I played the [pick 30+1 civs mindgame] ... and it made me forgive the developers a bit for some of their choices

[Krikkit1]

Yeah, the flaw with branching too far out is that if you had, say, Rome and Greece as the only ancient era European powers transitioning to like 4-5 exploration era ones, then most games you'd never have more than 2 of those European powers active.

I don't know if the balance is 2 links at each level or if 3 or 4 is better. With only 10 civs, it feels like 2 links is right. Once they round out the roster and we have 20-25 civs at each age, I'd expect that even getting up to 3-4 links for each civ should still be manageable, and not make it too skewed

I think that when we have 20-25 civs in an age, the base game civs in the previous age will have 4-6 unlocks, the DLC civs will probably be 2-3 (because each DLC civ should at least have one connection from a base game civ…probably 2 if it isn’t packaged with a DLC it connects from)

 

[Evie]

Possible, although it shouldn't be too hard to code conditional pathways that check for which DLCs you own to decide which of multiple pathways to offer (eg, if you have DLC X containing civ Y, then civ A gets a pathway to civ Y. If you do not have DLC X, civ A has a pathway to civ C from the original game instead. Otherwise I fear the original game civ would be loaded with senseless pathways, while others would be much more severly limited,

 

[Krikkit1]

Possible, although it shouldn't be too hard to code conditional pathways that check for which DLCs you own to decide which of multiple pathways to offer (eg, if you have DLC X containing civ Y, then civ A gets a pathway to civ Y. If you do not have DLC X, civ A has a pathway to civ C from the original game instead. Otherwise I fear the original game civ would be loaded with senseless pathways, while others would be much more severly limited,

Well I don't think Extra unlocks is a problem.... ie if X and Y civ are both available then X unlocks Y... it doesn't affect whether Q unlocks Y.

 

[mitsho]

Also there's leader unlocks. If Isabella and Augustus are in the same game, Augustus will lead Rome and (as someone else leads Greece), Isabella will get the Maya, Han or Egypt, and can then go into Spain. So the branching out isn't necessarily a big problem, but I do agree it makes sense to add the Goths, Celts, Carthaginians and Norse rather soon to the Ancient Era.

 

[Evie]

Sighs. I had *finally* managed to get a double pathway (every civ has two civs it leads into and two civs it comes from) setup I liked for my hyopthetical 81-civs endgame plan, but then you guys started talking about more pathways for the civs, and now I'm trying to work out triple pathways (every civ has three paths leading into it and three paths leaving it), nad it's doing the work all over again argh XD

 

[chaosprophet]

Sighs. I had *finally* managed to get a double pathway (every civ has two civs it leads into and two civs it comes from) setup I liked for my hyopthetical 81-civs endgame plan, but then you guys started talking about more pathways for the civs, and now I'm trying to work out triple pathways (every civ has three paths leading into it and three paths leaving it), nad it's doing the work all over again argh XD

"Vegeta, what does the scouter says about their pathway level?"
"IT'S OVER 9000!!!!"

 

[Krajzen]

My relationship with civ7 so far is rollercoaster having up and downs, currently I have the latter phase again as I realised I have somewhat mixed opinion on the setup of the initial civs and leaders, and how do civ switching lines look at this point?

There are as many hits as misses there. Fantastic audiovisuals of civs - other that leader graphics that vary from also fantastic to kinda bad. Not to mention seemingly universally disliked idea to inexplicably switch from "the leader talks to you, the player" to "leaders face each other like in mortal kombat" (seriously, what market research made Firaxis thinks that a good idea??). Great addition of civ-unique policies (frankly I never expected that much civ-unique depth in my pessimism ) but then designs of many civs being disapointingly orthodox archetypes rather than some new takes. Many awesome and fresh additions to the roster (Missisipi, Buganda, Mexico, Chinese and Indian splits), but also my horrible disappointment with the most cliche, overused selection of leaders imaginable. Some cool "historical evolutionary lines" of civs and then inexplicable anticlimactic choices such as Inca being the bridge between Maya and Mexico, or African "line" being three extremely unrelated cultures instead of the obvious idea to first focus on one region (say Sahel or East Africa) and go through actually related cultures.

