My solution to civ switching.

[Gorbles]

Ok, and? Sorry, but Civ has a significant name-recognition advantage over its competitors. Civ 7 is currently a failure relative to its predecessors, which is the comparison that the corporate executives and shareholders will care about far more.

So . . . games developers should only produce content that satisfies corporate and shareholder interests?

This is what you meant, right? It doesn't make sense if you don't want these interests served. I don't understand why you'd raise these groups otherwise.

Personally, I don't think either do much good for games. So why should I rate it as a metric? Convince me please.

The same was said about 5 and especially 6

VI's UI was welcomed and the game was considered a content-rich release (compared to the usual barebones Civ-on-release reset). This is pretty revisionist, imo.

 

[Crashdummy]

So . . . games developers should only produce content that satisfies corporate and shareholder interests?

This is what you meant, right? It doesn't make sense if you don't want these interests served. I don't understand why you'd raise these groups otherwise.

Personally, I don't think either do much good for games. So why should I rate it as a metric? Convince me please.

I am not the one that you replied to and this is another discussion, but sadly for the industry, those guys are the ones signing the checks

I would love if the industry only cares about Players, games and Devs, but i dont see that happening anytime soon

I couldnt care less about executives, but i want a fun game that does well with its playerbase, not to please executives, but to make sure the franchise continues forward

 

[ehecatzin]

The same was said about 5 and especially 6, but they did not perform anywhere near as bad

I dont know man, civ 5 launch was super negative, if anything it feels like deja vu (tho I do think this is worse)

I don't think we can lay all the blame on the UI.

Oh of course not, but I think those are the things that both new and old players are going to notice. I also agree in that taking us out of the game between ages is so far the worst idea they have implemented yet, all of that should happen in game.

The UI has improved a lot though, thats what i hear form the videos, yet the numbers dont go up and the new reviews keep being negative

I think Firaxis is doing a good work fixing the game but trust is very easily lost and it will take lots more work and time before people start to come back in large numbers. If I had to guess, I don't think we'll see a major shift in perception until many more patches and an expansion.

All that said, I do like the design desicion of only 3 eras, with deeper civs each era, and I'm also dissapointed that the implementation hasn't been so great so far. But I'm optimistic they will come around eventually, when they do, then I'll shell a few more bucks for Right to Rule, they are not quite there yet.

 

[Gorbles]

I am not the one that you replied to and this is another discussion, but sadly for the industry, those guys are the ones signing the checks

I would love if the industry only cares about Players, games and Devs, but i dont see that happening anytime soon

I couldnt care less about executives, but i want a fun game that does well with its playerbase, not to please executives, but to make sure the franchise continues forward

Sure, I think the developers should listen to players as well. I just don't find appeals to shareholders very convincing.

The problem we have is a) a very rough release and b) a substantially split playerbase.

It's not like there's nobody who wants to play VII as-is. Full disclosure; I like the game and what the devs are attempting. So I'm in that group. I've seen games crater with less than 1,000 concurrent players. Games that sink to less than 250 concurrent after a year. We're not there. I doubt we'll ever be there.

But there's a substantial amount of alienation, too. As I've said all along, this makes it a tricky situation. The devs were upfront in a number of dev blogs about their desire to change things and their sincere belief that change needed to happen. It's hard to predict success before it happens. I should know, I sat through all the dire pre-release predictions about VI

The difference is: VI was successful, and VII isn't looking as successful. But we can't rationalise predictions just because the outcome suits our arguments. There are people here that still criticise VI despite it being a popular success.

So what lessons should the developers learn? Are popular successes good? Or bad? Or are there other angles of introspection possible?

 

[Crashdummy]

Sure, I think the developers should listen to players as well. I just don't find appeals to shareholders very convincing.

The problem we have is a) a very rough release and b) a substantially split playerbase.

It's not like there's nobody who wants to play VII as-is. Full disclosure; I like the game and what the devs are attempting. So I'm in that group. I've seen games crater with less than 1,000 concurrent players. Games that sink to less than 250 concurrent after a year. We're not there. I doubt we'll ever be there.

