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

[McSpank01]

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

Again, it appears like it is abandoning the vision if they don't communicate a clear plan on how to actually fix those things. Have they said how they are going to improve Legacy Paths or Crises? Do you know that they will ever get to a point where they are fun and fufil the design vision? Right now all they have done is give you the option to turn them off.

Plus, what is the motivation for players wanting to turn these features off. It isn't because they want to have a certain type of unique experience, mostly it would be because those features don't work very well and need to be switched off to improve the game.

Surely, people must see how that is different to just 'giving players freedom'

 

[Rambo919]

Apples and oranges, I'm afraid.

Exactly everything up to 6 was apples, and 7 is an orange.

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.

It might not be everything, but it is a necessary component otherwise the result is something else. Otherwise you can progressively remove everything that makes it a Civ game and still call it a CIv game. Changing out Civ's a few times in one playthrough makes it something other than a CIv game... a CIv's game perhaps? It's kinda literally in the grammar.

All this drama regarding that particular change would never have happned if they called it CIvilizations instead of Civilization 7.... if they REALLY wanted to reboot the franshise then they should have done so honestly instead of trying to ride on the coat tails of a superior product.

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

No feelings are involved, this is simple logic.

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

No subjective limit, your logic dictates that whomever holds the brand rights can dictate what is and is not a kind of game.... this means they can make anything and as long as they call it "Civilization X" it automatically must be a Civ game regardless of what it actually is. Using that logic you can incrementally release Civ versions until it is completely real time and all of them would be the same kind of game. But it can also mean that C&C Renegade is exactly the same kind of game that the other C&C's are... because the same brand holders gave it a C&C name.

I'd prefer it if you said it plainly.

I did, to rehash: 5 started off as a bad Civ game (but still Civ) and was only saved by the VP team, 6 is still a pretty bad Civ game with no hope of salvation.... 7 is a Civ-like but not a Civ game. Civ6 might be a bad Civ game.... but it was the last Civ game letting the series die in imfamy only no one has noticed yet because a pretender calls itself Civ7. Ironically the worst Civ game had the highest player count by and accident of history in it's timing and how it was dumbed down so much it could be released on a handheld.

What actually happened is there was a rash of Civ-likes (or clones if you want to put it that way) and some of them fiddled with the formula in new ways.... now FIraxis is cloning the clones instead of refreshing CIv.... and the result is the slow motion trainwreck everyone seems to be arguing over. In their apparent panic they don't have any faith in that which made Civ Civ. None of the clones thus far are CIv games, they just borrow heavily from it.... though some of them actually almost surpassed Civ6 but none of them really seems to have hit their stride... which just plain frustrates me frankly. The result of I think of all of them focussing on style over substance.... and style is cute at first but then it becomes overwhelmingly annoying.

But in case you think I am angry... I briefly was and got over it months ago when I got over 6 being what it is and let go of my foolish hope that they might actually finish it one day instead of just heaping up fluff the way they ended up doing. As I also said, 3,4 & 5 are basically being actively maintained by mod authors so 6+ really is absolutely irrelevant to me at this point.... that does not mean I won't call out CIv7 for what it is... something that disengenuously pretends to be a Civ game for brand recognition coasting.

My prediction is CIv7 is going to be even worse than Civ6 was to the point where Firaxes gets into trouble of some kind, because the devs literally don't understand what a Civ game really is or they have moron execs trying to do exactly what you are advocating for. At best it's going to cause the trouble for FIraxis that Starfield caused for Bethesda. For now I just sit in bemusement as the games media (pravda type moutpieces for the industry) tries their kinda embarrised best to provide cover the disaster.

Now I could always be wrong... but there are no indications that the trends wont end where I think they will.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

As far as Civ VII goes I see their main vision being two things which is "civ switching" and the different "Ages". As far as I can tell neither one of those will go away because that would mess up the whole game and go against their initial vision, which is "history is built in layers".

Now the crisis and legacy points are attributes of the Ages, but the core part of it remains.

 

[Rambo919]

As far as Civ VII goes I see their main vision being two things which is "civ switching" and the different "Ages". As far as I can tell neither one of those will go away because that would mess up the whole game and go against their initial vision, which is "history is built in layers".

