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.

 

[Gorbles]

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

Which is still about how it "feels". Which is feelings-based.

You'd probably feel differently about whether or not it felt like a mechanic belonging or not, if you liked the mechanic.

It's a tricky problem to solve! Like I said earlier, developers want players to like their games.

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

I don't think we can nail down "1UPT is as much change as Age transitions only", given how interlinked civilisations and transitions are.

Plenty of folks have discussed ways to make "civ switching" (as it is now known) less jarring, but it fundamentally always involves adding a layer to your chosen civilization at the point of transition. Thus, the transition itself is related.

Commanders are a change to 1UPT. They're not necessarily a new thing. Or maybe you could call them a new thing. Urban and rural tiles are an extension / change of District design. But they're also new.

It's hard to really, precisely define new vs. changed because people who don't like change will tend to frame anything that's changed as "new". And that's just the kind of player they are - there's nothing wrong with that. I'm towards the other end of the spectrum; I consider a lot of things changes, and only several things truly new. But the new things thing time around are big, no doubt.

 

[Gori the Grey]

As I remember the discussions, a good number of people didn't like 1UPT, but far fewer people said "This isn't even a Civ game anymore."

"Stone age to space age" or "Babylon into space" or "stand the test of time" really does seem to be more central to people's sense of the core identity of the franchise than how combat is handled.

 

[stealth_nsk]

As I remember the discussions, a good number of people didn't like 1UPT, but far fewer people said "This isn't even a Civ game anymore."

I don't think we have statistics here. Also if we look at the game now, having 15 years with 1UPT, people accept it much more. I seem to remember "this isn't even a Civ game anymore" opinions much more often back then.

 

[itix]

Cities Skylines 2 has sold 2M+ copies, so I guess it is hugely popular.

 

[Siptah]

Cities Skylines 2 has sold 2M+ copies, so I guess it is hugely popular.

I wouldn't say 'hugely'. But 2M to me doesn't say unpopular either. Clearly, it appealed to a large audience (within the scope of a city building sim), yet failed to reach the masses that its predecessor reached – but that also was the most successful city building sim of all times iirc. Given the continuing discourse about CS2, I'd say the game is still of high public interest. It's neither forgotten nor have people stopped buying and playing it. I've not really followed this discourse though, as I wasn't really hooked by CS1 and had no interest in CS2 (despite liking city builders a lot).

In the end, it might come down to which understanding of popular you have. Maybe I'm spoiled here as I tend to understand it in different ways at the same time, and not just as "popular is what a majority thinks". And who would that majority be anyways? To me, having a wide appeal is popular (aside from definitions that would make basically make all video games popular, because they are inherently a popular media). And within the realm of games that are played on a PC and require several hours of play for a game or session, I think a million sales and >100k different players per week are wide enough. Whether this is enough to cover the cost of FXS or CO is unrelated imho.

I guess CS2 and Civ 7 are and will be compared a lot because they share the fate of being successor to an incredibly successful and popular game that is widely regarded as the crown of its genre but suffered a terrible launch that failed to match expectations? As said, I've followed CS2 only loosely, but my impression at launch was that many of its problems were of technical nature, and not design as in civ 7. But maybe, that has changed meanwhile. I'm curious where EU5 will land in this, which could potential land in a similar situation.

 

[Gorbles]

As I remember the discussions, a good number of people didn't like 1UPT, but far fewer people said "This isn't even a Civ game anymore."

"Stone age to space age" or "Babylon into space" or "stand the test of time" really does seem to be more central to people's sense of the core identity of the franchise than how combat is handled.

That may be, but that's kinda sideways to my point. My point is how we define new vs. changed, and how ultimately in all cases it comes down to how someone feels about it.

Feelings are hard.

Internet discourse has also changed significantly in the past 10 - 15 years. The way people communicate dislike has changed too, and imo not entirely for the better.

 

[GeneralZift]

I'll tell you what it is, it's a matter of give and take. When a title innovates, you should want it to take the innovation to it's fullest, and come out bravely as something new.
What people don't like is when something changes and it comes out as half arsed and not very well researched.

For example, let's say you make a change like 1UPT. People may hate it because it feels like a sliding puzzle game. So what you should do as a designer is anticipate this opinion and design into the new mechanic, something to respect that common opinion.

Another example is not even a game, it's a TV show - ATLA and TLOK. In concept, Korra was an interesting show. But where they tried to innovate, they usually stepped on the toes of the previous show and didn't exactly show any respect to the opinions of those who didn't like where it took the overall universe. Like the spirits of good and evil, or the idea that everyone now bends what was previously very rare.

For Civ7, I apply it like this: they knew they wanted to make these various Age changes and Civ switch mechanics and so on. And I'm sure they were aware in advance about Humankind's negative reviews about having the Civ switch make sense. Which is why the Crisis system and the Unlock system exists, to justify it.
But this comes across as a patch job, like it doesn't quite make sense from every angle. And the mechanics aren't so fleshed out as to have a branch for every Civ. And the age system isn't so fleshed out as to feel natural (eg relationship resets, army shenanigans)

If you want to innovate, you should innovate bravely and with consideration. This is what separates the bad innovations from the good Innovations.