But there's a substantial amount of alienation, too. As I've said all along, this makes it a tricky situation. The devs were upfront in a number of dev blogs about their desire to change things and their sincere belief that change needed to happen. It's hard to predict success before it happens. I should know, I sat through all the dire pre-release predictions about VI

The difference is: VI was successful, and VII isn't looking as successful. But we can't rationalise predictions just because the outcome suits our arguments. There are people here that still criticise VI despite it being a popular success.

So what lessons should the developers learn? Are popular successes good? Or bad? Or are there other angles of introspection possible?

I understand the Devs wanted to change things, but this isnt the only change possible, and not every change is a good change

Lessons to learn? I dont know if there is any lesson to learn, they tried something, it (IMHO) failed. I just hope they dont try to hold to the sinking ship for too long, because that can be dire

I think they need to go back to Civ being a smoooth and fluid sandbox experience and stay away from anything that goes against that. I am sure they can come up wiith plenty of ways to spice the game without interrupting the gameplay or taking atuff away from players

 

[AD1730]

I am not the one that you replied to and this is another discussion, but sadly for the industry, those guys are the ones signing the checks

I would love if the industry only cares about Players, games and Devs, but i dont see that happening anytime soon

I couldnt care less about executives, but i want a fun game that does well with its playerbase, not to please executives, but to make sure the franchise continues forward

Games that grow the audience and make money will please shareholders. They couldn’t care less about how you get there. Firaxis is fortunate that nearly all the shareholder attention is on GTA6 coming out next year rather than its Civ 7 failure. It should take advantage of that fact and rework Civ 7 into something that doesn’t alienate at least half of the franchise’s fans.

 

[Leucarum]

I also agree in that taking us out of the game between ages is so far the worst idea they have implemented yet, all of that should happen in game.

Yeah. I like the idea of the age system in creating a distinct feel and with distinct mechanics for each period of history... But the hard jolt between each one was jarring even when I felt positive about the idea. A gradual ease in and phase out of mechanics would probably have been better recieved. And I maintain that Civ Switching needed to be optional, for too many players losing a civ you enjoy is a big negative. It definitely is my biggest "feels bad" in Civ7

 

[Gedemon]

Really? Of course it will need to be compared with jprevious Civs, since there arent any other civ like game with the level of production that Civ games like, nor any of them has the level of recognition that Civilization has

And its clearly a failure since the difference is not close, its HUGE

I want to ask a question to the ones that think ages and civ switching arent a problem, what is in your opinion the reason why Civ 7 has such low numbers compared to any other Civ game in history except for Beyond Earth?

implementation is the problem, not the concept. Terrible UI didn't help, it's the second reason mentioned in the negative reviews.

IMO ages transition especially is the worst issue, negatively impacting the switch, the mandatory switch being second, that should be optional.

And HK performing better, with a HUGE difference with the other civ-like games, is a proof on a metric you choose (ie using a dataset of 2 entries to make a generalisation, one of them not even having the "significant name-recognition advantage over its competitors"), not mine initially.

 

[Gorbles]

I understand the Devs wanted to change things, but this isnt the only change possible, and not every change is a good change

Sure. I think a lot of us disagree on what changes are good, though. It's easy to say "not that". It's hard to say "then what".

It tends to come down to people who want less changes, vs. people who are happy with more. Obviously, the type and scope of the change matters as well, but this has been debating debated into the ground, repeatedly (not by you and I, but generally).

I think they need to go back to Civ being a smoooth and fluid sandbox experience and stay away from anything that goes against that.

I think this would be very difficult to take literally. Mainly because "what defines a sandbox in Civ" is also a debate that depends on the kind of player you are.

I think we're at the point in the franchise where previously, it's been possible to just add things to please a majority of players. Whereas now, for the franchise to grow (positively), more difficult choices have to be made. They're not always going to work out. But there's no evolution without experimentation.

