IGN: "Civilization 7 Dev Firaxis Says 'There's Hope for Gandhi, Yet'"

[fantsu]

Considering that Steam reviews for major games are basically as close to the Infinite Monkeys Hypothesis as we actually get in reality, finding a good number that complain about any given topic is hardly an achievement.

I think this tells you about the modern state of game developing? And mostly how its managed and on whos schedules.
Many can agree, that while we have the most advanced hardware of the time, we just don't live in a golden age of gaming.
Passion and love are gone and only thing that matters is profits. Dystopy.
But it will get better, I am sure. It will fix itself when idiots like me stop spending over $100 on a half written piece of bits.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Good things, then, that is not what I said.


I bolded the operative part for your benefit, since it seemed difficult to identify. This is not a statement that "bad reviews overall are irrelevant" - that the reviews are mixed or bad is indeed concerning! It's a statement that among the reviews of a game (even a well-reviewed one!), you are likely to find complaints about *every* feature in the game - regardless of how popular or unpopular any particular feature actually is. You need far more than a few (or even "several") reviews mentioning a topic before you can claim a design decision is a major contributor to the bad reviews.

Latching on to a handful of bad reviews that mention Britain to proclaim that leaving Britain out is a major cause of the bad review is not sound analysis. It's projecting.

This is kind of a strawman what my actual position here is though. I'm not arguing that Britain specifically is the major issue and the only reason for poor sales. I've said it repeatedly that leaving Britain out is a microcosm of the problem, which specifically is the DLC model and the leader/civ choices being made by Firaxis, which is consistently mentioned in negative reviews after negative across the platform. The game released to almost majority negative reviews and looking through the first page of negative reviews nearly a quarter of these reviews will mention either leader/civ choices and/or money grubbing DLC model and again just the people actually bought the game (many at over $100 USD), which I'll remind you is underperforming currently. Outside of those reviews you can look at the constant arguments and 10+ page topics across civ communities to come to the conclusion that the leader/civ choices and DLC model have been contentious and driven many away alongside the UI, civ swapping, ages, etc.

 

[Evie]

@fantsu

It tells me that, and many other things.

For one, it tells me that a lot of your observation are the direct result of those advances in hardware. Because advancing hardware means more capable system - but they mean more complex game codes with more complex graphics to take advantage of those selfsame hardware.,

Which means that the price of making games is increasing exponentially as the hardware become better, while the ability of players to pay for those games is not increasing at a comparable rate. It means you're less and less able to work on games that actually use the hardware as small passion projects by yourself or with a few friends, and more and more need to have dozens and dozens of specialized employees each with their own skill sets who cannot just step into each other's shoes. Which means you need to keep paying those people for their work, which means you need to continue making money (or having it provided by investors) while you work on the game. Which means that you hae to finish the game before the money runs out. All that, and it's the direct result of those super-advanced hardware. But decide not to take advantage of those super-advanced hardware, and (unless you're an indie dev selling your game at an indie price), you get crucified.

So how do game developers solve this? They try to have game as services. They try to have a lot of DLCs. They sell cosmetics. Basically, they try to maintain a constant stream of cash to keep themselves funded to allow for development to go on and on. And they raise prices (significantly) on the new games. All of which, of course, people complain about.

But contrary to what the people complaining think, there is no easy solution. The hardware race is forcing this money-driven approach to game making on everyone, and (with rare exceptions where someone with really deep pockets is funding their own passion project or something like that), this means we're trapped in the above cycle. This is not a problem technology is solving ; it's a problem technology is *creating*.

Because, and this is the other aspect all those complaints tell me, we live in an age of entitlement. People have no patience for anything that is less than their idea of perfect, and they act accordingly. Even minor bug or annoying feature that still leave the game entirely playable get labeled "unplayable" and "game-killing bugs". The ability to compromise on game feature is likewise gone: if they dare design the game differently from what we're used to or want, we spend hours protesting it. "I had this before in your other games, so I should have this in this one too" is the order of the day.

Which is not to say all those complaints are invalid. Many are highlighting real problems. But the intensity of the response to problems, treating even a frankly bad UI as some sort of game-ending crime against mankind, is usually entirely disproportionate.

 

[fantsu]

@fantsu

It tells me that, and many other things.