Now the crisis and legacy points are attributes of the Ages, but the core part of it remains.

I wonder what the reaction (both long and short term) would be if a mod that successfully disables this becomes popular.....

 

[Krikkit1]

Again, it appears like it is abandoning the vision if they don't communicate a clear plan on how to actually fix those things. Have they said how they are going to improve Legacy Paths or Crises? Do you know that they will ever get to a point where they are fun and fufil the design vision? Right now all they have done is give you the option to turn them off.

Plus, what is the motivation for players wanting to turn these features off. It isn't because they want to have a certain type of unique experience, mostly it would be because those features don't work very well and need to be switched off to improve the game.

Surely, people must see how that is different to just 'giving players freedom'

They have changed
Modern Economic
Modern Cultural
Exploration Cultural
Exploration Economic

in some fairly substantial ways

Some of the switching them of is just options... did the "switching off victory types" option in previous civs mean that the victories were bad*?
or just that some people liked playing something different.

Playing with amazingly designed Legacy paths will not create the game feel some people want, so if they can get the feel they do want by simply switching those off... then that is a good option to include. Same as they have Map options and Speed options and Disaster/Crisis options and Multiplayer or Single player options and number of player options, and age length options, etc.


*here is the issue, you can almost never truly say a game feature is actually bad,,, you can say that you don't enjoy it, you can say that lots of people don't enjoy it, maybe the devs don't enjoy the way it actually works... but none of those make it "bad" for everyone.

 

[Krikkit1]

I wonder what the reaction (both long and short term) would be if a mod that successfully disables this becomes popular.....

I mean its probably doable.
Have a game where the Victories are in "Antiquity" but "Antiquity" includes Nuclear Fission Tech and Ages are set to 1000 standard speed turns long

Certain Civs already need a specific tech for their UU, so just apply that..
Rome needs Iron Working for Legions
Spain needs Gunpowder for Tercios
etc. and both Spain and Rome get to be "Antiquity" civs...
some things would need to be adjusted for different civ uniques, but its probably doable.

of course you need to decide if ...
Anything causes buildings go obsolete or if you will be building an Altar next to your Factory
Anything causes resources go obsolete/change effects or if Salt will give +20% production for Tanks
etc.
but that depends on what the person who makes the mod wants

 

[Gorbles]

Exactly everything up to 6 was apples, and 7 is an orange.

In your opinion. I disagree.

It might not be everything, but it is a necessary component otherwise the result is something else. Otherwise you can progressively remove everything that makes it a Civ game and still call it a CIv game. Changing out Civ's a few times in one playthrough makes it something other than a CIv game... a CIv's game perhaps? It's kinda literally in the grammar.

You could.

But that isn't what has happened, which makes this apples and oranges.

To get pedantic for a second, your logic here rests of "changings Civs, plural, means it is no longer Civ, singular".

But Civ games never had a single Civ in it. You always play against others.

No feelings are involved, this is simple logic.

It's your opinion, which is inherently emotive. We're emotive creatures. That said, that's just my opinion and this isn't a philosophy thread.

The fact we can disagree over opinion proves to me it isn't "pure logic". Or rather, that logic is something we interpret, as humans.

I did, to rehash: 5 started off as a bad Civ game (but still Civ) and was only saved by the VP team, 6 is still a pretty bad Civ game with no hope of salvation.... 7 is a Civ-like but not a Civ game.

Agree to disagree. Can't you do the same?

No subjective limit, your logic dictates that whomever holds the brand rights can dictate what is and is not a kind of game.... this means they can make anything and as long as they call it "Civilization X" it automatically must be a Civ game regardless of what it actually is. Using that logic you can incrementally release Civ versions until it is completely real time and all of them would be the same kind of game. But it can also mean that C&C Renegade is exactly the same kind of game that the other C&C's are... because the same brand holders gave it a C&C name.

They can, yes.

It's your opinion that Civ VII has changed so much that this qualifies. I disagree. I am and should be allowed to.