 

[Crashdummy]

I think we're at the point in the franchise where previously, it's been possible to just add things to please a majority of players. Whereas now, for the franchise to grow (positively), more difficult choices have to be made. They're not always going to work out. But there's no evolution without experimentation.

Yeah, i think early internal testing and content creators that got invited to test things didnt do a good job at providing the right feedback honestly. Many of the things that created this situation should have arised in those two stages.

Early testing should have identified how divisive this was, and other stuff like the UI, fowrard AI settling, etc. Some of the mistakes make me think in testing done poorly

 

[aieeegrunt]

So . . . games developers should only produce content that satisfies corporate and shareholder interests?

This is what you meant, right? It doesn't make sense if you don't want these interests served. I don't understand why you'd raise these groups otherwise.

Personally, I don't think either do much good for games. So why should I rate it as a metric? Convince me please.


VI's UI was welcomed and the game was considered a content-rich release (compared to the usual barebones Civ-on-release reset). This is pretty revisionist, imo.

To this very day the majority of the top ten most popular mods of all time for Civ6 are UI mods, and for good reason. It most certainly was NOT welcome, even today.

Game devs should produce content that their playerbase enjoys and wants. It’s pretty clear that for the majority, Civ7 failed at both.

I dont know man, civ 5 launch was super negative, if anything it feels like deja vu (tho I do think this is worse)


Oh of course not, but I think those are the things that both new and old players are going to notice. I also agree in that taking us out of the game between ages is so far the worst idea they have implemented yet, all of that should happen in game.



I think Firaxis is doing a good work fixing the game but trust is very easily lost and it will take lots more work and time before people start to come back in large numbers. If I had to guess, I don't think we'll see a major shift in perception until many more patches and an expansion.

All that said, I do like the design desicion of only 3 eras, with deeper civs each era, and I'm also dissapointed that the implementation hasn't been so great so far. But I'm optimistic they will come around eventually, when they do, then I'll shell a few more bucks for Right to Rule, they are not quite there yet.

Civ5 had the usual post Soren Johnson rocky start but it’s two generations old and has a bigger player base than 7. Clearly something else is wrong.

7 has quite a few features that I have either always wanted to see in a Civ game, or want to try out, but like the majority of the playerbase civ switching and the era reset is the Do Not Want meme made reality.

Sure. I think a lot of us disagree on what changes are good, though. It's easy to say "not that". It's hard to say "then what".

It tends to come down to people who want less changes, vs. people who are happy with more. Obviously, the type and scope of the change matters as well, but this has been debating debated into the ground, repeatedly (not by you and I, but generally).

I think this would be very difficult to take literally. Mainly because "what defines a sandbox in Civ" is also a debate that depends on the kind of player you are.

I think we're at the point in the franchise where previously, it's been possible to just add things to please a majority of players. Whereas now, for the franchise to grow (positively), more difficult choices have to be made. They're not always going to work out. But there's no evolution without experimentation.

This is the exact reasoning that got Halo and Fallout where they are now, failures so ignominious they got the dev team disbanded for the former and fire saled for the latter.

Things like getting rid of builders, or adding Influence are evolutionary changes. Ditching the core identity of the game is not.

Halo went from a scripted narrative campaign to open world and the majority of the playerbase rejected it. It ditched the core identity and paid the price

Fallout went from an offline single player RPG famous for it’s modding scene to an always online PvP with no mods and the majority of the playerbase rejected it. It ditched the core identity of the game and paid the price.

Civilization has gone from a game where you led your tribe “from Cavemen to the Cosmos” and tried to build a civilization to stand the test of time, to three minigames human centipeded together where your civilization is deleted and replaced offscreen via developer fiat in a mandated “crises” regardless of the situation in game. Twice.

It has ditched the core identity of the game and is paying the price.

 

[Bug Repellent]

Yeah, i think early internal testing and content creators that got invited to test things didnt do a good job at providing the right feedback honestly. Many of the things that created this situation should have arised in those two stages.

