I quit for now

[j51]

It's often the case with revolutionary changes. The bigger they are, the more time is needed for polishing and selling Civ6 DLC can't indefinitely pay for people's salaries, so they had to release the game. But it's state is not as bad as it's often pictured - at the current state you could play and enjoy many hours of the game even without mods.

Yeah I just really hope that they don’t abandon it. I want more civs and mod tools and scenarios and deeper religions and government.

 

[AD1730]

I think they are referring to the leaders being separated from civs, as well as the memento system, all of which has resulted in a game structure which seems impossible to balance (or very poorly balanced at the moment).

As a side note, there are a number of Civ specific bugs at the moment (Songhai, Carthage), which make some civ military units impossibly strong.

Sure, but I think it’s pretty incredible to claim that balance wasn’t a concern when it seems to have been a priority in Firaxis’ game design. Whether they actually achieved balance in the execution of the game systems is something else entirely.

Based on what I’ve seen, it appears that they didn’t achieve balance. Perhaps they will with adjustments over time. I personally believe they introduced too many different variables to account for which make it extremely difficult to balance. Each of these variables on their own (civ switching, detached leaders, ages, etc.) might work to increase balance, but not when put together.

 

[user746383]

Civilization is a flagship series. Having an "okay" launch (if you can really even call this that) will surely be seen as a failure by the owners.

 

[queenpea]

Sure, but I think it’s pretty incredible to claim that balance wasn’t a concern when it seems to have been a priority in Firaxis’ game design. Whether they actually achieved balance in the execution of the game systems is something else entirely.

Based on what I’ve seen, it appears that they didn’t achieve balance. Perhaps they will with adjustments over time. I personally believe they introduced too many different variables to account for which make it extremely difficult to balance. Each of these variables on their own (civ switching, detached leaders, ages, etc.) might work to increase balance, but not when put together.

I agree that the game is incredibly unbalanced.

I posted in this forum previous to launch, expressing worry about balance—and I was essentially scolded and was told that balance was impossible given the game’s architecture and that I shouldn’t hope for or expect it.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I have 560 hours in Civ5, 850 hours in Civ6 and 160 hours in Civ7 already. Based on how fun it is to me and the amount of coming content/patches ahead, I expect my Civ7 hours to be much higher than Civ6 in the end.

But to each its own. With radical changes it's totally understandable that some players who like previous versions aren't happy with Civ7.

The challenge for Civ7 will be to attract new gamers, ideally in larger numbers than the ones who pass in order to stick with Civ6 (or earlier). This is what Civ5 did, building the client base even though many long-time Civ fans hated the game and stayed with Civ4. It's what Civ6 did even better than Civ5, broadening the client base significantly, which more than made up for people like me who found it boring and stayed with Civ5 (it also helped that Civ6 brought back some of the fans who skipped Civ5).

I'd have more confidence that Civ7 will ultimately succeed if the launch hadn't gone the way it has. They seem to have found a staggering number of different ways to turn away potential customers:
- new mechanics associated with an unsuccessful competitor (age system = Humankind)
- no England / UK (a huge market) in the base game
- sloppy UI that turned off people who bought the game because they didn't care about the above
- embedded Denuvo DRM code to dissuade some of the people who wouldn't have cared about any of the above
- a DLC shortly after the base game launch that caused some people who wouldn't have cared about any of the above to feel like Firaxis/2K are being greedy/charging too much
- mixed AI quality reviews keeping people who care about that on the sidelines
- no Genghis Khan ("Not including Genghis Khan in the base game was a mistake." - every Civ lead developer)

Now they're facing headwinds associated with a lot of negative reviews, which will make it harder to find new people to try out the series for the first time and harder to attract former customers who hesitated to buy the game on launch for some or all of the reasons above. Can they overcome this? Yes, especially the UI (In Sukritact I trust!) But they have their work cut out for them.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Hm. They've spent years working on this idea. They've launched with a mixed reaction and disappointing sales, but let's not pretend it has been catastrophic.

Why not? The game is soon to have less players than Civilization V, launched to mixed reviews/worst critical reception in the series' history, and couldn't even reach half the peak of its direct predecessor. Again I don't know why some of us here refuse to call a spade a spade. 2K and Firaxis are not looking at this launch as a success.

Now @Isca Dumnoniorum made a good point, they'd only completely walk back their design choices if it was apparent that the changes were the primary reason why sales are so poor and if they thought they could make more money completely overhauling the game. Now besides unfinished UI, the Ages seems to be the next most common complaint. I don't expect them to completely remove civ swapping, ages, leader choices, etc but I do think they'll walk back the more unpopular aspects of these design choices to the point where they'll almost be unrecognizable from their launch iterations.

Yep, Civ5 also had revolutionary changes and a terrible start, but it went really well later.

