How important is it for Firaxis to admit mistakes or acknowledge failure?

[ColtSeavers]

And again, I was writing about this forum, not the entire world. When the game was released, there were a lot more people posting here and about a dozen or so people who kept ruining every thread with their complaints. Over time, the other posters have mostly left and now the complainers are a much larger percentage of the overall posters still here.

This hardly makes any sense, why would the people who enjoy this game leave the forum, and the people who dislike it stay here? If at all, it is presumably the other way around.

 

[GeneralZift]

Even if people leave it's a pretty natural process. Some people enjoyed or didn't enjoy the release product then went back to their cryo chamber to await the release of the DLC before returning. Again, you probably see more critique because the game is more disliked than liked among the general Civ population, or because the critique is more common amongst veterans...
Now if it's the same 5 people fans and the same 5 critics having the same 5 conversations, how does it affect the rest of the forum?

 

[Askia Muhammad]

It caught the wind of a multiplayer almost viral sort of popularity. I don't think it's later changes contribute as much to its success as whatever happened in the competitive community (which is part of the problem).

"It turned out to be by far the most successful..."

You can't just offer an analysis while wearing blinders. The success is in spite of the core design of the game, which was heavily analyzed post-launch. No one thinks the board gamey direction is what made the game excel, unless we want to credit Potato with the entire success of the game. Which, let's keep in mind, is ironic as the importance of adjacencies and yield-gaming was nerfed by the absolutely flattening of these features in 7.

The districts and tile based city building was a kind of, "neat idea, not total failure, has problems, shouldn't be tried again." Absolute consensus at launch that later success did not argue against. Nor was 7 cashing in on that success, as if to validate VI's design choices.

"Alright fine, but let's not do this again," was absolutely the consensus around 6 and I don't sense that its later success overturned that at all.

Going to have to pretty strongly disagree here - districts were a resounding success - which is why they returned - with some iteration (in my opinion, bad iteration) in Civ 7.

Civ 6s biggest issue was an absolutely braindead AI. I genuinely enjoy the game but had I not discovered a continuous multiplayer group to play a session with each week - I would have had a lot less hours in the game specifically due to the predictability and weakness of the SP AI competition.

 

[tman2000]

Going to have to pretty strongly disagree here - districts were a resounding success - which is why they returned - with some iteration (in my opinion, bad iteration) in Civ 7.

Civ 6s biggest issue was an absolutely braindead AI. I genuinely enjoy the game but had I not discovered a continuous multiplayer group to play a session with each week - I would have had a lot less hours in the game specifically due to the predictability and weakness of the SP AI competition.

SO sick of districts :: Sid Meier's Civilization VI General Discussions

Is anyone else annoyed like hell by the new district system? The greatest fun in civilization 5 was for me to create single mega cities, improving the lands around and have a wide trading network. The One-City-Challenge was my total favorite option. Now in civilization 6 it's all like NO...

steamcommunity.com

 

[tman2000]

Civ 6s biggest issue was an absolutely braindead AI.

The districts and unstacked cities handily broke the AI and many people made note of this at the time. Civ VI never fixed the lack of anything happening most of the time in the modern era. The entire flight system went mostly unused by the AI.

 

[aelf]

This hardly makes any sense, why would the people who enjoy this game leave the forum, and the people who dislike it stay here? If at all, it is presumably the other way around.

The general tone of the forum. I know a couple of people who aren't negative about the game got turned off by the constant and strident negativity by some posters. I think the biggest issue is probably how the complainers demand to be heard and yet are very hostile towards any kind of pushback themselves.

 

[Mogontiacum]

It's barely a majority at 51/49 right now. But I wasn't talking about all players everywhere. I was just talking about here. Here, there's a group of about 10-12 posters who continuously post the same complaints over and over again in many threads.

While there's still some constructive criticism around here, most of what I see is predictions of doom, attacks on the developers, misinformation, and binary, no shades-of-grey complaining. And if anyone tries to say that they like the game, everyone else piles on to tell them that they're wrong and that the game is a failure. This board has become very unpleasant.

