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

[Rambo919]

People forget that there is no such thing as a coherent vision to Civ across the series.... Sid was not even involved anymore by the second game. Each time it's a completely different team.... with a different set of increasingly moronic executives throwing down directives.

They completely stopped even trying to keep a coherent vision by the time that Civ6 arrived but Civ5 already should have been a warning of what was coming. It's probably a case of the nutters are in charge of the nuthouse by this point.... or at least non-gamers deciding for gamers "what they want whether they know it or not".

This is why they are reaching out to the collective to get "feedback".... they literally don't know what they are doing wrong and are probably highly confused by all the negativity.... and you probably cant blame the devs they are probably just following orders from morons. The only measure of success here is sales.... and a lot of non-Civ players bough Civ6... the least Civ game before Civ7.

To reiterate what I previously said but in so many words: the only real future Civ game is going to come from someplace other than a major company... either one of the open source projects stops being just a hobby and gets serious or some smaller commercial clone hits the jackpot.... but to be realistic it's been not that long since the clones started. Just look at how many MOO2 clones had to come before Stellaris came out of nowhere and stole the whole sector even though it's tick-toc based rather than turn based..... is it perhaps more an Imperium Galactica clone though?

And Alpha Centauri has never been replaced either.

Point is.... everyone is angry because trust has been lost. I've just accepted that Civ is dead and it's corpse is being paraded around. Sometimes you just gotta move on..... and gripe about it like an old man if it catches you eye.

 

[Arcaian]

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.

Do you think that the devs' vision is compromised by changing the food required to grow a town? The game is never going to have perfect balance on release, it would actively be worse for the game never to change when obvious metas are found that lock you into easy decision making in a game that is supposed to have choices being made. What is wrong with balancing the game to make investing in food more worthwhile? The exact parameters in the formula for food growth was almost certainly not written up in any of the initial design meetings outlining the vision for the new game.

 

[McSpank01]

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.

I mean you can keep saying this, but there is a reason Firaxis have led with this as one of the main selling points of this patch. That reason is because its a sop to appease upset players. Players don't demand the ability to turn off features in games if those features are working well and are fun. If this was like a hidden thing you could do that they barely mentioned, and if it was brought in a year from now, you might have a point. The reality is, they have promoted that players can now turn off Legacy Paths and Crises if they want, and they are doing that because these are things that are getting a lot of complaints and they want to bring players back.

These changes just would never have been a priority for Firaxis if they thought people like Crises and Legacy paths, they wouldn't be trying to fix something that isn't broken and shouting about it.

 

[vorlon_mi]

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".

I agree, and would go one step further.

For the Steam installations, FXS can gain metrics on victories achieved, turned off, leaders chosen, crises turned off.
Collect those data for a month (or three) and see which options the players prefer. It's one thing to read forum posts or Steam ratings to get feedback. It's another thing to have people vote with their mouse. How many games will people actually turn off legacy paths? How many games will people turn ON "choose any civ for the next age"?

 

[Krikkit1]

I mean you can keep saying this, but there is a reason Firaxis have led with this as one of the main selling points of this patch. That reason is because its a sop to appease upset players. Players don't demand the ability to turn off features in games if those features are working well and are fun. If this was like a hidden thing you could do that they barely mentioned, and if it was brought in a year from now, you might have a point. The reality is, they have promoted that players can now turn off Legacy Paths and Crises if they want, and they are doing that because these are things that are getting a lot of complaints and they want to bring players back.

These changes just would never have been a priority for Firaxis if they thought people like Crises and Legacy paths, they wouldn't be trying to fix something that isn't broken and shouting about it.

points we can agree on
-Lots of people don't like the current implementation of Legacy & Crises
-Firaxis is adding the switch off option because very few people like the current implementation

However, even if lots of players loved the implementation.
-There would still be some that didn't
-Firaxis would eventually put in an option to switch them off (since it doesn't)

also
Regardless of how many people like/didn't like the Legacy/Crisis... it would get changed with updates/DLC/expansions as they continued to develop the game.