Again people love to bring up Civ V here but that game sold much better than its predecessors and reviewed very well despite its rocky state at launch. VII and V's "terrible starts" really are not comparable in that regard

 

[j51]

I think if they build a good historical scenario that showcases how the narrative events and crises system can be used for dynamic flavor and release it for free that might go a long way to earn goodwill.

Maybe a Late Antiquity scenario with actual difficult barbarian invasions and plagues that then transitions to like an “Age of Faith” that builds to like the Crusades or something for victory. Maybe throw in a free Byzantium with it. (hint, hint…)

 

[TheGrayFox]

Civilization is a flagship series. Having an "okay" launch (if you can really even call this that) will surely be seen as a failure by the owners.

No matter how you try and rationalize it, this isn't even an "okay" launch.

Half the reviews are negative and it only managed reached half the peak of its nearly 10 year old direct predessecor

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Firaxis are not looking at this launch as a success.

Literally nobody said they were.

You talk as if success and failure is binary.

 

[EvaDK]

The drastic changes in Civ VII to civs/leaders dynamics and the 'age resets' had good intentions behind them.

But the implementation seems messy. And it makes civ/leader combos almost impossible to balance well, from what I can tell.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Again people love to bring up Civ V here but that game sold much better than its predecessors and reviewed very well despite its rocky state at launch. VII and V's "terrible starts" really are not comparable in that regard

If you're talking about Steam reviews, they didn't exist at Civ5 launch if I remember correctly, so it's not fair comparison.

Although it's totally possible what if they did exist, Civ5 sales would be much worse.

 

[j51]

Yeah as GrayFox pointed out. The numbers compared to 6 and even 5! Are not good.

I didn’t feel like sifting through all the articles on crappy game sites (Are there an other kind these days?) and asked chat gpt to guess the likelihood and length of future support. Make of that what you will (ie the limitations of such programs), but it said “2–3 years unless expansions turn things around.” That was after prompting it to weigh current market trends and conditions more.

Again huge grain of salt here but still interesting.

 

[bluesboy67]

I'm with you masterbuilder, I'm going back to Civ 5, maybe someday, hopefully sooner rather than later they will get Civ 7 right.

 

[Leucarum]

I've played the crap out of Civ7, but recognise that it needs work still. I really hope it's got the long term support to get that work done, because the fundamentals are good.

UI is going to be fixed and fixed quick, so I am willing to take that off my worries list. But I do have 2 worries that might just take too long to fix.

A lot of people dislike ages, and there's justifiable criticisms.The settlement limit probably does more to curb steamrolling, each age gets progressively less interesting - especially modern which is very much "Was that it?" The crises are very underwhelming (except when they randomly murder the AI)... Legacy paths get stale and a lot of them aren't as much fun. But for all those problems, the ages feel/play distinct, antiquity and exploration give a double dose of the early game (best part of Civ), and civs never feel blank. A lot of rebalancing, and more variablilty in legacy paths and you've got a great system IMO... But the devs need to be given time to do that.

Civ diversity is the one which really worries me. 10-11 civs per age was not even close to enough to give the game long term re-playability, and the price of DLC feels bad when this really was what we should have expected in a base game. I don't think the roster will feel ok until we have a year's worth of DLCs or more. Civ7 needs to survive that while making sure the DLC feels like it's worth buying.

For me this is the kicker, I suspect the ages and UI get smoothed out over the DLC that firaxis is committed to putting out, but I really hope the series is given enough time to put out enough civs to fix the roster issues.

I know arguments have been made that combinations make for more diversity, and while mathematically true - in practice I don't think it's worked out. There's variability in how meaningful and how much the carryover between civs is. Modern is so laser focussed that unless you take one of the busted options like Maya or Hawai'i it doesn't matter much. The AI seems to pick historical paths, so you always see the same enemies, and that's if you really notice the AI choices at all...

And I will also clarify, when I say diversity, I am just talking about the number of available options and I LOVE the improved geographical diversity in civs. This cannot be praised enough, even if Africa and the indigenous americas could have used more love IMO.

 

[Luddify]

I know I'm going to get flamed brutally for this, but I'm actually fine with where things stand at the moment. I agree it was a disastrous launch due to the UI failings, but they've promised to fully address these (and we're still in the timeline they outlined).

The graphics and models are gorgeous and the little details in the animations and unit graphics are first-rate, and this alone makes it very hard for me to go back to the cartoon graphics of VI. I love the way city improvements are handled and find I don't miss the workers at all like I was convinced would be the case.

I hated the civ switching initially but think I will be okay with it as long as there is the option to play a historically plausible path. As more civs and leaders come online this should be less of an issue. I do think it helps with the steamroller victories and the late-game mehs.

