Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Smegger213]

I am reading Reddit posts from a year ago and it seems that the community didnt fully understand what Firaxis was going to deliver. There seems to be confusion about how civ switching would work. In one instance, Ed Beach gave an interview to a Japanese magazine:

This was taken as Japan could be played throughout the game, and it would be similar to other nations, too. It also seems that the age concept was not understood at all. It is barely getting mentioned in comments. The overall attitude is a bit cautious but positive.

It finally falls apart in February when fans see that their imagined civ switching was not in the game.

That is the sort of thing that I though they could do. Let a player play one Civ for the whole game. Then give that Civ different bonuses and units for each separate age.
Then they should get rid of this garbage where any leader can play any Civ. I do not want to see Benjamin Franklin of the Romans in my games. Its pathetic.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I am reading Reddit posts from a year ago and it seems that the community didnt fully understand what Firaxis was going to deliver. There seems to be confusion about how civ switching would work. In one instance, Ed Beach gave an interview to a Japanese magazine:
This was taken as Japan could be played throughout the game, and it would be similar to other nations, too. It also seems that the age concept was not understood at all. It is barely getting mentioned in comments. The overall attitude is a bit cautious but positive.

It finally falls apart in February when fans see that their imagined civ switching was not in the game.

To me that's a hypothetical statement made by Ed, which could turn out to be true for Japan once all the content for the game comes out.
But I know I didn't realistically think every nation/country would have one civ per age, besides China and India, for the base game. I mean there was even a wait for Great Britain for the first DLC.

 

[Xur]

Like I said in another thread, Firaxis are always vague. It's the same kind of marketing Todd Howard does: "See that moon? You can go there." Technically yes, you can - but through 10 loadscreens. It's a recipe for disappointment.

Of course there's also a little segment around here that 100% understands what is said and meant every time Firaxis says something.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Yeah, because it's not how this data should be analyzed. I downloaded those reviews first, using Python code in a format, which is easy to read by computer (JSON in particular, but CSV would also work). When I uploaded this file to ChatGPT and used deep research function, which writes Python code under the hood to read the file, analyze each line and count them.

And how exactly does your "deep research function," look like?

 

[Siptah]

I am reading Reddit posts from a year ago and it seems that the community didnt fully understand what Firaxis was going to deliver. There seems to be confusion about how civ switching would work. In one instance, Ed Beach gave an interview to a Japanese magazine:

This was taken as Japan could be played throughout the game, and it would be similar to other nations, too. It also seems that the age concept was not understood at all. It is barely getting mentioned in comments. The overall attitude is a bit cautious but positive.

It finally falls apart in February when fans see that their imagined civ switching was not in the game.

That‘s really strange and can only stem from some half-knowledge of the Reddit posters. We knew that Egypt-Songhai-Buganda was considered the historical/regional path for Egypt more or less right from the announcement. No one was fooled in February (or earlier) how this would look. Even when the speculated number of civs at launch was 45, no one expected 15 nationalist paths; and for sure not once the number 30/31 was confirmed long before release.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

That‘s really strange and can only stem from some half-knowledge of the Reddit posters. We knew that Egypt-Songhai-Buganda was considered the historical/regional path for Egypt more or less right from the announcement. No one was fooled in February (or earlier) how this would look. Even when the speculated number of civs at launch was 45, no one expected 15 nationalist paths; and for sure not once the number 30/31 was confirmed long before release.

I still can't get over how shockingly they lowballed us with this and then had the audacity to claim they were giving us the most Civs on launch ever.

That more than anything else sealed the loss of my sale. Makes my blood boil.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I hope “Never innovate or try anything new” is not the lesson that’s learned at FRXS. Risks are what got us the popular games in the franchise. Do I think Civ-Switching could have been implemented better? Do I think Eras brought more problems than they fixed? Yes. But taking design risks is exactly that, a risk, it’s not always going to land.

Civ5 and Civ6 definitly had some pretty major gameplay changes; 1 UPT and unpacking cities spring instantly to mind

It clearly went to their heads when they designed 7

If the Civ formula or identity is so clear-cut prior to 7, then why are people saying in this thread that the franchise had been moving away from its core identity after Civ4?

I disagree with them that Civ7 is somehow less of a Civ game, but at least they are conscious of the fact that Civ7's development is not something that came out of the blue, but is part of an ongoing evolution of the franchise.

And I, too, think that the 'formula' was at its most fun in Civ4, but just because the franchise has evolved, doesn't mean the franchise has lost its identity or whatever. Things evolve. Identities shift without losing themselves all the time. This is true of a great many things in real life so it's clearly not something without precedent. Whether you and others like the changes or not is beside the point.

The whole “core identity” thing started with Civ7, because that was the Civ that abandoned it.

I think there is one or two Grognards mad that subsequent titles were “Dumbed down for console peasants”

We Are Not The Same.jpeg

 

[Foulweather]

Then they should get rid of this garbage where any leader can play any Civ. I do not want to see Benjamin Franklin of the Romans in my games. Its pathetic.

Whatever the "final" iteration of this new evolution ends up as, whether in VII or VIII, there will be an option in game setup for Historical (locked) Leaders or Freestyle (unlocked) leaders. Personally I'd play historical, but many would want to play freestyle and there'd be no harm in allowing that if we chose to.

