Player stats, sales, and reception discussion

[Gorbles]

It's called, "firing your players." Wizards of the Coast did it with D&D 5th Edition, and great hew and cry resulted.

I remember the reception to the release of 4ed (for the uninformed: it was pretty extremely negative), so I'm not entirely sure it's at all comparable. Wizards being a terrible company aside, generally (as this manifests in a lot of ways, and not necessarily in the rules for their games designed by actual professionals, vs. the business side of things which is what I tend to criticise more).

But us humans do love our patterns.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think public perception and actual business results are totally different things. There are common narratives, like "evil corporation, thinking only about profits", which are very easy to catch and repeat, but reality is a bit more complex thing than those simple narrative could provide. Civ7 is often boxed into the same stereotypes, like people trying to frame 2K for being evil corporation and Firaxis for being creative force, pushed by their evil masters.

Speaking about D&D5, I have to say that this version was so successful, that it was sold more copies than all previous editions combined, pushing D&D from nerd hobby to mainstream and leading to first successful D&D movie, as well as driving a significant part of BG3 success.

 

[bitula]

Those of you who like the game, do you also like the part about era transition where gameplay elements are destroyed, repositioned or downgraded? Just asking, because I fail to imagine how can this be fun in any possible way. Or maybe this is not true, just invented by malicious reviewers?

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I remember the reception to the release of 4ed (for the uninformed: it was pretty extremely negative), so I'm not entirely sure it's at all comparable. Wizards being a terrible company aside, generally (as this manifests in a lot of ways, and not necessarily in the rules for their games designed by actual professionals, vs. the business side of things which is what I tend to criticise more).

But us humans do love our patterns.

By financial measures, 5E was far and away the biggest success of any DnD edition. Over on EN World I've heard 5E described as the Applebee's of the RPG world - nobody's first choice, but for most people a "that'd be fine" choice, perfect for a game that relies on gathering a group of friends.

 

[99-percent-sure]

Those of you who like the game, do you also like the part about era transition where gameplay elements are destroyed, repositioned or downgraded? Just asking, because I fail to imagine how can this be fun in any possible way. Or maybe this is not true, just invented by malicious reviewers?

I don't mind the military forces being repositioned and sometimes culled a bit, now that I know what to expect. But I'm not someone who plays entire games as one extended military campaign either. My wars tend to be infrequent and limited in scope. In fact, having the militaries reinvented at the outset of each age gives you an opportunity to establish your focus on moving forward with the legacy strategy you prefer, rather than being dragged down by ongoing wars when you wish you could be focusing on something else. Really, it's just knowing what the rules of the game are, and planning around them. The gameplay elements are still the same as other versions of Civ, in my mind; only some details are different. It's not like you lose control of your settlements, which can actually happen in Civ VI pretty easily due to loyalty changes. There's a lot of continuity.

I've learned to plan around losing adjacency bonuses, etc. for obsolete buildings once the era ends, so it's not troubling. The map can get pretty full, especially in your capital or in a city that has a lot of water tiles/mountains/resources, so overbuilding can be a benefit.

Oops, gotta go!

 

[MutilationWave]

Those of you who like the game, do you also like the part about era transition where gameplay elements are destroyed, repositioned or downgraded? Just asking, because I fail to imagine how can this be fun in any possible way. Or maybe this is not true, just invented by malicious reviewers?

Yeah, I enjoy it generally. It isn't my favorite thing about the game. Getting a whole new set of some combination of units, improvements, buildings, mechanics, and civic tree is cool. The tradition policies from your previous civ(s) are a cool way to make new synergies that can sometimes be very powerful. You always have access to your current civ's unique stuff, instead of having to wait until later in the game or only have them be useful in the early game.

There are downsides too. As you reach the end of an age you may not feel like creating buildings that you are only going to get the benefit of for a short time. Having cities revert to towns can suck, but there is a way out of having to do that.

I'm not a stickler for thoughts like "NO, Incans can't turn into French, it makes no sense!". I think that drives a lot of the negative reviews. I don't play civ to be an actual real world historical simulator. I play it to have fun. So if middle ages China ends up becoming modern Mexico, and I can't emphasize this enough, I DO NOT CARE, IT'S A VIDEOGAME. It's a fantasy 4X game with historical references.

Ok done ranting. Age resets aren't the greatest feature ever but the game is good, especially with patches and mods. Anyone who says the age change makes everything you did pointless is lying, or they haven't played much. The UI is bad and the game has a godawful learning curve. Not because it's incredibly complex, it's not, but it refuses to tell you how certain aspects work. The civilopedia is worthless. It took me over a week to play my first game because I was asking questions online and looking up how to play far more than actually playing.

Once it clicks for you, you'll like it, as long as the ahistorical stuff doesn't bother you. It has the potential to be the greatest civ game ever in my opinion.

 

[Siptah]

Those of you who like the game, do you also like the part about era transition where gameplay elements are destroyed, repositioned or downgraded? Just asking, because I fail to imagine how can this be fun in any possible way. Or maybe this is not true, just invented by malicious reviewers?

Repositioned? No, I don’t like that. On the other hand, it has some sense to it and it would feel weird if units were out in the field in the same region for 1000 years. I don‘t see a much better solution for that tbh.

Destroyed? Keeping ships would be a great headstart for the second age. But I’m not sure I’d like that. Land units rarely get destroyed. Is something else destroyed? Codices, trade routes etc. can continue to give yields if you select the respective legacy trait. Hence, I’m ok with what gets destroyed.

