I'm clicking the "retire" button on Civ VII

[McSpank01]

I certainly have not bothered to load up the game since the new update. I didn't see anything in that update that makes me think that the game has been improved enough to make it a lot more fun than it was.

I do buy into the vision of what the devs wanted to make, which is why I also agree with OPs position that many decisions seem to be 'crowdsourced' rather than based on a strong core design team determined to create an amazing product. So when people talk about 'the biggest and best patch yet!!!' I stare into space, because clearly the big problems with the game have not been solved, and are not going to be solved in the near future. That is the most concerning part.

I want them to get it right, and I do think it is possible to make ages work. Them spending time finding ways to give players the option of turning stuff off and on again doesn't fill me with hope, it's just pure pandering to the audience.

 

[Krikkit1]

I certainly have not bothered to load up the game since the new update. I didn't see anything in that update that makes me think that the game has been improved enough to make it a lot more fun than it was.

I do buy into the vision of what the devs wanted to make, which is why I also agree with OPs position that many decisions seem to be 'crowdsourced' rather than based on a strong core design team determined to create an amazing product. So when people talk about 'the biggest and best patch yet!!!' I stare into space, because clearly the big problems with the game have not been solved, and are not going to be solved in the near future. That is the most concerning part.

I want them to get it right, and I do think it is possible to make ages work. Them spending time finding ways to give players the option of turning stuff off and on again doesn't fill me with hope, it's just pure pandering to the audience.

I disagree. They can pursue their vision.. "getting it right" while allowing elements of their vision to be switched off for... those who don't like the current implementation of that element OR those who won't like any implementation of that feature.

That way someone that wants a strategy game can use the legacy paths or crises when they have reached the point the player wants, and a sandboxer can switch them off and just play one more turn.

Same as big maps, etc. hopefully they allow ways to disable the graphics for better performance on lower end machines... that doesn't mean they shouldn't keep optimizing and improving the graphics, but provides additional options for different players.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I disagree. They can pursue their vision.. "getting it right" while allowing elements of their vision to be switched off for... those who don't like the current implementation of that element OR those who won't like any implementation of that feature.

That way someone that wants a strategy game can use the legacy paths or crises when they have reached the point the player wants, and a sandboxer can switch them off and just play one more turn.

That's one hypothesis for sure. I guess we'll see if it has any merit from whether the game can maintain a higher concurrent user base after the patch. If not, it'll be apparent that it's not retained players any better and it's was a futile exercise that didn't make a difference to those who are dissatisfied enough with the game to stop playing it, but may have given those who do keep playing it more options to enjoy it

 

[user746383]

They wedged themselves good between the proverbial rock and hard place, it's hard to do the right thing. They have the group of players who already love the game and wish people would stop complaining about it. There's a group of players who like the vision but don't think they've executed on it yet, and one who aren't sure if they like the vision because they haven't executed. And there's people who are sure they'll never like it.

The last one is a lost cause as far as the devs are concerned so they can be ignored. They can't fix things for the second or third group without pissing off the first group, unless they provide configuration options that let people keep playing it just like they already like it. The second and third groups have all decided they like different things, and Firaxis also doesn't even seem to be sure what they want the game to be, they're just mainly sorry it was rushed and trying to clean up that mess for now.

So do you potentially piss off the small group of people who love your game as-is in the hopes of finding a new larger audience for a different vision, when that audience might never show up and you're not even sure what your vision is?

For all these reasons, that's why we're getting lots of customisability. This buys them time to hopefully figure out what they want this game to be (which is maybe even the game as-is) and then deliver that, without losing the little audience they do have. Maybe it's too safe and is going to result in butter spread over too much bread, but you could see why they'd try that route.

All the while the clock is ticking, and if they take too long the world will just move on to new games.

 

[McSpank01]

I disagree. They can pursue their vision.. "getting it right" while allowing elements of their vision to be switched off for... those who don't like the current implementation of that element OR those who won't like any implementation of that feature.

My issue, as I've said elsewhere, is that there should be the strength of conviction from the devs to say 'We designed this game with a vision, and we are going to keep tweaking that until it works, and believe me, you will like the final product'.

Right now, it's more a huge admission that the core concepts behind the game don't work and so they are going to backtrack and just allow you to turn them off. It's just a bad look, and it doesn't fill me with confidence. I know they have made public statements that they thing age transitions could be smoother, but I'm yet to see a clear plan on how they think they can fix that. The answer is never going to be allowing users to turn it off. Giving users the ability to turn stuff off is not a fix for anything.

 

[McSpank01]

All the while the clock is ticking, and if they take too long the world will just move on to new games.

