Crashdummy
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2025
- Messages
- 205
Nobody said change has to be good. But making changes is a risk you have to take at some point, and that point is never too far away.
The formula you originally described as "a freaking sandbox game where you can build a civilization to stand the Test of Time" is vague enough that there's plenty of room to tweak it and thereby introduce changes. Arguably, Civ7 follows the same formula because civ-switching can be understood as an evolution of your civ, not a complete replacement. Whether you see it this way or not is subjective, so there's no right or wrong or any guarantee which way it would break without the benefit of hindsight. There are very few things that are as black-and-white or straightforward as you imagine.
That's why customers generally can't step in and make decisions like the Head of Product can. You only see the picture through a particular lens, and the Head of Product needs to be able to go beyond that.
Of course its vague, and because its vague it allows a lot of change
That being said, Civ 7 breaks both of the important bits of that sentence. I understand at first some people might think civ switching could be understood as an evolution of a civ, at this point i think we can all agree that isnt the case, at least for a big portion of the playerbase
Same with the sandbox element, Civ 7 clearly introduces a lot of elements that go against the sandbox gameplay
In any way, the mistake was already done, in the future i think they cant keep making the same mistake, because that will end up badly