Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[GeneralZift]

Yea, it's not like the lead designer has any say of what goes into the game. Let's blame the janitor.

Omg this had me flying

Well, you know, it's a tough gig for designers sometimes though. I have done design work myself for games and sometimes it can be unpredictable what the fans want. Or it can be predictable but hard to achieve realistically. Plus you have to consider the higher-ups, the potential to make money, the longevity, and so on.

I haven't seen this perspective very often in these forums, but I think in terms of being a successful video game, the design choices made some sense.
Splitting the leader and the Civ and adding Civ switching lets you essentially sell 4 different things: the Leader, the Antiquity Civ, the Exploration Civ and the Modern Civ.

Simplifying the game brings more people. Releasing on a dozen different consoles makes it very accessible.

So in some way I see the mistakes they made as decisions that they made for a reasonable product in their mind. But of course, I don't agree with how they went about it and the end product.

 

[Krajzen]

Omg this had me flying

Well, you know, it's a tough gig for designers sometimes though. I have done design work myself for games and sometimes it can be unpredictable what the fans want. Or it can be predictable but hard to achieve realistically. Plus you have to consider the higher-ups, the potential to make money, the longevity, and so on.

I haven't seen this perspective very often in these forums, but I think in terms of being a successful video game, the design choices made some sense.
Splitting the leader and the Civ and adding Civ switching lets you essentially sell 4 different things: the Leader, the Antiquity Civ, the Exploration Civ and the Modern Civ.

Simplifying the game brings more people. Releasing on a dozen different consoles makes it very accessible.

So in some way I see the mistakes they made as decisions that they made for a reasonable product in their mind. But of course, I don't agree with how they went about it and the end product.

Additionally there was a (mindboggling) interview in which devs calmly explained how they came to the (insane) conclusion that the fanbase is more attached to the leaders than civs (what)

I think they have confused leaders being talked in reference to diplomacy, as a neat symbolic face given to the Other, with the "self-image" and "identity" of the players in this kind of game, which is very much factional. I have never ever felt like I am choosing between playing Wu Zetian or Gajah Mada in civ5, holy **** no I am China or Indonesia!!! Ironically leaders have traditionally become invisible and irrelevant as characters when there have been vessels for the player...

What a gargantuan and catastrophic mistake. At some points I am wondering if that interview wasn't some sort of false memory of mine or just plain "silly badly worded statement not given that much thought by the devs" because of how ridiculous this notion is.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Additionally there was a (mindboggling) interview in which devs calmly explained how they came to the (insane) conclusion that the fanbase is more attached to the leaders than civs (what)

I think they have confused leaders being talked in reference to diplomacy, as a neat symbolic face given to the Other, with the "self-image" and "identity" of the players in this kind of game, which is very much factional. I have never ever felt like I am choosing between playing Wu Zetian or Gajah Mada in civ5, holy **** no I am China or Indonesia!!! Ironically leaders have traditionally become invisible and irrelevant as characters when there have been vessels for the player...

What a gargantuan and catastrophic mistake. At some points I am wondering if that interview wasn't some sort of false memory of mine or just plain "silly badly worded statement not given that much thought by the devs" because of how ridiculous this notion is.

That's not quite right - they acknowledged that players refer to who they are playing as by the civilization, and to who they are playing against by the leader.

But then they seemed to completely miss the significance of the player identifying as the Civ, and what it might do to disturb that

 

[firadin]

I haven't seen this perspective very often in these forums, but I think in terms of being a successful video game, the design choices made some sense.
Splitting the leader and the Civ and adding Civ switching lets you essentially sell 4 different things: the Leader, the Antiquity Civ, the Exploration Civ and the Modern Civ.

Simplifying the game brings more people. Releasing on a dozen different consoles makes it very accessible.

I think everyone here agrees with paragraphs 2 and 3. Certainly the design decisions made here make the game more marketable and monetizeable. Making decisions to maximize revenue instead of making decisions to make a good game does *not* lead to a successful video game though. Those design decisions make sense if you're focused on profit, but evidently didn't make a good game.

 

[kaspergm]

Fair enough, I mean there is still choice in terms of prioritizing resources, expanding borders, or growing to desired spots... I think the more I play with it, the more I like it, and the harder it would be to go back.

Maybe it's just me that's weird here, but I hate when they "mix" together different game features like in this case citizen placement and border expansion. It was also a bit of a pet peeve of mine in Civ6, how I hated how they grouped road making with trade routes. Yes, it gives us a choice to make, but it's a bad type of choice imo: I'm often left with a choice between making the road I want, or making the trade route I want, which imo. should be to completely unrelated actions. In the same way, I dislike how in Civ7, you may end up having to lock a citizen to a less desirable choice in orders to make borders grow in a certain direction, where really, those two actions should be completely independent of each other.

 

[GeneralZift]

That's not quite right - they acknowledged that players refer to who they are playing as by the civilization, and to who they are playing against by the leader.

