Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
Like others have said, snowballing does seem to mean different things for different people. For me, it just means steamrolling the AI when I have 2x or more higher yields than any AI player. The other issues you mention like pacing, balance, and structure are separate issues that can lead to snowballing, but they aren't exactly snowballing.
I do agree with the late game issues you mention. I hate that the AI, when is racing towards a cultural victory sells its great works to me. Or that when I'm on the verge of a science victory, it invades with GDRs and instead of pillaging Spaceports, Campuses, and razing cities, it just moves the GDRs around like a fool. Or that it can't use anti air defense at all. But are these examples of snowballing, or just incompetent AI?
It’s definitely a matter of personal taste. Personally, I still see balance and pacing as fundamental issues of snowballing — if you're aiming for a challenge at a specific difficulty level (let’s call it X), then snowballing disrupts that. A large portion of the game ends up being played either well below or far above that intended X level, creating an instrisic balance issue. That said, as others have pointed out, some players enjoy that sense of dominance or rapid progression, while instead I prefer a balanced challenge through all the game.
As for the late-game experience, there's no doubt that Civ VI (and Civ VII, and even Civ V) struggles with AI performance, but that’s a consistent issue across all eras, not just the late game. The real problem with late-game content caused by snowballing isn’t the AI itself; this becomes especially clear in multiplayer, where you're up against human opponents who are far more competent than any Civ AI, and the problem I mentioned stay the same.
Even against humans, features like air combat tend to feel underwhelming. You often unlock them too late to make a meaningful impact, or the game is already decided by then, so they’re rarely used to their full potential. The air combat is intended to be played with fighter to explore and defend vs others air units, with bombers to be used vs cities and improvements, with aircraft carriers for the seas, but none of this matters because at that moment someone will have already won and/ or will simply be able to steamroll the opponent (I repeat, I chose air combat of Civ VI as an example, but this works with MANY others mechanics and with many other games).
This issue is somewhat mitigated in scenarios with a late-game start, where players can’t snowball from the Ancient Era and are forced to engage with modern mechanics more directly, making clear that this is a direct consequence of snowballing.
Yes, they'll probably hurt simultaneous player number, but I don't think they will have any significant effect on Civ7 sales.
You keep saying that player counts don’t matter, which we’ve already discussed and I still find that idea really absurd. Especially in this case, it seems quite clear to me that:
- Not everyone in the world has already bought Civ VII, so more competition likely means fewer new players will choose it, especially if the competitor will have positive reviews while Civ VII lately struggle to reach 50%. Civ VII (like every other game) has not been created with the idea to be sold only on day 1.
- If the goal is to sell DLCs and expansions—which has been the core business model for the Civ series over the past decade—then having an active and engaged player base is
essential. That becomes much harder if similar games are released and draw attention away, potentially leaving almost no one playing Civ VII.
The only potential upside I can see is that if EU5 or Endless Legend 2 are released and well received, they might draw renewed attention to the genre as a whole—which could benefit other similar games, including Civ VII. However, even in that scenario, it still seems obvious to me that Civ VII would struggle. Given how poorly it’s been received so far, it would likely be the last title people recommend among the genre.
Honestly, saying “if similar games come out and are well received while Civ VII continues to get poor reviews, it’ll be in trouble” feels like basic logic. You don’t need a degree in economics to see that—it’s just common sense. I mean no offense, but sometimes it feels like you’re avoiding the reality that the Civ series is facing serious challenges right now and keep defending the most absurd ideas to avoid accepting how bad the actual situation is.
