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

[stealth_nsk]

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

I'm pretty sure if we make polls now (or, better in a couple of months), they will be really different from original ones. First reaction to changes is always negative especially when there's not enough information.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I'm pretty sure if we make polls now (or, better in a couple of months), they will be really different from original ones. First reaction to changes is always negative especially when there's not enough information.

Well feel free to remake the poll but until you do repeated polling of hundreds of members of this community and time spent in another other community dedicated to Civ from steam, youtube comments, discord, reddit, etc shows that there is a substantial portion of the fanbase upset about civ swapping and eras. The changes are still genuinely contentious and this reality can be found in the titles and discussions being had among Civ related influencers.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Well feel free to remake the poll but until you do repeated polling of hundreds of members of this community and time spent in another other community dedicated to Civ from steam, youtube comments, discord, reddit, etc shows that there is a substantial portion of the fanbase upset about civ swapping and eras. The changes are still genuinely contentious and this reality can be found in the titles and discussions being had among Civ related influencers.

The same story happens again and again with each new civ game released. And, I believe, with most game sequels. This "substantial fanbase upset" is usually very loud at start, but has no correlation with game success on release.

 

[TheGrayFox]

The same story happens again and again with each new civ game released. And, I believe, with most game sequels. This "substantial fanbase upset" is usually very loud at start, but has no correlation with game success on release.

Civ Swapping defenders love to point to "past controvesies when each new civ game is released" and rewrite a history many of us also experienced to pretend that there was ever a pre-release outrage similar to what we're seeing with Civ swapping and eras (outside of 6's artstyle).

This seems to be a common defense when all polls, data, and even subjective experience seems to contradict the idea that everyone secretly loves civ swapping and eras. The reality is though, I don't recall seeing repeated polls here where 25% polled had no intention of buying Civ 5 because of hexes and 1 unit per tile..

 

[Zaarin]

Civ Swapping defenders love to point to "past controvesies when each new civ game is released" and rewrite a history many of us also experienced to pretend that there was ever a pre-release outrage similar to what we're seeing with Civ swapping and eras (outside of 6's artstyle).

It's not "rewriting history"; literally every Civ release has been met with the same melodrama that the new game is awful and destroying the franchise and betraying long-term fans for filthy casuals. Every. Single. Time. And I'm sure every iteration has lost people along the way, but the franchise doesn't end over it.

 

[TheGrayFox]

It's not "rewriting history"; literally every Civ release has been met with the same melodrama that the new game is awful and destroying the franchise and betraying long-term fans for filthy casuals. Every. Single. Time. And I'm sure every iteration has lost people along the way, but the franchise doesn't end over it.

Please go find me polls from Civ 5's devolopment where 25% said they had no interest in the game because of hexes or 1 unit per tile

It is absolutely rewriting history to pretend that both these mechanics (which themselves were actually and generally popular changes within the fanbase as tactical combat/1 unit per tile was probably one of the most requested changes fans wanted from IV) had similar levels of outrage to civilization to Civilization swapping and eras. The idea that if Civ V had a similar devolopment showcase to VII today that the entire steam would've erupted into Ls when shown 1 unit per tile is laughable

 

[stealth_nsk]

Civ Swapping defenders love to point to "past controvesies when each new civ game is released" and rewrite a history many of us also experienced to pretend that there was ever a pre-release outrage similar to what we're seeing with Civ swapping and eras (outside of 6's artstyle).

This seems to be a common defense when all polls, data, and even subjective experience seems to contradict the idea that everyone secretly loves civ swapping and eras. The reality is though, I don't recall seeing repeated polls here where 25% polled had no intention of buying Civ 5 because of hexes and 1 unit per tile..

Do you remember how it was called "dumbed down" and compared to CivRev? And 1UPT was the main source of confusion, because people accustomed to Civ4 thought it would require hell of the time to manage those units, what there will be not enough space on the map, etc... After several livestreams most of those complains dissolved. I was on this forum and participated in those descussions.

