I quit for now

[stealth_nsk]

You don’t think it works this way but yet that peak player counts and assumed sales figures kind of speak for themselves. Even if players who dislike ages/Civ switching eventually give the game a chance, chances are it will only be after dramatic sale/reduction of price. This isn’t what 2k or Firaxis want

We have entire thread about interpreting this data and it's better to discuss there. I don't see how this data says anything like this.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Due to real life challenges back in 2014/2015, I did not buy or play Beyond Earth when it launched. I missed all of the discussion, bad reviews, disappointment and arguing about sales. I have read (mostly here) that people expected an Alpha Centauri 2, so they were disappointed. I have read (mostly here) that people enjoyed the changes in the first/only expansion, but the sales and daily gameplay were lackluster. As a result, this spinoff game was essentially abandoned only a year or two after Civ6 launched. For me, I picked up both BE and RT on sale around 2020, enjoying the game very much. I have 1500 hours on it, having won each affinity victory with every leader.

Civ7 is a mainline game in the franchise, not a spinoff. I'm enjoying my first set of games with it. I expect more leaders to come, following the "pass model" shown in Civ6 with New Frontier Pass and Leader Pass... as well as the Civ6 DLC packs and traditional expansions. I still have a nagging worry that Civ7 could suffer a diminished future, as BE did, with the current level of dissatisfaction.

My personal hope is that the current level of sales, including ALL platforms (Mac, consoles, Linux), will be enough to ensure that Civ7 has a future, a multi-year lifespan.

 

[Mark the Bold]

Thinking about buying this. Worth the $50? Been playing since Civ II, but the reviews are scaring me. I'm not against new things, but it sounds like it this game has challenges.

 

[Siptah]

Thinking about buying this. Worth the $50? Been playing since Civ II, but the reviews are scaring me. I'm not against new things, but it sounds like it this game has challenges.

It's possible to have a whole lot of fun with the game as is, but many people are appalled by the changes or the poor state of polish or both.

I've your finger itch to play civ and you can spare the money, you might just want to take the risk and jump in. If you think you can wait for some more time, maybe wait for summer/autumn when there will be the first sale, and some updates will have evened out many of the current rough spots.

It's more like $70 than $50 currently though.

 

[Mark the Bold]

I like your thoughts. Did you get your money's worth in your mind?

 

[Siptah]

I like your thoughts. Did you get your money's worth in your mind?

Very much. Played for 100h in the first more or less month. This is very rare for me. I had a lot of fun! The most in a civ game in a long time (but some of the older ones just soured on me over the years).

 

[Mark the Bold]

Played for 100h in the first more or less month. This is very rare for me. I had a lot of fun! The most in a civ game in a long time (but some of the older ones just soured on me over the years).

Ok great. Last question: about to pull the trigger, is the founders edition worth it with the extra civs? I have over a thousand hours for Civ V + VI so I know I'll get my money's worth, but unsure if these are just scam packs.

 

[Siptah]

Ok great. Last question: about to pull the trigger, is the founders edition worth it with the extra civs? I have over a thousand hours for Civ V + VI so I know I'll get my money's worth, but unsure if these are just scam packs.

I think the founder's edition is already expired. It's either deluxe or base game. Deluxe is 4 more civs, 2 leaders, and 2 personas for $30. I think you can have fun without these as well and grab them when they are cheaper. Carthage and the personas are rather nice additions though. And if you want to have Great Britain, they are also in that deluxe pack (along with Bulgaria and Nepal, which I personally look forward to - they release on Tuesday).

You know about the main changes, right? No more workers, split game into three consecutive ages and you choose a new civ each time, civs and leaders can be combined freely, commanders for combat, legacy goals in the ages, leaders that level up, etc. If you aren't aware of these, maybe get more info first

Oh, and as the UI is a mess and hides a lot of info, you might consider to play with some mods from the beginning to avoid some of the things the reviews complain about. Here's a list with recommendations: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...standable-especially-for-a-new-player.696672/

 

[Mark the Bold]

I think the founder's edition is already expired. It's either deluxe or base game. Deluxe is 4 more civs, 2 leaders, and 2 personas for $30. I think you can have fun without these as well and grab them when they are cheaper. Carthage and the personas are rather nice additions though. And if you want to have Great Britain, they are also in that deluxe pack (along with Bulgaria and Nepal, which I personally look forward to - they release on Tuesday).

You know about the main changes, right? No more workers, split game into three consecutive ages and you choose a new civ each time, civs and leaders can be combined freely, commanders for combat, legacy goals in the ages, leaders that level up, etc. If you aren't aware of these, maybe get more info first

Oh, and as the UI is a mess and hides a lot of info, you might consider to play with some mods from the beginning to avoid some of the things the reviews complain about. Here's a list with recommendations: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...standable-especially-for-a-new-player.696672/

Thanks Siptah. You are remarkably un-Swiss with your helpfulness. (regular Südtirol visitor here)

 

[Siptah]

You are remarkably un-Swiss with your helpfulness.

