Civ VII Post-mortem: Crafting a redemption arc

[Gorbles]

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.

Anytime anyone tries to do something new with an existing setting, it's changing it. For the sake of a new story. Tolkien did it. GRRM does it.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. You feel in this case that it is. Others will agree or disagree. It doesn't make what they did a mistake before they even knew they were making it. It's a perfectly viable thing to choose to do.

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.

Sure it did. But this is probably better saved for another thread. I'm just trying to demonstrate that how you feel about it isn't necessarily how others feel about it. And I'm very into both ATLA and TLOK as well.

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.

I think again, we're back to unfalsifiable claims.

How did you know they didn't consider that some players want to play one Civ from start to finish? You don't know. I don't know. We can't know. You're assuming that they didn't based on a lack of catering to that player in the final product. This is faulty logic.

The same goes for the other questions. We have no way of answering these questions. You're assuming they didn't.

And I think we're drifting into "sandbox vs. narrative" territory again, which is another thread (or set of threads, at this point). People have different interests. The franchise has, at times, created tension between these groups of people by going one way, or another way. We saw it with Districts in VI (city planning sprawl was one thing, yield choices was another). We saw it with ranged unit balance in V (combined with 1UPT, and map generation / hexes, created an overly optimal way to fight).

You're trying to make sense of something you don't like in objective terms. You're not going to find an answer. The answer is to accept that you don't like the thing, and that you might have not liked it even if it launched in a good shape.

(also, us modders have a fair amount - the main thing we're missing are art assets and a pipeline there I think, though knowing their JS pipeline would also be helpful)

 

[Crashdummy]

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.

I think using sales to determine popularity is wrong, specially when talking about franchises. How many os those copies are because of the previous iteration popularity?

Reviews would be a better way but they are not always representative or unbiased (not each review, a review will always have bias, i means the whole set of reviews being always unbiased)

Player count could also be a way and i think this would be the most interesting, but we have issues with multiplatform and will also need context. 7k concurrent players for a game like Civ can be low, while being high for an indie game that isnt part of a multi decade franchise

I dont know if i can give you a way to meassure popularity sadly

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think using sales to determine popularity is wrong, specially when talking about franchises. How many os those copies are because of the previous iteration popularity?

Reviews would be a better way but they are not always representative or unbiased (not each review, a review will always have bias, i means the whole set of reviews being always unbiased)

Player count could also be a way and i think this would be the most interesting, but we have issues with multiplatform and will also need context. 7k concurrent players for a game like Civ can be low, while being high for an indie game that isnt part of a multi decade franchise

I dont know if i can give you a way to meassure popularity sadly

To start, we need to define popularity. Is this media coverage? Number of active players? Anything else?

Also, I'd define broader terms - which metrics are important to you, depending on your wishes? I, personally, want Civ7 to be well supported for years to come, receive well designed expansions and lead to even better Civ8. So, to me it's important to know that both current and potential sales are good.

 

[Crashdummy]

To start, we need to define popularity. Is this media coverage? Number of active players? Anything else?

Also, I'd define broader terms - which metrics are important to you, depending on your wishes? I, personally, want Civ7 to be well supported for years to come, receive well designed expansions and lead to even better Civ8. So, to me it's important to know that both current and potential sales are good.

Again, thats the big issue, i dont know how we can define popularity. Because even if you pick a way to meassure, for example lets say active players.

X amount of active players for WItcher 4 or GTA 6 (i am trying to avoid using Civ as an example) can be a failure, while that same X amount can be a huge success for another game that isnt part of a successful franchise

I want the best for the Civ franchise, sadly, i dont think the decisions made for Civ 7 are the best for the franchise

 

[stealth_nsk]

Again, thats the big issue, i dont know how we can define popularity. Because even if you pick a way to meassure, for example lets say active players.