I think that Firaxis has greatly, severely underestimated the importance of historicity to the playerbase, and we are going to face the maelstorm of complaints on the idea of leaders disconnected from civs, ahistorical civ changes etc. I am also absolutely certain there is going to be a mass of players of country X being angry at the way their country Z is inserted to the forced civ change system - and I can't blame them honestly. I can easily relate to the frustration of Japanese players being unable to simply play as Japan from the ancient era, having 2/3 of the game spent as their IRL political enemy China as the "historical" course, especially as the civ7 approach in this regard is more absurd and ahistorical than previous essentialism. It's easier to go towards historicity and immersion from from "sure we have one Japanese civ from 4000 BC but it implicitly covers all prehistorical and ancient periods of Yamato, Kofun etc" than reach it from the messy idea "Japanese civilizatio doesn't exist at all unless Ming Chinese culture suddenly morphs into Meiji Japan in the 17th century". At this point I wouldn't be surprised if devs made the decision to add Poland to the 2nd era and then force it to turn into Germany or Russia in the 3rd, and them being shocked by this perceived as incredibly offensive, seeing how we gonna get Amerindians being forced to die and be replaced by the colonial states, or all black people cultures being alike.

 

[mitsho]

Those are all explicable if you think of it in terms of marketing and with several years of additional content in mind.

Oh, and I love that the leaders now face each other. It's a step in the right direction of getting rid of bilateral meetings that takes so much time. I want them sitting around a table - all of them.

I like the simplifications, and I feel the archetypes just somehow come with them.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

My relationship with civ7 so far is rollercoaster having up and downs, currently I have the latter phase again as I realised I have somewhat mixed opinion on the setup of the initial civs and leaders, and how do civ switching lines look at this point?

There are as many hits as misses there. Fantastic audiovisuals of civs - other that leader graphics that vary from also fantastic to kinda bad. Not to mention seemingly universally disliked idea to inexplicably switch from "the leader talks to you, the player" to "leaders face each other like in mortal kombat" (seriously, what market research made Firaxis thinks that a good idea??). Great addition of civ-unique policies (frankly I never expected that much civ-unique depth in my pessimism ) but then designs of many civs being disapointingly orthodox archetypes rather than some new takes. Many awesome and fresh additions to the roster (Missisipi, Buganda, Mexico, Chinese and Indian splits), but also my horrible disappointment with the most cliche, overused selection of leaders imaginable. Some cool "historical evolutionary lines" of civs and then inexplicable anticlimactic choices such as Inca being the bridge between Maya and Mexico, or African "line" being three extremely unrelated cultures instead of the obvious idea to first focus on one region (say Sahel or East Africa) and go through actually related cultures.

I think that Firaxis has greatly, severely underestimated the importance of historicity to the playerbase, and we are going to face the maelstorm of complaints on the idea of leaders disconnected from civs, ahistorical civ changes etc. I am also absolutely certain there is going to be a mass of players of country X being angry at the way their country Z is inserted to the forced civ change system - and I can't blame them honestly. I can easily relate to the frustration of Japanese players being unable to simply play as Japan from the ancient era, having 2/3 of the game spent as their IRL political enemy China as the "historical" course, especially as the civ7 approach in this regard is more absurd and ahistorical than previous essentialism. It's easier to go towards historicity and immersion from from "sure we have one Japanese civ from 4000 BC but it implicitly covers all prehistorical and ancient periods of Yamato, Kofun etc" than reach it from the messy idea "Japanese civilizatio doesn't exist at all unless Ming Chinese culture suddenly morphs into Meiji Japan in the 17th century". At this point I wouldn't be surprised if devs made the decision to add Poland to the 2nd era and then force it to turn into Germany or Russia in the 3rd, and them being shocked by this perceived as incredibly offensive, seeing how we gonna get Amerindians being forced to die and be replaced by the colonial states, or all black people cultures being alike.

What I've found interesting on your latter point about reception here is that up until the Inca announcement this week, the Reddit civ sub was very pro civ VII.

