Is it a good idea to "merge" game features into one in new iterations of the game?

[stealth_nsk]

Strongly disagree. Late Civ6 suffered from an excess of poorly integrated systems.

Exactly. This and the amount of micro they required.

 

[Fummy]

Maybe you haven't, but I bet what you're referring to is one of the big reasons why more than 60% of players on Steam have never completed a game of Civ 6.

I wouldnt call them "Players" more like people who bought the game when on sale but werent interested in the genre at all.

 

[ombak]

What new features? There are fewer features than Civ VI as far as we know. and don't say swapping civs, that doesnt require any micro management since its a one (two) off decision.

This sort of implies that a feature is only a feature if it requires ongoing micromanagement.

 

[Krikkit1]

I've never lost interest from "feature bloat". its civilization, its always had many many interacting features. this is the source of its strength. What you are describing is simplification/casualisation.

The problem is the minimally interacting features that are strictly solved minigames.

 

[rocksinmypath]

I wouldnt call them "Players" more like people who bought the game when on sale but werent interested in the genre at all.

Are you sure? What I see is a massive missed opportunity.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It was also based mostly on mitochondrial DNA which is only passed along the maternal line so it gives a very very narrow view of ancestry. Whole genome analysis reveals far more, but I won't give too many spoilers. I tried to see what progress was made since Reich's book and I found one review paper that pushed what it said about pre 50,000 YA [ "Origins of modern human ancestry" by Bergström, Stringer, et al. (Nature 2021)], but I haven't found anything comparable that covers "modern" migrations. For the sake of fairness, not everyone likes the book, it received criticism for the way it discusses race; but mostly for the way it talks about it rather than for what it actually said. IMO, he stepped on some politically correct toes in his use of language, but no one who actually understands what he says could possibly think of him as a racist.

Apologies for the off topic tangent, I'll stop here.

Last Off Topic:
This reminds me of an earlier "miracle technology" that was going to utterly transform archeology: radiocarbon dating. I had the very, very good fortune to take a physical archeology course from a Professor Emeritus who was one of the earliest experts in carbon dating, since he had transferred to archeology from a degree in Engineering. He could go on a monologue lasting an entire class period on everything that was wrong with the early carbon-derived dates, from contamination of samples through mis-calibrated equipment to mis-calculation of dates and overall, an utter lack of understanding of the data by archeologists who had no technical backgrounds at all.

But it got him invited to participate in many of the great expeditions and archeological digs in the Middle East, Greece and Egypt - made his career, in fact, which he freely admitted!

As new technologies are applied to 'old' disciplines, we learn more and also learn how much we thought we had learned was Bogus. The latest candidate for Revisionism appears to be the LIDAR searches now revealing a mass of new data in relatively inaccessible places which, however, still has to be confirmed by 'boots on the ground' and converted, if possible, from Raw Data into actual knowledge about the subjects.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Maybe you haven't, but I bet what you're referring to is one of the big reasons why more than 60% of players on Steam have never completed a game of Civ 6.

I've never understood this metric because most players who buy single player video games don't finish the game and considering the entire game is often sold on extreme discount sales it makes sense that so many that own and have tried the game have not stuck with it, the genre is not for everyone....

I'm sure the tens of thousands of daily players they still have across both of their latest entries have finished the game before and regularly play games to the point where they are essentially won.

 

[rocksinmypath]

I've never understood this metric because most players who buy single player video games don't finish the game and considering the entire game is often sold on extreme discount sales it makes sense that so many that own and have tried the game have not stuck with it, the genre is not for everyone....

I'm sure the tens of thousands of daily players they still have across both of their latest entries have finished the game before and regularly play games to the point where they are essentially won.

What that statistic suggests is that many players who bought it didn't enjoy it. It doesn't suggest they don't enjoy the 4x genre or that they never will. As you say, there will always be people who don't complete games they play, but I think this statistic is probably more meaningful for Civ than for other games, because it only takes a few hours to win a game. (It took me 500 hours to beat Factorio, and probably around 10 hours to win my first game in Civ 6.) The real picture is even worse than what that figure suggests, because as you pointed out, regulars often just stop playing before they win, which means that a lot of us just "tolerate" the game's big problems. We make sure to let the devs know, though. Anyway, my point is that, if you're happy with how complex Civ 6 is, you're probably in a small minority of the market that Firaxis is targeting.

 

[TheGrayFox]

What that statistic suggests is that many players who bought it didn't enjoy it.