I've bought 2 other games since Civ 7 came out, and I rarely buy games. I'm also realising how many great games are out there. I see most of the Civ YouTubers are experimenting with other games to find an income stream, and I don't think they will come back if they don't enjoy the game.

 

[user746383]

Giving the users the ability to turn stuff off is a reasonable thing to experiment with if you're in early access and still trying to figure out what makes your game fun. I think reality is we're a lot closer to that than that they have a compelling, strong vision that they know we're going to love. Or at least I take less psychic damage if I try to accept that way.

 

[Gorbles]

There is a difference between experimentation.... and doing something but calling it something else.

Civ7 is not just a "evolved" Civ game.... it is something else pretending to be a Civ game copying elements from it and riding on the brand recognition.

Agree to disagree.

It's not a shakeup... it's a rejection of what Civ fundamentally is.

Fundamentally disagree. The developers decide what Civ is. They decided it was time for a shakeup.

You can disagree with the direction chosen, but you own the design direction of the franchise as much as I do. Which is to say, not at all.

Again, for some people, Civ stopped at Civ IV. For you it stopped here. Valid opinion. But nothing more.

 

[user746383]

How can you tell the difference at this point though between intentional shakeup and unfinished game? It's hard, unless you're one of the lucky few who likes it just as it is. I couldn't really say it's evolved in some meaningful way without more time for them to sort it out. Even something as simple as the graphics - they are different, they are more detailed, but they are also way harder to read and there are fewer colors and everything sort of blurs into each other. Is that an evolution? Not really sure yet, is it intentional that it's so hard to read or is that something they plan to fix?

 

[Gorbles]

How can you tell the difference at this point though between intentional shakeup and unfinished game? It's hard, unless you're one of the lucky few who likes it just as it is. I couldn't really say it's evolved in some meaningful way without more time for them to sort it out.

It can be both.

A shakeup is design; intent. Not even execution. Something can be designed poorly. Something also can be executed poorly. Something can be released early. Something can be all of those things too.

The rough state VII launched in has me more annoyed than anything else. It made it hard, if not impossible, to separate weaker mechanics from poor UX or signposting. This made it hard to get good player feedback, because the root cause was always obscured. We're now seeing (and have seen, since release) mechanical improvements. But this would've been a much clearer path had 2K given Firaxis the time the project needed.

It's true that projects cannot be funded indefinitely, but looking at what's happening post-release, they're investing into the game regardless (without ROI due to the second DLC being pushed back). So they're putting money into it either way (released as it was, or delayed for polish).

Was the quarterly report worth it? Doubtful. But that's the incentive for shareholders, so.

 

[McSpank01]

How can you tell the difference at this point though between intentional shakeup and unfinished game? It's hard, unless you're one of the lucky few who likes it just as it is. I couldn't really say it's evolved in some meaningful way without more time for them to sort it out. Even something as simple as the graphics - they are different, they are more detailed, but they are also way harder to read and there are fewer colors and everything sort of blurs into each other. Is that an evolution? Not really sure yet, is it intentional that it's so hard to read or is that something they plan to fix?

It definitely feels like a case of 2 steps forward, one step back.. maybe even 2 steps back with Civ 7. There is plenty to like about some of the ideas, but the issue is that it has to compete against Civ 6 which had many years to evolve and become a complete game. In that way, Civ 7 had to do something different.

That it just seems to be lacking even basic things you would have expected at launch just seems baffling to me. How do we not have map tacks for instance? Something so fundamental, they just leave out. How did they not have a functioning tech tree with pathing.

With a new game, you would expect the scope of it to be smaller than the last version, but that it would be able to do the things it does very well. When there are just basic quality of life stuff in the previous games, that somehow were forgotten and not included, that just seems criminal.

 

[user746383]

Makes sense Gorbles. I didn't follow closely along with the design communications, so I'm only looking at the end product and trying to figure out what was design intent and what was a mistake. If I had I'd probably feel quite different since I could tell them apart better.

 

[Rambo919]

Agree to disagree.

Fundamentally disagree. The developers decide what Civ is. They decided it was time for a shakeup.

So if I develop a solitaire card game but I use cars bumping into each other.... I can change what solitaire card games are?

You can disagree with the direction chosen, but you own the design direction of the franchise as much as I do. Which is to say, not at all.

You fail to distinguish between brand ownership and the fundamental nature of a product. This is not magic, you can't just poof something into being something else because you can get people to agree with you. With your logic they can make an RTS and it will still legitimately be a Civ game.