Someone posted the now near complete roster there I think yesterday, and the comment / like ratio was equal and in the hundreds (very bad sign for social media impressions) and the comments below were ranging from mixed to hate it, time after time after time.

It's really starting to dawn on non-fanatics what this game is, and I fear for firaxis that they may not like this new direction as much as they hoped.

The saddest part about that for everyone, love or hate the new game style, is that poor reception mean it will heighten the risk the games development cycle gets abandoned for a new direction before enough civs have been added to get the most out of it. Risky times

 

[Xandinho]

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if devs made the decision to add Poland to the 2nd era and then force it to turn into Germany or Russia in the 3rd, and them being shocked by this perceived as incredibly offensive, seeing how we gonna get Amerindians being forced to die and be replaced by the colonial states, or all black people cultures being alike.

I’m not sure what decision the developers will make, but personally, I'd place Poland in the Modern Age and have it come from Lithuania in the Age of Exploration, with the latter originating from the Slavs in Antiquity.

 

[pokiehl]

My relationship with civ7 so far is rollercoaster having up and downs, currently I have the latter phase again as I realised I have somewhat mixed opinion on the setup of the initial civs and leaders, and how do civ switching lines look at this point?

There are as many hits as misses there. Fantastic audiovisuals of civs - other that leader graphics that vary from also fantastic to kinda bad. Not to mention seemingly universally disliked idea to inexplicably switch from "the leader talks to you, the player" to "leaders face each other like in mortal kombat" (seriously, what market research made Firaxis thinks that a good idea??). Great addition of civ-unique policies (frankly I never expected that much civ-unique depth in my pessimism ) but then designs of many civs being disapointingly orthodox archetypes rather than some new takes. Many awesome and fresh additions to the roster (Missisipi, Buganda, Mexico, Chinese and Indian splits), but also my horrible disappointment with the most cliche, overused selection of leaders imaginable. Some cool "historical evolutionary lines" of civs and then inexplicable anticlimactic choices such as Inca being the bridge between Maya and Mexico, or African "line" being three extremely unrelated cultures instead of the obvious idea to first focus on one region (say Sahel or East Africa) and go through actually related cultures.

I think that Firaxis has greatly, severely underestimated the importance of historicity to the playerbase, and we are going to face the maelstorm of complaints on the idea of leaders disconnected from civs, ahistorical civ changes etc. I am also absolutely certain there is going to be a mass of players of country X being angry at the way their country Z is inserted to the forced civ change system - and I can't blame them honestly. I can easily relate to the frustration of Japanese players being unable to simply play as Japan from the ancient era, having 2/3 of the game spent as their IRL political enemy China as the "historical" course, especially as the civ7 approach in this regard is more absurd and ahistorical than previous essentialism. It's easier to go towards historicity and immersion from from "sure we have one Japanese civ from 4000 BC but it implicitly covers all prehistorical and ancient periods of Yamato, Kofun etc" than reach it from the messy idea "Japanese civilizatio doesn't exist at all unless Ming Chinese culture suddenly morphs into Meiji Japan in the 17th century". At this point I wouldn't be surprised if devs made the decision to add Poland to the 2nd era and then force it to turn into Germany or Russia in the 3rd, and them being shocked by this perceived as incredibly offensive, seeing how we gonna get Amerindians being forced to die and be replaced by the colonial states, or all black people cultures being alike.

What I've found interesting on your latter point about reception here is that up until the Inca announcement this week, the Reddit civ sub was very pro civ VII.

Someone posted the now near complete roster there I think yesterday, and the comment / like ratio was equal and in the hundreds (very bad sign for social media impressions) and the comments below were ranging from mixed to hate it, time after time after time.

It's really starting to dawn on non-fanatics what this game is, and I fear for firaxis that they may not like this new direction as much as they hoped.

The saddest part about that for everyone, love or hate the new game style, is that poor reception mean it will heighten the risk the games development cycle gets abandoned for a new direction before enough civs have been added to get the most out of it. Risky times

I disagree with both of these takes. My sense is there's a huge overreaction by a minority of plugged-in civ fans.

