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

[GeneralZift]

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.

I think you are misinformed. Their name was "CivilizationVII" and calling them a spokesperson was a joke, play on the name, as if the game had come to life and spoke for itself on the forums.
I since checked in on him and made sure I didn't accidentally insult him. We are both aware it was a joke, and they've since renamed.

As for the other claim, I think you'll find it was in reply to you, trying to suggest that the "other side" were full time haters, or full time critics, or something of the matter.
Therefore, I suggested they were instead called independent thinkers, because I'm trying to highlight that people have a mind of their own and that there is nothing wrong with critique. I wrote this light-heartedly too.

So please, don't spread any misinformation, as this is pointedly aimed at me.

 

[Siddorm]

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.

I thought that that exchange was okay, so I don't really agree with you on that, but I don't want to get involved in a back-and forth about it.
Everyone will have their own view about which posts they find more-or-less reasonable. I don't think there is any correlation here between liking or disliking Civ 7 and posting reasonably.

 

[ColtSeavers]

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.

“I know a couple of people” sounds pretty anecdotal to me. I could also name the same half a dozen or so users in this forum, some who are posting in this very thread, who always dismiss any criticism of their beloved Civ 7 as coming from "haters" or a "very vocal minority" (without providing any evidence for the latter, of course). Also, “complainers” doesn’t sound very respectful, especially coming from someone who demands respect and claims others here are allegedly being hostile towards him and his friends.

Anyway, just check the relevant polls on this forum, and you’ll see that it’s not just “some posters” who dislike the game, it’s arguably the majority of Civ Fanatics. And if you think this forum doesn’t represent the broader Civ community, just look at the Steam sales figures, the Steam reviews, or most importantly the number of average daily players, which can’t even keep up with the pre-predecessor, a game (with its DLCs) that was released more than twelve years ago!
So maybe it’s time some people face reality: This game is simply not being well received by a large part of the Civ community. And by just discrediting critics as “complainers,” you’re not doing the game any favors, either. I’m pretty sure the current player numbers won’t justify further support for this title in the long run. It just won’t pay off.

 

[timmychompchomp]

No apology needed for the game design. Apology for the quality would be appropriate. I am not in a personal relationship with firaxis, so they can’t disappoint me with design decisions or interpretation of history. I am in a business relationship with them and the quality of the game, from a functional standpoint, was not acceptable for release.

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: Thread temporarily closed, a bunch of posts are under review.

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: Thread reopened. We deleted a bunch of posts, which derailed the thread. Please stay on topic and play nice.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

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.

The AI was just as bad in Civ V. It’s been an issue since V.

 

[Glassmage]

The AI was just as bad in Civ V. It’s been an issue since V.

But DLL code was released for Civ5 and not Civ6, so Civ5 Vox Populi mod was created and it has the best AI.

 

[Kwami]

But DLL code was released for Civ5 and not Civ6, so Civ5 Vox Populi mod was created and it has the best AI.

But also longer turn times (which were already bad in V!) and more crashes, unfortunately. It'd be nice to get the DLLs for VI and VII, though, so that players have options.

 

[stealth_nsk]

But DLL code was released for Civ5 and not Civ6, so Civ5 Vox Populi mod was created and it has the best AI.

"Best AI" is a questionable thing. It made some improvements for specific cases at the cost of greatly increased amount of calculations. It also gives AI bigger bonuses to make it more challenging. The main smart thing it does (compared to vanilla Civ5 AI) is the uneven load of AI bonuses, there they increase the further you're in the game to compensate human playing better.

 

[GeneralZift]

The AI was just as bad in Civ V. It’s been an issue since V.

The AI is not that bad in Civ5. They're suboptimal with military movement, that's given, but they can at least challenge the player.
Civ6 AI sucked at everything and wasn't even capable of playing the game fully. Plus they were mindless robots who loved you or hated you for doing nothing and stuck in Alliances with you for 80% of the game.

It was by far the weakest point of Civ6, and I don't know how people contend that AI is a subjective matter.

 

[tman2000]

The AI was just as bad in Civ V. It’s been an issue since V.

I remember having late game wars with bombers and fighters and naval ships against the AI in Civ V. Not so much in VI.

I also remember people distinctly pointing to districts as making the Civ V AI problem substantially worse.

