Civ VII Post-mortem: Crafting a redemption arc

[Glassmage]

lol I love how a random nobody like this OP is shading Firaxis this much. Sad sad Civ7.

 

[Kenshiro70]

I cant understand how you didnt wrote the ability to build a civilization to stand the Test of Time as a Civ Soul. I think you are making a similar mistake than the Devs

That "slogan" rooted deeply into the community and its now, to me, the real soul of the franchise and the main reason why Civ 7 is failing, even over the ones you listed

I'd love to hear more, and I'd love it if you could expand on "stand the test of time" by describing how it makes you feel. What emotional drivers does it represent that keep you playing over and over?

You'll notice I did the same thing with One More Turn, when I defined it as "the anticipation to see what will happen next." That way I could use it as a guidepost in the following analysis.

For the same reason I did not include "interesting decisions" because it felt too generic and hard to pin down. But "stand the test of time" feels like it has real potential if we can unlock what it represents to players.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Please read the paragraph / section right before "Civ Soul". I see the element of "Stone Age to Space Age" from the 4X soul to be basically the same as "stand the test of time." Other 4X games have this element, not just the Civ franchise.

Perhaps I misunderstood?

 

[misesfan]

I think you have referenced the point of 'standing the test of time,' when discussing how out of touch the Devs have been with their audience. The audience (or at least most of the paying audience) wants to play with the power-fantasy of building an empire, not some amorphous concept ala 'build something you believe in'.... even if one could actually describe that in terms of a game of Civ.

 

[Core Imposter]

I think you have referenced the point of 'standing the test of time,' when discussing how out of touch the Devs have been with their audience. The audience (or at least most of the paying audience) wants to play with the power-fantasy of building an empire, not some amorphous concept ala 'build something you believe in'.... even if one could actually describe that in terms of a game of Civ.

It's just not culturally practicable to excel, at least in the years in which Civ7 was developed. Merit was demoted in Western society, and I don't know where we are going. "Something you believe in" is amorphous enough to pass muster. Firaxis is just in a particular place in time and space.

You can't go to a public school where they are located and tell the kids that the students that those who get the best grades are "more" competent, smarter, or in any way superior to others. Mathematics is presented, in some cases, as a racist construct.

I am not saying that Firaxis went woke and then broke because I don't think that would be fair, but I will say that to some degree changing social mores affects everyone and impacts the things we do. I just don't think that they could have possibly produced a game, at this time, that requires the level of skill and commitment that Civ games traditionally require of its players.

And to buttress the validity of my point, consider the changes that Firaxis has been making in the game. They are bending over to mollify. So, I think that some of us are out of touch with how constrained the development of the game was by the thinking of the power structure that is/was calling the shots.

The game is too short, too small, too simple and it is all hat and no cattle. There is no there there. Redemption will require starting over with a whole new state of mind. There will be no repeat of the past recovery magic.

 

[RikC]

I really appreciate this extensive analysis @Kenshiro70. I bought Civ 7 on release, played it a bit but at that time it brought me no joy. I figured that like earlier games it needed time to 'balance out'. But starting Civ 7 this week with the 1.2.4 patch I immediately got the same 'vibe' which resonates with the idea that fundamentally flawed design choices are at the base of the game. With almost 1200 hours into Civ 6, 450 into Civ 5 and plenty of time in the releases before that I'm now wondering whether Civ 7 will stand the test of time or whether we are going to witness a Maxis-like implosion before our eyes... That's stretching it a bit of course because there were more things at hand with the failed 2013 Simcity reboot than just flawed design choices. But there are also similarities: over-simplimpifaction of game concepts, emphasis on narative events, trying to solve problems that arent really problems (in the case of Simcity emphasis on having to cooperate with other cities for resources to justify the initial always online nature of the game which was really just there to make software piracy more difficult).

 

[Crashdummy]

I'd love to hear more, and I'd love it if you could expand on "stand the test of time" by describing how it makes you feel. What emotional drivers does it represent that keep you playing over and over?

You'll notice I did the same thing with One More Turn, when I defined it as "the anticipation to see what will happen next." That way I could use it as a guidepost in the following analysis.

For the same reason I did not include "interesting decisions" because it felt too generic and hard to pin down. But "stand the test of time" feels like it has real potential if we can unlock what it represents to players.

Its about rewriting history, and making your empire better than any version of any real one

You start with just a Settler and a Warrior in the middle of nothing, and you end going to Space, and you can do that with everyone. You can prevent Rome from falling, you can prevent Egypcians from being conquered, you can make Carthage prevail, you can make all of them stand the Test of Time

That is why Civ was superior to any other 4x game, because it allows that. Its a bigger reason of its success than any of the ones youn listed as soul of Civilizaztion.