 

[misesfan]

*here is the issue, you can almost never truly say a game feature is actually bad,,, you can say that you don't enjoy it, you can say that lots of people don't enjoy it, maybe the devs don't enjoy the way it actually works... but none of those make it "bad" for everyone.

They went from an empire building game to a deckbuilding, mobile-minded, game on rails. It is literally communicated in the change of motto- from 'build an empire...' to 'build something....'
This change is baked in the game's design DNA and I dont think it can be (or will be) fixed.

 

[Shirotora Kenshin]

go. Hell, they didn't even have the backbone to stick with their original game icon, changing it immediately at the behest of a single Reddit post.

This one sentence is not fair.
I would wish they would change certain „fundamental“ core mechanics… but they really seem to want to run against the wall all the time in that regard, which i think is sad. So for me, they have more „backbone“ than what is good for Civ7… unfortunately.

Maybe i‘ll give the game combined with the „Enduring Empires“ mod a try…
But not too much hope here. Compared to Civ6, i think Civ7 lacks a lot of the beauty that is in Civ6.

 

[Rambo919]

In your opinion. I disagree.

You could.

But that isn't what has happened, which makes this apples and oranges.

To get pedantic for a second, your logic here rests of "changings Civs, plural, means it is no longer Civ, singular".

But Civ games never had a single Civ in it. You always play against others.

Uhm... the point of the game is it's an evolving story about your chosen civilization... the others are part of the story but the story does not revolve around them. You are one civilization not many.

It's your opinion, which is inherently emotive. We're emotive creatures. That said, that's just my opinion and this isn't a philosophy thread.

The fact we can disagree over opinion proves to me it isn't "pure logic". Or rather, that logic is something we interpret, as humans.

Agree to disagree. Can't you do the same?

So me believing the sky is blue during the day is inherently emotive? All opinion is formed via philosophy you cannot do it any other way unless it's as inherently emotive as you claim.... now if all your opinions are based on your emotions.... then yes I really don't see any point in this discussion.

They can, yes.

It's your opinion that Civ VII has changed so much that this qualifies. I disagree. I am and should be allowed to.

If you feel that way I can say nothing to change your mind so any further discussion is pointless. If you think that way it's a different matter.

 

[Rambo919]

I mean its probably doable.
Have a game where the Victories are in "Antiquity" but "Antiquity" includes Nuclear Fission Tech and Ages are set to 1000 standard speed turns long

Certain Civs already need a specific tech for their UU, so just apply that..
Rome needs Iron Working for Legions
Spain needs Gunpowder for Tercios
etc. and both Spain and Rome get to be "Antiquity" civs...
some things would need to be adjusted for different civ uniques, but its probably doable.

of course you need to decide if ...
Anything causes buildings go obsolete or if you will be building an Altar next to your Factory
Anything causes resources go obsolete/change effects or if Salt will give +20% production for Tanks
etc.
but that depends on what the person who makes the mod wants

I think the main problem is they made the game more a "fast paced multiplayer experience" than an actual 4x game. Everything points there including their sheepish patching in of 4x content after the fact because they were never really aiming for it. I think if they could disable single player marathon they would at this point, that was already clear enough with 6.

"You have to be fast, you have to be nimble, FEEEL THE TEEENSIOOON"
small maps, fast games, high rotation of playthoughs readymade for moba

Yeah.... no.... just.... no.....

 

[user746383]

At least they can’t fall into the “prioritise whatever the loudest YouTuber is complaining about” death spiral since there aren’t really any highly popular civ7 streamers for now.

 

[Sagax]

At least they can’t fall into the “prioritise whatever the loudest YouTuber is complaining about” death spiral since there aren’t really any highly popular civ7 streamers for now.

I’m mostly joking here, but *whispers “Hub Towns”*

 

[user746383]

Oh no, what happened with hub towns?

 

[Gorbles]

Uhm... the point of the game is it's an evolving story about your chosen civilization... the others are part of the story but the story does not revolve around them. You are one civilization not many.

The point of the game is whatever the developers want it to be. The beauty of history - which is what attracts me personally to games like Civ throughout the years - is that we're always learning more about it. It evolves.

Doesn't it make sense that a game inspired by it also evolves?

