Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Lazy sweeper]

That's not true at all. Plenty of players will stop playing the game and then come back when there's a new DLC to try. It's pretty normal to move onto another game after hundreds of hours of Civ, then come back later to try the new stuff.

Like where is the Map editor? Or Scenarios?
Those were always included in the base game, even HK has Map editor (a mess, and zero scenarios).
By the next "big patch" update I would hope they will toast those in the base game, then maybe try a new "sale" window.

Even Modders will do not touch the game without these premises, and that is essential for an healthy environment, to grow.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

VII is an masterpiece compared to V at release. You could actually start the game and play it.
It took almost six months for me to be able to start V up. And after that I really didnt care. Low quality graphics and watered down gameplay and nonexistent AI made me skip it. Made Civ:Rev look like a real game.

The worst part was the modding support. Holding back crucial source files brought in a catastrophic state of Mods constantly crashing, only the Steam workshop, years later
sort of panned out some incompatibility list, but still, is a total mess to this day, unless you don't stick with a modpack and that's it. Like caveman to cosmos.
I Really liked R.E.D. smaller units, because it scaled so much better. In Civ VI it worked for some units, and the you had one giant warrior, and other ugly stuff... that is because
they didn't want modders to get full access. That is really bad imo, because it restricts the engagement from the modding community, and the general public as a consequence.

Civ V only worked in Dx9 on my pc also basically, I abandoned even trying to launch it with dx11. I play it from time to time but not really as much as Civ IV and III. Not even close.
I prefer Civ BE by a mile, if I want 1upt. Sea colonies, Orbital units. That game was an inch away from Call to power level of complexity (both Sea colonies and Orbital colonies, underwater magrails, space elevators, unique units with some government types..)

 

[Kev1916]

Well yes, because the names having meaning to people who want to pretend they are leading an empire based on an actual civilisation?
Its the same for leaders

For example, lets say they changed the names of all the leaders to mickey mouse characters, so we had donald duck leading india etc but kept exactly the same bonuses.
Nothing would have actually changed about gameplay, just the names. But a lot of people would feel they are not playing civ.

Now that might be an Idea, as part of the meta you should be able to choose say Pokémon characters.

You start game one as Bulbasaur of the Babylonians and when the board flipps/reset's you get to go say Charizard of the Comanche.

It's only a name, thou copyright may be put that idea to bed

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I suspect Civ 7 needs a big gesture in order to take the narrative back. As it stands I'd maintain it's a great game, just one which most of its audience weren't asking for.

If I were firaxis I'd be looking at how to put Civ Switching on the chopping block. It's probably a lower hanging fruit to switch up than the era system, or other big bugbears. Removing something likw that would count as a big gesture toward one of the biggest causes of dissent.

Either that or they could try nerve stapling their audience...

Why negating us Mountains crossing and city settling on top of Mountains? You just need to add a few more Mountainous art terrains, with some flat tops, and humans anyway had always had the capabilities to shape any kind of terrain to their will. Most jewish settlements in Palestine were built on top of impossible places, for the best defence possible. The Romans built Mountains passes with huge Guard gates on mountainous terrains all over old Europe. Roads on mountains were essentials for them to travel around, and when Napoleonic France took over, they took possession of the ancient Romans gates to Italy and screwed Italians a long shot. To this day France still holds the most valuable defensive positions in the western Alps.

We've been asking this since civ III, because there were mods were you could settle cities on Mountains ( the notorious True Earth Map with Tibet ) and it was Epic. Ever since Civ IV they denied us this.
Why? I can understand you can't build a city on a Vulcano, but not a road. The Etna Vulcano is full of roads, and caves systems, small villages. It's just stupid.

Big gesture?

Dinos
Wild Animals
Mountains crossing-settling
Map Editor
Release full Assets control for modders (maybe ask for credential, idk, but open up a bit)
Sea colonies - Sea transport vessels (No walk on the waters option) and all related rewriting of the land-sea transitioning (Scouts ok, Marines Ok, Berserkers OK, all others... nope)
Orbital Units and colonies
Seamless experience from 4000BC to 4000AD (With good Space colonization, and maybe 1st person dogfights---- got the idea?)
Ride your Horse in 1st person, or be the King, or Princess, in 1st person, make it like the Sim, where you can adorne your Palace, and Throne Room.

Now. Which one of these would you consider "Big concessions"?

 

[Krikkit1]

I would really dislike this. Russia gets Russia bonuses. Spain gets Spain bonuses. Mixing them up would be really confusing.