Kudos for great Mac and PS5 ports right off the bat. It's so nice to not have to compromise with the shoddy ports we had with VI.

That's not to say things are perfect, or even good in certain areas. Religion is a mess that needs to be rethought. The map generation is horrible. I'm definitely not a fan of the icons - I still see that wool icon and swear I've spawned polar bears. Some omissions are still head-scratching, like why they would not include a description of what a particular wonder does on the otherwise very nice wonder screen. Balancing is off for some leaders and civs, but I think this often can't be accurately determined until you have data from hundreds of thousands of players logging hundreds of hours.

IF they do what they promised (and I have faith in Firaxis doing so over the years), VII is built on a nice solid foundation that will serve us well for the years to come after they iron out the rough edges and add features in expansions. I concede it was probably not ready for launch when it did, BUT I for one am glad to have my hands on it even in an imperfect state, particularly with the magic that the amazing modding community has been able to achieve in only a month or so.

 

[Paideia]

The drastic changes in Civ VII to civs/leaders dynamics and the 'age resets' had good intentions behind them.

But the implementation seems messy. And it makes civ/leader combos almost impossible to balance well, from what I can tell.

I very much agree.. I was never completely opposed to the changes, though I was nervous about how huge they seemed. That is one of the major reasons, I haven't bought it myself yet. But everything I have heard since launch and seen from people playing it, seems like a product that wasn't quite well enough put together..

I'm very confident Civ VII will get to a point where I end up buying it, but it may take a while..

 

[VGT]

Hm. They've spent years working on this idea. They've launched with a mixed reaction and disappointing sales, but let's not pretend it has been catastrophic. Plenty of people have bought it, plenty of people like it. Proving the current reaction is a wholesale rejection of the vision is nigh on impossible, so what are they more likely to do, rip up the vision completely or try to make the best of it? They could do more damage to their reputation if they rip it up than if they get on with making it better.

I still kinda hope that there could be some sort of Total War's "immortal Empires" mode/scenario that will work the old way. In my opinion current ages should be some scenario in "old way" base game, but given current situation, I'll accept it other way around.

I read here from people playing that it's not possible with current core, but I'm wondering if it really isn't. Disable crisis and hard age cut, merge tech trees, do not switch civs, stay with single one whole game (I don't have a problem with civ strength being tied to modern era and will take long time before can be used - it already was like that in previous games). Get rid of old/new world split and bring back pangea. Maybe there are other things, that are hard to transfer to old way of playing. Don't know much about how buildings works between eras, so can't give any argument here.


And major refactors are not that uncommon. Stellaris comes to my mind with travel types purge, city management redesign (second coming soon).

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I still kinda hope that there could be some sort of Total War's "immortal Empires" mode/scenario that will work the old way. In my opinion current ages should be some scenario in "old way" base game, but given current situation, I'll accept it other way around.

I read here from people playing that it's not possible with current core, but I'm wondering if it really isn't. Disable crisis and hard age cut, merge tech trees, do not switch civs, stay with single one whole game (I don't have a problem with civ strength being tied to modern era and will take long time before can be used - it already was like that in previous games). Get rid of old/new world split and bring back pangea. Maybe there are other things, that are hard to transfer to old way of playing. Don't know much about how buildings works between eras, so can't give any argument here.


And major refactors are not that uncommon. Stellaris comes to my mind with travel types purge, city management redesign (second coming soon).

I think we can expect some major changes, including to the way Distant Lands currently work in order to accommodate Pangea.

As for disabling hard age cuts, merging tech trees and removing civ switching; perhaps it is technically possible but for me, this would be a disaster. Not because I necessarily think this way is better than the old way, but because this was their vision for the game, and it is a vision based on trying to solve some concrete problems with previous titles. Right now, I don't think they have really managed to execute their vision, or at least there is a lot of room for refinement and improvement, and I want them to focus on getting it right, not admitting defeat and removing everything that makes this different.

 

[VGT]

admitting defeat and removing everything that makes this different

I wasn't suggesting removing what they have. This battle I consider already lost. I was suggesting separate scenario/mode mimicking old way of playing. Something similar they've done reacting to rage on civ6 release by creating a graphic overhaul mod changing they way game looks to move it closer to civ5 look. I think back then it was more of a flex to show engine capabilities rather than admitting defeat. Could go similar way this time if it's doable.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I wasn't suggesting removing what they have. This battle I consider already lost. I was suggesting separate scenario/mode mimicking old way of playing. Something similar they've done reacting to rage on civ6 release by creating a graphic overhaul mod changing they way game looks to move it closer to civ5 look. I think back then it was more of a flex to show engine capabilities rather than admitting defeat. Could go similar way this time if it's doable.

Fair, I can definitely see some good game mode potential, a "classic" mode at some point, for example. Got to get the main mode fixed first though, plenty to do!