Civ VII Post-mortem: Crafting a redemption arc

[McSpank01]

The Byzantines and The Romans didn’t even have a language in common, much less anything else.

lol, they literally called themselves Romans!!

 

[GeneralZift]

lol, they literally called themselves Romans!!

I mean so did the HRE does that strictly make them Roman

 

[Siptah]

I mean so did the HRE does that strictly make them Roman

There is a very large difference between the two though. The so-called Byzantines (a term invented by scholar centuries later) are legitimately Romans (and how else would you call them before the term was invented? Graeci? Disgusting!). Not many people called the inhabitants of the HRE Romans, nor did its inhabitants call themselves Romans (outside of the ones living in Rome). But it‘s besides the point anyway.

 

[McSpank01]

There is a very large difference between the two though. The so-called Byzantines (a term invented by scholar centuries later) are legitimately Romans (and how else would you call them before the term was invented? Graeci? Disgusting!). Not many people called the inhabitants of the HRE Romans, nor did its inhabitants call themselves Romans (outside of the ones living in Rome). But it‘s besides the point anyway.

Just to emphasise that the 'Byzantines' literally called themselves 'The Roman Empire' and saw themselves as the direct continuation of the Roman empire that started in Rome. They did not think of themselves as something separate. It is very much a western thing to try and differentiate it from Rome, quite often done by western rivals to push up their own claims to be the legitimate heir to Rome.

 

[Kenshiro70]

Minor update:

• Added quotes from Sid's presentations into related areas along with deep links.
• Added picture of a holy plane (link).
• Embedded Philomena Cunk video. Favorite quote: "Did they build the Pyramids from the bottom up or the top down?"

More to come - localization, looking at responses on "stand the test of time", and possibly thoughts on the Collapse mode (short version: not a bad idea, but worrisome that it's an option instead of incorporated into game play, as it feels like the game's identity is becoming fractured)

 

[aieeegrunt]

Just to emphasise that the 'Byzantines' literally called themselves 'The Roman Empire' and saw themselves as the direct continuation of the Roman empire that started in Rome. They did not think of themselves as something separate. It is very much a western thing to try and differentiate it from Rome, quite often done by western rivals to push up their own claims to be the legitimate heir to Rome.

You can’t have it both ways

If the Byzantines are still Roman, then there is absolutly zero need for a Byzantine civlet and all the civ switching nonsense that cost you at least half (likely more) of your playerbase.

If they are’nt, see the precious exhaustive discussion on why civ switching in Civ7 is so awful it cost you at least half (likely more) of your playerbase.

 

[McSpank01]

You can’t have it both ways

If the Byzantines are still Roman, then there is absolutly zero need for a Byzantine civlet and all the civ switching nonsense that cost you at least half (likely more) of your playerbase.

If they are’nt, see the precious exhaustive discussion on why civ switching in Civ7 is so awful it cost you at least half (likely more) of your playerbase.

I’m just illustrating that much of the outrage and toy throwing about Civ Switching is completely misplaced, and that your definition of how you even think about what a civ is, is pretty rigid and could do with a bit of flexibility, because it certainly doesn’t line up with history or reality any more than civ switching.

 

[socratic]

You can’t have it both ways

If the Byzantines are still Roman, then there is absolutly zero need for a Byzantine civlet and all the civ switching nonsense that cost you at least half (likely more) of your playerbase.

If they are’nt, see the precious exhaustive discussion on why civ switching in Civ7 is so awful it cost you at least half (likely more) of your playerbase.

What we call “Roman” has shifted over the three millennium the word has been around. Rome was very different from its conception as a small pagan possibly Etruscan city to the popular mediterranean-spanning empire in late antiquity. It’s similar to China. No historian worth a grain a of salt would ever say the Han dynasty was more “Chinese” than the Ming… they’re both Chinese, even if there is significant differences between the two dynasty.

 

[AD1730]

The Byzantines and The Romans didn’t even have a language in common, much less anything else.

In Civ terms the eastern half of the empire had strong enough Greek culture that the cities eventually flipped back to their original Greek founders.



This is why you lost the majority of the fanbase that was here for the narrative sandbox

The Brandon Sanderson video on Civ 7 is so illustrative of why they lost a significant portion of their audience. Two very different types of fans on the video, who approached the game neutrally (Sanderson even mentioned the civ switching mechanic interested him in one of his other videos), both came away unimpressed by Civ 7. Anyone who doesn't understand why so many are turned off by Civ 7 would do well to watch it.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

The Brandon Sanderson video on Civ 7 is so illustrative of why they lost a significant portion of their audience. Two very different types of fans on the video, who approached the game neutrally (Sanderson even mentioned the civ switching mechanic interested him in one of his other videos), both came away unimpressed by Civ 7. Anyone who doesn't understand why so many are turned off by Civ 7 would do well to watch it.