 

[Zaarin]

The idea that if Civ V had a similar devolopment showcase to VII that the entire would've erupted into Ls when shown 1 unit per tile is laughable

Zoomers weren't old enough to have their own accounts when Civ5 released 14 years ago.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Do you remember how it was called "dumbed down" and compared to CivRev? And 1UPT was the main source of confusion, because people accustomed to Civ4 thought it would require hell of the time to manage those units, what there will be not enough space on the map, etc... After several livestreams most of those complains dissolved. I was on this forum and participated in those descussions.

No i remember all the different complaints very clearly (i was also here participating in those discussions), some of them are even still valid but what i'm trying to establish is that those were absolutely minority of the community and that 1unit per tile/tactical was generally one of the most requested changes from both fans and non-fans of the series. Many fans of IV wanted to move away from "doom stacks" (the name the derisively given to Civ combat), you can't say the same for civ swapping and eras.

1 unit per hex. Poll

Against. The idea of a single unit/army(?) of swordsmen/pikemen/archers/whatever solely occupying a single tile that is apparently supposed to represent hundreds of square miles of terrain is too jarringly unrealistic to tolerate. Civ combat systems have always been rudimentary when compared to...

forums.civfanatics.com

This is the rewriting of history i'm talking about. That the few who rightfully critiqued the move from 1 unit per tile (that were vindicated at V's disastorous launch) are comparable to the genuinely and overwhelmingly negative/contentious reception to civ swapping and eras

 

[Zaarin]

genuinely and overwhelmingly negative/contentious reception

At this point, there are about three or four posters who very loudly proclaim that Civ7 is awful and that civ switching has ruined the game. Now, I'm a humanities major so math isn't my strong suit, but I'm reasonably sure "three or four" is not a majority of this community. No one's obligated to like the change, but at this point a relatively small portion of this community is still upset. (Frankly, I don't care if the Steam community was upset. If FXS offered the game for free with a $1,000 cheque to each player and 500 civs with 800 leaders on launch, the Steam community would still find a way to complain about it, and YouTube is almost as bad.)

 

[stealth_nsk]

1 unit per hex. Poll

Against. The idea of a single unit/army(?) of swordsmen/pikemen/archers/whatever solely occupying a single tile that is apparently supposed to represent hundreds of square miles of terrain is too jarringly unrealistic to tolerate. Civ combat systems have always been rudimentary when compared to...

forums.civfanatics.com

This is the rewriting of history i'm talking about. That the few who rightfully critiqued the move from 1 unit per tile (that were vindicated at V's disastorous launch) are comparable to the genuinely and overwhelmingly negative/contentious reception to civ swapping and eras

That poll was made one month after the game was released, not on announcement. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[TheGrayFox]

At this point, there are about three or four posters who very loudly proclaim that Civ7 is awful and that civ switching has ruined the game. Now, I'm a humanities major so math isn't my strong suit, but I'm reasonably sure "three or four" is not a majority of this community. No one's obligated to like the change, but at this point a relatively small portion of this community is still upset.

This is faulty logic. The fact that many who were upset and critical about the changes moved on from posting and/or don't post daily doesn't change the fact that repeated polling of the active user base here has shown that the people actively excited for civ swapping and eras specifically are the smallest minority and that many of these changes are still rather contentious.

(Frankly, I don't care if the Steam community was upset. If FXS offered the game for free with a $1,000 cheque to each player and 500 civs with 800 leaders on launch, the Steam community would still find a way to complain about it, and YouTube is almost as bad.)

Even awknowledging how terrible steam and youtube communities are. I don't know what benefit it is to you to stick your fingers in your ears and act like those fans don't exist or matter just because you find the communities they belong to distasteful or negative.

 

[TheGrayFox]

That poll was made one month after the game was released, not on announcement. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

You couldn't find me any polls or threads/topics from before its release where 25% said they had no intention of buying the game because the change and where nearly half, if not more polled, viewed the changes outright negatively... because such levels negativity didn't and never existed regarding 1 unit per tile. districts, or hexes

this is what I'm talking about when refering to rewriting history

 

[Zaarin]

Even awknowledging how terrible steam and youtube communities are. I don't know what benefit it is to you to stick your fingers in your ears and act like those fans don't exist or matter just because you find the communities they belong to distasteful or negative.