Firaxis will continue to make changes to the Legacy/Crises.... but bigger changes will take time (and they may not be the bigger changes that you want. Some people may say I liked the old Legacy, but now I'll switch it off the new way (Firaxis hopes any change they make has more people switching them on than switching them off, but now those people have something they can do besides leave a bad review and uninstall.)

 

[Haig]

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 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.

You keep saying that Civ 6 and 5 are bad like it's some exact science, on facebook I saw Civ 5 voted as the greatest of the series, on reddit Civ 6 voted the best...

Both have huge player numbers and positive reviews on Steam.

I personally think that you dont see thru your bias that Civ 6 & 5 are classics and very much loved, even without any total conversion mods.

I consider Civ 4 another classic but myself I cant go back to play it because I miss many newer mechanics.

I am not sure if Civ 7 will become for me another classic, the civ switching is the biggest obstacle for me, another one being the trend of getting many many bonuses from all sources, hard to keep track of all the stuff with unique civics, legacy bonuses, mementos etc.

 

[Rambo919]

You keep saying that Civ 6 and 5 are bad like it's some exact science, on facebook I saw Civ 5 voted as the greatest of the series, on reddit Civ 6 voted the best...

Your evidence is overwhelming.... the experts of fb and r.... who might half of them be bots or people that never played the previous versions. I would put less trust in that kind of not exact science if I were you.

Both have huge player numbers and positive reviews on Steam.

An indication of age of the players more likely than anything else.... and you cannot compare it to non-steam players because it's impossible to get such stats. Most Civ4 and earlier players don't use steam to play the game. Civ1-2 isn't even available on steam.

I personally think that you dont see thru your bias that Civ 6 & 5 are classics and very much loved, even without any total conversion mods.

Classic is a bit strong a term for such new games.... classics end at about when win98 retired.... XP at a stretch. For something to be a classic it has to belong to a classical era as well as being emblemic of that era.... not just be a decade old. It takes quite a while for any era to actually reach classical status.

It's easy to love something new if you are ignorant of what came before.

I consider Civ 4 another classic but myself I cant go back to play it because I miss many newer mechanics.

Civ4 is a much more complicated game that requires much different kinds of thinking... perhaps in part you just miss all the dumbing down and convenience that the later games provide? Such as 50 vs 500 units to manage?

I am not sure if Civ 7 will become for me another classic, the civ switching is the biggest obstacle for me, another one being the trend of getting many many bonuses from all sources, hard to keep track of all the stuff with unique civics, legacy bonuses, mementos etc.

It's meant to be overwhelming... the lack of substance being compensated for with an over abundance of style.

 

[MutilationWave]

Classic is a bit strong a term for such new games.... classics end at about when win98 retired.... XP at a stretch. For something to be a classic it has to belong to a classical era as well as being emblemic of that era.... not just be a decade old. It takes quite a while for any era to actually reach classical status.

The original Super Mario Brothers was released only 12 years before the PlayStation (10 in Japan). People playing on PlayStation certainly considered that a classic game. Civ 5 came out 15 years ago. Civ 6 was 9 years ago. Civ 4 was 20 years ago!

 

[Niallism]

You keep saying that Civ 6 and 5 are bad like it's some exact science, on facebook I saw Civ 5 voted as the greatest of the series, on reddit Civ 6 voted the best...

Both have huge player numbers and positive reviews on Steam.

I personally think that you dont see thru your bias that Civ 6 & 5 are classics and very much loved, even without any total conversion mods.

I consider Civ 4 another classic but myself I cant go back to play it because I miss many newer mechanics.

I am not sure if Civ 7 will become for me another classic, the civ switching is the biggest obstacle for me, another one being the trend of getting many many bonuses from all sources, hard to keep track of all the stuff with unique civics, legacy bonuses, mementos etc.

Also, I loved 6 but wouldn't have bought 7 if it was more of the same but prettier. I've played the entire series, I own the entire series. I wanted 7 to be different, just as I wanted each of them to be different.

The core idea in 7 is 'states - civilizations - change over time, and states are not the same as ethnicities/nations'.

That's been my approach to history for a long time, so it was interesting to see it explored in a game. And that approach is, in many places and times, extremely politically controversial. We can't ignore that when assessing the game's reception.