So there would have to be some indication of the bonuses a civ had besides the name.

 

[Krikkit1]

make it like the Sim, where you can adorne your Palace, and Throne Room.

They really need to add that back. Stupid to remove it.

 

[Leucarum]

Why negating us Mountains crossing and city settling on top of Mountains? You just need to add a few more Mountainous art terrains, with some flat tops, and humans anyway had always had the capabilities to shape any kind of terrain to their will. Most jewish settlements in Palestine were built on top of impossible places, for the best defence possible. The Romans built Mountains passes with huge Guard gates on mountainous terrains all over old Europe. Roads on mountains were essentials for them to travel around, and when Napoleonic France took over, they took possession of the ancient Romans gates to Italy and screwed Italians a long shot. To this day France still holds the most valuable defensive positions in the western Alps.

We've been asking this since civ III, because there were mods were you could settle cities on Mountains ( the notorious True Earth Map with Tibet ) and it was Epic. Ever since Civ IV they denied us this.
Why? I can understand you can't build a city on a Vulcano, but not a road. The Etna Vulcano is full of roads, and caves systems, small villages. It's just stupid.

Big gesture?

Dinos
Wild Animals
Mountains crossing-settling
Map Editor
Release full Assets control for modders (maybe ask for credential, idk, but open up a bit)
Sea colonies - Sea transport vessels (No walk on the waters option) and all related rewriting of the land-sea transitioning (Scouts ok, Marines Ok, Berserkers OK, all others... nope)
Orbital Units and colonies
Seamless experience from 4000BC to 4000AD (With good Space colonization, and maybe 1st person dogfights---- got the idea?)
Ride your Horse in 1st person, or be the King, or Princess, in 1st person, make it like the Sim, where you can adorne your Palace, and Throne Room.

Now. Which one of these would you consider "Big concessions"?

Umm... That was a lot of typing for one beat of sarcasm... Is everything ok?

Point was, Firaxis probably don't have control of the narrarive right now around Civ7. One way to get it back is to pick something people are actually complaining about in 7 and make a.big show of changing it. Sure you could pick something else, but I suspect civ switching is the closest to the intersection of eye catching and plausible.

 

[Gorbles]

Well yes, because the names having meaning to people who want to pretend they are leading an empire based on an actual civilisation?
Its the same for leaders

For example, lets say they changed the names of all the leaders to mickey mouse characters, so we had donald duck leading india etc but kept exactly the same bonuses.
Nothing would have actually changed about gameplay, just the names. But a lot of people would feel they are not playing civ.

People can be hung up on the names; the presentation. Others aren't as much, or even at all.

Doesn't mean anyone wants Disney characters instead. It feels like you're missing the point a bit.

 

[Leucarum]

People can be hung up on the names; the presentation. Others aren't as much, or even at all.

Doesn't mean anyone wants Disney characters instead. It feels like you're missing the point a bit.

Especially since we already had Disney Princess Elaenor in Civ6...

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

People can be hung up on the names; the presentation. Others aren't as much, or even at all.

Doesn't mean anyone wants Disney characters instead. It feels like you're missing the point a bit.

I think you're actually the one missing the point if you think anyone is actually asking for Disney characters. The point was that people get hung up on names and presentation because names and presentation matter

 

[Kwami]

So there would have to be some indication of the bonuses a civ had besides the name.

No, I still wouldn't like it. The idea of "Russia with Mississippian bonuses" just doesn't work at all for me. Russia is Russia.

 

[Kwami]

Like where is the Map editor? Or Scenarios?
Those were always included in the base game, even HK has Map editor (a mess, and zero scenarios).

That's not true. Civ VI also shipped without mod tools or Steam Workshop support. That was all added in a later patch.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Russia is Russia, but before Russia it was Bulgaria

 

[Gorbles]

I think you're actually the one missing the point if you think anyone is actually asking for Disney characters. The point was that people get hung up on names and presentation because names and presentation matter

Sure they do. But the level to which they matter differs.

Nobody / nearly nobody would agree with or want with Disney names. Nor did I say anyone was asking for them. But when it comes to "differing levels of historical immersion due to mixing civs and leaders throughout Ages", it's a lot more nuanced. No?

Appeals to absurdity get people nowhere. It's very tiring to seemingly have every single poster positive about the game have their opinions twisted into supporting some hypothetical extreme that they never expressed support for (this isn't what you're doing - this is what I was responding to originally).