I completely agree with you. This is exactly why I'm not posting here anymore. I'm really disappointed with the community here and the tone of this forum. After only three months, my time here is unfortunately over. I really like Civ 7 and enjoying it since day 1. I play Civ since Civ 2. Take care and goodbye.

 

[Siptah]

I completely agree with you. This is exactly why I'm not posting here anymore. I'm really disappointed with the community here and the tone of this forum. After only three months, my time here is unfortunately over. I really like Civ 7 and enjoying it since day 1. I play Civ since Civ 2. Take care and goodbye.

That‘s sad to hear. I still think this forum is not as bad as other social media. But the internet communication went in the wrong direction so fast and in big style in the past 5 years that no place can stand against it. What has been open discussion and learning from each other is now often just a clash of opinions, inability to understand and accept other viewpoints, a competition for who‘s loudest, and a whole lot of repetition. But here, there is still enough constructive criticism and traces of discussion to make it worth coming imho. And it helps massively to just put the people that never really engage in discussion in an open way but just repeat the same posts on your ignore list.

 

[tman2000]

The general tone of the forum. I know a couple of people who aren't negative about the game got turned off by the constant and strident negativity by some posters. I think the biggest issue is probably how the complainers demand to be heard and yet are very hostile towards any kind of pushback themselves.

There are dozens of threads in this forum at the top of the list that aren't touched by pessimists.

I don't understand what you mean by, "demand to be heard." Is that just another way of saying, "refuse to just shut up."

What do you mean by hostile to any kind of pushback? Is that also another way of saying, "I tell them to just shut up and go away and they don't."

I know that in any general topic that is negative oriented, a specific set of people will come in and consistently nitpick apart any criticism of the game, defend Firaxis at all costs, and try to call into question the reasoning ability of posters while denying the non-controversially poor reception the game has received.

This "set" continues to engage in an exasperated effort to create the narrative that negativity around the game is some sort of scam or misinformation, that negativity is in bad faith, and that the arguments against the game are in fact "misrepresentations and lies" as if critics of the game have any other motive other than their own relationship to the franchise and desire to have fun playing its games past, present, future. Like as if this is just "internet negativity" metastasized through false claims, and the multitude of substantive problems with the game doesn't exist.

 

[tman2000]

inability to understand and accept other viewpoints, a competition for who‘s loudest

Isn't that just disagreement? When was it necessary for people to always agree and be totally agreeable all the time? Most human discussion would be muted by such a requirement.

I completely agree with you. This is exactly why I'm not posting here anymore. I'm really disappointed with the community here and the tone of this forum. After only three months, my time here is unfortunately over. I really like Civ 7 and enjoying it since day 1. I play Civ since Civ 2. Take care and goodbye.

What's wrong with the tone of this community? Tons of people are extremely disappointed by Civ 7, and can articulate dozens of major flaws with the game.

If you want a community without negativity, you'd have to have a "people who like this game, no criticism allowed" forum. Maybe this site should open such a subforum.

Otherwise, what's wrong with other people having opinions? You can ignore topics that don't resonate with you, you can ignore opinions you disagree with? I don't honestly - no I really mean this - I don't honestly understand why being unhappy with someone's opinion is any different than having a desire to censor other people.

I have to repeat myself. Civ 7 have many objective flaws, and a large number of people have independently come to dislike it. Other people are free to like and enjoy it. But don't make the mistake of thinking that it's an objectively good game that's poisoned by false online negativity. It's a game that objectively has many flaws, so any discussion around it is going to necessarily have to deal with those flaws outside of the small community of people who like the game enough to not care about its flaws.

Note also that I'm not making any effort to convince you personally that your opinion of the game is wrong. I'm not trying to tell you that the only reason you're having fun with the game is because you've bought into "toxic optimism" and "misinformation" about the game and if I could just reference these console sales numbers and correct your claims about certain game systems, then surely I'd convince you the game is actually bad. This is what one side of the discussion is doing, and the other side isn't.