But then they seemed to completely miss the significance of the player identifying as the Civ, and what it might do to disturb that

Civ took the approach of keeping the leader, changing the Civ and referring to opponents by Leader. The dissonance here is with the Player's Civ is the identity that is changing.

If instead, you take the HK approach: keeping the leader, changing the Civ (with the option to transcend), and referring to opponents by Civ - the opposite occurs, where the dissonance is with the identity of your Opponents. This is doubles because the leaders are generic.

I think everyone here agrees with paragraphs 2 and 3. Certainly the design decisions made here make the game more marketable and monetizeable. Making decisions to maximize revenue instead of making decisions to make a good game does *not* lead to a successful video game though. Those design decisions make sense if you're focused on profit, but evidently didn't make a good game.

Well honestly, if you suggest that they only did the Civ switching so they could make more money, you'd get a dozen people saying otherwise, that the main reason is the late game or something.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yeah, I think Civ switching was not motivated by drawing new players to the game.

I remember my first game of Civ III. I had no clue about anything. I had my starting warrior. I saw a rival civ's city. I thought I could (and should) attack it.

I had no clue which building I should build. The UI was clear about what each one would get me, but I had no idea which of the choices was better long term.

One learns by playing, of course. (I learned, for example, that you can't conquer a city with just your starting warrior).

Now, if one third of the way through my first game, the civ I was running, and just barely getting to know, shifted over to another civ, I think I would have dropped the game and maybe never picked it up again.

"I can't fathom what I'm supposed to do here."

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe players coming fresh to Civ VII have had no problem adjusting to the civ switch. The legacy paths maybe help. But for me, I think it would make the game suddenly feel mind-bogglingly difficult at just the moment that I'm starting to get the hang of things.

However much profit-motive might have been the grounds for release-on-multiple-platforms or diorama graphics, I think Civ switching was a true game-design decision, based on the felt need for a new iteration to have some genuinely novel element, lest it be labeled Civ 6.2.

 

[trev1972]

I agree with many of the comments, i think some decisions were made with the revenue of future DLC in mind (the ability to sell leaders and civs separately). However i also think the developers genuinely felt this would bring in new players and keep the game feeling fresh.

One thing i will say is there is definitely an increase in numbers that has not fallen a lot. Mandatory civ switching still makes the game a no no for me, but maybe enough patches will revive the games fortunes?

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I agree with many of the comments, i think some decisions were made with the revenue of future DLC in mind (the ability to sell leaders and civs separately). However i also think the developers genuinely felt this would bring in new players and keep the game feeling fresh.

One thing i will say is there is definitely an increase in numbers that has not fallen a lot. Mandatory civ switching still makes the game a no no for me, but maybe enough patches will revive the games fortunes?

It's fallen by 600 on last week. Were still above the previous nadir, but if a drop of that size happens we're pretty much back at the previous bottom.

It's good that at least some people have stuck around for nearly 2 weeks now, that shows these changes helped make the game more enjoyable to replay, but numbers are definitely dwindling back down.

 

[Kwami]

Splitting the leader and the Civ and adding Civ switching lets you essentially sell 4 different things: the Leader, the Antiquity Civ, the Exploration Civ and the Modern Civ.

Except, that isn't what's happened at all. The only "civilizations" that have a somewhat continuous antiquity, exploration, and modern path are China and India, both of which shipped with the base game. All of the DLC has been one-off civilizations with absolutely no indication that they developers plan to sell the other 2/3 later. In fact, they've explicitly said multiple times that they have no intention of giving us continuous paths for every civilization and, in many cases, there's just no possible way to do so.

 

[Sagax]

Except, that isn't what's happened at all. The only "civilizations" that have a somewhat continuous antiquity, exploration, and modern path are China and India, both of which shipped with the base game. All of the DLC has been one-off civilizations with absolutely no indication that they developers plan to sell the other 2/3 later. In fact, they've explicitly said multiple times that they have no intention of giving us continuous paths for every civilization and, in many cases, there's just no possible way to do so.

I don’t think you’re contradicting their statement. They’re saying exactly that - that now 2K can sell four different kinds of piecemeals without much interconnection.

 

[Kwami]

I don’t think you’re contradicting their statement. They’re saying exactly that - that now 2K can sell four different kinds of piecemeals without much interconnection.

But what they can do isn't what they have done or what they've (at least publicly) said they're going to do. So, I don't see this as a plausible motivation for how the game was designed.

 

[GeneralZift]

I don’t think you’re contradicting their statement. They’re saying exactly that - that now 2K can sell four different kinds of piecemeals without much interconnection.

Exactly.

But what they can do isn't what they have done or what they've (at least publicly) said they're going to do. So, I don't see this as a plausible motivation for how the game was designed.

Every time they talk about it publicly, they talk about how Civs rise and fall and get replaced by other Civs.
Example given was London.

We all (and the Devs) would be missing the point of their entire design if they didn't therefore fill in at least the reasonable successors and predecessors of the existing Civs, and of future Civs.

