Discussion On Why Civ 7 Doesn't Feel Like A "Civ" Game

[user746383]

I don't feel particularly welcome here since my criticism of the game is apparently killing it and every time I post a small group of the same people show up to tell me so over and over, so I've mostly just stopped posting. But I've never actually seen a bad review of civ7 that says they hate it because of 1UPT. Probably they exist somewhere if you search for them, but I can't imagine that's why it has such a low player count. I still don't think we've seen evidence either that there's secretly orders of magnitude more players in other places that don't show up as watching streams or YouTubers, in the Steam count, or as reddit posts (all of which show incredibly low numbers, worse than the state of the game just before civ7 launched).

I wouldn't dare to speculate on what might cause the crash in numbers lest I summon the mob or told to touch grass, but I think we can safely say it's not 1UPT.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

I don't feel particularly welcome here since my criticism of the game is apparently killing it and every time I post a small group of the same people show up to tell me so over and over, so I've mostly just stopped posting. But I've never actually seen a bad review of civ7 that says they hate it because of 1UPT. Probably they exist somewhere if you search for them, but I can't imagine that's why it has such a low player count. I still don't think we've seen evidence either that there's secretly orders of magnitude more players in other places that don't show up as watching streams or YouTubers, in the Steam count, or as reddit posts (all of which show incredibly low numbers, worse than the state of the game just before civ7 launched).

I wouldn't dare to speculate on what might cause the crash in numbers lest I be swiftly punished by the mob or told to touch grass, but I think we can safely say it's not 1UPT.

My point exactly.

Online communities (which this forum is as well) often turn into echo chambers, and 1UPT being "bad" is one of these things that gets echoed a lot here.
Whereas if you head over to reddit or discord (heck, even a YT comment section), 1UPT is hardly mentioned at all.
Most negative reviews (on reddit and steam particularly) mention a combination of what I wrote in my post above, while some people hate the UI changes.
Though I have my doubts that a bad UI would cause people to quit en masse, as you usually need to have severe gameplay issues to see such an effect.

 

[Gori the Grey]

If 1UPT was a deal-breaker, Civ shed you from the franchise two iterations ago. If you've played it through V and VI, you'll be complaining about different things than that in VII: civ-switching, age resets, lack of challenge.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

If 1UPT was a deal-breaker, Civ shed you from the franchise two iterations ago. If you've played it through V and VI, you'll be complaining about different things than that in VII: civ-switching, age resets, lack of challenge.

Dealbreaker for who?
The player numbers over at steam, or sales numbers of the civ franchise in general, didn't really suffer from 1UPT.
I get that it's a thing some people who played the older iterations dont like, but the civ series seems to have done quite well when it came to 5 and 6.
Civ 7 didn't, it straight up flopped.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Dealbreaker for who?

some people who played the older iterations

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

Oh nevermind, I read your post wrong.
My bad.

 

[Gori the Grey]

No worries.

 

[Siptah]

It seems some spill-over between threads is going on here.

I brought up 1-UPT again a few pages ago in this thread as an example of a change that is more impactful (gameplay-wise) than any change in civ 7 imho. I brought up unstacking cities in the same post, because I feel it's the same with that. It changes the core gameplay loop of what you do turn by turn more than changing your civ every 100 turns or the resets for me. I didn't want to go into success or popularity with this (and it really shouldn't, that's what the other thread is for). I know 1-UPT isn't really controversial any more and unstacking cities hardly ever was (aside from the complaints about map sprawl now that the districts aren't as limited). In short: changes in 5 and 6 were more detrimental to how civ feels to play on turn by turn basis compared to previous civs than the changes in 7 are.

Yet, @Voidwalkin drew the right conclusion imho: 1-UPT and unsticking cities might have been larger gameplay changes than eras or civ switching, but players took civ switching as much more fundamental for emotional reasons.

 

[uppi]

And yet, the 1UPT discussion has been restarted for every Civ iteration since 5...

Otherwise for stack vs 1upt, I'd be marginally curious to see how civ 7 played if units within a commander basically had their full power. If they could shoot, defend, etc.. and basically turns an army commander into like a mini-4upt option for you. You'd probably need a level of balance within that, maybe you don't just have army commanders but you have a "division commander" which would let you stack 2-3 units in, but doesn't gain XP, but that could be a way to give you a little flex on the 1upt without fully breaking the system.

That would play out like 1UPT with Giant Death Robots. You can play Civ 6 late future age to try it out if you are curious.

 

[Civinator]

We had that (in a way) back in the civ 1-3 days, where each unit had a support cost from the city.

With Civ 3 this was changed to support costs from a civ.