I didn't grow up here

(regular Südtirol visitor here)

A very nice place of the world, but in Italy not Switzerland

 

[ThunderLizard2]

Agree with OP. Given how long they took to make this game it's a disgrace. 57% of recent Civ VII reviews are negative compared to 92% positive for Civ IV.

 

[Yzman]

Time spent doing something and how fun it is are two separate things. Anyway, glad you are enjoying it. Many people are not.

Are you really going to argue that I am playing a game for over 200 hours that I don't find fun? Come on. You can find it fin or not, but don't say ridiculous things like that. This is a game, not work that people play for enjoyment. Clearly time spent has correlation to time enjoyed.

 

[Thormodr]

Are you really going to argue that I am playing a game for over 200 hours that I don't find fun? Come on. You can find it fin or not, but don't say ridiculous things like that. This is a game, not work that people play for enjoyment. Clearly time spent has correlation to time enjoyed.

I spent 120+ hours trying to enjoy 5. I spent more than a reasonable amount of time trying to find fun in it but it was in vain.

So, no. Time spent on something does not equal how good something is.

You may find it enjoyable but the majority do not and that majority is growing as people put more time into it.

 

[Siptah]

You may find it enjoyable but the majority do not and that majority is growing as people put more time into it.

This is a very bold claim with nothing to back it up. A negative review in no way means that the person does not enjoy the game. And the vast majority of owners has not left a review anyway. So, maybe just keep your negativity to yourself and let the people that actually have the game and enjoy let them do this? Criticism of the game is fine, especially if it is constructive, but always pretending that your subjective opinion would in any way be a ground truth or a majority opinion really doesn't help taking you seriously.

 

[youngsteve]

This is a very bold claim with nothing to back it up. A negative review in no way means that the person does not enjoy the game. And the vast majority of owners has not left a review anyway. So, maybe just keep your negativity to yourself and let the people that actually have the game and enjoy let them do this? Criticism of the game is fine, especially if it is constructive, but always pretending that your subjective opinion would in any way be a ground truth or a majority opinion really doesn't help taking you seriously.

I understand you like the game as do others, but none of you can disguise the fact it is losing players massively since release, & are extremely low for a new Civiliization game. I personally can't see this game being saved, certainly not as a big player like Civ 6.

 

[Siptah]

I understand you like the game as do others, but none of you can disguise the fact it is losing players massively since release, & are extremely low for a new Civiliization game. I personally can't see this game being saved, certainly not as a big player like Civ 6.

Which is a fine opinion, and based on some facts at least.

Of course, the launch was very rocky, but as I‘ve said (and showed) multiple times, aside from the reviews it isn‘t out of line for a recent civ game that the player count drops quickly and very low. And I still don’t believe in absolute concurrent peak player numbers as a great metric on their own. If we look at % of owners that play the game, it doesn’t look awful at all, for example. So, many of the people that bought it seem to play it (but of course, this number is also far from plain evidence).

Does this mean the game is super good? No. Does it mean it will be salvaged as were civ V and VI? No.

What get‘s me is the kind of „they took away my toy, and if I can‘t have fun with it, no one else should!“ attitude that I sometimes read from the posts.

 

[youngsteve]

Which is a fine opinion, and based on some facts at least. Of course, the launch was very rocky, but as I‘ve said (and showed) multiple times, aside from the reviews it isn‘t out of line for a recent civ game that the player count drops quickly and very low. And I still don’t believe in absolute concurrent peak player numbers as a great metric on their own. If we look at % of owners that play the game, it doesn’t look awful at all, for example. So, many of the people that bought it seem to play it (but of course, this number is also far from
plain evidence). Does this mean the game is super good? No. Does it mean it will be salvaged as were civ V and VI? No.

As I pointed out in another thread it is very similar to Imperator: Rome. That too was heavily slated upon release & numbers plunged. Paradox, to their credit put out many updates & money into the game to save it to no avail, though ironically changed it into a good game in the end. Unfortunately most players never returned, which is true for most games, I may be wrong but I will be very surprised if the publishers of this game put in the same resources as Paradox to try to save it.

The gaming computer industry is very brutal, & momentum is the main thing for most, whether a game deserves success or not. Many good games have fallen, whilst less deserving ones thrive. I think the problems with Civ 7 are many, game made lots of changes to franchise, lack of long term challenge, failure to give modding tools just like predecessor, overpriced, & releasing basic overpriced DLC which only upsets people. They are just a few of the problems I have noticed, though no doubt others, which people like yourself may disagree with, but in general publishers have dug a hole & likely to be difficult to get out of.