For one, it tells me that a lot of your observation are the direct result of those advances in hardware. Because advancing hardware means more capable system - but they mean more complex game codes with more complex graphics to take advantage of those selfsame hardware.,

Which means that the price of making games is increasing exponentially as the hardware become better, while the ability of players to pay for those games is not increasing at a comparable rate. It means you're less and less able to work on games that actually use the hardware as small passion projects by yourself or with a few friends, and more and more need to have dozens and dozens of specialized employees each with their own skill sets who cannot just step into each other's shoes. Which means you need to keep paying those people for their work, which means you need to continue making money (or having it provided by investors) while you work on the game. Which means that you hae to finish the game before the money runs out. All that, and it's the direct result of those super-advanced hardware. But decide not to take advantage of those super-advanced hardware, and (unless you're an indie dev selling your game at an indie price), you get crucified.

So how do game developers solve this? They try to have game as services. They try to have a lot of DLCs. They sell cosmetics. Basically, they try to maintain a constant stream of cash to keep themselves funded to allow for development to go on and on. And they raise prices (significantly) on the new games. All of which, of course, people complain about.

But contrary to what the people complaining think, there is no easy solution. The hardware race is forcing this money-driven approach to game making on everyone, and (with rare exceptions where someone with really deep pockets is funding their own passion project or something like that), this means we're trapped in the above cycle. This is not a problem technology is solving ; it's a problem technology is *creating*.

Because, and this is the other aspect all those complaints tell me, we live in an age of entitlement. People have no patience for anything that is less than their idea of perfect, and they act accordingly. Even minor bug or annoying feature that still leave the game entirely playable get labeled "unplayable" and "game-killing bugs". The ability to compromise on game feature is likewise gone: if they dare design the game differently from what we're used to or want, we spend hours protesting it. "I had this before in your other games, so I should have this in this one too" is the order of the day.

Which is not to say all those complaints are invalid. Many are highlighting real problems. But the intensity of the response to problems, treating even a frankly bad UI as some sort of game-ending crime against mankind, is usually entirely disproportionate.

I do agree on many things.
But the problem is that the original Sid Meier's Civilization feels more complete. More fair. And a better game.

Modern hardware might mean more graphics. More effects. I myself dont really care. But this game doesnt even look like a modern game, to be quite frank? Zoom in on a river on IV or V. Water just looks better. Day and night cycle you know. That this lacks. This looks more mobile than many games fifteen years ago. Objects are nice (like rocks and trees), but they fit to the landscape like an 90s game.
But yeah, I would take modern 2D civ myself if the gameplay is spot on.
So where the time went? On UI?
So where my $110 went? 2K:s money island in Caribbean maybe.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

I'm sorry but that is absolutely not the perception most of the public have of Lovelace

i was thinking the same thing, this poster's view is massively out of of step with the average consumer. Churchill and Lovelace in the same breath is a massive reach.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Because, and this is the other aspect all those complaints tell me, we live in an age of entitlement. People have no patience for anything that is less than their idea of perfect, and they act accordingly. Even minor bug or annoying feature that still leave the game entirely playable get labeled "unplayable" and "game-killing bugs". The ability to compromise on game feature is likewise gone: if they dare design the game differently from what we're used to or want, we spend hours protesting it. "I had this before in your other games, so I should have this in this one too" is the order of the day.

So it's entitlement to expect a relatively bugfree, feature complete, and well designed at a game's launch? Again this just reads like you trying to defend corporations like Firaxis and 2K from valid criticism and I'll point out that Path of Exile 2 wasn't released to negative/mixed reviews despite the many changes it made from its POE1 and neither was BG3 and its plays completely differently from its predessecor. I don't remember a near quarter of negative reviews mentioning that the game has been dumbed down because its no longer real time. So again something else must be at work here....

Which is not to say all those complaints are invalid. Many are highlighting real problems. But the intensity of the response to problems, treating even a frankly bad UI as some sort of game-ending crime against mankind, is usually entirely disproportionate.

4x and strategy games live or die by their UI, it's our primary way you interacting with the entire game. If it's ugly, tells you nothing, and in many cases actually actively works against you as a players (peace deals, trade routes) it is a major issue.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

and this is exactly the reason why no one should be surprised that we on the other side of this argument struggle to sympathize with your want for more obscure civs and leaders that cut into time, resources, and devolopment required to give us the civs and leaders we actually want and which actually drive sales and excitement for the series.

You're totally entitled to your opinion but I don't think your position is the popular one among the fan base and the low playercounts and constant criticism of civ/leader choices and DLC model should make that obvious to Firaxis.

i want a classic, masculine leader for British Empire that i can roleplay as. Ada's selection hindered that.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

Only wanting civs and leaders you know about is really weird to me. This is a game about history, do you guys not like learning???