Again, for some people, Civ stopped at Civ IV. For you it stopped here. Valid opinion. But nothing more.

Re-read what I wrote instead of skimming over..... and you might notice your mistake.

 

[j51]

Yes, but is the solution to any perceived problems for firaxis to continue making changes to the game based on feedback, or should they power on with their vision and begin releasing more content? (Essentially that’s what this thread is about right? It’s not another one of those threads arguing about the platonic ideal of civ and whether 7 lives up to that; is it?)

 

[user746383]

It’s more another person is leaving civ7 thread, which tends to touch on the reasons why someone would want to do that / how to prevent it.

 

[Gorbles]

So if I develop a solitaire card game but I use cars bumping into each other.... I can change what solitaire card games are?

Apples and oranges, I'm afraid. A change to how your civilisation evolves through a singular game in Civilisation is not "everything is now piñatas and you control them in the first person". You're appealing to absurdity.

I understand why you feel that way, what else do you want me to say?

You fail to distinguish between brand ownership and the fundamental nature of a product. This is not magic, you can't just poof something into being something else because you can get people to agree with you. With your logic they can make an RTS and it will still legitimately be a Civ game.

I don't fail to distinguish anything. You're presenting a subjective limit being crossed as being analogous to changing the entire genre of the game.

Re-read what I wrote instead of skimming over..... and you might notice your mistake.

I'd prefer it if you said it plainly.

 

[McSpank01]

Yes, but is the solution to any perceived problems for firaxis to continue making changes to the game based on feedback, or should they power on with their vision and begin releasing more content? (Essentially that’s what this thread is about right? It’s not another one of those threads arguing about the platonic ideal of civ and whether 7 lives up to that; is it?)

I think the solution is to stick to their vision and keep iterating till it works. Their vision is clearly a game based on ages and building on the civ from the previous age. It clearly involves legacy paths and age specific 'victory conditions'. You can make all those things work in a coherent way, but it's going to take more work it seems.

I want them to keep legacy paths, but make them more interesting and interactive, give me a variety of ways to win a culture legacy path.. not a 'collect X things' style victory.

They just need to put more work into fine tuning and sculpting basic elements of the game, not just scrap them or pretend they don't exist.

 

[StargazingDog]

power on with their vision and begin releasing more content?

This is what I would have preferred. The patch 1 version of the game, but with outstanding bugs fixed, UI cleaned up and made useful, and release the extra content.

Instead we get changes to core mechanics based on "feedback". Oh, some players are complaining that towns grow too slowly, let's lower the food requirements. Oh, now we have to change certain civs to account for this food change. Oh, now specialists are too strong. Oh, now certain towns are too strong. Oh, now production feels too weak. When will it end? Why are we beta testing changes proposed by the vocal minority because Firaxis has no focus?

I bought the game on Steam, not Kickstarter.

 

[Krikkit1]

My issue, as I've said elsewhere, is that there should be the strength of conviction from the devs to say 'We designed this game with a vision, and we are going to keep tweaking that until it works, and believe me, you will like the final product'.

That would be a stupid approach if they are selling to more than one person.

All civs have had the ability to shut different key things off… like victories, or AIs that attack you, or the first part of the game (advanced start), etc. Different players will like different things.

Having the ability to shutoff Legacy Paths or Crises isn’t abandoning the vision. And they will have to balance the game based on feedback. Because that not only lets them know what people like but how games actually develop.

Civ 7 was definitely unfinished, but no civ game released online was released in a finished state. (Civ7 is probably worse than others partly due to the big changes.)

 

[Sagax]

I think the solution is to stick to their vision and keep iterating till it works. Their vision is clearly a game based on ages and building on the civ from the previous age. It clearly involves legacy paths and age specific 'victory conditions'. You can make all those things work in a coherent way, but it's going to take more work it seems.

I want them to keep legacy paths, but make them more interesting and interactive, give me a variety of ways to win a culture legacy path.. not a 'collect X things' style victory.

They just need to put more work into fine tuning and sculpting basic elements of the game, not just scrap them or pretend they don't exist.

You insist that them giving an option to turn off legacy paths means total capitulation on that front, scrapped design, and abandonment of the feature. I still disagree with this assertion and see these updates as nothing more than a way for players to customize their games for the time being. I won't even be surprised if FXS's mindset on this was exactly "well, it's no different from turning off victory conditions in the past".

If we see no notable changes to the legacy system in the first expansion, then I will join your sentiment. Maybe it's me being cynical, but I have zero expectations for pre-expansion patches/DLCs to shake up the game in any meaningful way. For now, this just feels like jumping to conclusions too fast.