.

Imagine what that's like for a project that's in-development for years. That has to be kept under wraps, and can't be leaked . . . for years.

It's trickier than you might think!

Do you really consider Age that much of a difference? I hate to keep bringing up 1UPT, but there are people that feel as strongly about that.

(in fact, 1UPT and its consequences on the tactical / strategic balance are probably why a number of people stick on IV and don't move further than that)

My point is to not say you can't feel that way. My point is that thousands of people feel thousands of ways. Popularity is an indicator, but it can't rule design. Otherwise all we get is CoD, forever. New things can't be vetoed as "needing to be implemented in new IPs". 33% new, 33% change, 33% the same. That's been Firaxis' method for a while now.

It just so happens this time, the thing you don't like is in the new part. Presumably there are other new things you've been okay with. The same goes for anyone, unless there's somebody out there who refused to move on from Civ 1

I am a developer professionaly. A fullstack developer more specifically, not games

A year was a timeframe that i consider enough to make this changes, it isnt a point of what if a year is too long, they need to start ASAP and take whatever it takes to do it right, a year is a good estimation IMHO

1UPT was also a drastic change, they took a risk and it worked, taking a huge risk again was risky. That being said, 1UPT was one change and the game didnt make many other big changes besides it, so the shock was smaller. Civ VII made a lot of big changes, including changes that affected tactical decisions too. Now, they took a huge risk, it didnt pay off, in development, the sooner you identify that you need to change, the less resources it will take to do it. Firaxis need to start with Classic Mode ASAP, because it will take them many months

I didnt say new things need to wait for new IPS, i said changes that fchange the fundamentals of your franchise need to be implemented in new IPs

Popularity is not only an indicator, its one of the goals. You want your game to be a good game and to be played by as many people as possible. Those are your goals

 

[Gorbles]

1UPT was also a drastic change, they took a risk and it worked, taking a huge risk again was risky. That being said, 1UPT was one change and the game didnt make many other big changes besides it, so the shock was smaller.

They made pretty significant changes to unit health and combat resolution, no?

And 1UPT had knock-on effects across the whole design. Including combat.

We shouldn't ignore things just because we like or don't like them. A key part of games design is being able to analyse something independent of its popularity (as well as analysing the reasons for its popularity, or lack of the same). 1UPT was big. Districts in VI were pretty big too.

If something is only okay because people liked it after it was released, nobody's ever going to know that before releasing it. A similar game doing well or not isn't necessarily helpful.

Popularity is not only an indicator, its one of the goals. You want your game to be a good game and to be played by as many people as possible. Those are your goals

Sorry if this is off-topic, but how do you define a good game, if not by popularity?

(full disclosure: I don't think popularity should decide it, but that tends to be what publishers care about - revenue potential)

 

[Crashdummy]

They made pretty significant changes to unit health and combat resolution, no?

And 1UPT had knock-on effects across the whole design. Including combat.

We shouldn't ignore things just because we like or don't like them. A key part of games design is being able to analyse something independent of its popularity (as well as analysing the reasons for its popularity, or lack of the same). 1UPT was big. Districts in VI were pretty big too.

If something is only okay because people liked it after it was released, nobody's ever going to know that before releasing it. A similar game doing well or not isn't necessarily helpful.

Sorry if this is off-topic, but how do you define a good game, if not by popularity?

(full disclosure: I don't think popularity should decide it, but that tends to be what publishers care about - revenue potential)

Its not about me liking it or not, i didnt like 1UPT either, it was about not making the game so different that is felt like it didnt belong to the franchise

1UPT might bein the scope of 1 of either age transitions OR civ switching. Civ VII made two of those changes, while at the same time also changing combat resolution, tactical unit reposition (with commanders), and many other medium sized changes like towns

The amount of change in Civ V wasnt even close to the amount of stuff Civ VII changed

About games being good, some metrics can be used, but i guess in part is subjective. In any way, even if everyone calls your game good, its a failure if its not also popular. There are some popular "games" that are not good though, i remember last year or the year before a game about clicking a bannana.....

 

[MrCynical]

1UPT was also a drastic change, they took a risk and it worked, taking a huge risk again was risky. That being said, 1UPT was one change and the game didnt make many other big changes besides it, so the shock was smaller.