 

[Kwami]

I still can't get over how shockingly they lowballed us with this and then had the audacity to claim they were giving us the most Civs on launch ever.

Maybe they made that claim because it's true. You don't like the way those civilizations are used, but that's a different thing entirely.

 

[Core Imposter]

If you got 100 diehard Civ fans together to design the ultimate Civ you'd get 300 designs and if you asked them to cut it to just one, they would become Congress.

 

[stealth_nsk]

And how exactly does your "deep research function," look like?

Thanks for pointing it out. I looked under the hood and found that ChatGPT did the following: first, it found the recurring themes, when searched for keywords related to those themes. Which was pretty bad, of course. I'll play with it a bit more, but with my limited Deep Research resource it's pretty hard to do.

 

[King of Prussia]

This logic applies for indies. It doesn't really apply to publisher ownership models (especially the big publishers).

For a historic example, THQ's PC gaming department was small pennies compared to their Gameboy and related handheld business. That's what drove their finances. It's easy to handwave investment in a small part of the business when your main moneymaker is performing.

However these less critical ventures are often first on the chopping block if the publisher feels like it needs a quick buck.

I agree to an extent, but publishers will have no issue closing/selling studios who arent making enough money. Whether that be not enough profit or outright eating money. Ive seen too many studios closed and games canceled for those reasons.

Their are a lot questions on the business side that we will probably never know.

 

[Kev1916]

The whole “core identity” thing started with Civ7, because that was the Civ that abandoned it.

I think there is one or two Grognards mad that subsequent titles were “Dumbed down for console peasants”

We Are Not The Same.jpeg

Aside from the overpriced mess and insidious micro transaction, the core identity was most definitely lost in "Civ" Vii with the loss of immersion .
Good summary below .

 

[stealth_nsk]

The whole “core identity” thing started with Civ7, because that was the Civ that abandoned it.

I found a great quote "Civ needs to get back to building an empire that stands the test of time instead finding artificial ways to limit it". It's about... oh, wait, it's actually about Civ5

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/2c4ti3/an_empire_to_stand_the_test_of_time

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I found a great quote "Civ needs to get back to building an empire that stands the test of time instead finding artificial ways to limit it". It's about... oh, wait, it's actually about Civ5

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/2c4ti3/an_empire_to_stand_the_test_of_time

They weren't wrong either, I say as a fan of Civ V as a game. They did a lot to remedy the artificial limits with religion and ideologies particularly.

 

[Leucarum]

I found a great quote "Civ needs to get back to building an empire that stands the test of time instead finding artificial ways to limit it". It's about... oh, wait, it's actually about Civ5

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/2c4ti3/an_empire_to_stand_the_test_of_time

Yeah. As someone who dropped out of the franchise for Civ V that comment reads more like, "and thankfully they did."

I tried V again recently and still the pacing just feels so off. I prefer VII by a long margin even though I complain about it a lot.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I found a great quote "Civ needs to get back to building an empire that stands the test of time instead finding artificial ways to limit it". It's about... oh, wait, it's actually about Civ5

It has the same phrasing, but it is not, substantively, the same complaint.*

His emphasis falls on the word "empire," by which he means "territorially expansive polity." In the knock on 7, the emphasis falls on "stand the test of time."

It's an absolutely fair criticism of 5. In that iteration, the designers went very far in the direction of making "wide" and "tall" equally viable (and erred in the direction of making tall actually more viable for at least two of the victory types). So there was** the four-city strategy and turtling for science and culture victories. The designers seeking to strike that balance was, I think, a function of wanting to make each of the victory conditions equally viable.



*and that's setting aside the fact that its one person making the complaint, as opposed to thousands.
**for me, is, since it's the number I'm still playing.

 

[UWHabs]

It has the same phrasing, but it is not, substantively, the same complaint.*

His emphasis falls on the word "empire," by which he means "territorially expansive polity." In the knock on 7, the emphasis falls on "stand the test of time."

It's an absolutely fair criticism of 5. In that iteration, the designers went very far in the direction of making "wide" and "tall" equally viable (and erred in the direction of making tall actually more viable for at least two of the victory types). So there was** the four-city strategy and turtling for science and culture victories. The designers seeking to strike that balance was, I think, a function of wanting to make each of the victory conditions equally viable.



*and that's setting aside the fact that its one person making the complaint, as opposed to thousands.
**for me, is, since it's the number I'm still playing.

5 was definitely the game of the series I liked the least, I think because the dominant really fell into one path. It was always frustrating to have a game where you'd discover space for a city, with a few resources around, but just everything in the game made it not worth expanding there. Every other game of the series I feel there's at least in the end going to be a net positive. But 5 I think irked me enough that it was too focused on that wide vs tall debate. It was the only game of the series that I put aside well before the newest game came out, other than times when life came in my way. And why even though it's been underwhelming, I have almost half as many hours in 7 as I did in 5 already.

 

[Gori the Grey]

It was always frustrating to have a game where you'd discover space for a city, with a few resources around, but just everything in the game made it not worth expanding there.

It short-changed the "expand" x of 4x.

Civ games should encourage, or at least not massively dis-incentivize, growing in size.

On the other hand, if all forms of success are tied to expansion, then the most effective warmonger just steamrolls the game.

 

[Wrenched]

"Civ needs to get back to building an empire that stands the test of time instead finding artificial ways to limit it".

Say what you want about the Civ community, at least their criticism is consistent.