 

[protocol7]

It's not an appeal to absurdity, it's a simple example that proves that it can't possibly be true that only certain people are "hung up" on names or immersion. What we'd call in mathematics a proof by contradiction or reductio ad absurdum. I think you might be confusing it with appeal to ridicule, which is something else. What do you call the fallacy when you misunderstand and misquote someone and then act offended when they point out that you've misunderstood and misquoted then?

More on topic, the point is that everyone cares about that stuff, they just have different places where they draw the line. I'd play a Kingdom Hearts civ. I was a big fan of Fall from Heaven in Civ4 which had giants and dragons and stuff. It really doesn't bother me to mix it with the historical in a game. I also like secret societies mode and all that. But I totally get why someone's experience would be ruined by stupid names, leader and civ combinations, and civs changing into each other in ahistorical ways. I don't think they are "hung up" on silly things to feel that way.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Sure they do. But the level to which they matter differs.

Nobody / nearly nobody would agree with or want with Disney names. Nor did I say anyone was asking for them. But when it comes to "differing levels of historical immersion due to mixing civs and leaders throughout Ages", it's a lot more nuanced. No?

Appeals to absurdity get people nowhere. It's very tiring to seemingly have every single poster positive about the game have their opinions twisted into supporting some hypothetical extreme that they never expressed support for (this isn't what you're doing - this is what I was responding to originally).

No it's really not. The entire point being made was that names and presentation matter.

Your fixation on Disney characters aspect of the argument here is simply a way of deflecting away from the point. To the people complaining about civ and leader swapping because it "breaks their immerssion" seeing Ben Franklin of the Greeks who morph into the Shawnee is just as ridiculous as having Disney Characters for leaders or alien races for Civs. No where did anyone imply that you personally want Disney characters for leaders though

 

[Gorbles]

No it's really not. The entire point being made was that names and presentation matter.

Your fixation on Disney characters aspect of the argument here is simply a way of deflecting away from the point. To the people complaining about civ and leader swapping because it "breaks their immerssion" seeing Ben Franklin of the Greeks who morph into the Shawnee is just as ridiculous as having Disney Characters for leaders or alien races for Civs. No where did anyone imply that you personally want Disney characters for leaders though

And my point is that "Disney characters" and "Egypt turning into Abbasids" are not the same thing.

People who have a different opinion to you, still care about things like names and presentation. I've picked Hatshepsut / Egypt more times than I can count.

If you truly think that Ben Franklin of the Greeks turning into the Shawnee is as bad as every character suddenly being a Disney character, then sure, that's your opinion. I don't think it's a fair characterisation of what the game lets you do, and that's my opinion. Can you respect mine as I do yours, despite our disagreement?

 

[protocol7]

What was the disrespectful part that you’d like remedied? I’m not seeing it. People telling you that you’ve misunderstood or misquoted them is not disrespectful imho.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

And my point is that "Disney characters" and "Egypt turning into Abbasids" are not the same thing.

People who have a different opinion to you, still care about things like names and presentation. I've picked Hatshepsut / Egypt more times than I can count.

If you truly think that Ben Franklin of the Greeks turning into the Shawnee is as bad as every character suddenly being a Disney character, then sure, that's your opinion. I don't think it's a fair characterisation of what the game lets you do, and that's my opinion. Can you respect mine as I do yours, despite our disagreement?

and your point again seems to be completely missing the point. No one is arguing that Disney characters and Egpyt morphing into Buganda are the exact same thing nor are they arguing that you personally want to play as Goofy. The entire point of the analogy was to drive home the point that names and presentation matter, something that you even agree on ultimately. The point wasn't about where we subjectively draw the line on how much those names and presentation matter

 

[Gorbles]

and your point again seems to be completely missing the point. No one is arguing that Disney characters and Egpyt morphing into Buganda are the exact same thing nor are they arguing that you personally want to play as Goofy. The entire point of the analogy was to drive home the point that names and presentation matter, something that you even agree on ultimately. The point wasn't about where we subjectively draw the line on how much those names and presentation matter

Nobody said that names and presentation didn't matter. All Sammy said was that people get hung up and names and presentation. You're not disputing that folks do. Neither am I. So what was the point of trying to say something about Disney in the first place?

Neither of us can answer that. Neither of us are trev What you and I can do is try not to accuse people of "deflection" and the like. It's unnecessary. If people are getting their wires crossed, there are much better ways to unpick that kind of confusion.