 

[jplay51]

want to echo the 1UPT point Siptah made- not what we’re here to talk about, but is emblematic of the ‘break-it-and-see-what-happens’ rule. Many gameplay changes we’ve seen in each alteration seem to be change in the name of change and don’t positively impact the overall workflow (“game loop”) experience. Are they deal breakers for someone new to the franchise? Obviously not, until the era/civ switch perhaps.

Even the era/reset structure in 7 seems like it could be fun as a mod, but not as a mandatory part of the base game. It’s long felt like firaxis shifted from a design methodology focused on enhancing user experience, to one which keeps us moving from on generation of the game to the next- out of fear of players who find an iteration of civ and stick with it for decades. I *assume* the thought and fear is we would never buy another game. My experience has been the opposite- games which inspire such loyalty create veteran players who will buy subsequent versions ‘to support’ the company and work. I have done this repeatedly and bought 4 and 5 on multiple platforms several times and even for friends twice to force them to try the game. At this point I’m giving up on subsequent properties and won’t do this anymore. I’ve bought sequel collectors additions bc I want to send them money for making the kind of content I want to see- not because I wanted the collectible coin (lol).

Several modders I followed from 4 to 5, and even 1 to six- told me (after sometimes long waits in their DMs) they left bc firaxis made it to hard to keep up with patches and kept closing loopholes that allowed significant mods to happen, refused to share code. Overhaul mods and conversion mod-ability are way bigger issues to me than 1UPT or even eras reset/switching- bc with serious mod ability those things could be fixed. Several of those modders told me they were switching to paradox, and I have followed them to that company and will prob stay there for the future. Ultimately this all comes down to design philosophy to me, and firaxis’ seems rooted in a very common fear/distrust of the modder and the long-term player- which a business major will tell you is harming company profits, whereas paradox is happy to have ppl making a steady stream of overhaul mods which incorporate DLC- triggering players to buy them and get more mileage out of them. I just can’t understand why firaxis ended up this way, besides a fixation with long term players not buying as much as they could with a shorter, fractured development cycle.

 

[Gorbles]

It's blatantly obvious that this game's main problem is how utterly disjointed it feels compared to earlier iterations, with hard era resets, arcadey MMO-style "quests" instead of a proper fleshed out victory condition etc

The game has both quests . . . and victory conditions. So why are you phrasing it as though quests exist instead of victory conditions?

Also, what does "arcadey MMO-style" mean to you? For me, arcadey calls back to literal video game arcades (was at one the other day with my son), and MMO quests are rooted in classic RPG quest design usually (as most people associate MMORPGs with MMOs).

 

[Siptah]

Several modders I followed from 4 to 5, and even 1 to six- told me (after sometimes long waits in their DMs) they left bc firaxis made it to hard to keep up with patches and kept closing loopholes that allowed significant mods to happen, refused to share code. Overhaul mods and conversion mod-ability are way bigger issues to me than 1UPT or even eras reset/switching- bc with serious mod ability those things could be fixed. Several of those modders told me they were switching to paradox, and I have followed them to that company and will prob stay there for the future. Ultimately this all comes down to design philosophy to me, and firaxis’ seems rooted in a very common fear/distrust of the modder and the long-term player- which a business major will tell you is harming company profits, whereas paradox is happy to have ppl making a steady stream of overhaul mods which incorporate DLC- triggering players to buy them and get more mileage out of them. I just can’t understand why firaxis ended up this way, besides a fixation with long term players not buying as much as they could with a shorter, fractured development cycle.

What I find interesting here (and potentially telling) is that FXS not just allows less modding than PDX. For MP, they also require that every player has all the DLC when a mod uses or modifies a DLC feature. PDX on the other hand only requires the host to have the respective DLC. I can't really see the benefit of being that restrictive. If people enjoy the game for an extended period of time, they will eventually buy the DLC anyway to support continued development.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

The game has both quests . . . and victory conditions. So why are you phrasing it as though quests exist instead of victory conditions?

Also, what does "arcadey MMO-style" mean to you? For me, arcadey calls back to literal video game arcades (was at one the other day with my son), and MMO quests are rooted in classic RPG quest design usually (as most people associate MMORPGs with MMOs).

I should have been more clear here, used the word "gamey" instead of arcadey to make it more clear.
I strongly dislike this system because quest designs are utter trash and do not belong in the game, as it streamlines the game too much and kills replayability for me.
Take the militaristic path for instance - get 20 "ideology points" by taking settlements (which can be gamed even more depending on the conditions upon taking the settlement), to then unlock a project and win off of that?
That system can die in a fire for all I care - t's fine if you are playing an MMO, but not civ.

 

[GeneralZift]

Something about the specificity of Civ7 victory conditions make them feel like Quests. Probably because old victory conditions used to be a lot more open-ended, whereas the new conditions feel more narrow.