Building a Civilization to stand the Test of time is actually, in my opinion, THE SOUL of the Civilization franchise, above everything else, and tis the main reason of its success

 

[aieeegrunt]

Its about rewriting history, and making your empire better than any version of any real one

You start with just a Settler and a Warrior in the middle of nothing, and you end going to Space, and you can do that with everyone. You can prevent Rome from falling, you can prevent Egypcians from being conquered, you can make Carthage prevail, you can make all of them stand the Test of Time

That is why Civ was superior to any other 4x game, because it allows that. Its a bigger reason of its success than any of the ones youn listed as soul of Civilizaztion.

Building a Civilization to stand the Test of time is actually, in my opinion, THE SOUL of the Civilization franchise, above everything else, and tis the main reason of its success

Clearly the majority of the playerbase agrees.

 

[Siptah]

Clearly the majority of the playerbase agrees.

Which player base? All potential players? The civ franchise player base? Civ 7 player base?

 

[McSpank01]

Its about rewriting history, and making your empire better than any version of any real one

You start with just a Settler and a Warrior in the middle of nothing, and you end going to Space, and you can do that with everyone. You can prevent Rome from falling, you can prevent Egypcians from being conquered, you can make Carthage prevail, you can make all of them stand the Test of Time

That is why Civ was superior to any other 4x game, because it allows that. Its a bigger reason of its success than any of the ones youn listed as soul of Civilizaztion.

Building a Civilization to stand the Test of time is actually, in my opinion, THE SOUL of the Civilization franchise, above everything else, and tis the main reason of its success

This viewpoint is pretty contradictory though. You want to rewrite history, but not only is Civ not a history simulator at all, you also balk at the idea of civ switching, which is probably much closer to historic accuracy than previous version.

You keep jumping between wanting historic realism and not wanting it.

My issue with this thinking is the Civs in Civilisation games are not really ever attempting to be historically accurate. They are mostly caricatures of what people think of when you mention a civilisation or empire. They are game factions, in a way that say, Alliance and Horde are factions in WoW, or Elves and Dwarves. The whole concept of a Civ is just a label really, you are never really managing Rome, you are managing a game faction that says Rome on it.

You are never rewriting history at all, the game is never attempting to do that. It is presenting you with a bunch of factions you can play as, all of which have historic flavours, and gives you an open world to build an empire and compete against others in.

I don't see any contradiction between 'building a civilisation to stand the test of time' and 'history is built in layers'. I guess it is just hard for some to get over the mental hurdle it takes to imagine that one civ can morph into another one (whilst keeping many of it's original attributes). The problem is that Civ's really are just a label, an avatar.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I don't see any contradiction between 'building a civilisation to stand the test of time' and 'history is built in layers'. I guess it is just hard for some to get over the mental hurdle it takes to imagine that one civ can morph into another one (whilst keeping many of it's original attributes). The problem is that Civ's really are just a label, an avatar.

In fact, civs are not even morphing into another in civ7. If you look at the age transition screen, it asks the player to select a culture. So the culture of the civ is changing, not the civ. So really, I think it would be better to understand civ7 that the player plays as a civilization made up of 3 cultures. So I think you could make the case that civ7 does not violate the spirit of the civ "soul". You are still building a civ to stand the test of time, you are just doing it in layers now, adding cultures on top of the previous one. But like you said, it is a paradigm shift in thinking that seems too difficult for some players. That is because we are so used to selecting "France" or "Zulus" as our civilization and we play as that civ for the entire game. So for many players, civ-switching violates the letter of the civ "soul".

 

[CivKirk64]

You only give examples of antiquity civs though. Your argument only works for those that you mentioned. When you pick George Washington Builds the Pyramids in 4200BC your immersion argument disappears.
I'm a civ fan and yes that's been the game since the beginning, but I'm not against outgrowing it or trying something different. The old games are still there.

I'm building my own unique empire that evolves to include 3 different cultures by the end, I'm in the sandbox trying to see what crazy yields or cities I can get by exploiting how each culture's abilities stack.
and my Civ, my Empire defined by those 3 cultures, withstands the test of time.

I've played humankind and the others and they don't feel like civ i've walked away after a handful of playthroughs.
with CII Turn by turn, tech by tech, this feels like Civ. I'm telling everyone on the fence that it feels like civ and I'm finding a lot of joy in it.

If it isn't interesting you at this price point, I get that, wait for some more improvements, wait for the game to expand a little wait for the price to come down. If you say this game isn't Civ, I don't buy your argument.

 

[McSpank01]

In fact, civs are not even morphing into another in civ7. If you look at the age transition screen, it asks the player to select a culture. So the culture of the civ is changing, not the civ. So really, I think it would be better to understand civ7 that the player plays as a civilization made up of 3 cultures. So I think you could make the case that civ7 does not violate the spirit of the civ "soul". You are still building a civ to stand the test of time, you are just doing it in layers now, adding cultures on top of the previous one. But like you said, it is a paradigm shift in thinking that seems too difficult for some players. That is because we are so used to selecting "France" or "Zulus" as our civilization and we play as that civ for the entire game. So for many players, civ-switching violates the letter of the civ "soul".