X amount of active players for WItcher 4 or GTA 6 (i am trying to avoid using Civ as an example) can be a failure, while that same X amount can be a huge success for another game that isnt part of a successful franchise

I want the best for the Civ franchise, sadly, i dont think the decisions made for Civ 7 are the best for the franchise

I could say that the decision of launching Civ7 in the early state was clearly bad for many reasons, but probably they were forced financially. For the rest of the decisions - I can't say for sure. At least the choices were bold and clearly brought some insights on how the game could be evolved further. At maximum, we could end up with all those revolutionary features in their more polished form accepted by the majority of the community.

 

[Crashdummy]

At maximum, we could end up with all those revolutionary features in their more polished form accepted by the majority of the community.

I think that train left already. I cant understand how there are still people that think the Civilization community will accept age transitions and civ switching

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think that train left already. I cant understand how there are still people that think the Civilization community will accept age transitions and civ switching

I don't think anybody have true insights of all the preferences existing in the community and how many people have each. We have some votes on this forum, but this forum isn't great representation of millions of current and potential players, plus people could change their opinion. So I wouldn't rule out that possibility, although more realistic is to expect significant divide to persist.

 

[GeneralZift]

I think again, we're back to unfalsifiable claims.

How did you know they didn't consider that some players want to play one Civ from start to finish? You don't know. I don't know. We can't know. You're assuming that they didn't based on a lack of catering to that player in the final product. This is faulty logic.

The same goes for the other questions. We have no way of answering these questions. You're assuming they didn't.

And I think we're drifting into "sandbox vs. narrative" territory again, which is another thread (or set of threads, at this point). People have different interests. The franchise has, at times, created tension between these groups of people by going one way, or another way. We saw it with Districts in VI (city planning sprawl was one thing, yield choices was another). We saw it with ranged unit balance in V (combined with 1UPT, and map generation / hexes, created an overly optimal way to fight).

You're trying to make sense of something you don't like in objective terms. You're not going to find an answer. The answer is to accept that you don't like the thing, and that you might have not liked it even if it launched in a good shape.

(also, us modders have a fair amount - the main thing we're missing are art assets and a pipeline there I think, though knowing their JS pipeline would also be helpful)

No Gorbles. Don't tell me that my opinion is just an opinion and there's nothing wrong with the title objectively.
Look - there's no option to play the way we used to play. This means if you want to play the way you used to play, then there's nothing you can do.

That means it is objectively missing a way (or many ways) to play. This is not an opinion.

You COULD pretend that they thought about that but there is no proof that they DID anything about it.
For Civ6, you can tell they thought about UPT because they added the Corps / Armies system.
For Civ7, you can't tell they thought about the various things I listed, because there is no proof that they did.

And if they did nothing about it then we can clearly see why some people are upset.

You're trying to make sense of something others don't like by just labelling it as opinion instead of exploring what about the title that you like is disliked by others.

 

[Gorbles]

No Gorbles. Don't tell me that my opinion is just an opinion and there's nothing wrong with the title objectively.
Look - there's no option to play the way we used to play. This means if you want to play the way you used to play, then there's nothing you can do.

That means it is objectively missing a way (or many ways) to play. This is not an opinion.

You COULD pretend that they thought about that but there is no proof that they DID anything about it.
For Civ6, you can tell they thought about UPT because they added the Corps / Armies system.
For Civ7, you can't tell they thought about the various things I listed, because there is no proof that they did.

And if they did nothing about it then we can clearly see why some people are upset.

You're trying to make sense of something others don't like by just labelling it as opinion instead of exploring what about the title that you like is disliked by others.

I didn't say that there's nothing wrong with the title objectively. The UI was objectively poor on a number of levels. The game stability was iffy - especially on console. But a lot of things you find wrong about it are going to be rooted in subjective opinion.

Something being an opinion doesn't mean it's wrong. Opinions are neither wrong nor right. They simply exist. Valid data points for the developers to pick up on. You need to quit hanging onto whatever kneejerk response you're feeling to an opinion being labelled an opinion. It isn't a put-down, or a dismissal. All of this is literally just my own opinion.

Your argument here rides on "well they didn't do something about it, so they didn't think about it". This is silly logic. You haven't written a video game, so you haven't thought about video game mechanics? Ludicrous, right? We can think about things without doing anything about any of them. Lots of things happen behind closed doors in video games development. Content is cut, iterated on, added to, and so on. The final product doesn't reflect the length of scope of the journey it took to get there.