Tired of this refrain. if i wanted to learn, i would read a book on that subject. way better way to learn. why would i play civ to learn about civ? i want to play as the leaders and civilizations i have learned about.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

Unless the one isn't even a leader at all. But some overly privileged, blue booded white playing a scientist, now capable leading any nation and conquer the world. Its falsifying history at best.
And its not an end of the world. And I can live with it. I dont personally like it and its fine if others do.
Ignorance to others opinions is what many cannot seek inside indeed.
I know DLC will sell better when Sid's vision is followed later on. Sadly this is just a way to make the milking happen. And its quite blatant.
I am strongly against saving series staples later to milk cash and giving some minor local the honors.
Its not about if you are willing to "teach history" or "willing to learn anything", its plain greed.

"teach history", or push revionist agenda?

 

[TheGrayFox]

i want a classic, masculine leader for British Empire that i can roleplay as. Ada's selection hindered that.

I don't even care about being "masculine" I'd take Elizabeth I or Victoria over an obscure and relatively unaccomplished scientist.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

During the most recent livestream, Beach said that GB was left out this time because they hadn't got it right in Civ VI, and because they got it wrong, they had to go back and change it. He said this time, they wanted to take the time to make sure they got GB "right," which meant they had to delay their inclusion. That was his explanation.

so the argument he puts forward is the only way to correctly implement great britain is to exclude it from the game entirely? Makes sense.

 

[Evie]

And yet, if you look at code size, how many line of code are there in the original Civ? And how many line of codes for Civ VII?

The very nature of the advanced hardware is that it takes a lot more work to do to modern capabilities what could be done with much less code for much less complicated machine - because instead of using the advanced hardware to facilitate production we used it to increase expectations.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

Oh, and further on the topic of Britain not being the first empire on which the sun never sets...

They won't be the last Empire on Which the Sun Never Sets, either. Because on March 21st, when the Sun sets on the British Empire...there will still be one empire left on which the sun never sets. Because it turns out that Europe + Carribeans Islands (and South America) + Pacific Islands + Indian Ocean Islands is a pretty "sun doesn't set" geography.

Allons enfants de la patrie...

UK decisively outmaneuvered France throughout their rivalry and has undoubtedly been the victor in their rivalry. the Anglosphere is the dominant cultural/economic/political force on earth and will continue to be for the forseeable future.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

I don't disagree I would rather have put Prussia or Russia in the expansions, but I don't see it as a mistake. Any exclusions will be protested by vocal elements of the fanbase, and the more English speakers, especially English first language speakers, the louder they'll be; I'm unconvinced how broad the impact will be on sales.

Not my preference, but not something I'd call a mista

Good things, then, that is not what I said.


I bolded the operative part for your benefit, since it seemed difficult to identify. This is not a statement that "bad reviews overall are irrelevant" - that the reviews are mixed or bad is indeed concerning! It's a statement that among the reviews of a game (even a well-reviewed one!), you are likely to find complaints about *every* feature in the game - regardless of how popular or unpopular any particular feature actually is. You need far more than a few (or even "several") reviews mentioning a topic before you can claim a design decision is a major contributor to the bad reviews.

Latching on to a handful of bad reviews that mention Britain to proclaim that leaving Britain out is a major cause of the bad review is not sound analysis. It's projecting.

its symptomatic of the poor planning and implementation to the game. No GB is a boneheaded decision that reflects developers out of touch with their consumers.

 

[canadamufc]

It's funny sometimes to see, year after year, people treating civilisations and leaders like the characters in a fighting game roster.

To be honest, I think this is part of the fun of the reveal cycle. Where would we be without the countless arguments of civ/leader inclusions

It's part of the beauty of Civ.

 

[Buni0ns]

There is hope for Ghandi - but none for your wallet, should probably be the full quote.

 

[queenpea]

UK decisively outmaneuvered France throughout their rivalry and has undoubtedly been the victor in their rivalry. the Anglosphere is the dominant cultural/economic/political force on earth and will continue to be for the forseeable future.

This comment alone makes me glad the “Anglosphere” has to wait an extra month to join the game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This comment alone makes me glad the “Anglosphere” has to wait an extra month to join the game.

Um... America is already in the game.

 

[Siptah]

Um... America is already in the game.

That‘s just a civ meme since a few decades, it shouldn’t be taken seriously as a civ. It‘s comparable to Gandhi always showing up.

 

[queenpea]

Um... America is already in the game.

Come to think of it…Normandy is as well! And because “England” is basically a bastardization/extension of France, I think we are covered. That’s enough representation, me thinks. Glad that’s sorted finally!