Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[m_mus]

Rome into Byzantium into Ottomans really brings home one of the issues of how civ switching doesn't really work very well. The fantasy that we have when we play a civ is that we take them from the stone age into modernity and we craft them through that time, maintaining them across history. The Eastern Roman Empire was conquered and destroyed by the Ottomans, they didn't 'become' the Ottomans. If that was a Civ game it would be one player wiping out the other one.

For what it's worth, I like the concept of a civ evolving over ages, going from Greece to say Spain, well it's kind of cool. It's just so crude at the moment. If instead I remained Greece, but had the option of taking on more and more elements of Spanish culture and personality as time goes on, well that would be good, and maybe at some point I can choose to rename my cities and my civ as Spanish, but it would less abrupt, and would be due to the consequences of my actions and choices.

Actually, I kinda like exactly the transition Rome-->Byzantium-->Ottomans, since the Ottomans took over and mirrored certain institutions and administrative practices from the Byzantines.
The example used by Ed Beach in the promotional run-up was similar: Londinium was a roman founding, Anglo-Saxon settlement in the early Middle Ages, then to be taken over by the Normans. Each transition by military force. Yet I grant your point, that especially "hostile takeovers" are odd, if they appear to happen in the "dark" between ages, outside the actual gameplay.

 

[McSpank01]

Actually, I kinda like exactly the transition Rome-->Byzantium-->Ottomans, since the Ottomans took over and mirrored certain institutions and administrative practices from the Byzantines.
The example used by Ed Beach in the promotional run-up was similar: Londinium was a roman founding, Anglo-Saxon settlement in the early Middle Ages, then to be taken over by the Normans. Each transition by military force. Yet I grant your point, that especially "hostile takeovers" are odd, if they appear to happen in the "dark" between ages, outside the actual gameplay.

Sure there is some form of continuity there, transforming the Hagia Sofia into a mosque is kinda symbolic. Really though it's basically one Civ invading another civ and taking their stuff, which isn't quite the mental leap you are making when Civ Switching'. The devs like to position it as just an evolution, changing and updating who you are, but the reality is most empires break apart and are eaten up by other ones.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Rome into Byzantium into Ottomans really brings home one of the issues of how civ switching doesn't really work very well. The fantasy that we have when we play a civ is that we take them from the stone age into modernity and we craft them through that time, maintaining them across history. The Eastern Roman Empire was conquered and destroyed by the Ottomans, they didn't 'become' the Ottomans. If that was a Civ game it would be one player wiping out the other one.

For what it's worth, I like the concept of a civ evolving over ages, going from Greece to say Spain, well it's kind of cool. It's just so crude at the moment. If instead I remained Greece, but had the option of taking on more and more elements of Spanish culture and personality as time goes on, well that would be good, and maybe at some point I can choose to rename my cities and my civ as Spanish, but it would less abrupt, and would be due to the consequences of my actions and choices.

The same would be with Spain and Greece in other civ games too. You could take over Athens as Spain and build conquistadors and missions completely wiping out Greek culture. it's just when it comes down to historical takeovers, Aztecs into Mexico, and Byzantines into Ottomans, is when I see people have a problem even though those make the most sense for civ progression.

Mind you that I'm not totally on board with civ switching either but at least those examples above aren't as bad as Greece to Spain or Normans, in my opinion. In fact, Greece>Byzantium>Ottomans would be much better.

 

[protocol7]

I always thought the current implementation was quite explicitly that your civ falls and a new one (of your choice) moves into the ruins of their houses at some point during the offscreen time.

 

[socratic]

Rome into Byzantium into Ottomans really brings home one of the issues of how civ switching doesn't really work very well. The fantasy that we have when we play a civ is that we take them from the stone age into modernity and we craft them through that time, maintaining them across history. The Eastern Roman Empire was conquered and destroyed by the Ottomans, they didn't 'become' the Ottomans. If that was a Civ game it would be one player wiping out the other one.

This is more a problem with the availability of Civs. If Rome to Byzantines to Ottomans was the only path, then yeah it’d feel strange. But in the future, Byzantium could transition to Modern Greece historically, then have Russia, Ottomans, whatever as options.

 

[Sagax]

I always thought the current implementation was quite explicitly that your civ falls and a new one (of your choice) moves into the ruins of their houses at some point during the offscreen time.

It’s just all over the place, and the current gameplay and narrative elements contradict each other. At least in my perception.

The civ unlock narratives and some narrative events paint it as evolution and natural progression.

The crisis mechanic paints it as the fall and replacement.

The age-end cinematic and golden age legacies suggest that you’re ending on a high note.

The age reset - especially settlement downgrade and building obsoletion - makes it feel like your civ for one reason or another has not been keeping up with the times during the timeskip.

Not easy to make up our minds on this when the game itself can’t.

