I recommend Stellaris. It is one of their best games and have a clear 4X feel in regards to the exploration phase.
Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread
- Thread starter user746383
- Start date
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,619
It's definitely the most Civ-like Paradox game - though I'll add that there are plenty of "empty world" mods for EU4 which also do a reasonable job at recreating a Civ-like experience. As it stands though, Paradox games generally feel close but not the same in terms of genre...I recommend Stellaris. It is one of their best games and have a clear 4X feel in regards to the exploration phase.
Yes. Also, EU has terra incognita you need to reveal. It's a middle point.
List of "civilizations" (in previous civ video game terms) that can be argued to have survived plenty of real life "age transitions" and even go "from the ancient to the information age"
--- Maya (there are 8 million Maya today, mostly still speaking Mayan languages, and Guatemala is in a way Mayan country, so you get clear millenia of continuity)
--- Plenty of other indigenous peoples, depending how far to the past do you wanna date their origins
-- Berber peoples (30% of Morocco and Algeria and still speaking their languages and maintaining traditions)
--- Jews
--- Armenians (and Georgians?)
--- Assyrians
--- Greeks
--- Basque
--- Irish
--- Persians
--- depending on your definition Arabs may count
--- arguably Ethiopia, since you can delineate their cultural continuity since Damot and Punt
--- a ton of Indian peoples, for example Tamil who wrote 2nd century BC poems in highly understandable Tamil language within recognizable Tamil culture
- Vietnamese and Cambodians
- China, Korea and Japan as a whole
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,619
I love playing what would now be antiquity civs, and seeing a Sumerian or Mayan empire in the modern era for example was definitely one thing I really enjoyed flavour-wise. A lack of civs I want to play as the game goes on definitely contributes to me not finishing many games of Civ7.
stealth_nsk
Deity
Yeah, it was the only Paradox game I was actually able to play. In addition to meaningful exploration, it has some other elements of strategic games like more or less equal starts (unlike historical Paradox games, which are more about simulation here). Also, it explores sci-fi themes very well. Still I genuinely hate "real time with pauses" gameplay. Recently it was successfully mostly pushed out of RPG genre and I really hope it will happen with Paradox games too.I recommend Stellaris. It is one of their best games and have a clear 4X feel in regards to the exploration phase.
Or, more realistically, I really hope the developers of Ara will use their experience to create a proper sci-fi game on the same core mechanics. Would be something really cool.
Honestly, historical Paradox games feel pretty far from Civilization to me. Civilization is built around managing tiles (and since Civ5 it explores more ways to utilize those tiles), while zone-based maps are managed in totally different way. It's like chess vs. Ticket to Ride. Also, as I wrote above, the Paradox gameplay of real time with pauses differ too much from proper turn-based games.
j51
Blue Star Cadet
I’ve always wanted a turn based paradox historical game, preferably covering all of recorded history.
queenpea
Emperor
If they could find a way to let the player transcend their civilization into the next era—similar to what Humankind does—it would be a huge improvement for Civ7. I'm not sure how they would implement that, though.
I’d also like to see them readjust the length of each era, either by slightly extending their durations or by adding a slower-paced era mode, so I can feel more immersed while playing as a civ. I enjoy the current pace of the Antiquity Age, but the Exploration Age—and especially the Modern Age—go by so quickly and abruptly that I can barely immerse myself or take full advantage of the civs’ features.
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,619
I'd like to see transcendance, but there are also players at the other end of the spectrum who prefer modern civs... I can tolerate Civ switching, but I don't think it was a good idea.
untitledjuan
Prince
I completely agree with this and you can see the backlash of doing so in the comments of the Simón Bolívar First Look Video on YouTube. I bet Firaxis though that having both Mexico and Simón Bolívar in the game would instantly make all of Latin America happy and "represented", but the effect was the exact opposite. Most people commented that it's a bit weird to link Mexico with Simón Bolívar in any sense, that they hoped they get to have Colombia back as a civ and a separate Mexican leader for, well, Mexico per se. Some comments even get to the point of being angry arguing that "Americans think that all Latin American are the same" by having "Simón Bolívar as the leader of Mexico".
Meanwhile, the First Look video for Gran Colombia in Civ 6 has much more positive comments in regards to representation of the region and even of Hispanic America as a whole, even from people who are not from the countries that descend from Gran Colombia. It's better to have complete representation of a single nation of a region, rather than a leader from there and a civs from elsewhere in the same continent awkwardly linked by the devs in a single package. The game would have had a better impact in Latin America if they had either a Mexican civ with a Mexican leader, a Colombian civ with a Colombian/Venezuelan leader and or a Brazilian civ with a Brazilian leader, not a weird mix of leader and civs as they did in Civ 7.
I wouldn't be inherently against leaders being separated from civilizations. However, it would have been cool that there were at least one corresponding leader choice for each existing civilization within the game, so as not to have this kind of problems of bad historical representation and forced links between completely unrelated leaders and civilizations that can be received badly by real life audiences from said cultures. A system similar to Civ 4's optional game setting that allowed you to choose any civilization and match it with any leader, but still having a corresponding "historical" leader for every civilization.
PS. As a Colombian, it is indeed rather bizarre to see Simón Bolívar's First Look video feature a song that's representative of Mexico in the same way the The Star-Spangled Banner is representative of the USA. That's like having a George Washington First Look video with O Canada! in the background. I bet many Mexicans felt the same. It completely ruins the idea that Firaxis might have had of being more "inclusive" when choosing which civilizations to add to the game.