As someone who's been around since long before Civ V, I have to give a big nope to the claim that 1UPT "worked". Civ V had one of the worst launches of any of the Civ games, and one of the biggest issues was that the AI had no grasp at all of how to do any kind of combat with the then new 1UPT system. To the extent that if you just rolled a d6 for each unit each turn, and had it try to move in one of the six possible directions from that roll, I don't think it would actually have performed worse than the random nonsense Civ V had at launch. Patching made it somewhat less bad, but it remained this awkward baked in bad decision that loads of other aspects of the game had to work around, rather than something than benefitted the gameplay. The age switching system is looking a lot like that - deemed to big to back up, they can take the edge off it, but I wouldn't be too optimistic about them undoing it.

I mean, they didn't even undo 1UPT when they had the chance for Civ VI, and it remains a problem even there. Part of the reason VI suffers from such AI passivity is it's still rather clueless about how to handle 1UPT. It can declare a war, but it has no idea how to handle the unit traffic jams, or capturing a city. They got it to the point where it can handle warfare for the first couple of ages, but once the map gets crowded and walls appear, you'll never see an AI conquer another, and it's rare to even see a major city change hands. For an game with AIs actively and competently conquering each other you have to go all the way back to Civ IV.

I suspect this is the main cause of the whole "not finishing games" issue that seems to be bothering the devs. Since AI conquering either humans or other AIs stops being a thing, the latter parts of Civ V and especially VI are boringly passive and predictable. If you're up to the middle ages or so, and aren't being completely left behind in tech, you're gonna fall over a culture, space or diplo win eventually.

 

[GeneralZift]

Dang, I thought Generals was decently received. Maybe I am just thinking of the smaller circles I discussed it in.

It is widely positively received, but around veteran c&c fans at the time, they did not like it because it wasn't the same formula.
For them it has to be that mcv construction style and they prefer slightly faster gameplay. But since generals is a spin off people shouldn't care as much as if it were a main title like Civ7. Anyway it's still widely considered in the top 3 for c&c titles, next to RA2.

 

[Crashdummy]

Well, i am glad to know more people liked Generals, from my time when i was playing it, i got the impression it was rejected by t he community while i loved it

The point still stands, there are examples everywhere of games that failed but tens of thousands of people still liked it

 

[The Civs 6]

Well, i am glad to know more people liked Generals, from my time when i was playing it, i got the impression it was rejected by t he community while i loved it

The point still stands, there are examples everywhere of games that failed but tens of thousands of people still liked it

IMO Civ V is the spin-offish game like Generals (or AOE 3 or Mario Sunshine). VI is like AOE 4 lots of bells and whistles but not a lot of game. VII... Simpsons season 38 or whatever it is now.

 

[Siptah]

In the end, a lot of this recent discussion boils down to how unpopular is defined. I wondered what unpopular games I play and arrived at the following:

I played some games of BE; and with RT, I liked it except for the very slow end game.
I played C&C Generals a lot in multiplayer when it released. It was for some time a staple on the LAN parties I went to. It seemed well received in my community.
I played a whole lot of Humankind.
I still play civ VII.

I like(d) all of these, but none of these falls into my definition of unpopular. With >1m sales for each game, and thousands and thousands of players that play(ed) them for an extended period of time, I just can't follow that. Yes, the low reviews for BE and civ VII clearly point towards them not being well-received, but there are still quite a lot of of people that play(ed) and apparently liked these games. More niche than comparable games – for sure. Unpopular – nah. Maybe it's a matter of expectations? Civ V and VI especially were/are huge successes, and incredibly popular as well. They are for sure not niche, and also popular.

So, what do I consider unpopular that I liked? In the turn-based 4x genre, I find two games.

Ozymandias. A really great strategy game that I would recommend to anyone who is looking for more strategy in civ. It's only 3x (no exploration), a stripped down civ taking place on TSL maps (and thus with asymmetric factions), with barebones but really good mechanics. The AI is on even terms really good, for sure the best in any 4x game (but it's also the simplest one I know, rule-wise). Yet, the game sold below 100k, and no one is playing it anymore. Which is a shame, as it was a good game for MP as well. People who bought it liked it (88% reviews are positive).

Predynastic Egypt (and to lesser extent its successor). This has a sweet spot for me, as I consider the developments from protodynastic Egypt to dynasties 0-3 as one of the most interesting in human history. And this game, which is really well-researched, lets you play through exactly that. And I think it's also great fun for 2-3 play throughs. There's not really an AI – you have opponents to overcome, but you are the only real player. This may limit the replayability a fair bit, as you are basically playing against your last performance. Yet, it also sold below 100k, and no one is playing it anymore (but there also is no MP). It's well received by the people that bought it (92% positive reviews).

I realized that for some people, definitions are switched. They would probably say, Ozymandias and Predynastic Egypt are popular but niche, while they called the games above unpopular. But hey, whatever floats anyone's boat.