Yeah but also I don't think there is a lot of thought about what people even think a Civ is. Maybe some people have a very different interpretation, but either way, it was never meant to be this literal representation of history.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Arguing over “realism” is nonsense and arguably a red herring fallacy

The issue is that you had a decades long succefull franchise that gave you an interesting sandbox to play at making “an empire to stand the test of time”

Civ7 dumpstered the sandbox by putting the game on rails and dumpstered “making an empire to stand the test of time” by deleting your empire off screen and replacing it via developer fiat.

Twice.

Trying to claim “no it didn’t, because your culture evolved” or whatever doesn’t change the facts, it just obfuscates, redirects, and tries to avoid facing them.

 

[Crashdummy]

This viewpoint is pretty contradictory though. You want to rewrite history, but not only is Civ not a history simulator at all, you also balk at the idea of civ switching, which is probably much closer to historic accuracy than previous version.

You keep jumping between wanting historic realism and not wanting it.

I DONT want to be historically accurate, which is why i said the WHOLE POINT is to reqrite it... if i wanted the be historically accurate then i wouldnt think players want to rewrite it

The one that goes back and forth is you, not me

And no, civ switching is NOT more historically accurate, the EVENTS that led to civs having sifnigicant changes within themselves were ALREADY PRESENT before (Egypt getting conquered was already present in the past)

No Civ "switches" or "changes" because they find many horses and then become Mongols, thats a stupid idea. Or because they build many shrines near water. The whole concept of civ switching is an insult to history

That being said, i dont care about accuracy because the idea is to play a different version of history, where Rome wasnt overrun by the Huns, Carthage wasnt conquered by Rome, Julius Cesar didnt invaded Egypt, China wasnt invaded by several neighbours, USA doesnt come from some religious people trying to flee from what they would identify as opression, etc

 

[McSpank01]

That being said, i dont care about accuracy because the idea is to play a different version of history, where Rome wasnt overrun by the Huns, Carthage wasnt conquered by Rome, Julius Cesar didnt invaded Egypt, China wasnt invaded by several neighbours, USA doesnt come from some religious people trying to flee from what they would identify as opression, etc

The point is none of those things are being replicated in the game anyway. The closest you ever got to that would be to try and do a true earth map and carefully add civs yourself, and even then it's completely different. To get worked up about civ switching when you have USA existing in the bronze age is just logically incoherent.

 

[Core Imposter]

The point is none of those things are being replicated in the game anyway. The closest you ever got to that would be to try and do a true earth map and carefully add civs yourself, and even then it's completely different. To get worked up about civ switching when you have USA existing in the bronze age is just logically incoherent.

"Mom, I have asked Jeramiah over for Sunday brunch!"
"Now Jennifer we have been over this before. It is time for you to put this crush aside. You are going to have a wonderful future with Franklin."
"Mother you just don't get it"
"I understand that you are attracted to that young boy's wild side. But you are mistaking his lack of focus for some sort of intrinsic value that he just doesn't have. Can't you try and look at it logically? Franklin comes from a fine family and is offering you security, not to mention a real future for the children we know you want to have."
"Mother I'd rather die. If you like Franklin so much you marry him."

 

[boesthius]

core you are quite possibly my favorite poster here lmao

 

[James_Champagne]

My issue with this thinking is the Civs in Civilisation games are not really ever attempting to be historically accurate. They are mostly caricatures of what people think of when you mention a civilisation or empire. They are game factions, in a way that say, Alliance and Horde are factions in WoW, or Elves and Dwarves. The whole concept of a Civ is just a label really, you are never really managing Rome, you are managing a game faction that says Rome on it.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that, though? At least in VI, for me, playing as, say, Egypt FEELS at least somewhat different from playing as France or Japan, though I suppose things like unique individual units and the music might have done some of the heavy lifting there.

My main issue with the Civ switching mechanic has less to do with historical accuracy (indeed, I think it could have been more interesting if it had leaned harder into that realm) and more the fact that it kind of makes a mockery of any kind of in-game narrative continuity. I also don't like how every time the game jumps to a new era it also jumps over (in some cases) hundreds of years. Kind of kills the flow/immersion factor, for me . . .

 

[GeneralZift]

I think it's a bit more complicated than that, though? At least in VI, for me, playing as, say, Egypt FEELS at least somewhat different from playing as France or Japan, though I suppose things like unique individual units and the music might have done some of the heavy lifting there.

My main issue with the Civ switching mechanic has less to do with historical accuracy (indeed, I think it could have been more interesting if it had leaned harder into that realm) and more the fact that it kind of makes a mockery of any kind of in-game narrative continuity. I also don't like how every time the game jumps to a new era it also jumps over (in some cases) hundreds of years. Kind of kills the flow/immersion factor, for me . . .

This is my issue as well. I also don't like that it feels arbitrary, and it forces the sort of western colonialist narrative. I also just feel the hard reset mechanically feels worse than fluidity from before. It's not strictly historical as some people make it out to be. Because neither what we had before nor what we have now is describable as historically accurate.