I'm not "sticking my fingers in my ears"; I just could not possibly care less about the opinions of ignorant people, and Steam and YouTube are probably the most ignorant communities on the internet short of ***** (which isn't even fair to *****--there are some very intelligent trolls who know exactly what they're doing).

that many of these changes are still rather contentious.

"Contentious" isn't inherently bad.

 

[stealth_nsk]

You couldn't find me any polls from before its release where 25% said they had no intention of buying the game because the change and where nearly half, if not more polled, viewed the change negatively... because such negativity didn't exist

this is what I'm talking about when refering to rewriting history

Because such polls didn't exist. There were a lot of negativity.

EDIT: Anyway, this discussion is quite pointless. Firaxis, as a company need money. To get them, they need to:

1. Make good enough press before release what both old and new players buy it
2. Make the game good enough what many players buy expansions and DLCs

They clearly aware of what they are doing, pushing the biggest changes first, letting the negative wave hit and when just produce a stream of content so by the time of release the opinions will be mostly positive. The biggest break point probably will be giving out early game to streamers, so we see people from community actually playing it and hear their opinion. But this will be much closer to the release.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Because such polls didn't exist. There were a lot of negativity.

"A lot of negativtiy" My source: trust me

I'm sorry but we are absolutely in the realm of reinventing history if we're trying to pretend that over half of active members of the Civ 5 forums here were explcitly negative towards 1 unit per tile and hexes and that 25% had no intention of buying the game over these changes on announcement.

 

[Zaarin]

reinventing history

You keep using that word; I don't think it means what you think it means. Especially since you joined less than a month ago. I wasn't here for Civ5 releases or earlier, though I was in other communities, but I was here for the Civ6 release. It was every bit as negative as the Civ7 release. I still heard tantrums about the Civ6 art style as late as a couple years ago. I still hear them occasionally now. I think what you mean was that your reaction was not negative so you did not perceive the community's reaction as negative.

 

[RandV]

I'd like to emphasize here that while you always get negative response to changes and they tend to be the loudest, a major factor here is that the most controversial change the 'Civ switching' has such an overwhelmingly poor reception because Humankind made it a prime feature in their game and it went terribly. So from the perspective of the launch it isn't change for the sake of change, or change to appeal to 'casuals', it's copying from an inferior product to make a fundamental change to a key element of the entire series.

I'd imagine the reception to the early launch would have a much higher degree of positivity if that one feature was left out.

 

[Zaarin]

I'd like to emphasize here that while you always get negative response to changes and they tend to be the loudest, a major factor here is that the most controversial change the 'Civ switching' has such an overwhelmingly poor reception because Humankind made it a prime feature in their game and it went terribly. So from the perspective of the launch it isn't change for the sake of change, or change to appeal to 'casuals', it's copying from an inferior product to make a fundamental change to a key element of the entire series.

I'd imagine the reception to the early launch would have a much higher degree of positivity if that one feature was left out.

Or, framing it a different way, the feature would have been controversial but less so if Humankind weren't in the picture. I know my first reaction was negative largely because of HK until I saw Civ7's approach was quite different from HK's.

 

[TheGrayFox]

You keep using that word; I don't think it means what you think it means. Especially since you joined less than a month ago. I wasn't here for Civ5 releases or earlier, though I was in other communities, but I was here for the Civ6 release. It was every bit as negative as the Civ7 release. I still heard tantrums about the Civ6 art style as late as a couple years ago. I still hear them occasionally now. I think what you mean was that your reaction was not negative so you did not perceive the community's reaction as negative.

This isn't my first account here... I had to create a new one because i didn't remember my old password, email, etc. I've been lurking and posting here since 4 and was present during the announcement, devolopment, and release of V (and VI)

The negativity towards 6 was largely driven and fueled by elements of its art design/style and I already admitted that the controversy over art style was probably the only thing even remotely comparable to the backlash we're seeing to civ swapping and eras. (which are fundamental gameplay changes to the series, not simply aesthetics which can be ignored and modded)