Down- and upgraded? I like overbuilding a lot. It feels so much better than in previous games to me, where a newly-founded city in 1800 would build the same buildings as one in 3000 BCE. Now old buildings are sometimes ok to keep, sometimes worth it, and sometimes a net negative. I also like the free upgrades on all units. Downgrades on rural tile yields is a bit strange tbh. But otherwise, your volcano might give you 60+ yield tiles by the end of the game. Downgrades on relations, suzerainties, policies, and policy slots is really, really good imho. I hate that I need to re-research trade tough. I like the downgrading of cities to towns and the de-specialization.

 

[protocol7]

I don’t like how my civ dies and a new one moves into their towns, but otherwise mechanically no complaints per se. I don’t really feel like it’s extra fun for for the game to move my units around so I have to move them back, and I don’t really get why they added that as a mechanic, but it also doesn’t ruin the game. It just makes things around the era change feel very board gamey and it takes me out of things a bit. The crises kind of suck and only harm the AI because I can always draw cards with no effects. In general the “decisions” the era change forces either seem to just limit you/slow you down and/or have obvious answers.

Presumably some other group of players loves it for some reason more than I dislike it, or they wouldn’t have added it, so I don’t mind tolerating it if it makes the game better for others.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Those of you who like the game, do you also like the part about era transition where gameplay elements are destroyed, repositioned or downgraded? Just asking, because I fail to imagine how can this be fun in any possible way. Or maybe this is not true, just invented by malicious reviewers?

It's actually pretty fun, because:

1. The rules for those things are pretty clear and cause a lot of strategic decisions. You need to time your wars, you need to have future ages in mind while planning your buildings and so on.
2. It has some balance. On one hand, due to reset no civilization is too far behind or ahead. On the other hand, there's enough things to carry your progress toward future eras.
3. Reset brings more things to do. Once you start new age, you have plenty of work to do to fill obsolete tiles with things actual for the new age.

I don't say it's perfect, but the question was about fun and there's significant amount of fun.

 

[j51]

I love most of the game but the era transitions could go/need a lot of work. It feels weird that every civs changes all at once. And you miss out some periods of history that are really interesting to me (late antiquity and the 18th century). And yeah, as others said, it disincentives building later period buildings that are only going to go obsolete soon. It’s cool picking the bonuses at the change though.

 

[j51]

Maybe late period buildings should be ageless?

 

[stealth_nsk]

Maybe late period buildings should be ageless?

Buildings keep some of their bonuses, so it's a matter of some balance tuning. Some more bonuses to keep, and they'll be worth keeping.

 

[Siptah]

Buildings keep some of their bonuses, so it's a matter of some balance tuning. Some more bonuses to keep, and they'll be worth keeping.

We need a campaign to make hospitals and banks useful!

 

[99-percent-sure]

I hate that I need to re-research trade though.

Yeah, this needs to stop. Once you have trade, you should keep being able to train merchants.

 

[protocol7]

It would be nice also if the buildings weren’t matched sets like antiquity monument, exploration monument, etc. but had some unique age specific effect.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It would be nice also if the buildings weren’t matched sets like antiquity monument, exploration monument, etc. but had some unique age specific effect.

I can't say they are copypaste. Each building has pretty unique bonuses. For example, among food buildings, Garden produces Influence, Inn - happiness, etc.

Those images show a lot of differences (although I don't know if info on images is 100% accurate) https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Building_(Civ7)?file=Food_buildings_(Civ7).png

EDIT: Probably science buildings are the only category with more or less dull progression, although even there antiquity ones have great work slots.

 

[Nikolai II]

Those of you who like the game, do you also like the part about era transition where gameplay elements are destroyed, repositioned or downgraded? Just asking, because I fail to imagine how can this be fun in any possible way. Or maybe this is not true, just invented by malicious reviewers?

What is destroyed? All settlements remain, and all units if you have enough commanders. In my current game I had 3 cities, total of 11 settlements in ancient era. Start of exploration, I kept 1 city by default. This could've been 2 had I moved my capital, which I chose not to. Second city is discounted, cost me 200 gold. Third 400 gold. I chose a better third city than last time due to changing circumstances. I started exploration with 5 commanders, each filled with 4 units. And 10 separate units in my settlements as per normal. 30 starting units is a lot and had I wished, I could've obliterated my neighbors. Only the settlement limit stopped me. I was at 11/10 already.

 

[itix]

Interestingly, Civ7 subreddit has 1.7k members, Civ6 subreddit 24k and Civ5 79k members.

Presumably this can be attributed to the general extinction of message boards but 1.7k is still quite a low number. This makes me wonder more about the state of the franchise than the game. The average Redditor is 23 years old.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Interestingly, Civ7 subreddit has 1.7k members, Civ6 subreddit 24k and Civ5 79k members.

Presumably this can be attributed to the general extinction of message boards but 1.7k is still quite a low number. This makes me wonder more about the state of the franchise than the game. The average Redditor is 23 years old.

That's because Civ7 is mostly discussed in Civ subreddit with 638k members.

 

[bitula]

It's actually pretty fun, because:

1. The rules for those things are pretty clear and cause a lot of strategic decisions. You need to time your wars, you need to have future ages in mind while planning your buildings and so on.
2. It has some balance. On one hand, due to reset no civilization is too far behind or ahead. On the other hand, there's enough things to carry your progress toward future eras.
3. Reset brings more things to do. Once you start new age, you have plenty of work to do to fill obsolete tiles with things actual for the new age.

I don't say it's perfect, but the question was about fun and there's significant amount of fun.

Interesting. So instead of the strategy of building on something you already have the strategy is to prevent losing what you have acheived and then get new tasks which were never before or not due to your own strategy. Interesting that you find this fun. I would never find something like this fun, but I can imagine this being fun for certain type of player. Like interestingly lots of people like demolishing type games, where you destroy stuff to make the game advance. Also there are the kind of games which have levels, like first level in a forest, second is on a mountain (I remember older ones like for C64 were such). I guess this can be fun too, but not for me.