The statistics would show that about most games if you look solely at completion rates. Who cares besides Firaxis shareholders? Only 90% of players on srteam have finished the first quest of Skyrim and barely half of all players have ever beat the first boss of Elden Ring. Who would argue that those games are not succesful and that they have to be changed to their core to try and appease the people who buy on sale and don't stick with it?

It doesn't suggest they don't enjoy the 4x genre or that they never will.

There is also no guarentuee that those same people will enjoy the 4x genre after Firaxis' changes either and these changes seems to have done in the opposite in turning off many long time series fans.

As you say, there will always be people who don't complete games they play, but I think this statistic is probably more meaningful for Civ than for other games, because it only takes a few hours to win a game. (It took me 500 hours to beat Factorio, and probably around 10 hours to win my first game in Civ 6.)

You as a long time fan of the series may be able to blast through a game in 5-10 hours but I sincerly doubt someone completely new to the series is. We're talking about 15-20 hours of tutorials, trial and error, and dense gameplay driven game with no cutscenes, narrative, etc just to get through your first game and you're very unlikely to understand, let alone win your first game of civilization, in the first place.

The real picture is even worse than what that figure suggests, because as you pointed out, regulars often just stop playing before they win, which means that a lot of us just "tolerate" the game's big problems. We make sure to let the devs know, though. Anyway, my point is that, if you're happy with how complex Civ 6 is, you're probably in a small minority of the market that Firaxis is targeting.

Considering the fact that Civilization series is a household name, regularly sells millions, and older games in the series released almost 2 decades ago still have higher daily player counts than most other games (including the aforementioned Factorio) I'm still struggling to see how the picture was so bad that we have to rip the game apart foundationally to try and address the concern.

 

[rocksinmypath]

The statistics would show that about most games if you look solely at completion rates. Who cares besides Firaxis shareholders? Only 90% of players on srteam have finished the first quest of Skyrim and barely half of all players have ever beat the first boss of Elden Ring. Who would argue that those games are not succesful and that they have to be changed to their core to try and appease the people who buy on sale and don't stick with it?

I don't understand what you mean by "Who cares besides Firaxis shareholders?" I think it was Ed Beach that recently mentioned low completion rate as a motivation for the changes they're introducing to combat the late-game slog. Also, I didn't argue that the game was not successful. I pointed out that the low completion rate indicates a missed opportunity. I don't know why you're so quick to dismiss people who tried Civ 6 and didn't enjoy it. Besides, there's a bigger market out there Civ 6 didn't reach at all. The devs have to work with whatever signal they received from player statistics and feedback to understand why so many players left. There's probably a good deal of overlap between why many players quit on 6, and why many people never bought the game. It's not just about "appeasing the people who buy on sale and don't stick with it".

Also, you can read the rest of this thread and see that a lot of us would care about a similar statistic that we don't have access to, which tracks how often players see out their games. I bet that, for folks here, that number is disproportionately higher than for the general population, but as I said, that doesn't mean we're happy with how sluggish the late-game feels. We just tolerate it better than others do. The fact that we do I'd argue is another reason why the devs needed to shake things up. I'm not buying the new game if I know it'll just be an iteration of Civ 6. Why would I dish out hundreds of dollars for Civ 6+? I have 3000 hours on 6. If they never release 7, I'll probably just continue to play 6. Ironically, as much as I would love 7 to be a great game, I wouldn't miss out on much if 7 turned out to be a disaster. I'm as obligated to buying Civ 7 as a returning player as you are to being satisfied about the new features. Firaxis isn't EA. They can't just put out a "roster update" and expect to sell. It absolutely makes sense for them to make big changes to try to re-capture disappointed customers, expand its market share and retain its existing player base.

 

[RandV]

I think Civ VI's builders make a poor example here because in my opinion the were an implementation to fix a non-existent problem (workers) that only made things worse.

What that statistic suggests is that many players who bought it didn't enjoy it. It doesn't suggest they don't enjoy the 4x genre or that they never will. As you say, there will always be people who don't complete games they play, but I think this statistic is probably more meaningful for Civ than for other games, because it only takes a few hours to win a game. (It took me 500 hours to beat Factorio, and probably around 10 hours to win my first game in Civ 6.) The real picture is even worse than what that figure suggests, because as you pointed out, regulars often just stop playing before they win, which means that a lot of us just "tolerate" the game's big problems. We make sure to let the devs know, though. Anyway, my point is that, if you're happy with how complex Civ 6 is, you're probably in a small minority of the market that Firaxis is targeting.

