Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter user746383
  • Start date Start date
Well, ok. I try to put things more delicately.


Oh, yeah, to us it's a given. But in the corporate world, it can be hard to make this kind of acknowledgment. It's a healthy sign that they are, imho.

I think things like they believing people not finishing games was a huge issue, or that people were more attached to Leaders than to Civilizations, only to find out how wrong they were probably led to this decision
 
I think things like they believing people not finishing games was a huge issue, or that people were more attached to Leaders than to Civilizations, only to find out how wrong they were probably led to this decision
People didn't finish games because the late game was usually boring, partially because of snowballing.
That was bad. (the boring part)

Ages were an attempt to fix the boring late age... with two possibilities
1. make the last age more interesting (so far hasn't worked) by limiting snowballing and having it in its own age (this could still be improved because changes to Modern don't affect the other two mechanically)
2. allow people to "Finish" a game in any age (ie Antiquity/Exploration Victory paths) also not done yet, but would be possible

So they attempted to solve a real problem... but have not done so... they potentially still could ... but also might not.

As for people being more attached to Leaders than Civilizations....For AI they are right... a Face is easier to get than an icon. The problem was they were wrong about for the players own civ. And that is what will need work. (I'm pretty convinced there will be a way for you (and AIS if you choose) to keep civ name's all through the ages... not sure how they will handle uniques, but the Name definitely)
 
Marbozir found this job offer (Head of Product of Civ 7):

Maybe worth discussing here?
I hope the new hire finds much success and this position helps the studio! I have my criticisms of 7 but I want Firaxis survive/thrive; even if their design direction leaves me behind somewhat.
 
People didn't finish games because the late game was usually boring, partially because of snowballing.
That was bad. (the boring part)

Ages were an attempt to fix the boring late age... with two possibilities
1. make the last age more interesting (so far hasn't worked) by limiting snowballing and having it in its own age (this could still be improved because changes to Modern don't affect the other two mechanically)
2. allow people to "Finish" a game in any age (ie Antiquity/Exploration Victory paths) also not done yet, but would be possible

So they attempted to solve a real problem... but have not done so... they potentially still could ... but also might not.

As for people being more attached to Leaders than Civilizations....For AI they are right... a Face is easier to get than an icon. The problem was they were wrong about for the players own civ. And that is what will need work. (I'm pretty convinced there will be a way for you (and AIS if you choose) to keep civ name's all through the ages... not sure how they will handle uniques, but the Name definitely)

People werent finishing games, that is correct

My point is that it wasnt a big issue, it was a small issue that didnt justify such a rework

They tried using a cannon to kill an ant

Keeping the name only doesnt solve anything.... it would be a very stupid attempt to solve the issue. The issue with Civ switching isnt a naming issue...
 
It's funny that they were concerned about people finishing their games and then failed to provide a Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame is the only reason to bother finishing a game IMO. I have dropped a few Civ 7 games just because I wanted to try something new and then just deleted the save because there is literally no reason to go back to the save and play it through. I guess I could level the leader but, meh, I don't play with mementos and I could just start a new game with that leader some other time.
 
It's funny that they were concerned about people finishing their games and then failed to provide a Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame is the only reason to bother finishing a game IMO. I have dropped a few Civ 7 games just because I wanted to try something new and then just deleted the save because there is literally no reason to go back to the save and play it through. I guess I could level the leader but, meh, I don't play with mementos and I could just start a new game with that leader some other time.
Momentos and leader levelling did prompt me to play the modern age, but once I'd unlocked everything I wanted I haven't played into modern in months.

Civ 7 is in such a weird state. Antiquity is the best gameplay the series has seen, Modern is a serious contender for the worst. Exploration is a rapid slide from one to the other...
 