I can absolutely see why some people are upset. I could see why people were upset at 1UPT in V. At Districts in VI. At social policy cards (in VI). At Golden and Dark ages (again, VI). I played a lot of VI

VII is not "objectively" missing any way to play. It changes the way you play. Just like earlier iterations did. This is why, again, some people stopped playing at V. Or IV. Or even earlier. Because at some point the changes were too much for them to appreciate the franchise they'd been enjoying anymore.

This is what happens to any franchise. The trick is gaining more people than you lose. VII isn't at that point yet, if it ever will be.

 

[Crashdummy]

I didn't say that there's nothing wrong with the title objectively. The UI was objectively poor on a number of levels. The game stability was iffy - especially on console. But a lot of things you find wrong about it are going to be rooted in subjective opinion.

Something being an opinion doesn't mean it's wrong. Opinions are neither wrong nor right. They simply exist. Valid data points for the developers to pick up on. You need to quit hanging onto whatever kneejerk response you're feeling to an opinion being labelled an opinion. It isn't a put-down, or a dismissal. All of this is literally just my own opinion.

Your argument here rides on "well they didn't do something about it, so they didn't think about it". This is silly logic. You haven't written a video game, so you haven't thought about video game mechanics? Ludicrous, right? We can think about things without doing anything about any of them. Lots of things happen behind closed doors in video games development. Content is cut, iterated on, added to, and so on. The final product doesn't reflect the length of scope of the journey it took to get there.

I can absolutely see why some people are upset. I could see why people were upset at 1UPT in V. At Districts in VI. At social policy cards (in VI). At Golden and Dark ages (again, VI). I played a lot of VI

VII is not "objectively" missing any way to play. It changes the way you play. Just like earlier iterations did. This is why, again, some people stopped playing at V. Or IV. Or even earlier. Because at some point the changes were too much for them to appreciate the franchise they'd been enjoying anymore.

This is what happens to any franchise. The trick is gaining more people than you lose. VII isn't at that point yet, if it ever will be.

You guys are discussing in circles

If they thought but didnt do anything about it is also a mistake. Not giving an option for those that for over 3 decades were making antique civs reach Alpha Centauri or for those that liked to play America in antiquity was a mistake

So its kind of irrelevant if they thought about it or not

 

[Core Imposter]

People don't get upset about the game that gets made. They get upset about the game that doesn't get made. People don't get upset with the third of the game that is new. People get upset about the third of the game that was cut that they didn't want cut. People get upset about the third of the game that was improved that they didn't want improved (and don't believe has been improved). People get upset about the third of the past game they wanted improved but didn't get improved.

People are upset because Firaxis has innovated the Civ out of Civ in order to make a smaller, shorter, simpler product that will fit on every Tom, Dick and Harry platform and appeal to people that literally can't discern between chess and checkers and at the end of the day will be happy to play tic tac toe if you have given it pretty graphics and some music.

It was an act of betrayal.

It wasn't the ages and civ switching being added to the game that led to Civ fans being appalled. It was everything that adding ages and civ switching took away that is appalling. It was an act of abuse perpetrated upon the player base. Firaxis has been committing intellectual violence on the player base for three iterations now. Intentionally. There comes a time when you just have to leave an abusive relationship.

There can be no redemption without repentance. And they are unrepentant.

 

[Gorbles]

You guys are discussing in circles

Maybe!

So its kind of irrelevant if they thought about it or not

Not to GeneralZift. I disagree with them on a few things I reckon. But that doesn't mean trying to understand their arguments, or trying to get them to understand mine, is irrelevant.

Discussion is useful. Or should be

It was an act of abuse perpetrated upon the player base. Firaxis has been committing intellectual violence on the player base for three iterations now. Intentionally. There comes a time when you just have to leave an abusive relationship.

I'm struggling to understand how this classifies as a constructive argument.

It affects how constructively folks are going to respond to it? That's the best advice I can give.