I still don't think that's valid because pretty much anyone that's used Steam over the years is going to have a massive backlog library. It's not so much a matter of 'enjoying it' or not as it is grabbing and maintaining attention over everything else that's available. And considering how well Civilization has done on Steam's 'current active players' list, regularly maintaining a spot in the top 10 over the years, I don't think Firaxis had anything to worry about with Civ VI. I mean checking right now all these years later it's currently #24 in Steams current active players. They are by far the market leader for 4X games in this regard.

I'm not sure how much it relates to the thread topic though. I'm all for new quality implementation of previous systems. I have some concerns though about them getting things 'wrong' about a system and making things worse, primarily based on the workers -> builders transition that Civ VI had. Who among Civ players really had any issues with workers? And if you didn't like micromanaging them by Civ V there were perfectly good automate options. Builders were supposed to 'fix' the tedium but personally they just became for more tedious as now having limited charges I'm to fret about endlessly building more throughout the entire duration of the game.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I don't understand what you mean by "Who cares besides Firaxis shareholders?" I think it was Ed Beach that recently mentioned low completion rate as a motivation for the changes they're introducing to combat the late-game slog. Also, I didn't argue that the game was not successful. I pointed out that the low completion rate indicates a missed opportunity. I don't know why you're so quick to dismiss people who tried Civ 6 and didn't enjoy it. Besides, there's a bigger market out there Civ 6 didn't reach at all. The devs have to work with whatever signal they received from player statistics and feedback to understand why so many players left. There's probably a good deal of overlap between why many players quit on 6, and why many people never bought the game. It's not just about "appeasing the people who buy on sale and don't stick with it".

I'm not quick to dimiss the people who tried Civ 6 and didn't enjoy it or didn't stick to playing it for 1000 hours. I'm quick to dismiss those (read: game devs) trying to gut foundations of their series to the point where I as a long term fan am no longer interested in the latest sequel in an attempt to appeal to people who aren't actually fans of the most popular series in its genre (despite the fact that we are taking about a wildly succesful franchise which sold several millions and again retains an active player base larger to most games of comparable age)

Where is this huge market that Civ 6 didn't reach (besides the ten thousand still playing 5)? That very question is something that would concern Firaxis' shareholders, of which Ed Beach as a long time lead designer would be included.

Also, you can read the rest of this thread and see that a lot of us would care about a similar statistic that we don't have access to, which tracks how often players see out their games. I bet that, for folks here, that number is disproportionately higher than for the general population, but as I said, that doesn't mean we're happy with how sluggish the late-game feels. We just tolerate it better than others do.

I don't tolerate it btw, I just play mods that attempt to fix the problems

but to address your point, I don't want to speak for anyone else but even among those long time fans who complain about run away Civilizations and running away with the game (which is a balance issue) or late game tedium (solvable by automation and streamlining of micromanagement), I don't think I've met anyone asking for these problems to be solved by three act round based narrative or civ swapping.

The fact that we do I'd argue is another reason why the devs needed to shake things up. I'm not buying the new game if I know it'll just be an iteration of Civ 6. Why would I dish out hundreds of dollars for Civ 6+? I have 3000 hours on 6. If they never release 7, I'll probably just continue to play 6. Ironically, as much as I would love 7 to be a great game, I wouldn't miss out on much if 7 turned out to be a disaster. I'm as obligated to buying Civ 7 as a returning player as you are to being satisfied about the new features. Firaxis isn't EA. They can't just put out a "roster update" and expect to sell. It absolutely makes sense for them to make big changes to try to re-capture disappointed customers, expand its market share and retain its existing player base.

Each Civilization sold millions more then the previous title (which also sold millions) and games of the series still retains an active daily playerbase larger than most other titles of comparable age. Firaxis absolutely could've taken core features introduced throughout the series given us graphical improvements, navigble rivers, commanders, district system redesign, and and intensely focused on improving the tactical and strategic AI and millions would've lapped it up without much complaint. Instead of introducing mechanics and foundational redesigning the game more drastically than it has ever been in ways that have seemed to specifically turn off many long time fans. (who are responsible for the series' continued success)

 

[rocksinmypath]

I'm not quick to dimiss the people who tried Civ 6 and didn't enjoy it or didn't stick to playing it for 1000 hours. I'm quick to dismiss those (read: game devs) trying to gut foundations of their series to the point where I as a long term fan am no longer interested in the latest sequel in an attempt to appeal to people who aren't actually fans of the most popular series in its genre (despite the fact that we are taking about a wildly succesful franchise which sold several millions and again retains an active player base larger to most games of comparable age)

Where is this huge market that Civ 6 didn't reach (besides the ten thousand still playing 5)? That very question is something that would concern Firaxis' shareholders, of which Ed Beach as a long time lead designer would be included.