 

[Siptah]

As I pointed out in another thread it is very similar to Imperator: Rome. That too was heavily slated upon release & numbers plunged. Paradox, to their credit put out many updates & money into the game to save it to no avail, though ironically changed it into a good game in the end. Unfortunately most players never returned, which is true for most games, I may be wrong but I will be very surprised if the publishers of this game put in the same resources as Paradox to try to save it.

The gaming computer industry is very brutal, & momentum is the main thing for most, whether a game deserves success or not. Many good games have fallen, whilst less deserving ones thrive. I think the problems with Civ 7 are many, game made lots of changes to franchise, lack of long term challenge, failure to give modding tools just like predecessor, overpriced, & releasing basic overpriced DLC which only upsets people. They are just a few of the problems I have noticed, though no doubt others, which people like yourself may disagree with, but in general publishers have dug a hole & likely to be difficult to get out of.

I looks like our opinions aren‘t actually that different. But I actually think 2k/FXS has the resources and long term planning to get against the momentum with time. Like paradox games, I view civ as long term projects, and not 1-year titles. I don‘t like 2k but I trust them that they invest many years in civ 7. if they don‘t I think civ as a franchise and FXS might as well close down.

Imperator is an interesting case. To me, it was weak at launch, and turned into a good but not great game over time. The reason why I don‘t play it anymore isn‘t mechanics - these are good, maybe the best currently in strategy games. The problem is it‘s emptiness and sameness, and that‘s due to the setting. There are many „players“ that could be fleshed out with more content. But 50% of the map and 90% of the „players“ are unlikely to ever get detailed content. Compare that to EU and CK, where almost everybody has something unique going. In Imperator, it doesn‘t matter at all if you play Gaul tribe A, or B, Iberian tribe C, British tribe D. All play the same: no content and start as an OPM in the midst of other OPMs. I think this is a long-term problem of Imperator that can‘t really be solved.

You may have the same stance on civ 7: ages will be a long term problem that will never be solved. But I would disagree there

 

[youngsteve]

I looks like our opinions aren‘t actually that different. But I actually think 2k/FXS has the resources and long term planning to get against the momentum with time. Like paradox games, I view civ as long term projects, and not 1-year titles. I don‘t like 2k but I trust them that they invest many years in civ 7. if they don‘t I think civ as a franchise and FXS might as well close down.

Imperator is an interesting case. To me, it was weak at launch, and turned into a good but not great game over time. The reason why I don‘t play it anymore isn‘t mechanics - these are good, maybe the best currently in strategy games. The problem is it‘s emptiness and sameness, and that‘s due to the setting. There are many „players“ that could be fleshed out with more content. But 50% of the map and 90% of the „players“ are unlikely to ever get detailed content. Compare that to EU and CK, where almost everybody has something unique going. In Imperator, it doesn‘t matter at all if you play Gaul tribe A, or B, Iberian tribe C, British tribe D. All play the same: no content and start as an OPM in the midst of other OPMs. I think this is a long-term problem of Imperator that can‘t really be solved.

You may have the same stance on civ 7: ages will be a long term problem that will never be solved. But I would disagree there

You seem to have similar tastes to me in strategy. I too like EU & CK games, whereas I was reluctant to take to Imperator, which as you say was empty & a map painter at heart, as the main developer informed me. I never got it until alot later, & by then the game was much improved though as you say was not great though a good game. The modders though did it improve it somewhat as they do to many Paradox games. Certain mods are like what Vox Populi mod did to Civ 5 changing it into a different game. All credit to Paradox for this, & is the reason their games are popular, as even if there are issues modders normally come to the resuce. Unfortunately, this cannot be said for Civ 6, 7, as publishers don't trust their customers making significant changes & don't give them the modding tools to improve the games. Yes I know you can mod those games, but not like other companies games can be modded.

I don't know about you, but I am like most players that if a game that I have bought isn't working I do one of three things. Either await patches to make it better more likely coming back, two planning to go back eventually, but never do, moving permanently on to something else, or three leave game in disgust, never returning. I think most people are like the second, which is why most games that start of badly fail to recover. That is the problem with all customers, whatever their income or spare time, all only have a finite amount of this time to spread about, & human beings are not known for their patience.

 

[user746383]

I don’t think it’s really up to us which opinions are fine or not, it’s a discussion board and opinions (even ones we disagree with) are allowed rather than sorting then into which ones are okay to post and which should be kept to ourselves. Except personal attacks and rule breaking of course.

Moderator Action: If you have an issue with what is being posted, please report it and staff will deal with it. You are not a staff member and this is a statement of policy instead of participating in the conversation so it is off topic. Please stay on topic. leif