Are you referring to this video from 3 months ago?

In the video the two primary reasons Brandon gives for why he dropped civ7 are 1) he easily beat the game on deity after only playing 4 games. So there was no challenge anymore. 2) He did not feel like he was building a civilization and shepperding it so there was a lack of bonding with his civ. He does say that the concept of having civs that are specialized for each age was intriguing but he still got bored by the game.

He mentions how in civ6 when you got a Great Writer and they compose Romeo & Juliet, it gave you a sense of accomplishment ("my civ wrote Romeo & Juliet"). But in civ7, you just get these generic codexes that get erased when the Age ends. He says getting these codices before the end of an Age just felt like homework.

They also criticize the narrator for being bland although they say she is a good actress, her reading in civ7 was just bad. They mention how Sean Bean injected so much personality into the narration in civ6. I had not really thought about that but it is true that previous civs tried to really inject personality into the narrations which made the experience more fun and pulled you in. I still love Leonard Nimoy's narrations in civ4. Civ7 does feel very bland in comparison. I think that has a big effect too because when the narration is boring, it does not pull the player into the civ "world".

Brandon say the city planning in civ7 is not interesting anymore. Dan says it is because the districts just become this hard to read visual mud whereas in civ6, you could easily tell what was what. Dan adds that you cannot place civ7 districts wherever you want anymore like you could do in civ6.

They do love independent peoples. They feel it is a big improvement over city-states in civ6. They also love influence and diplomacy in civ7. The one negative is that allies constantly spy on you and ruin the relationships.

Brandon does like mementos. Dan does not like them.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I’m just illustrating that much of the outrage and toy throwing about Civ Switching is completely misplaced, and that your definition of how you even think about what a civ is, is pretty rigid and could do with a bit of flexibility, because it certainly doesn’t line up with history or reality any more than civ switching.

And here we go with the ad hominems again.

When well over half of the playerbase is throwing a particular toy in the trash, it’s probably because that’s where it belongs.

 

[AD1730]

Are you referring to this video from 3 months ago?

In the video the two primary reasons Brandon gives for why he dropped civ7 are 1) he easily beat the game on deity after only playing 4 games. So there was no challenge anymore. 2) He did not feel like he was building a civilization and shepperding it so there was a lack of bonding with his civ. He does say that the concept of having civs that are specialized for each age was intriguing but he still got bored by the game.

He mentions how in civ6 when you got a Great Writer and they compose Romeo & Juliet, it gave you a sense of accomplishment ("my civ wrote Romeo & Juliet"). But in civ7, you just get these generic codexes that get erased when the Age ends. He says getting these codices before the end of an Age just felt like homework.

They also criticize the narrator for being bland although they say she is a good actress, her reading in civ7 was just bad. They mention how Sean Bean injected so much personality into the narration in civ6. I had not really thought about that but it is true that previous civs tried to really inject personality into the narrations which made the experience more fun and pulled you in. I still love Leonard Nimoy's narrations in civ4. Civ7 does feel very bland in comparison. I think that has a big effect too because when the narration is boring, it does not pull the player into the civ "world".

Brandon say the city planning in civ7 is not interesting anymore. Dan says it is because the districts just become this hard to read visual mud whereas in civ6, you could easily tell what was what. Dan adds that you cannot place civ7 districts wherever you want anymore like you could do in civ6.

They do love independent peoples. They feel it is a big improvement over city-states in civ6. They also love influence and diplomacy in civ7. The one negative is that allies constantly spy on you and ruin the relationships.

Brandon does like mementos. Dan does not like them.

In this video, you see that Brandon (a planner) gives up the game because he finds that planning is mostly pointless. Dan, on the other hand, is more of a storyteller. He doesn't like that he doesn't really get to tell his civ's story, and instead the story is dictated to him. Obviously these are just two guys, but I think their views encompass the feelings of many.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

In this video, you see that Brandon (a planner) gives up the game because he finds that planning is mostly pointless. Dan, on the other hand, is more of a storyteller. He doesn't like that he doesn't really get to tell his civ's story, and instead the story is dictated to him. Obviously these are just two guys, but I think their views encompass the feelings of many.

Yes, their opinions definitely encompass the feelings of many civ players. In fact, I would argue that the "planner" and the "storyteller" are two very core demographics of civ players. And they are not mutually exclusive. I think there are many civ players who are both because they like to strategize and plan their empire but also like to tell the story of their civ through their strategies and planning.

 

[Gorbles]

I'm old enough to remember people grouching about Sean Bean because they felt he wasn't putting in enough effort with his gruff (Yorkshire!) accent to make it stand out.

(this is an anecdote and not coherently related to general feelings on the totality of each game)

 

[tman2000]

lol, they literally called themselves Romans!!