 

[Gori the Grey]

The AI in Civ V is decent at using air and naval resources, particularly when combined with the infinite numbers of troops that they get in deity.

Air units are easy for them to use, and naval units have very free movement, so they can flank well (and are programmed to do so). Again, because the AI doesn't worry about losing troops, and because it's hard for one to heal at sea, their naval battles can really set the human player back.

If I go for the Dynamite rush to get artillery, I make sure I hurry up and get my conquering done before they reach Flight. That can be a genuinely tense portion of the game.

(Good deity warmongers are done with the game long before this point, but I'm not good.)

 

[Gorbles]

It was by far the weakest point of Civ6, and I don't know how people contend that AI is a subjective matter.

AI in VI got some notable late fixes (during the NFP I think). Aircraft use was at least one of those.

I think comparing launch to launch is difficult because V had a lot more issues going for it (against it?) than VI. Comparing the fully patched, non-modded versions? Difficult to say. I haven't gone back to V in a long time.

 

[Siptah]

AI in VI got some notable late fixes (during the NFP I think). Aircraft use was at least one of those.

To be picky and maybe a bit annoying. Civ VI got late fixes on some of multiple platforms on which the game is sold. If you are playing on mac or switch, you've never seen these fixes. I'm not sure whether PlayStation and xbox got these patches. Similarly, the detune of the AI's love for recruiting partisans via espionage...

 

[GeneralZift]

AI in VI got some notable late fixes (during the NFP I think). Aircraft use was at least one of those.

I think comparing launch to launch is difficult because V had a lot more issues going for it (against it?) than VI. Comparing the fully patched, non-modded versions? Difficult to say. I haven't gone back to V in a long time.

That is good to hear at least. But using aircraft should really be the bare minimum. AI has plenty of space to grow in Civilization, it's almost a pity to see such wasted potential :/

 

[Krikkit1]

That is good to hear at least. But using aircraft should really be the bare minimum. AI has plenty of space to grow in Civilization, it's almost a pity to see such wasted potential :/

"Best AI" is a questionable thing. It made some improvements for specific cases at the cost of greatly increased amount of calculations. It also gives AI bigger bonuses to make it more challenging. The main smart thing it does (compared to vanilla Civ5 AI) is the uneven load of AI bonuses, there they increase the further you're in the game to compensate human playing better.

This is where I think the Ages and Legacy options could really help.
Imagine an option on the AI difficulty [X] Ascending Difficulty

So that at the beginning of the age,
the AI got a 25% increase in its bonuses (base of +40% culture goes to +50% culture, etc)
If the AI did poorly on the legacy paths that bonus could be as much as 100% (base of +40% culture goes to +80% culture)

And the next age those increases would be retained and added to
so +25% from last age +25% from this age .. +50%... so a base of +40% culture becomes +60% culture....
or if the AI did poorly in both Antiquity and Exploration
+100% from last Age +100% from this Age...+200%... so a base of +40% culture becomes a base of +120% Culture

(Would not apply to Scribe or Governor level, nor to player Tech/Civic costs, nor to IP Combat Strength, probably not the AI water Damage modifier)

 

[zerokarma]

I think if they had a heart to heart with the community, their customers it would go along way to buy some good will. However so far they appear to be ignoring everything and largely pretending everything is fine.

I understand they don't want to admit the design vision is bad or didn't work well but I think they should acknowledge the negative community feedback and be more transparent of where things are headed in terms of development.

Like if they said hey we thought you'd like these changes but we can see many of you prefer the traditional mechanics, here is what we are going to do about it, we will add it a classic mode. That would be awesome and I think all would be mostly forgiven in the community and id buy it tomorrow. Or alternatively they could say we stand by our design choices and won't change it, at least it would be transparent and many of us would just give up on Civ 7 for good and wait hopefully for the next one.

 

[Siddorm]

I think they are not yet sure of how best to proceed.

 

[Kwami]

I think if they had a heart to heart with the community, their customers it would go along way to buy some good will. However so far they appear to be ignoring everything and largely pretending everything is fine.

I understand they don't want to admit the design vision is bad or didn't work well but I think they should acknowledge the negative community feedback and be more transparent of where things are headed in terms of development.

They've already acknowledged that some of their ideas didn't land well and they've already made changes to accommodate players who want to play the game differently. They've already promised lots of other future changes. What you've written here just isn't true.