I have to defend the content creators here. When they visited Firaxis' HQ in the Fall of 2024, they only played one antiquity age. They did not experience civ switching or abrupt age transitions, the two main issues that split the fan base.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I have to defend the content creators here. When they visited Firaxis' HQ in the Fall of 2024, they only played one antiquity age. They did not experience civ switching or abrupt age transitions, the two main issues that split the fan base.

Wut. 1.21 gigawhats.

How the hell is that an honest demonstration of your game?

 

[Bug Repellent]

Wut. 1.21 gigawhats.

How the hell is that an honest demonstration of your game?

It's possible they realized age transitions and civ switching were going to be trouble and perhaps they were working hard at the time to make them work. If that's the case, it's understanding they didn't want content creators to experience it 6 months pre-launch.

 

[Gorbles]

To this very day the majority of the top ten most popular mods of all time for Civ6 are UI mods, and for good reason. It most certainly was NOT welcome, even today.

The reception of the game on release trumps whatever logic you're applying to the existence and popularity of user mods, something most players don't even use.

If we are to believe that user reviews and the like matter for VII, then they mattered for VI. No need to invent different metrics for success just because your own opinion is in the minority when it comes to VI.

This is the exact reasoning that got Halo and Fallout where they are now, failures so ignominious they got the dev team disbanded for the former and fire saled for the latter.

Agree to disagree. We've been over this before.

 

[Crashdummy]

I have to defend the content creators here. When they visited Firaxis' HQ in the Fall of 2024, they only played one antiquity age. They did not experience civ switching or abrupt age transitions, the two main issues that split the fan base.

Ok then their blame is lower and Firaxis blame is even higher. I still dont know how things like UI, AI forward settling, etc were not identified

 

[aieeegrunt]

The reception of the game on release trumps whatever logic you're applying to the existence and popularity of user mods, something most players don't even use.

If we are to believe that user reviews and the like matter for VII, then they mattered for VI. No need to invent different metrics for success just because your own opinion is in the minority when it comes to VI.

Agree to disagree. We've been over this before.

7 is performing worse, on every single metric, than the games that came before it. Period. Full stop.

If this was due to things like bad UI, then Civ6 and Civ5 would have followed this same disasterous trajectory. They didn’t. There was controversy about things like districts and 1 UPT, yet those games didn’t flop like 7 has.

So what..I wonder is the thing that’s different. Gee. I wonder what it could be. Oh I know, maybe it’s the change so dramatic that they had to change the tagline they’ve been using for literally a decade and more.

 

[ehecatzin]

Civ5 had the usual post Soren Johnson rocky start but it’s two generations old and has a bigger player base than 7. Clearly something else is wrong.

I feel like Elrond, I was there Gandalf 3000 years ago.

It was bad, not just some hickup, but I think we are making the same point, they did eventually turn it around and turn it into a classic. But that takes time, work, and lots of patches and a couple expansions. However I do agree in that this time there's something else, and I think they deviated too much on the rules o 1/3. However I don't think the culprit is the civ switching all by itself, I've mentioned all the things I think caused the discontent, and I also think they can be fixed and tweaked for smoother gameplay.

Tho if I had to choose one feature I really dislike and I don't think can be "fixed" is the leaders, I think those are the most immersion breaking thing, not a civ evolving.

 

[Gorbles]

If this was due to things like bad UI, then Civ6 and Civ5 would have followed this same disasterous trajectory. They didn’t. There was controversy about things like districts and 1 UPT, yet those games didn’t flop like 7 has.

Good thing I never said VII's performance was solely due to its UI.

Was it a factor, though? Undoubtedly. You can't handwave that away, I'm afraid.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Tho if I had to choose one feature I really dislike and I don't think can be "fixed" is the leaders, I think those are the most immersion breaking thing, not a civ evolving.

I think it's less about immersion breaking, and more like this is how the games have always been up until this point. Some people still wanted the immortal civs as well, even though most can agree that it's not historically accurate either