People werent finishing games, that is correct

My point is that it wasnt a big issue, it was a small issue that didnt justify such a rework

They tried using a cannon to kill an ant

Keeping the name only doesnt solve anything.... it would be a very stupid attempt to solve the issue. The issue with Civ switching isnt a naming issue...
its funny because i actually very much agree with this and its something i point out in my next review video - that firaxis miscalculated and tried to identify a problem that doesn't actually exist. well it does exist but "fixing" it doesn't necessarily matter in the long run; and since the entire core philosophy and mechanics of Civ7 are based around this idea (for the most part) that people need to finish their games 100% it makes the entire core ideas of Civ 7 flawed from the start. it's an incredibly small sample size so take it with a personal grain of salt, but i've spent a lot of time over the last few months talking with people who dont necessarily play as much as the average civfanatic forum member or deity streamer with 4k hours but they still have around 5-600. while i would say that while somewhere around 90% of them don't finish the game all the way every time they play, that still doesn't stop them from starting a brand new game from the start and playing game after game after game and still loving the game. a lot of these conversations ended up me asking their opinion on Civ 7 because they all still play civ 5 and 6 even months after civ 7's release, and the same threads occurred in every single conversation - age transitions taking away meaningful progression and firaxis not realizing that the snowball or at least ramping up to beat down the ai IS the progression for a lot of players.

so when you take that idea, and try to break the game into 3 mini-games where your meaningful progression isn't carried forward with you into the ages, you get a game where a lot of people, even casual fans, dislike. COMPOUND THIS with how the game treats yields, buildings etc you end up with a system where you not only have loss of progress and agency, you lose replayability where each age feels the same because each of this. in turn each civ feels the same because everything has been turned into a middle school math problem and the only differentiating features between civs are miniscule yields, and now you have a problem where nothing ends up mattering in regards to what you do because nothing is unique. so what started as an attempt to eliminate the boring aspect of the late-game in Civ, turned into the entire game of Civ 7 being boring and i'm not sure how firaxis is going to overcome this honestly. it's not something that simple patches can fix but will need entire overhauls of their current system introduced through Expansion Packs and not just regular DLC. i really, REALLY want civ 7 to be good, but i'm kind of on the pessimistic side at this point.
 
I guess maybe it matters more if you're a Dev putting tonnes of work into making late-game content that nobody gets around to playing. That has to feel frustrating and I can definitely understand why if you were in that position you might view it as a bigger problem than it is. Ironically, I think what we got in Civ7 when it comes to preventing snowballing was the worst of both worlds. They held back enough that they didn't even stop snowballing (just changed the focus to building ageless setups), while at the same time introduced the various jarring changes of the era system.

The changes made thus far since launch though do make me optimistic for pessimistic reasons. Continuity mode as default means that the snowballing cat is very much out of the bag and as long as it's there then the late ages are going to be uninteresting. Given how tightly interconnected Civ7's design is, the knock on effects from that are I suspect fatal to the era system and mandatory civ switching along with it. I doubt the path they take to get there will be a straight line, but I suspect that (providing support holds) whether willingly or otherwise they will get there.
 
It's also odd that if the complaint is people are "not finishing" the game, why do they plan to make these "bite size" games where you play through 1 era? We could always just do an advanced start and quit when we are done with the save. Really, a player "finishes" a game when they are simply finished with a save. Answer again I echo that they didn't even put in a HoF so who cares?
 
I guess maybe it matters more if you're a Dev putting tonnes of work into making late-game content that nobody gets around to playing. That has to feel frustrating and I can definitely understand why if you were in that position you might view it as a bigger problem than it is. Ironically, I think what we got in Civ7 when it comes to preventing snowballing was the worst of both worlds. They held back enough that they didn't even stop snowballing (just changed the focus to building ageless setups), while at the same time introduced the various jarring changes of the era system.

The changes made thus far since launch though do make me optimistic for pessimistic reasons. Continuity mode as default means that the snowballing cat is very much out of the bag and as long as it's there then the late ages are going to be uninteresting. Given how tightly interconnected Civ7's design is, the knock on effects from that are I suspect fatal to the era system and mandatory civ switching along with it. I doubt the path they take to get there will be a straight line, but I suspect that (providing support holds) whether willingly or otherwise they will get there.