 

[itix]

This is more a problem with the availability of Civs. If Rome to Byzantines to Ottomans was the only path, then yeah it’d feel strange. But in the future, Byzantium could transition to Modern Greece historically, then have Russia, Ottomans, whatever as options.

You all got it wrong. Finland is the heir of the Roman Empire.

 

[Civinator]

You all got it wrong. Finland is the heir of the Roman Empire.
View attachment 734747

 

[Krikkit1]

Also yes. They definitely need to dress it up. But it still feels janky. Game won't feel fluid until there's enough options to pad absolutely everything.

But I figured another issue, is that once they have enough Civs, you'll start facing choice paralysis, and you'll be unlocking like 12 Civs at once, which will feel equally tacky.
Don't forget most of those Civs will be DLC, so you'll have to basically buy your way into the game making sense / feeling good. Or buy the collection in 5 years.

Unfortunately, and ignoring my personal opinion about Civ switching, I don't see a feasible way forward for it, except to make it somehow optional for players. I'll explain why.

Most people think (or thought) about Civ like some kind of alternate history. So when you play England it's as if you're playing the story of England, if England was somewhere else and had different circumstances, and you could control the development of that Nation in your own specific way.

So the control over how you lead it is the crucial aspect that people enjoy, they play as the Supreme Leader, and have to face adversity and enemies in a story taking their country to the top.

Once you introduce this new layer, there's some inherent dissonance. On paper it makes sense - you switch with the Ages and follow a path that occured in real life - Romans, Normans, English.

But the circumstances are not the same, so it doesn't make sense. Some Civs don't have successors, so you have to make a leap of logic. Some Civs don't have predecessors.
At this point, the story starts to lose shape, and it's more like you are switching character in a video game, rather than a natural progression.

If every Civ had a genuine successor and predecessor, then switching Civ would be a foregone conclusion. But there isn't and never will be, so it's not.

Which is why you need to be able to control the Name of your civ. If I pick the uniques of Roman-Norman-Britain but can make the Game call my civ "England" all the way through, then it feels a lot better (it also lets me get a Han-Chola-America "India"/"China"/"America" because that is the way I want to build the India/China/America I believe in... or I can change the name each era.)

 

[Krikkit1]

It’s just all over the place, and the current gameplay and narrative elements contradict each other. At least in my perception.

The civ unlock narratives and some narrative events paint it as evolution and natural progression.

The crisis mechanic paints it as the fall and replacement.

The age-end cinematic and golden age legacies suggest that you’re ending on a high note.

The age reset - especially settlement downgrade and building obsoletion - makes it feel like your civ for one reason or another has not been keeping up with the times during the timeskip.

Not easy to make up our minds on this when the game itself can’t.

Crisis shows that not all old stuff is good, things need to change (and rebuilding is a good opportunity to change)

Doing stuff in New Era needs new ways of doing things (civ switch+building obsolesence+remove social policies) ....
However we can use some of our Old accomplishments to get ahead (Legacies+Civ unlocks+Traditions+Attributes)

I think the idea that there was conflict in the Crisis->start of next age is assumed... but that conflict is never Complete replacement... even the "Colonizer States" still take some aspects of the peoples they largely wiped out (especially since they never totally wiped them out).. and sometimes it can be an internal development (which still has conflict)

 

[Bug Repellent]

I will never understand the rationale to introduce abrupt civ swapping in Civ7. In Civ6, I always thought I'm constantly evolving my civilization via great people, governments, governors and their promotions, age dedications, pantheons and religion in general, targeted city state suzerainty, policy cards, techs, civics, wonders with empire-wide effects... and a few others. All of these changes, crucially, are under my control and they do not break game immersion. By comparison, hard civ swapping at abrupt points in the play through is far inferior as a mechanic for me. As a "bonus", it also creates civ/leader combos that are just plain weird and silly. See, for example, Ursa Ryan's recent Friedrich, leader of... Persia in a - I kid you not - true start location map setting. Then he switched to... Bulgaria in the exploration age and went colonizing, because we all know Bulgaria was an important colonial power.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I will never understand the rationale to introduce abrupt civ swapping in Civ7. In Civ6, I always thought I'm constantly evolving my civilization via great people, governments, governors and their promotions, age dedications, pantheons and religion in general, targeted city state suzerainty, policy cards, techs, civics, wonders with empire-wide effects... and a few others. All of these changes, crucially, are under my control and they do not break game immersion. By comparison, hard civ swapping at abrupt points in the play through is far inferior as a mechanic for me. As a "bonus", it also creates civ/leader combos that are just plain weird and silly. See, for example, Ursa Ryan's recent Friedrich, leader of... Persia in a - I kid you not - true start location map setting. Then he switched to... Bulgaria in the exploration age and went colonizing, because we all know Bulgaria was an important colonial power.