To put it another way, you're saying that my logic suggests the game can be made unrecognisable. If we reverse the same uncharitable extreme, I could say your logic suggests that the game should never change again.

And your opinion of CiV and VI certainly suggests that you're in the camp of players that believe the franchise peaked with IV. Nothing wrong with that. Byt that is a feeling. It's far from objective.

So me believing the sky is blue during the day is inherently emotive? All opinion is formed via philosophy you cannot do it any other way unless it's as inherently emotive as you claim.... now if all your opinions are based on your emotions.... then yes I really don't see any point in this discussion.

You believing the sky is blue is actually a fun one if you know the scientific explanation. Doubly so if you include colour vision deficiency! But that's a whole other topic.

There is a difference between what can be measurably observed, and what is a conclusion drawn from what can be measurably observed. Again, pretty off-topic. My PMs are always open though.

Oh no, what happened with hub towns?

They received a small nerf. They're still super usable.

Sagax did say he was mostly joking. I'd imagine that multiple points of corroboration lead to changes that end up in patch notes, personally.

 

[Sagax]

Oh no, what happened with hub towns?

Hub towns were nerfed, and in their video FXS specifically called out the YouTuber that we can thank for that. Again, it’s a “yeah… about that” joke on my part, and I like the YouTuber in question

 

[McSpank01]

They have changed
Modern Economic
Modern Cultural
Exploration Cultural
Exploration Economic

No I'd suggest they have tweaked those things and played around with some of the numbers involved. I don't see them as the big changes to how those things work in a substantial way, not in a way I'd like anyway.

Some of the switching them of is just options... did the "switching off victory types" option in previous civs mean that the victories were bad*?
or just that some people liked playing something different.

Well I would guess a lot of people turned off religious victories in previous versions because they were bad and tedious. In fact I would bet that constituted a vast majority of why people would switch off a certain victory type.

Playing with amazingly designed Legacy paths will not create the game feel some people want, so if they can get the feel they do want by simply switching those off... then that is a good option to include. Same as they have Map options and Speed options and Disaster/Crisis options and Multiplayer or Single player options and number of player options, and age length options, etc.

I disagree. I don't need to rehash all the issues with legacy paths, but I'm pretty sure if the legacy paths suddenly felt more complex and that you were interacting with other players more, and they didn't feel like some grind to a number, then you would barely see anyone turning them off. People turn these things off because they are not fun, and they are also not fun and intrusive. If Firaxis fixed them, there will be little demand to switch them off. If Crises were fun and interactive, and were not just a value suck from your progress, then I'm sure there would be no call to turn them off. 'Hey you can choose which crisis you want to select' is only a relevant statement because so many people thing most crises suck.

You really cannot compare this stuff to extra maps or game speeds. Those are really just personal preference, and would only be relevant if the game was worse at certain map sizes or speeds.

 

[Rambo919]

The point of the game is whatever the developers want it to be. The beauty of history - which is what attracts me personally to games like Civ throughout the years - is that we're always learning more about it. It evolves.

Doesn't it make sense that a game inspired by it also evolves?

To put it another way, you're saying that my logic suggests the game can be made unrecognisable. If we reverse the same uncharitable extreme, I could say your logic suggests that the game should never change again.

Yeah.... a family evolved by inbreeding as well as outbreeding though.... change for change sake is neither inherently good or bad, it's what you do with it that matters.

Let me put it this way, 1-6 are the sons of Sid (the youngest being a bit odd), the recent clones (humankind, ara, etc) are the cousins.... 7 is inbred or adopted or something but no one really thinks he's legitimate except to be nice to him.

EDIT[I suppose that makes freeciv and c-evo the talented kids from the mistresses]

And your opinion of CiV and VI certainly suggests that you're in the camp of players that believe the franchise peaked with IV. Nothing wrong with that. Byt that is a feeling. It's far from objective.

From the efforts of the publisher side this is objectively obvious, only a team of highly talented modders saved Civ5 from utter disaster.... without that mod it would have been almost as bad as Civ6 is. No feelings are involved here.