So we have Rome, but I don't think we have Byzantines or Italy right? (IIRC)
Well I think I could bet a Kidney that one or both of those Civilisations will come eventually.

The game was intentionally designed this way so they could build tons of branches from each starting location, and then some 'unattached branches' like Mississippians for alternate gameplay.

It just so happens that this approach Lends itself to being profitable since you can sell 4 pieces where you previously sold 1.

 

[Kwami]

Exactly.


Every time they talk about it publicly, they talk about how Civs rise and fall and get replaced by other Civs.
Example given was London.

We all (and the Devs) would be missing the point of their entire design if they didn't therefore fill in at least the reasonable successors and predecessors of the existing Civs, and of future Civs.

So we have Rome, but I don't think we have Byzantines or Italy right? (IIRC)
Well I think I could beat a Kidney that one or both of those Civilisations will come eventually.

The game was intentionally designed this way so they could build tons of branches from each starting location, and then some 'unattached branches' like Mississippians for alternate gameplay.

It just so happens that this approach Lends itself to being profitable since you can sell 4 pieces where you previously sold 1.

But it doesn't and can't work that way for many of the civilizations in the game. And the developers have repeatedly told us that we shouldn't expect it to and they they explicitly decided against doing the China/India thing for the other civilizations.

 

[GeneralZift]

But it doesn't and can't work that way for many of the civilizations in the game. And the developers have repeatedly told us that we shouldn't expect it to and they they explicitly decided against doing the China/India thing for the other civilizations.

Well you won't get perfect successors like you have in those rarer scenarios, but you'll have some kind of almost-feasible successor put in I'm sure. They'd be throwing away money if they didn't.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

You need literally three times as many civs as previous titles to have the same level of diversity

Other fhan monetization, it’s difficult to see how the hell that seemed like a good idea



Ha ha ha I forgot about that particular landmine, where for a lot of civs, especially the Americas, the logical “successor” civ is a colonial genocide.

Or say Byzantium into the Ottomans, same deal.

This had to have been an “Enperor has no clothes” situation where whoever came up with this concept was both in a position where whatever idea they came up with, no matter how dumb was gonna get implemented, and was hubristic enough to be immunized against feedback.

A Great Pride Goeth indeed

I tried to make pools on workers in the past, I was giving options for more refined controls, key cuts...
You wanted no workers at all... you got it...

It's like you'd want your version of civ basically different to the core aspects of history of the game, and history herself, no matters what other fans wants.

I made a pool for workers so fans like you could come in, and express their saying.
You got your saying. To my complete disbelieve devs accomplished the impossible. Cracked the fansbase in half.

Yes, we need literally three times the civs now to get anything near the core philosophy of what Civ has meant to US.
US. Not you, not me. US.

It's not a thing to make fun of. It's a f. disgrace that we even got to this point.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

But it doesn't and can't work that way for many of the civilizations in the game. And the developers have repeatedly told us that we shouldn't expect it to and they they explicitly decided against doing the China/India thing for the other civilizations.

"Us!?

There's no "Us" here. There's the good old fanbase, and the other half.
They were probably referring to the other half of "Us".
Because to "Us" it makes absolutely zero. I repeat, zero, sense, what the other half thinks or want. And that include the "devs" or "Firaxis".
We care about the core of Civ being broken up and we have been watching the sales plummeting in shambles all along.

Did they care make a pool, to see what fanbase feelings are about ANY of the major changes? NO.
I did, many times. Because I care.
I did it with workers.
I did it with fresh water, 1Upt, etc etc.

There's no "US" anymore. "We" are cracked in half.

 

[Leucarum]

There's no "US" anymore. "We" are cracked in half

Half is optimistic... I think the fan base(s) are cracked into way more pieces than just two at this point.

To inject some optimism into proceedings, Firaxis seem to be making as much as possible be game modes. Making as many options as possible for how the game works is the only way I can see that they might satisfy a fractured fanbase.

Also, is now a bad time to mention that I absolitely love Civ7's take on builders/improvements?

 

[misesfan]

Also, is now a bad time to mention that I absolitely love Civ7's take on builders/improvements

I think the best implementation of tile improvement was done by Call to Power. Production had a slider to allocate production to Public Works, which is then used to improve a tile. I think its the most (dare I say) elegant solution to tile improvement mechanics.

Man, remember sliders?? holy moly - a really neat way to focus on certain aspects of your economy. What a cool way to simulate the struggle about guns and butter with a science/commerce slider.

 

[Leucarum]

I think the best implementation of tile improvement was done by Call to Power. Production had a slider to allocate production to Public Works, which is then used to improve a tile. I think its the most (dare I say) elegant solution to tile improvement mechanics.

Man, remember sliders?? holy moly - a really neat way to focus on certain aspects of your economy. What a cool way to simulate the struggle about guns and butter with a science/commerce slider.

I never played call to power, but I had heard that was a good implementation... if you like sliders maybe take a look at europa universalis 5...