It's extremely silly to take one single Reddit thread as representative of anything. If you check out Reddit gaming forums, you'll walk away thinking that the only good game in the last 10 years is Baldurs Gate 3, and the only good gaming studio is CDPR, and the rest of gaming is crumbling around you in a fiery hellscape and there's no enjoyment to be had anywhere, and you need to get ready to drink your verification can of Mountain Dew to keep playing your games.

shocked by this perceived as incredibly offensive, seeing how we gonna get Amerindians being forced to die and be replaced by the colonial states, or all black people cultures being alike.

This in particular is just an egregious overreaction to me. You've seen how the Shawnee themselves are excited with the game and eagerly participated in the development of the Shawnee civ and Tecumseh as a leader, and yet you think you need to be offended on their behalf? (By the way, if you're so concerned, you should avoid the term "Amerindian" which many indigenous groups find distasteful.) What of their own excitement? Are they themselves wrong? Do you really think Civ is trying to pantomime indigenous cultural genocide? Do you really think there is a Firaxis agenda to portray "all African cultures are alike?" Firaxis literally did everything right here. They rightfully consulted Shawnee cultural leaders, they rightfully involved them from the very beginning of the Civ design, they rightfully got their input and buy-in on everything. And they have shown themselves eager to engage with cultural representatives of indigenous civs for many years now, such as the Maori in Civ 6.

Overall, I think civfanatics (and anyone regularly posting on any forum dedicated to the Civ franchise is essentially a civfanatic) are ruminating way too much on perceived sociohistorical commentaries of civ inclusions and "civ pathways." There is so much handwringing from a vocal minority worrying about how so-and-so group is going to perceive their inclusion in the game, and I think this is condescending and paternalistic at worst and totally misguided at best. It rarely ever comes from members of that group! I think the Shawnee experience with Civ 7 (handwringing by fans and even academics about the perils of including them and Tecumseh in the game, but enthusiasm and gratitude from the Shawnee themselves) is a great case-in-point that people are forgetting.

Firaxis communicate their desire to be inclusive and representative nonstop, and I don't think any Civ fan doubts their intentions. I also think most players understand that a game can't launch with 70 civs, and that DLC is going to add in fan favorites.

The wider audience is not spending its time finding perceived slights in how this videogame is setup, and they certainly aren't sitting down and mapping out complicated pathways on a whiteboard. They're just going to play the game and enjoy it, and they know the goal of the game is to celebrate the cultures of the world and that Firaxis has good intentions, and that not everyone can be in the game at launch. We all know DLC is coming, and that the game is going to end up with far more playable factions than any prior civ game. It's going to be exciting.

This is anecdotal, but my civ playing group is all "casual" (except me) in the sense that they don't participate in online civ discourse. They just play the game and have fun with our MP sessions. The most someone might do is follow the Youtube channel for the next clips, but even then, I'm the one sharing the news with everyone. And none of them have once brought up any of these concerns, and no one thinks Firaxis is out to humiliate them or insult them.

What's happening is that, as usual, Civ inclusion is the hottest topic of discussion for 4x games. Talking about who is in and who we want to see time and time again takes primacy over all other aspects of discussion for these games. I think some people are just hyperfixating on this aspect The same discussions about key civs missing were present with Civ 6 on release. People wondered why Aztec was a preorder bonus, people wanted Mongolia back ASAP, people couldn't believe Babylon still wasn't in the game after Gathering Storm...

More and more, I think people who participate in gaming discussions online need to recognize that they are essentially taking part in fractured echochambers, and this is bearing out nonstop across genres, where the loudest opinions you're being drowned in don't end up manifesting as true in typical user reviews or critical reviews.

All that to say: if those are YOUR personal concerns, then it is what it is, and you're of course free to draw any opinion you want. But I think you're taking way too many leaps in logic to extrapolate that to the rest of the fandom and start with the doomerism.

I'm just having a hard time with viewing the game through this lens. It's tiring to me perceive everything so negatively and cynically.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I dunno, this has a moderate risk with the obvious growth of their DLC model and their disingenuos "most civs ever" comment of becoming the latest subject of the whole "don't ask questions, consoom product" meme.