 

[Gorbles]

Another example is not even a game, it's a TV show - ATLA and TLOK. In concept, Korra was an interesting show. But where they tried to innovate, they usually stepped on the toes of the previous show and didn't exactly show any respect to the opinions of those who didn't like where it took the overall universe. Like the spirits of good and evil, or the idea that everyone now bends what was previously very rare.

This is a funny example, because TLOK was made by the same people who made ATLA. "stepping on the toes of the previous show" just shows you didn't understand what the creators were trying to tell. That's a failure of you (of interpreting the artistic medium).

This is different to a video game, where player frustration with mechanics arises from interacting with the game, vs. simply watching a TV show (which you can like or not like to your heart's content, but the idea that the same two creators stepping the toes of their past selves is funny).

(TLOK also had issues in planning because it came at a time where selling shows / renewing shows was a lot more cutthroat than at a time when ATLA was made. It's similar in a way to Buffy vs. Angel, where Angel ended up getting unceremoniously chopped, plus had issues in planning for renewals which caused significant rewrites to the last season or two)

If you want to innovate, you should innovate bravely and with consideration. This is what separates the bad innovations from the good Innovations.

The devs did. They even changed things during development based on fan reactions (such as the renaming of historical choices in civ selection). It still wasn't received terribly well.

I personally think they can turn it around, but meaningless platitudes help nobody. "just do it well" isn't helpful advice.

"don't rush the game out of the door so 2K can get their quarterlies looking better" is probably better advice. But not very helpful for Firaxis.

 

[GeneralZift]

This is a funny example, because TLOK was made by the same people who made ATLA. "stepping on the toes of the previous show" just shows you didn't understand what the creators were trying to tell. That's a failure of you (of interpreting the artistic medium).

This is different to a video game, where player frustration with mechanics arises from interacting with the game, vs. simply watching a TV show (which you can like or not like to your heart's content, but the idea that the same two creators stepping the toes of their past selves is funny).

(TLOK also had issues in planning because it came at a time where selling shows / renewing shows was a lot more cutthroat than at a time when ATLA was made. It's similar in a way to Buffy vs. Angel, where Angel ended up getting unceremoniously chopped, plus had issues in planning for renewals which caused significant rewrites to the last season or two)

I know it was made by the same people. I know everything about those two shows. I understand what they were trying to do. But they did it poorly.
It was poor innovation. You want me to go on a tangent? I will.
They had previously built a world that made sense on its own merits. Then they tried to change the world to fit their new storyline.
However, it didn't come with full consideration of how the worldbuilding works in the previous story and how it works in the story now.

Yes it had issues in planning. That might excuse the first season, but it doesn't excuse every other season after it, especially the second season.

Like I said - good innovation is brave and considerate. Or even small and interesting. But it's not slapdash and rushed. Even if that rush came from Nickelodeon and not the studio.

The devs did. They even changed things during development based on fan reactions (such as the renaming of historical choices in civ selection). It still wasn't received terribly well.

I personally think they can turn it around, but meaningless platitudes help nobody. "just do it well" isn't helpful advice.

"don't rush the game out of the door so 2K can get their quarterlies looking better" is probably better advice. But not very helpful for Firaxis.

I recognised in my writing that the developers did consider some aspects, like with the unlock system (and ie the historical / geographic choices)
But they didn't consider all aspects.

Did the developers consider some players want to play one Civ from start to finish?
Did they consider some players want to play variety of maps, not just home lands vs far lands, for example even TSL?
Did they realise that some players did not appreciate being railroaded? Or that some players wanted a more intricate government system?
Or maybe they should consider that some Religion starts in the Antiquity and lasts the whole of human Civilization. And some does not.

Now, obviously it's impossible to consider absolutely everyone and everything, but this is why market research exists.

The problem with Civ7 is that the design is linear, it tells you how the game will be played, almost exactly like human history, but not quite. This isn't quite brave or considerate.
If it was considerate, it would have allowed you to play in different ways like I mentioned. IT would be open to mechanics existing across ages. But it is not.

I think some people think that just because the game was rushed, makes the entire fault of the outcome. No, this is not true.
First of all, you realise they have had almost 9 years between titles? Even if you cut it down to 2-3 years of development, this is generally enough for a competent team.
The game was rushed so the UI sucks - this makes sense. But is the rush the reason the design doesn't make sense?
No, they had plenty of time, feedback, money and a decent sized team.

You might enjoy this design because you may happen to like to play a particular way that meshes with the design very well.
However, many people are not considered in the game's design. Not to mention for example, modders and map-makers currently have nothing.
Although this is indicative of release-now-fix-later development style.