I can observe that among the wider audience, more people dislike the game than like it, and point out objective flaws. But, if many people still enjoy the game anyway, that's fine. There are substantive conversations to have in the grey area there. Among people who still enjoy the game, are there changes they'd support, like modifying how ageless warehouses work? Is this a point of consensus with people who dislike the game? Would fixing this issue help correct an objective flaw with the game? If this was done in enough cases, would people who dislike the game come back to it? These are substantive, meaningful, potentially productive conversations.

Unfortunately, there is one side of this discussion that sometimes wants to avoid productive discussions like this because it would mean admitting that maybe there is substance to the wider dislike of this game.

And, I want to note that I'm only talking about "sides" of this discussion because as someone with a negative bent toward the game, I have been accused of hostility to any pushback. I think we can't avoid "sides" until people stop acting like the opinions and substantive observations of others are "misinformation".

Even so, at this point in Civ 7's lifecycle, it might be worth making rules on negativity. I'd prefer a subforum for "zero negativity" since I think censorship is bad and most people are capable of ignoring opinions they disagree with rather than having their experience ruined by encountering them. Plus, the interaction of differing opinions can produce substantive observations. However, given how much more sensitive the "positivity" side is to any negative commentary, perhaps the 7 forum needs to go full zero negativity and reserve a containment subforum or thread for negativity.

 

[stealth_nsk]

There are dozens of threads in this forum at the top of the list that aren't touched by pessimists.

We don't have any "infected" mark on those which do. So whether you want it or not, if you read the forum, you feel the way of negativity, even if it's not in all the threads. I understand that you may feel the same way about positive comments, though.

I know that in any general topic that is negative oriented, a specific set of people will come in and consistently nitpick apart any criticism of the game, defend Firaxis at all costs, and try to call into question the reasoning ability of posters while denying the non-controversially poor reception the game has received.

I haven't seen any single person on this forum who "consistently nitpick apart any criticism of the game" or "defend Firaxis at all costs". It's a common cognitive distortion to see people you disagree with as biased.

This "set" continues to engage in an exasperated effort to create the narrative that negativity around the game is some sort of scam or misinformation, that negativity is in bad faith, and that the arguments against the game are in fact "misrepresentations and lies" as if critics of the game have any other motive other than their own relationship to the franchise and desire to have fun playing its games past, present, future. Like as if this is just "internet negativity" metastasized through false claims, and the multitude of substantive problems with the game doesn't exist.

This cognitive distortion works both sides. So, the only way to actually understand each other is to stop labeling each other as haters or defenders and try to read each post as if it's written by someone neutral.

 

[tman2000]

We don't have any "infected" mark on those which do. So whether you want it or not, if you read the forum, you feel the way of negativity, even if it's not in all the threads. I understand that you may feel the same way about positive comments, though.

If the game is truly bad, which evidence shows many people believe, then discussion around it is going to always have some negativity. This is irrespective of anyone's bias or agenda. People with the other opinion won't be able to avoid it, unless a specific rule is made.

I don't think I've ever minded that people like the game. I don't think I've ever rushed in to say, "Actually, you're not having fun, you only think you are." It's when I or other point out something we dislike, and then there's a reaction that calls us pessimists or internet negativity sponges. Yeah, there's a natural desire to pushback against that. There's also substantive conversation of people hashing out disagreements in the process.

I haven't seen any single person on this forum who "consistently nitpick apart any criticism of the game" or "defend Firaxis at all costs". It's a common cognitive distortion to see people you disagree with as biased.

I certainly have. Everyone can have their own interpretation of evidence, but let's say you have really bad Steam reviews, major influencers disliking the game, an objective clearly poor performance in daily players. For someone to then insist over and over again that there are invisible console sales that prove that actually that evidence is incorrect - that's a bit incredulous.

So, if someone is making incredulous arguments, and then they show up in every single negative topic and continue to make further incredulous arguments on completely different topics than sales, to my interpretation, this feels to me like consistent nitpicking of any criticism of the game.