Anyone else agree with Core Imposter here?

 

[Crashdummy]

Not to GeneralZift. I disagree with them on a few things I reckon. But that doesn't mean trying to understand their arguments, or trying to get them to understand mine, is irrelevant.

Discussion is useful. Or should be

I meant it is irrekevant to discuss if they thought about it or not, because its impossible to know for sure or reach a consenssus about it

Discussion is great, but i think it is more productive to discuss that, doesnt matter if they took the topic into consideration or not, having not provided a "solution" to those people was a mistake or not. That is more interesting IMHO

Sorry if my previous sentence is poorly written, i read it over and over and something feels off but english is not my native language so i cant find the mistake that i am sure i am making

 

[Gorbles]

I meant it is irrekevant to discuss if they thought about it or not, because its impossible to know for sure or reach a consenssus about it

Discussion is great, but i think it is more productive to discuss that, doesnt matter if they took the topic into consideration or not, having not provided a "solution" to those people was a mistake or not. That is more interesting IMHO

Sorry if my previous sentence is poorly written, i read it over and over and something feels off but english is not my native language so i cant find the mistake that i am sure i am making

Discussion doesn't have to be about reaching consensus.

So, for your point, what is more interesting? Discussing whether or not providing a solution was a mistake? Isn't it too early to tell?

We can't rewrite the past. Maybe the game was received outstandingly. Maybe the game was received moderately better than it was. Maybe the game was received a bit better than it was (50% is a death knell in today's reviews, but that still means 50% of players like the game as-is).

All we know at this point is that a) more players are playing other Civ. titles, and b) that the current title has low review scores. Generally speaking, whether or not any particular solution increases players is completely speculative.

I don't have a silver bullet. I don't know what will improve the game to a level where most people will enjoy it. It might be easy to say "classic mode", but the problems that lead Firaxis to innovate in this way (lategame stagnation) are something endemic to all 4x games. No 4x game I'm aware of has solved it. Which means if VII didn't crack it, either VIII takes another go, or goes "easy mode", and changes less than Civ games usually change. That would be a regression to me. That would harm the franchise's longevity.

 

[Core Imposter]

I'm struggling to understand how this classifies as a constructive argument.

It affects how constructively folks are going to respond to it? That's the best advice I can give.

Anyone else agree with Core Imposter here?

Looking at the last three releases do you not see a pattern of abuse? Do you think it's okay to release games in various states of disarray at full game price? Do you think the DLC model is fine or isn't it just another form of abusive behavior? There have been plenty of commenters who have objected to it.

They should repent.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Honestly I think like in real life the best snowball prevention is coalition / alliances. Where people see common threat they can put aside their differences to oppose it.

EU4 did this rather well with it's alliance and aggressive expansion / coalition mechanics.

Civ is too simplistic to replicate this. There are not enough polities on the game board to get effective dynamic alliance building going. I don't think snowballing can be effectively curtailed with the current Civ per game limitations

Yeah, I would like to see more civs on the map. There is often too much open space to expand, especially on larger maps. It creates a situation where for most of Antiquity Age, you are just expanding until you hit your settlement cap and your borders still don't touch another civ. Having more civs would mean more diplomatic interactions and like you said, more chances for coalitions and alliances. But I would point out that alliances won't really stop the snowballing player if the AI is ineffective at war. So the AI needs to be aggressive enough that there is a chance the alliance can actually stop the snowballing player.

I also think the geopolitics needs to be more dynamic. By that I mean, independent peoples should pop up in empty spaces or disappear over time. Independent peoples could conquer a city and become a civ. Have cities that go into unrest for too long revolt and become a new civ or a new independent peoples. Have civil wars where if there is too much unrest, some cities can become rebel cities and split off from the main civ. Have colonies in distant lands declare independence and become a new civ if you don't keep them loyal. This would make the game more interesting. It would also help counter excessive snowballing as your cities might split off. At the very least, you would need to spend resources to stabilize your conquests or distance colonies. It would also create more civs to interact with, thus increasing the chances of alliances and coalitions.