Byzantines lost Northern Italy then started having fights with Italian bishops and iconoclasm and so forth so after Charlemagne was crowned the Italian bishops started referring to the monarch in Constantinople as the "Greek Emperor".

I would mark that as the end of Roman Byzantium. And, I would mark actually the loss of Egypt as the end of the Roman Empire proper. I consider the Franks and Ostrogoths to technically be agents of the Roman crown ruling as client kings. This claim is strong for the Franks because the Visigothic invasions certainly threatened Gaul, intruding into half of Gaul. Thus, by being a contested warzone, Gaul lost its provincial status, and the already client king in Germania Minor was simply operating in the war zone to repel Rome's enemies.

The interesting part is when Rome converted the Arian Visigoths to Roman Christianity, bringing them into the fold, but without a technical allegiance to Constantinople that the Franks technically had. This clearly is part of laying the groundwork for Charlemagne.

 

[tman2000]

What we call “Roman” has shifted over the three millennium the word has been around. Rome was very different from its conception as a small pagan possibly Etruscan city to the popular mediterranean-spanning empire in late antiquity. It’s similar to China. No historian worth a grain a of salt would ever say the Han dynasty was more “Chinese” than the Ming… they’re both Chinese, even if there is significant differences between the two dynasty.

I'd argue this. "Chinese" is not a civilization. It's an appeal to the Mandate of Heaven first invoked by the Qin Emperor, with Europeans unilaterally using his example to categorize the entire history of the region. The people there call themselves Han, if there's a unified polity it's the Middle Kingdom, although the Middle Kingdom incorporates many other peoples. For a time, they called themselves Tangren, and during the Qing period this is was how Chinese people in foreign lands referred to themselves (as Qing were Manchus, who were Jurchen)..

So there's a lot of Chinese people who do not think of themselves as Chinese. Maybe Han. Sometimes Tangren. More recently "Middle Kingdom Person".

The concept of China is bound by the "Mandate of Heaven" which is not actually a divine right to rule in the Western sense, but rather a sociological function that the Han peoples use to make sense of when there is a united Middle Kingdom or not. Half of China's history has not had a united ruling kingdom. When the "Mandate of Heaven" falls upon a dynasty, it means that there is once again a united Middle Kingdom.

The concept of a uniform Chinese civilization is a Western invention. However, you might say there is a continuity between civilizations centered on Han peoples. The concept of a contiguous, universal Han civilization in "China" is a modern CCP invention as well.

Ming China's North was full of people of Xianbei, Khitian, Mongol and so forth heritage. The South had always been diverse. This is after the Southern dynasties and the Song, so Han civilization had moved South.

Han civilization was the Zhou civilization unified after the Qin emperor. It was centered on the Yalu and its floods. Han China lasted for a very long time, had huge territorial expansion, saw lots of ethnic mixing and change, and had the largest population size until European trade brought New World crops in during the late Ming.

Also annoyed at the "Han Great Wall" which is meant to be a rammed Earth giant dirt berm with rammed earth towers.

 

[Kenshiro70]

Just added a short summary (link) of the impact of the Modern Age yield bug that was documented on Reddit recently. (Don't worry, I added the text of the Reddit post in too so that you don't have to go. Just remember that I went into the lion's den for you all.)

TL;DR: Much of the post-release Modern Age balance work (Culture victory, Economic victory, and growth curve) is invalid because of how distorted the yields are and will have to be redone. That's effort that could have gone to fixing other things.

This is why you wait to do data-driven balance work until you are absolutely sure the data quality is rock-solid. Otherwise you end up in one of those "Man died after GPS directed him to drive off collapse bridge" cautionary tales.

 

[tman2000]

Just added a short summary (link) of the impact of the Modern Age yield bug that was documented on Reddit recently. (Don't worry, I added the text of the Reddit post in too so that you don't have to go. Just remember that I went into the lion's den for you all.)

TL;DR: Much of the post-release Modern Age balance work (Culture victory, Economic victory, and growth curve) is invalid because of how distorted the yields are and will have to be redone. That's effort that could have gone to fixing other things.

This is why you wait to do data-driven balance work until you are absolutely sure the data quality is rock-solid. Otherwise you end up in one of those "Man died after GPS directed him to drive off collapse bridge" cautionary tales.

It's like they're not really playing the game.

 

[aieeegrunt]

It's like they're not really playing the game.

Did they every? Remember the science typo bug from 6? Or AI not improving luxuries in Corporations game mode that revolves around luxuries?

 

[Gorbles]

A bug goes through many stages from being reported, to a fix being included in an update.

Very little of this process actually involves or even requires playing the game. Most bugfixing comes down to available resource. But cheap shots are popular, it seems.