Eh. We also know how china built the Pyramids.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This is more a problem with the availability of Civs. If Rome to Byzantines to Ottomans was the only path, then yeah it’d feel strange. But in the future, Byzantium could transition to Modern Greece historically, then have Russia, Ottomans, whatever as options.

If it makes people feel better, I also believe that Persia>Abbasids>Ottomans will likely be a thing, if people don't want to reach the Ottomans by progressing through European civs.

You all got it wrong. Finland is the heir of the Roman Empire.
View attachment 734747

Well Thermae to Saunas are a natural progression.

 

[Bug Repellent]

Which is why you need to be able to control the Name of your civ

In my opinion, they will never get the balance right with civ swapping and the net result will badly hurt replayability as it will flatten civ/leader differences. Too many combinations to work properly. It's like trying to build a wardrobe where every item must work with any other item. This will rule out bold, unique colorful items. I have over 4,000 hrs in Civ6 because there are so many civs that if you want to take advantage of their attributes, you play the game very differently. Which is fun. In Civ7, I don't see how they can do this.

Eh. We also know how china built the Pyramids.

I get what you mean. I guess we all have different immersion breaking points and mine just happen to be on the wrong side of civ swapping and on the right side of China building the Pyramids. When it comes to game sales, what matters is how many people are like me and dislike it enough to not purchase the game, or like you. There are people that like The Last Jedi, The Marvels, or Star Trek Discovery. But were these good for their respective franchise? I'd argue no, since they didn't capture enough new fans compared to what they lost.

 

[Kwami]

In my opinion, they will never get the balance right with civ swapping and the net result will badly hurt replayability as it will flatten civ/leader differences. Too many combinations to work properly. It's like trying to build a wardrobe where every item must work with any other item. This will rule out bold, unique colorful items. I have over 4,000 hrs in Civ6 because there are so many civs that if you want to take advantage of their attributes, you play the game very differently. Which is fun. In Civ7, I don't see how they can do this.

Have you actually played the game? There are plenty of imbalances and combinations that work better or worse than others and there are plenty of unique abilities that are fun to play around.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

First sub 7,000 concurrent player peak today, so we're still dropping

 

[GeneralZift]

First sub 7,000 concurrent player peak today, so we're still dropping

But how??? They just announced the map sizes that should have been there from release... Who could have guessed this unfortunate turn of events

 

[youngsteve]

First sub 7,000 concurrent player peak today, so we're still dropping

It will need to drop into 3 figures before certain people on these boards admit the game is in trouble, & even then many will make convenient excuses. What cannot be ignored is that each day less & less people are talking about this game anywhere, except on boards like these. Although I don't have this game, I do love the series, which I have played for decades, & this awful game is damaging the franchise.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Delaying the patch that was supposed to be out this week wouldn't have helped. Although releasing a buggy patch would have been worse. Not surprised to see lower lows when people may be holding off starting a new game until after the patch drops.

 

[Bug Repellent]

Have you actually played the game? There are plenty of imbalances and combinations that work better or worse than others and there are plenty of unique abilities that are fun to play around.

I did not purchase the game for many reasons, but I wasn't talking about me. I was talking generally and the still dropping daily player numbers support the lack of replayability. I also didn't say that are NO differences whatsoever in Civ7 between combinations. I said that in my opinion civ switching will flatten civ/leader unique differences.

In a weird way, if Civ7 manages to give you very unique civ/leader combos every age, it will have the effect of making the game feel very much like 3 minigames glued together. I just don't see how Civ7 can work with Civ6's Greece/Pericles, Babylon and finally Eleanor/France in one game. So the only "solution" that I see is very different leader abilities that require a unique playthrough paired with rather vanilla civ abilities. In Civ6, it is generally accepted that civilization abilities that do not synergize well with leader abilities led to a weaker a civ/leader combo. Korea/Seondeok is highly synergistic for a science victory. Poland/Jadwiga isn't synergistic and if I were to guess, it is picked by players far less than Korea/Seondeok is. Also, Peter/France/Chateau would be a very weak combination in Civ6, whereas Eleanor/Russia/Lavra would be game breakingly overpowered.

In the restaurant business, top restaurants have relatively short menus, but every item is exquisite and different from all the others. You know what doesn't usually work? 100 item menus that allows you to combine them in 1 million different three course meals. More choices sounds good in principle, but in practice such restaurants generally deliver a "meh" experience. I'm afraid that's what will happen in Civ7. Lots and lots of leader/civ combos for every age, but all will be "meh". I will be delighted to be proven wrong by the devs, though. Having an amazing Civ7 to put another wonderful 4,500 hrs into it will make me very, vey happy. Contrary to what many think, as a "complainer" and would love nothing more than to become a rabid Civ7 fan.