 

[WeirdDud]

Turning legacy paths off is like turning off victory conditions in previous entries, only difference this time around is that we have victory conditions in each age.
I don't think this toggle being added warrants concern over "abandoning" their vision any more than the other advanced game settings.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Your evidence is overwhelming.... the experts of fb and r.... who might half of them be bots or people that never played the previous versions. I would put less trust in that kind of not exact science if I were you.


An indication of age of the players more likely than anything else.... and you cannot compare it to non-steam players because it's impossible to get such stats. Most Civ4 and earlier players don't use steam to play the game. Civ1-2 isn't even available on steam.


Classic is a bit strong a term for such new games.... classics end at about when win98 retired.... XP at a stretch. For something to be a classic it has to belong to a classical era as well as being emblemic of that era.... not just be a decade old. It takes quite a while for any era to actually reach classical status.

It's easy to love something new if you are ignorant of what came before.


Civ4 is a much more complicated game that requires much different kinds of thinking... perhaps in part you just miss all the dumbing down and convenience that the later games provide? Such as 50 vs 500 units to manage?


It's meant to be overwhelming... the lack of substance being compensated for with an over abundance of style.

I mean the evidence would be in sales. Civ V and VI respectively outsold and the fact that both have several times more players than IV at any given moment for decades

Your subjective opinion is that Civ IV is the best and you niavely think that anyone doesn't share this opinion is simply "ignorant" of what came before but I'll tell you I've been playing since III and V with mods is the best Civ experience and I'm sure there are countless other Civ fans who would tell you the same (or they'll say they prefer VI)

In fact I bet you could find more long time Civ fans playing V and VI than there are players currently playing Civ IV

 

[fantsu]

I think the devolution of VII happened just because Firaxis wanted to copy Humankind.
Its the reason it was bad.
Sure its just worse in every way compared to IV, just like V and VI.
But new young console players want a simple product, one to play for a ten minutes between Fortnite or Pokemon GO matches.
And Firaxis knows that parents have more dough than real fanatics. They proved it with V and its pastel graphics and simplified rules.

 

[Skojardu]

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.

For me it was Song of Silence (c/o Potato McWhiskey) and Medieval II Total War (c/o nostalgia).

 

[Rambo919]

The original Super Mario Brothers was released only 12 years before the PlayStation (10 in Japan). People playing on PlayStation certainly considered that a classic game. Civ 5 came out 15 years ago. Civ 6 was 9 years ago. Civ 4 was 20 years ago!

Again... it's not the amount of years that matter, it's the age in which it released that does.

Classic does not mean good.... it's a matter of an influential bygone era. Civ4 is still part of the current software tech era.

 

[Rambo919]

I mean the evidence would be in sales. Civ V and VI respectively outsold and the fact that both have several times more players than IV at any given moment for decades

Again... most pre-5 sales were not digital... and more gamers are alive now. You wont find 1 to 1 stats the way you want them.

Your subjective opinion is that Civ IV is the best and you niavely think that anyone doesn't share this opinion is simply "ignorant" of what came before but I'll tell you I've been playing since III and V with mods is the best Civ experience and I'm sure there are countless other Civ fans who would tell you the same (or they'll say they prefer VI)

In fact I bet you could find more long time Civ fans playing V and VI than there are players currently playing Civ IV

It's a matter of proper developmental comparison. 1 was the foundation and 2 was the refinement, 3 was the experiment and 4 was the final refinement, 5 was the next experiment and 6 was the collapse into decadence, 7 is the crisis. You can divide into three era's of Civ: 1-2, 3-4 and 5-7 with 7 being the death or cause for rebirth.

Civ is fundamentally a PC game because you need a PC for the required complexity.... Civ7 is fundamentally a mobile game with a PC port. This is not a matter of subjective opinion.

 

[lander]

The people who didn't like the original vision probably were hoping for something more than being able to just turn off the original vision, with nothing at least so far to replace it.

I personally won't be coming back until civ switching is gone and resources actually mean something I want to fight for them, trade and need them for war. Also a more improved diplomacy system from civ 6 would be a massive win.