Echo chambers exist both ways, and right now gaming consumers are a bit quicker to judge because of the state of AAA gaming. Theyve pretty much laid out their civ multiverse roadmap, and depending on how that gets interpreted in the wider gaming zeitgeist it could be business as usual or it could be another one that captures the boycott spirit that's grown in the market towards anti consumer practices.

I guess we'll see! I'm not remotely convinced the worst will happen, but there are more turned noses at this stage that I thought there were going to be based on where things were last week.

 

[pokiehl]

I dunno, this has a moderate risk with the obvious growth of their DLC model and their disingenuos "most civs ever" comment of becoming the latest subject of the whole "don't ask questions, consoom product" meme.

They never said "most civs ever." They said "most leaders ever." There's no disingenuity there--they even made sure to specify "including personas."

I can't really engage with the latter part of your comment. It's just an easy and cynical dismissal. Firaxis develops Civ and 2K publishes Civ in order to make money. DLC is part of the business of making videogames, and it's a simple model: In exchange for your money, you get more content. The great part is it's entirely voluntary, and there will always be sales.

Echo chambers exist both ways, and right now gaming consumers are a bit quicker to judge because of the state of AAA gaming.

Very online gaming consumers are, yes. Again, my perspective is that this viewpoint is far overstated. I think there'd be more validity to the idea of widespread concerns about "the state of AAA gaming" if gaming wasn't more popular and more financially successful than ever before.

 

[uppi]

They never said "most civs ever."

They definitely said "most Civs ever (at launch)". Right when they announced the 30+1 Civs at Pax Australia.

 

[Leucarum]

I do wish we could see some of the stats Firaxis collects. I'd suspect the proportion of people who play the same civ most of the time, and the proportion of people who deeply dislike civ switching would be related to one another... That's the best proxy statistic I can think of anyway... Firaxis likely has this statistic, and if it was too high they probably wouldn't have gone ahead.

Personally, when they announced civ switching, I genuinely felt my heart sink. But, I think 80% of that feeling was how bad Humankind was. Firaxis genuinely seem to be trying to avoid Hunankind's excesses (less civ transitions, highly recognizable leaders, more intdresting civ designs). So... Hopefully it'll be fine.

I don't think you need to find some transitions offensive to find them weird though. I think introdcing historically preferred transitions was a bit of a mistake. They aren't going to have enough civs to make paths which feel like logical progressions. If they had just themed the transitions as something else other than "historic paths," or if it was a free for all switches would feel less out of place for some people...

 

[pokiehl]

I do wish we could see some of the stats Firaxis collects. I'd suspect the proportion of people who play the same civ most of the time, and the proportion of people who deeply dislike civ switching would be related to one another... That's the best proxy statistic I can think of anyway... Firaxis likely has this statistic, and if it was too high they probably wouldn't have gone ahead.

Personally, when they announced civ switching, I genuinely felt my heart sink. But, I think 80% of that feeling was how bad Humankind was. Firaxis genuinely seem to be trying to avoid Hunankind's excesses (less civ transitions, highly recognizable leaders, more intdresting civ designs). So... Hopefully it'll be fine.

I didn't love the idea at first, but I came around to it when I saw how it fit with the broader gameplay redesign.

I don't think you need to find some transitions offensive to find them weird though. I think introdcing historically preferred transitions was a bit of a mistake. They aren't going to have enough civs to make paths which feel like logical progressions. If they had just themed the transitions as something else other than "historic paths," or if it was a free for all switches would feel less out of place for some people...

I guess, but I just literally don't care about it. I don't think the game is intended for you play just making some straight continuous beeline (and indeed I don't think this is a feasible approach for the vast majority of potential factions), and I think insisting on playing it that way is kind of missing the point and overly limiting. To me, this fixation on how "paths" look is just a function of the game not being out yet, and the absolute inclusion/exclusion of civs being the easiest, lowest-hanging fruit to discuss, as it is with any other 4x game.

I remember tons of discussion about Humankind civ inclusion, including from many people who didn't even have any interest in buying the game. It's just something easy for fans to discuss. So that said, I am not at all surprised that this is dominating the discourse for certain fans.