Meanwhile, when people simply disagree that the game isn't fun and claim that it's fun for them, this to me is not "consistent nitpicking". It's an opinion. Since I can clearly perceive instances where disagreement with my view is someone else's opinion versus someone else's apparent agenda, then I don't think my feelings in this area are a "cognitive distortion".

Thank you, however, for proving my point that there's a "side" in this discussion that cannot accept that people with a negative view simply have their opinions, but rather that we are victims of "misinformation" or "cognitive distortion". Always always questioning our character, or attributing our opinion of the game to anything other than a substance and genuine reaction to actual flaws with the game.

This cognitive distortion works both sides. So, the only way to actually understand each other is to stop labeling each other as haters or defenders and try to read each post as if it's written by someone neutral.

I always do this. I have sharp disagreements with people in one thread, but then act like that never happened when engaging in other threads. But, if I started reacting to this post with some measure of neutrality, in my opinion, I'm leaning towards applying a label.

You do realize that you cannot accuse people of cognitive distortion then pull back and retreat as if you're an agreeable player who is the champion of neutrality, right?

Well, I want to avoid being punished for contributing to a forbidden tone. So, I will cease discussing the "sides" topic in this thread at this point. I just have to highlight that the toxicity comes from those who label others as victims of "misinformation" or "cognitive distortion" while the rest of us are discussing food growth rate curves, sales figures, and so forth. There's this motte and bailey tactic where people sally forth and launch inappropriate accusations, picking fights, while retreating to claimed neutrality and painting themselves into victims of the toxicity they are constantly injecting. I can only ask this one last time, please stop this.

 

[aelf]

There are dozens of threads in this forum at the top of the list that aren't touched by pessimists.

I was around before there was a demarcation of threads. Many people were too.

And the rest of your post is precisely what I was talking about. It's bristling with so much defensiveness, it puts a porcupine to shame.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I just have to highlight that the toxicity comes from those who label others as victims of "misinformation" or "cognitive distortion" while the rest of us are discussing food growth rate curves, sales figures, and so forth.

I think it's very selective reading, than I pointed out what everyone (which means myself included) fall to the biases and it's somehow interpreted as one sided.

For the rest I think we could agree that we shouldn't discuss individual people and that was the meaning of my post as well.

 

[Gorbles]

"Alright fine, but let's not do this again," was absolutely the consensus around 6 and I don't sense that its later success overturned that at all.

I'm not sure completely ignoring popular opinion about VI builds a solid case to then listen to it when it comes to VII. YMMV.

 

[Maiq]

They have used up a lot of goodwill from the fan base. I would say it is critical for them to admit their failure.

 

[Siddorm]

I think that the people that have expressed concerns about Civ 7 have generally done so in a respectful way. Please let's be happy that this is such a good community.

 

[Kwami]

I think that the people that have expressed concerns about Civ 7 have generally done so in a respectful way. Please let's be happy that this is such a good community.

I don't think so. I've seen some posters personally attacking the producer, the historian, and the developers. I've seen other posters claim that people who like the game are incapable of thinking for themselves (and the other way, too). Some of the worst posts have been deleted, but it's gotten very heated many times here.

 

[Siddorm]

I don't think so. I've seen some posters personally attacking the producer, the historian, and the developers. I've seen other posters claim that people who like the game are incapable of thinking for themselves (and the other way, too). Some of the worst posts have been deleted, but it's gotten very heated many times here.

I haven't seen any personal attacks for some time, so I guess that has been fixed. As you say, the back-and-forths have gone both ways, and (I think) have generally cooled off.

 

[aelf]

I haven't seen any personal attacks for some time, so I guess that has been fixed. As you say, the back-and-forths have gone both ways, and (I think) have generally cooled off.

I don't think attacks against Firaxis staff are removed in general.

And recently, a regular poster, after poking fun at another poster by calling them the game's spokesperson, called his side "independent thinkers," thereby suggesting that the other side aren't. Such things are pretty par for the course in those threads.