I don't tolerate it btw, I just play mods that attempt to fix the problems

but to address your point, I don't want to speak for anyone else but even among those long time fans who complain about run away Civilizations and running away with the game (which is a balance issue) or late game tedium (solvable by automation and streamlining of micromanagement), I don't think I've met anyone asking for these problems to be solved by three act round based narrative or civ swapping.



Each Civilization sold millions more then the previous title (which also sold millions) and games of the series still retains an active daily playerbase larger than most other titles of comparable age. Firaxis absolutely could've taken core features introduced throughout the series given us graphical improvements, navigble rivers, commanders, district system redesign, and and intensely focused on improving the tactical and strategic AI and millions would've lapped it up without much complaint. Instead of introducing mechanics and foundational redesigning the game more drastically than it has ever been in ways that have seemed to specifically turn off many long time fans. (who are responsible for the series' continued success)

I'm still not sure where you want to take your argument that only shareholders care about market size or indicators of it. Why wouldn't I care about that as a fan? You've seen how much detail they've put into the artwork. That's probably a good indication that their art team has grown significantly since the previous cycle. I just watched Boesthius' interview with Ed and Carl where they revealed that they're targeting to include around 1000 narrative events in the game, so the narrative department probably grew a lot as well. They also previously mentioned that they'd doubled their AI department. What do you think underpins their expansion in headcount if it's not the belief that they have a wider market to capture? They've made investments in areas that are directly related to at least two of the improvements you mentioned.

Why does it matter that people didn't ask for ages? It's not a designer's job to just put all of the features people ask for and just those into their product. If that was what they did, they'd end up "gut[ting] foundations of their series" in an attempt to please the existing player base, no, unless you think the community is better at game design and has a better handle of where the series should go? Besides, did anyone actually ask for commanders? Maybe I didn't pay enough attention, but given how prevalent unit movement discussions have been on this site, I think I'd have caught wind of the idea if it had been a popular one.

It's irrelevant how popular their games have so far been. I don't believe they have a product that allows them to lean on their reputation, make incremental changes and juice their player base for money. I mentioned EA in my previous post precisely for that reason. What used to be called FIFA has been doing exactly that, for what, a decade? to phenomenal success. That franchise has a completely different profile from Civ. It has very little competition thanks in part to exclusive licenses. Firaxis doesn't have the exclusive right to depict Greece in its games, and we've been seeing a lot of new titles in the genre. FIFA focuses on competitive multiplayer, Civ does not, so as you pointed out, many players are happy to just sit on their favourite version of Civ instead of buying the latest one. FIFA has also been notorious for essentially being a gambling platform for its players, who are mostly teens. That probably has something to do with players coming back each year. I'm interested to hear why you think otherwise, but until then, to me, your argument that Firaxis is taking far too big a risk by making drastic changes is just as convincing as the direct counter argument that being too conservative with changes runs the risk of producing a game that doesn't appeal to the existing player base.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I'm still not sure where you want to take your argument that only shareholders care about market size or indicators of it. Why wouldn't I care about that as a fan? You've seen how much detail they've put into the artwork. That's probably a good indication that their art team has grown significantly since the previous cycle. I just watched Boesthius' interview with Ed and Carl where they revealed that they're targeting to include around 1000 narrative events in the game, so the narrative department probably grew a lot as well. They also previously mentioned that they'd doubled their AI department. What do you think underpins their expansion in headcount if it's not the belief that they have a wider market to capture? They've made investments in areas that are directly related to at least two of the improvements you mentioned.

I'll admit I'm glad that Firaxis atleast mentioned AI concerns and is allegedly dedicating more resources towards competent AI but I saw what this team produced with 6 and don't have much faith, especially knowing they only had one dedicated AI designer on those past games. Also you must've misunderstood, I don't particularly care about or for forced narrative events in my 4x historical Civ sandbox. (though i do think having an event system is cool)

My response here would be this. When I said "Who cares besides the shareholders?" what I meant was, why would I as a long time fan of the series who doesn't like the direction of the latest game in the sequel care about the return of investment of Firaxis' shareholders?