(The Spanish theme would have suited Simón Bolívar's First Look video a lot better than Mexico's, considering that Spain's theme is based on a musical composition made in the South American colonies by a Peruvian composer and, well, at least Bolívar ruled Peru)
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 10,084
Don´t give Firaxis such ideas. When looking on Civ 7 they could be able to do this.
untitledjuan
Prince
Well, the current system of the game and lack of cultural sensibility could allow, and has already allowed, for things like this to happen, so it wouldn't be weird to see Washington marching to O Canada! at this point in the game, tbh.
Nothing can stop them now from suggesting players to "consider pairing George Washington with Canada" in a First Look video for a future DLC at this point.
Bug Repellent
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2020
- Messages
- 69
Another great example why civ swapping is so difficult to implement in a seamless fashion. I'd love to see a survey how the average player sees these "culturally sensitive" leader/civ combos and if it affects player retention. Maybe a college student will write a thesis at some point.
Sorry to disturb your conversation. I have enjoyed reading it, but June is over and we have new data. The patient is stable. Those are the words I would use to describe the current VII condition.
I have often seen VII described as a new BE, but the data for BE was much worse. BE data:
It is also often mentioned that Civ V launch was bad. The data does not support that either.
Notez-bien, I just realized many Civ games were launched around September-October. This is yet another suspicion that the VII launch was rushed by management.
I have often seen VII described as a new BE, but the data for BE was much worse. BE data:
It is also often mentioned that Civ V launch was bad. The data does not support that either.
Notez-bien, I just realized many Civ games were launched around September-October. This is yet another suspicion that the VII launch was rushed by management.
user746383
King
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 775
Just wanted to mention you cut off the first month of Beyond Earth there. Both BE and Civ7 started around 80,000 users, fell to about 45,000, fell to 20,000 or so, but from there they diverge. BE had a bigger sale which got more players, but then lost them all the following month and then continued the decline, where as of now it looks like civ7 hit its floor with the sale, if it doesn't lose sale players next month like BE did.
EDIT: oops I made the same mistake reading the chart, July was just one day so is of course the same as June so far.
EDIT: oops I made the same mistake reading the chart, July was just one day so is of course the same as June so far.
Last edited:
Copies sold in the last 7 days currently sits at 4.6k, while before the sale it was around 3k. So, I don't think there are many "sales players" to keep the numbers up, if we assume that 10k concurrent players means something like 100k active players (which you can of course disagree with). It seems to me as if we still see an effect of the patch.
There are options for both an overall slower pace and longer eras on the current version. I haven't tried combining them (yet), but they each improve the game for me.
Thank you for this. It is really eye-opening to see how for its "controversial launch" Civ5 has always had active player count between 33 and 50% of the release numbers (which is an extremely high ratio for any video game by the way!), not matter if you look at 4, 8 or 12 months after its release. Whereas civ7 has rapidly collapsed to 15% after merely four months, and it may not be the end of the decline. It completely obliterates the argument from "civ5 was similar" (which I have used myself in my more optimistic days).
In fact, I don't understand why do you say that the patient is stable? Every month has shown significant decline, maybe you say this after the quick glance at the "last 30 days" and "June" being very similar, but it seems you have forgotten that we have the 2nd of July so "last 30 days" is simply almost synonymous to "June"
In the meantime, I have checked on many Steam games due to the summer sale, and let me show you by comparision with the other games widely considered as "flops" (if not "disasters") to see how disastrous the state of civ7 is as measured by Steam user reviews. If you recognize at least a few of the massive failures listed below your feelings should be similar to mine "oh wow what a mess". 47% may create an illusion of the "mediocre score" but when you compare it with games widely considered unsuccesful then it turns out that actually Steam reviews have a very strong upward positive bias and 47% is a catastrophic result in the Steam context.
(I won't include the games considered to be the financial and critical failures at the ~70% review rate because there have been many of them - to my surprise for example Mass Effect Andromeda has been at this point, despite being widely disliked, ridiculed, losing its player count very rapidly and failing to the point of killing off all planned DLC and two sequels. It seems that already 70% in the Steam context is the beginning of a massive danger zone for the games long term survival)
67% positive reviews
~60%
57%
~50%
And Civ7 is at 47%. And constantly falling (recent reviews are 2/3 negative!), currently being near the rock bottom neighborhood of the average score of Agony, Wolfenstein: Youngblood, LOTR: Gollum (lol) and Redfall.
Tl;dr the current review score of civ7 is far below many of the games considered to be spectacularly bad, franchise killers, financial bombs etc.
(I won't include the games considered to be the financial and critical failures at the ~70% review rate because there have been many of them - to my surprise for example Mass Effect Andromeda has been at this point, despite being widely disliked, ridiculed, losing its player count very rapidly and failing to the point of killing off all planned DLC and two sequels. It seems that already 70% in the Steam context is the beginning of a massive danger zone for the games long term survival)
67% positive reviews
Spoiler :
~60%
Spoiler :
57%
Spoiler :
~50%
Spoiler :
And Civ7 is at 47%. And constantly falling (recent reviews are 2/3 negative!), currently being near the rock bottom neighborhood of the average score of Agony, Wolfenstein: Youngblood, LOTR: Gollum (lol) and Redfall.
Tl;dr the current review score of civ7 is far below many of the games considered to be spectacularly bad, franchise killers, financial bombs etc.
Last edited:
Similar threads