No one has to this day been able to teach an AI how to do single unit to single tile shuffle, the main problem with Civ games past 4.... though the districts disaster with 6 competes for this. Only the military, dam and harbour districts actually made sense because they made strategic sense the rest should have stayed in the city tile.

You have yet to point how how any of these opinions are based on emotion but you keep asserting that assumption. Also, just because something peaks at a certain point does not mean everything after it is something else.

You believing the sky is blue is actually a fun one if you know the scientific explanation. Doubly so if you include colour vision deficiency! But that's a whole other topic.

There is a difference between what can be measurably observed, and what is a conclusion drawn from what can be measurably observed. Again, pretty off-topic. My PMs are always open though.

No one actually believes facts, they hold opinions that certain facts are true. It is a measure of character how closely opinions correlate with facts. If this were otherwise then no one would still be arguing about certain points of science.

 

[Gorbles]

Yeah.... a family evolved by inbreeding as well as outbreeding though.... change for change sake is neither inherently good or bad, it's what you do with it that matters.

Let me put it this way, 1-6 are the sons of Sid (the youngest being a bit odd), the recent clones (humankind, ara, etc) are the cousins.... 7 is inbred or adopted or something but no one really thinks he's legitimate except to be nice to him.

I'm not sure this is the scientific analogy I'm looking for

I'll close this by saying I still disagree, and I think it's fine to have a difference of opinion about the stuff we like to play.

 

[Krikkit1]

not in a way I'd like anyway.

That's the point, you want them to change the way you want, other people want to change them the way they want, other people don't like the concept... so Some people get to have them disabled, and some of the people that like it (maybe you maybe not) will eventually get it the way they would like.

Just because they haven't introduced the changes you want doesn't mean they aren't making them better... They are just "sticking to their vision" of what those legacy paths are. or they are listening to the players... maybe even you, but it could be the changes you want (or the changes they want) take a little bit more time to checking to make sure that a large number of people will like it (not just you or me)

No I'd suggest they have tweaked those things and played around with some of the numbers involved. I don't see them as the big changes to how those things work in a substantial way, not in a way I'd like anyway.



Well I would guess a lot of people turned off religious victories in previous versions because they were bad and tedious. In fact I would bet that constituted a vast majority of why people would switch off a certain victory type.

I disagree. I don't need to rehash all the issues with legacy paths, but I'm pretty sure if the legacy paths suddenly felt more complex and that you were interacting with other players more, and they didn't feel like some grind to a number, then you would barely see anyone turning them off. People turn these things off because they are not fun, and they are also not fun and intrusive. If Firaxis fixed them, there will be little demand to switch them off. If Crises were fun and interactive, and were not just a value suck from your progress, then I'm sure there would be no call to turn them off. 'Hey you can choose which crisis you want to select' is only a relevant statement because so many people thing most crises suck.

You really cannot compare this stuff to extra maps or game speeds. Those are really just personal preference, and would only be relevant if the game was worse at certain map sizes or speeds.

People turn all sorts of things off in civ games that other people find fun... Civ games have let you stop the AIs from declaring war....that doesn't mean war in civ is not fun for many people, its just that other people want more of a Sim empire type game and civ can accomodate that fairly easily.

Legacy paths are supposed to be fun(for many people) but they are Supposed to be intrusive, they are supposed to be goals that you shoot for that aren't just "snowball this more"...
some people don't like to play that way...but the devs want to make that game... so rather than make the Legacies less intrusive, they allow you to either play with intrusive legacies (that hopefully become more fun while staying intrusive), OR play without them.

You really cannot compare this stuff to extra maps or game speeds. Those are really just personal preference, and would only be relevant if the game was worse at certain map sizes or speeds.

The game IS worse at certain map sizes or game speeds... to certain people. almost noone enjoys all gamespeeds and map types exactly equally, and for some it is significant.

Its a numbers game, and I would agree that many people dislike the current Legacies/Crises... but the fact is they can add an option to disable those easily while they change them so that more people like them.
No matter how "good" they make the Legacies/Crises (even if they made them exactly how you want them) a number of people would like the option to play without them. Because that option is relatively easy to put in and it doesn't make the game worse for the people that do like the Legacies/Crises.. they put it in.