Why does it matter that people didn't ask for ages? It's not a designer's job to just put all of the features people ask for and just those into their product. If that was what they did, they'd end up "gut[ting] foundations of their series" in an attempt to please the existing player base, no, unless you think the community is better at game design and has a better handle of where the series should go?

Considering what modders and overhauls have managed to do with past Civilization titles, yeah sometimes the community does actually manage to have better ideas, better ideas about balance and is capable of creating better AI than Firaxis themselves. I'd also point out that game designer's are not infalliable. A quick look at latest attempt at rebooting Sim City demonstrated that

Besides, did anyone actually ask for commanders? Maybe I didn't pay enough attention, but given how prevalent unit movement discussions have been on this site, I think I'd have caught wind of the idea if it had been a popular one.

Not specifically but many players were asking for a return to stacked units in some form and most wanted a reduction to the micromanagement of strictly 1 unit per tile from V, which is why we saw corps and armies in 6. This is simply a natural evolution on that system to help further reduce micromanagement and improve AI pathing. Which is why most view the change positively, unlike the incredibly controversial civ swapping and eras which a fundamental change to the series and arguably unnecessary change

It's irrelevant how popular their games have so far been. I don't believe they have a product that allows them to lean on their reputation, make incremental changes and juice their player base for money. I mentioned EA in my previous post precisely for that reason. What used to be called FIFA has been doing exactly that, for what, a decade? to phenomenal success. That franchise has a completely different profile from Civ. It has very little competition thanks in part to exclusive licenses. Firaxis doesn't have the exclusive right to depict Greece in its games, and we've been seeing a lot of new titles in the genre. FIFA focuses on competitive multiplayer, Civ does not, so as you pointed out, many players are happy to just sit on their favourite version of Civ instead of buying the latest one. FIFA has also been notorious for essentially being a gambling platform for its players, who are mostly teens. That probably has something to do with players coming back each year. I'm interested to hear why you think otherwise, but until then, to me, your argument that Firaxis is taking far too big a risk by making drastic changes is just as convincing as the direct counter argument that being too conservative with changes runs the risk of producing a game that doesn't appeal to the existing player base.

This is kind of a strawman... who here is asking for the Civilization series to have yearly entries like Call of Duty or for Civilization to be completely stagnant series like Fifa or an EA sports game...? Adding navigable rivers, commanders, improving the garbage tier AI, allowing us to level up leaders, removing barbarians for independent states, introducing a completely new UI and art style with enhanced graphics, removing builders, having different tiers of settlements, etc these are all massive changes to the formula without dramatically and contentiously changing the core of what the civilization series has been for decades.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I'll admit I'm glad that Firaxis atleast mentioned AI concerns and is allegedly dedicating more resources towards competent AI but I saw what this team produced with 6 and don't have much faith, especially knowing they only had one dedicated AI designer on those past games. Also you must've misunderstood, I don't particularly care about or for forced narrative events in my 4x historical Civ sandbox. (though i do think having an event system is cool)

My response here would be this. When I said "Who cares besides the shareholders?" what I meant was, why would I as a long time fan of the series who doesn't like the direction of the latest game in the sequel care about the return of investment of Firaxis' shareholders?



Considering what modders and overhauls have managed to do with past Civilization titles, yeah sometimes the community does actually manage to have better ideas, better ideas about balance and is capable of creating better AI than Firaxis themselves. I'd also point out that game designer's are not infalliable. A quick look at latest attempt at rebooting Sim City demonstrated that



Not specifically but many players were asking for a return to stacked units in some form and most wanted a reduction to the micromanagement of strictly 1 unit per tile from V, which is why we saw corps and armies in 6. This is simply a natural evolution on that system to help further reduce micromanagement and improve AI pathing. Which is why most view the change positively, unlike the incredibly controversial civ swapping and eras which a fundamental change to the series and arguably unnecessary change



This is kind of a strawman... who here is asking for the Civilization series to have yearly entries like Call of Duty or for Civilization to be completely stagnant series like Fifa or an EA sports game...? Adding navigable rivers, commanders, improving the garbage tier AI, allowing us to level up leaders, removing barbarians for independent states, introducing a completely new UI and art style with enhanced graphics, removing builders, having different tiers of settlements, etc these are all massive changes to the formula without dramatically and contentiously changing the core of what the civilization series has been for decades.