I think the culture victory is a good example. You used to have to get every nation on earth to be "Dominated" under your Influence (Civ5), but you could go about that in like a dozen different ways. For example, ridiculously high tourism, OR you could eliminate the opponents who are standing in your way culturally, OR you could station tons of Diplomats, open borders and trade routes.

Now, the victories have to be smaller / narrower scope just due to the innate design of the game. The Civ7 culture victory is very specific and comparatively very boring, right?

 

[Nares]

I find it interesting that people on this forum keep harping about 1UPT as if that's among the chief reasons of what's plaguing the game.
Probably some very long time players who can't seem to let go of this pet peeve of theirs ever since 2010.

Just to remind everyone: We're now in a situation where civ 7 has flopped so bad that it has a lower player count than civ 5(!) and civ 6, both of which had 1UPT.
It's blatantly obvious that this game's main problem is how utterly disjointed it feels compared to earlier iterations, with hard era resets, arcadey MMO-style "quests" instead of a proper fleshed out victory condition etc., and lack of coherence between civs, eras and leaders.

I don't see a discussion of 1UPT as harping. It's an excellent point of comparison in that it represents a significant mechanical change which the series adopted, and also because it highlights an important distinction between Civ5 and Civ7; there was actual player support for 1UPT, and actual grumbling about stack gameplay, whereas no one was discussing the mechanics which were changed in Civ7.

Based on this and other threads, your description of the issues with Civ7 is accurate and comprehensive. I don't see any value added in continuing to rehash the list of Civ7's problems. Even its supporters seem to be in agreement with that list.

My point exactly.

Online communities (which this forum is as well) often turn into echo chambers, and 1UPT being "bad" is one of these things that gets echoed a lot here.
Whereas if you head over to reddit or discord (heck, even a YT comment section), 1UPT is hardly mentioned at all.
Most negative reviews (on reddit and steam particularly) mention a combination of what I wrote in my post above, while some people hate the UI changes.
Though I have my doubts that a bad UI would cause people to quit en masse, as you usually need to have severe gameplay issues to see such an effect.

You would only have an opinion on 1UPT if you played both stack-based and 1UPT. Most of the userbase over on places like Reddit, Steam or even Discord didn't pick up the series until Civ5 or Civ6 and don't know anything but 1UPT; of course they don't complain about it or have an opinion on it versus stack-based combat.

 

[Nares]

I was a vocal supporter of 1UPT; doomstacks were silly. But, with however many hours in Civ5 and Civ6, I've come to the opinion that mixed-stacks would be a better solution. Let players assemble small armies, to which they assign up to 4 units of w/e type they want, with the army gaining stats/effects based on the combination of units assigned to it. It alleviates the doom-carpet effect of 1UPT without opening up the silliness of doomstacks, and still allows for tactical gameplay.

Otherwise for stack vs 1upt, I'd be marginally curious to see how civ 7 played if units within a commander basically had their full power. If they could shoot, defend, etc.. and basically turns an army commander into like a mini-4upt option for you.

4UPT - I like that; it's a much more convenient way to describe what I suggested.

Real PC gamers prefer real-time battles.

This is a wild thing to say on CivFanatics.

I think it was a gentle sarcastic no true Scotsman...

I meant it genuinely. Real-time PC/video games have always drawn more attention, and more dollars, than turn-based games; admitting this isn't dumping on turn-based games.

 

[aelf]

The survivorship bias is pretty crazy here. Just because you find a major change in game mechanics in the past palatable and another major change now unacceptable, doesn't make your opinion superior or more enlightened than the opinions of those who fell off back then.

And as I've pointed out before, the series has more players to lose with every change now than it had between Civ 4 and Civ 5 just because it has a much bigger playerbase. And a critical mass causes a chain reaction so the effect is even larger.

 

[Siptah]

whereas no one was discussing the mechanics which were changed in Civ7.

Not quite. Late game boredom was (and is imho) a problem, especially in civ VI and V (but also due to the later added eras there imho). Eras were supposed to be a way to deal with late game boredom and the snowball according to the dev diaries. Whether the civ 7 solution succeeded is another thing. Yet, I think it's not fair that the changed mechanics were not discussed. The same applies for civ switching and how it could work. With Humankind and Millennia around, these were discussed - and how to improve them. Just not necessarily for a civ main game by everyone involved. The same applies for workers and the micromanagement they cause. Or that new cities in 1900 BC still need to build the same buildings that a city built in 3500 BCE. Hence, the changes are not 'out of thin air and by complete surprise.'

Except for the town-cities dichotomy, for me. It's a somewhat logical evolution of civ V's puppet cities, but I didn't see that coming at all nor ever discussed it afaik.

 

[Gorbles]

I strongly dislike this system because quest designs are utter trash and do not belong in the game, as it streamlines the game too much and kills replayability for me.

Fair. I don't agree, but thanks for explaining!