 

[mitsho]

The "Civ A evolves into Civ B, their enemy"-problem gets a lot better when you don't look at it forwards in time, but do it backwards. Now the modern America of this game draws heavily on their Shawnee Past, their traditions and buildings and city names. History is built in layers after all. It makes that America quite different from one that is based on Rome and the Normans. In that sense, I feel like Spain should also have a path to America. Or rather, most every civ should have a path to America if we see America as "breakaway colony that has had immigration from all over the world" (as opposed to Mexico which is a breakaway colony that has a distinct identity).

And I agree, these paths will feel better once we actually play the game. Remember, these are designed so your opponents feel "natural". As a human player, pretty much every civ is open to you to transition to, be it due to the leader or a gameplay unlock if you realy want to. I'm looking forward to matching these civs and imagine myself, how that combination would actually feel like. Alternative history, something civ is very good at!

 

[Gori the Grey]

Not to mention seemingly universally disliked idea to inexplicably switch from "the leader talks to you, the player" to "leaders face each other like in mortal kombat" (seriously, what market research made Firaxis thinks that a good idea??).

I wonder if this was in part because now the leader is the only thing that carries through the entire game, so they want something that will give you a regular visual of that.

By the way, the Exploration livestream they just did should have answered a question I've long had. But I forgot to look for it. I'll go back and do so. Do your country border colors stay the same after the transition? That would of course be another visual that would give you a sense of continuity, one era to the next.

Back in a bit. One of you who already noted it will probably beat me to stating the answer.

Looks like border colors do remain the same after the shift. They're two colors actually, I'm just noting. So presumably each leader has a two-color scheme attached with him or her, and those carry forward through the whole game.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

They never said "most civs ever." They said "most leaders ever." There's no disingenuity there--they even made sure to specify "including personas."

I can't really engage with the latter part of your comment. It's just an easy and cynical dismissal. Firaxis develops Civ and 2K publishes Civ in order to make money. DLC is part of the business of making videogames, and it's a simple model: In exchange for your money, you get more content. The great part is it's entirely voluntary, and there will always be sales.


Very online gaming consumers are, yes. Again, my perspective is that this viewpoint is far overstated. I think there'd be more validity to the idea of widespread concerns about "the state of AAA gaming" if gaming wasn't more popular and more financially successful than ever before.

As someone else has said, they absolutely have said this unfortunately, and perhaps unwisely.

I think your take is out of line with the general sentiment in the gaming community at the moment. People understand money needs to be made, but can also understand when mechanics have been designed around money instead of gameplay optimisation eg. Loot boxes. Now this isnt as egregious as loot boxes and the famed "sense of pride and accomplishment" that comes with them, but it's somewhere further towards that on the spectrum of consumer friendliness that previous civ iterations have been. At least to me, and seemingly to others. It's in fact crossed the line for me personally.

The other thing to underestimate at your peril is how chronically online the gaming community is (and by design). Battlefront 2 was brought down by a social media comment. Gaming being more successful than every before was a true statement w-5 years ago, but recently we're seeing more failures than successes. Gargantuan losses are being made by big developers, Anthem and Concord come to mind as two extreme examples. Ubisoft, a leading name on people's tongues for DLC sins, is now sinking in their share prices are successive missed hits.

Civ may be more shielded from prevailing gaming culture than most other games by being primarily single player, but there's still a lot of overlap with other gaming audiences that are online by necessity thanks to gaming wide trends like always online Denuvo and binning of hot seat over online multiplayer - trends this community isn't immune from.

I think you're outlook is far more binary on this, and far more compromising towards the developer than the vast majority of people who have bought prior entries. How this fairs on social media, and where it lands in gaming zeitgeist, will absolutely impact it, and the reason it may under or over deliver this time will be it's DLC model

 

[gdr_willter]

Damn, let them just find their good game. You don't have to blame or try to fix any other games that you dislike, especially when you are not standing in the developers' side. You don't have to worry about the bad response to the game and its bad selling prospect when if you dislike the game. The gamers who positively wating the game, they are who really have to do worry about that.