I agree that most of these changes are quite logical. In fact I remember discussions about combining barbarians with city-states (which eventually I think spurred production of the VI game mode), and settlements turning into villages and cities. We can't really know how much was crowd-sourced from the forums versus just global consciousness producing the same good ideas, but I do approve the overall direction they have been taking gameplay.

That said, I also agree with the era swapping in principle, even if it remains to be seen how elegantly it was implemented. I like the idea of a momentum reset periodically in the game, giving you totally new tech trees and features to choose from. I think it will dramatically increase playability. However, I think we need to set expectations realistically; AI will probably be tied to leaders, and leaders probably will not be well trained to deal with all the nuances and playstyles of multiple civ options. I could even see meta gameplay revolving around depriving opponents of certain civ change options so as to cripple their AI with a choice that they have no idea how to utilize.

 

[rocksinmypath]

I'll admit I'm glad that Firaxis atleast mentioned AI concerns and is allegedly dedicating more resources towards competent AI but I saw what this team produced with 6 and don't have much faith, especially knowing they only had one dedicated AI designer on those past games. Also you must've misunderstood, I don't particularly care about or for forced narrative events in my 4x historical Civ sandbox. (though i do think having an event system is cool)

My response here would be this. When I said "Who cares besides the shareholders?" what I meant was, why would I as a long time fan of the series who doesn't like the direction of the latest game in the sequel care about the return of investment of Firaxis' shareholders?

Why do you keep making these arguments about yourself? How am I to guess that "Who cares besides shareholders?" means "Why should I, personally, care?" What am I to say to that? Also, I didn't misunderstand you when I mentioned investments in narrative events because that was a point about the company making investments to make the game better, not necessarily for you, but for an audience the devs are targeting. I'm going to stop because I doubt you're interested in engaging in a constructive discussion.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Why do you keep making these arguments about yourself? How am I to guess that "Who cares besides shareholders?" means "Why should I, personally, care?" What am I to say to that? Also, I didn't misunderstand you when I mentioned investments in narrative events because that was a point about the company making investments to make the game better, not necessarily for you, but for an audience the devs are targeting. I'm going to stop because I doubt you're interested in engaging in a constructive discussion.

Why do I keep expressing my opinion on a public forum....? Confusing question

When I said "Who cares besides shareholders?" I meant exactly that. This is shareholder talk.... the fans (including myself) who have no interest in this sequel because of massive fundamental changes Firaxis has made to the formula don't care about Firaxis' return of investment. It's great that Firaxis hired more people to design this game , too bad they couldn't present many of us as a long time fan with a product we actually want to buy.

I have been a Civilization fan for decades, and by extension 4x games for decades. I am one of the millions who buy their games and occassionally I am one of the tens of thousands playing this insanely succesful series daily. Long time fans like myself are the audience they should be targetting, why are they designing Civilization games for the people who bought it on sale and didn't finish a game? It'd be like Fromsoft designing their next Elden Ring or Darksouls game for the half of players didn't beat the first boss.

 

[TheGrayFox]

No, they should be targeting long term fans like myself! Which is what they appear to be doing, and why I'm mostly excited about what I'm hearing about Civ7 . Being a long term fan of something doesn't entitle you to anything. It certainly doesn't mean that devs "should" make the game you personally want them to make.

They can make the game for long time fans like yourself, the seemingly small minority of them explicitely excited for civ swapping and eras .

at the risk of allienating an equally if not larger percentage of the long time fans who have no interest in completely foundationally changes to their favortie series like Civ Swapping and Eras. You know the ones who caused their announcement stream to erupt in Ls and every single video and chatroom related to the series and sequel to be about how they don't like the changes.

It's a bold plan, we'll see if it plays out well for Firaxis in the end

 

[stealth_nsk]

They can make the game for long time fans like yourself, the seemingly small minority of them explicitely excited for civ swapping and eras .

Looking at this forum, I have quite opposite impression.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Looking at this forum, I have quite opposite impression.

you're impression might change once you actually look at polls of the forum

(POLL) What do we think of the change to playing multiple civs per game?

I thought it would be a good idea to do a headcount as to see how the community feels about the newly announced gameplay feature in civilization VII, where the player is meant to change civs twice during a normal game. Personally, I strongly disagree with the change and I will miss leading a...

forums.civfanatics.com