The patch is not even close to being of any value to me and judging by players numbers, 90% of original player base also.

 

[McSpank01]

points we can agree on
-Lots of people don't like the current implementation of Legacy & Crises
-Firaxis is adding the switch off option because very few people like the current implementation

Sure we can agree there.

However, even if lots of players loved the implementation.
-There would still be some that didn't
-Firaxis would eventually put in an option to switch them off (since it doesn't)

Not clear, and certainly the timing of when and how they have decided to give people the option to do it suggests it was a panic move. My reasoning there is that clearly the dynamics and flow of the game are designed to include crises and legacy paths. When you turn them off, the game kinda breaks. Not overtly broken, but certainly the way it is supposed to work is not there. Clearly the game loops the developers created for players were not created to exclude legacy paths and crises. Turning them off doesn't crash the game but clearly it is obviously not an intended development. I mean good job on them for hacking this in there so quickly, but I doubt it was going to be something they hoped they would have to do within the first year of release.

Regardless of how many people like/didn't like the Legacy/Crisis... it would get changed with updates/DLC/expansions as they continued to develop the game.

Firaxis will continue to make changes to the Legacy/Crises.... but bigger changes will take time (and they may not be the bigger changes that you want. Some people may say I liked the old Legacy, but now I'll switch it off the new way (Firaxis hopes any change they make has more people switching them on than switching them off, but now those people have something they can do besides leave a bad review and uninstall.)

Yeah I hope so too, but that is hoping. Are they able to revolutionise legacy paths and crises enough so that they work in a different way? That is just not obvious. We are all clutching at the straws that they will eventually fix it, but there is no indication that they will. It would need to be a major DLC release to radically switch up the mechanics, and that is not going to be happening any time soon.

 

[Gorbles]

Civ4 is a much more complicated game that requires much different kinds of thinking... perhaps in part you just miss all the dumbing down and convenience that the later games provide? Such as 50 vs 500 units to manage?

There's a thing, particularly in RTS games, where the actions per minute (APM) is measured as a threshold of skill cap / complexity.

However, in past decade or so, the phrase "meaningful APM" has appeared (vs. "raw APM"). This is because there are actions that increase APM, but don't actually meaningfully impact on the game in any way. This has lead to design and balance changes as developers have tried various ways of improving "meaningful" actions over "raw" actions.

This can be seen as "dumbing down", similar to your view of CiV (and on). But that doesn't mean that it is. Complexity has to be justified.

 

[m_mus]

For one thing I can agree with those more critical of Civ7: I'd like to know the progression of their vision as well. Most of the bullet points of the roadmap presented in February have been released. I suppose it's time for a new one, so that we as the (remaining) community know what to expect and hope for.
Other than that: keep going FXS, I like what I see.

 

[Smegger213]

Just checked, and found that the last time I played Civ 7 was on 3rd June. That's an indication of the apathy I have with this version. I used to love the Civ games. I played every one on Amiga and PC. I consider Civ 2, 3, 4 and 5 to be the best. I think the devs started to lose their way with Civ 6. I have tried multiple times to get into Civ 6 without much success. I just couldn't get used to it, and have never finished a play through of Civ 6. Currently Civ 5 is my most played Civ game on Steam. Now, if they had just replicated the majority of Civ 5 with better graphics, I would have been happy. But, no, they just had to change the whole direction of the game with Civ 7.

I bought into the early access period with the Deluxe version. I paid over £62 for it. Now, I feel that I have wasted my money. I just cannot stand the new age system. I cannot stand what happens to you at each age transition. I cannot stand being forced to change my Civ at each transition. I cannot stand the stupid idea of a leader being able to play with ANY Civ. In my mind Napoleon should only be allowed to play as France etc etc. I cannot stand the fact that they locked a British leader behind a pay wall. No doubt many other leaders will be locked behind future paid for DLC. Where is Ramesses, Elizabeth 1 or 2, Churchill and many others?

I suppose I will fire up the game and start again, to see if the changes in this latest patch are enough to make me want to start playing.
But, I ain't getting my hopes up.

I noticed that the game on Steam has now gone into "mostly negative" with the user reviews. Frankly, I am not surprised.