Yeah but at the same time we have the rumours of a 4th Age, and if they intend to introduce a 4th Age, i fear they might want to try to artificially stop snowballing again only to justify the new Age
 
It's also odd that if the complaint is people are "not finishing" the game, why do they plan to make these "bite size" games where you play through 1 era? We could always just do an advanced start and quit when we are done with the save. Really, a player "finishes" a game when they are simply finished with a save. Answer again I echo that they didn't even put in a HoF so who cares?

Ironically, the Civ games where i finished more games where the ones where i didnt have settlement limits or anything like that (loyalty, etc) and i could paint the whole map with cities of my colour

I finished the games only to get the satisfaction of getting the animated review of the game at the end and watch how the whole map got painted. So i finished more games in the entries that had less snowballing "protection"
 
the snowball or at least ramping up to beat down the ai IS the progression for a lot of players.
Yeah, I've been thinking about this.

(You can add me to the list of people who don't finish games but start game after game after game.)

I might go a step further and say that snowball is THE GAME.

What I mean is this. The other slogan besides "stand the test of time" that used to get bandied about was "interesting choices." I'll just focus on the choice from among buildings. So, as you're first learning Civ, early game, you can build a monument, a granary, a watermill, a shrine. (5 is my reference point). The game tells you what each one will do, but you don't really have a way of knowing, long term, how some extra culture, food, food and production or faith will help you. But it's a clear choice. Those are various strands of the game, and you can decide on whatever basis on which strand you'd most like to advance.

Once you've played a few games, you have a better sense of how those various things do benefit you long term, and maybe you've started to get the sense, well, nothing benefits me more than population growth. So you start to gravitate toward granary as your go-to choice in that early situation.

Once you play a little more, if you've got a certain kind of mind, you start to ask, "now, which one will help me the most?" You start min-maxing, in other words. For every set of possible competing buildings, through the whole game, there is a best answer to that question. Not one single best answer in all cases; it's partly situational. But you start to get the sense for what sort of situation has to obtain for you to deviate from the generally best.

As you get better at all of these things, you move up in difficulty level in order to keep giving yourself a challenge. You hit deity and the AIs start with so many advantages, and all through the game do everything faster than you that for you to compete at all, now all of those choices have to be absolutely optimal. You can't miss a trick. But if all of your choices are optimal, you can gradually chip away at the AIs starting advantages. Again, you can't do this unless you are making absolutely optimal choices, but once you do edge past the AI, all of that optimal infrastructure you built now lets you keep building your lead over them (snowballing).

You have got to that point by getting particularly skilled at doing THE. THING. THAT. THE. GAME. MOST. FUNDAMENTALLY. ASKS. YOU. TO. DO. (make good choices).

So-called "snowballing" is actually PLAYING. CIV.
 
Why not just do corruption/upkeep/global happiness? Civ VI was the first civ game that did not have a basic design feature that was core to every other installment.
They did, though. That's what the global happiness, local happiness, and settlement limit do. The penalties just aren't strong enough to matter in most cases.
 
Ironically, the Civ games where i finished more games where the ones where i didnt have settlement limits or anything like that (loyalty, etc) and i could paint the whole map with cities of my colour

I finished the games only to get the satisfaction of getting the animated review of the game at the end and watch how the whole map got painted. So i finished more games in the entries that had less snowballing "protection"
This was how i played too, i loved watching the playback on the map and seeing key moments again on my route to world domination.
I have no idea why this was taken out (dont think it was in 6 either?)
 
If a single game trying something voided any iteration of that concept until the end or time, the games industry would've died out years ago.

Very few things are a guarantee.

A single mechanic is not all of gaming

It should have been pretty obvious that civ switching and era resets would be pretty unpopular with a franchise that for literal decades has been about Building An Empire To Stand The Test Of Time
 
Back
Top Bottom