Yeah, I don't think people are going to be enthusiastic about that. Count me out.
Some of the ideas are really cool, but it would take the developers to accept that they have a problem other than UI and polish and i havent seen any hint of that?.
I just took a look to see if reviews picked up after the latest patch and its actually 'mostly negative' for recent reviews now.
I just took a look to see if reviews picked up after the latest patch and its actually 'mostly negative' for recent reviews now.
FYI: today recent reviews slipped from mixed to mostly negative on steam. Humankind is now mostly positive. Note, I think, that is because humankind is thought out better, it does not have restrictive ages and civ switch does not break anything (in the sense of starting a new mini-game) and is optional.
Looking at the recent reviews, it appears that the storyteller player is particularly upset with the game.
stealth_nsk
Deity
It all comes down to expectations. Civilization has much bigger name and history behind, so people usually come to it expecting both quality and following legacy.
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 10,135
Various prominent and very natural conflicts of interest
A way to handle these conflicts could be a menue "game preferences" as it exists in Civ 3 where you can enable or disable options of a game by clicking on a button. In C3C per example if you don´t like the oversized units over a city you can simply disable this by not enabling this option in the Preferences. May be this can be done for disabling/enabling districts and other features that are liked or not liked, too.
It's because the game does not generate good reviews and word of mouth in its current state. Once they see there's a trend for positive feedback with the current playerbase, they might arrange a small discount. Otherwise what's the point?
Their problem now isn't sales, it's the negativity surrounding the game through all channels (steam reviews, social media).
Yep. The price was a problem initially. Now they have to overcome a negative review profile. Unless they're planning on lowering the price to $10 soon, I don't think price adjustments will matter much at this point.
Sure, although I think you're not necessarily going to get them to "admit" that there are deeper problems until they're on their way to fixing them. And I think getting through the worst of the UI issues are higher priority because they are easier to handle.
They've already admitted to working towards making the distant lands multi-sided and more balanced, and have started to work towards that. I think we'll have to wait and see in the next patch cycle if they start working towards other things. I have a feeling more of the structural changes will wait until an expansion.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2011
- Messages
- 2,245
If I was firaxis right now I would do the following:
Redefine the current Civs as "dynasties"
Every dynasty belongs to a "civilization" which spans all eras. Every change of era, you get to pick an evolution path from the options available (this could be as a tickbox setting option alternative to the unlockable approach of now or vice versa).
Civilizations would be for example:
French
Germanic
English
Chinese
Japanese
etc.
You know, the ones from every other Civ iteration.
Each civilization has at least 1 dynasty option for antiquity, and at least 2 dynasty options for each subsequent era to give choice to players. This is the base game.
Extra option dynasties available through DLC, and extra Civilizations also available through DLC, including the base 5 required dynasties.
Leaders are tied to Civilizations rather than dynasties and rather than detached completely, again setting can be toggled in start menu if you want Civ 7 experience or classic Civ experience.
Dynasties don't change your city names, or you civilization name or colour. You pick your Civ, with a fixed colour and leader at the start, then your dynasties just affect your bonuses and uniques each era.
Bosh, you have a civilization game with an exciting new mechanic in which people can still play the civilization they want.
This is clearly the simplest solution, and I think clearly the easiest path to getting players back on board. It is the basis of all the pre release speculation that got people excited. It for the most part makes use of existing mechanics.
Do that, announce extra free dynasties to achieve it for free as part of base game, then release your masses of DLC which many more happy customers will happily buy.
I expect my cheque in the mail Mr Beach.
Redefine the current Civs as "dynasties"
Every dynasty belongs to a "civilization" which spans all eras. Every change of era, you get to pick an evolution path from the options available (this could be as a tickbox setting option alternative to the unlockable approach of now or vice versa).
Civilizations would be for example:
French
Germanic
English
Chinese
Japanese
etc.
You know, the ones from every other Civ iteration.
Each civilization has at least 1 dynasty option for antiquity, and at least 2 dynasty options for each subsequent era to give choice to players. This is the base game.
Extra option dynasties available through DLC, and extra Civilizations also available through DLC, including the base 5 required dynasties.
Leaders are tied to Civilizations rather than dynasties and rather than detached completely, again setting can be toggled in start menu if you want Civ 7 experience or classic Civ experience.
Dynasties don't change your city names, or you civilization name or colour. You pick your Civ, with a fixed colour and leader at the start, then your dynasties just affect your bonuses and uniques each era.
Bosh, you have a civilization game with an exciting new mechanic in which people can still play the civilization they want.
This is clearly the simplest solution, and I think clearly the easiest path to getting players back on board. It is the basis of all the pre release speculation that got people excited. It for the most part makes use of existing mechanics.
Do that, announce extra free dynasties to achieve it for free as part of base game, then release your masses of DLC which many more happy customers will happily buy.
I expect my cheque in the mail Mr Beach.
queenpea
Emperor
I think releasing a few civs and leaders as free updates will the base game will increase goodwill and get people more interested. DLC, to me, is not the way out at the moment.
I’m talking about Aztecs, Montezuma, Gandhi, Zulu, Shaka.
I’m talking about Aztecs, Montezuma, Gandhi, Zulu, Shaka.
Exactly. And additionally, it requires some different people to overhaul the UI and to overhaul game mechanics. So, these can (and have to) go in parallel, even if the people making larger decisions might be the same.
criZp
Deity
Regarding the talk about anti-snowballing mechanics, especially regarding science: I thought a possible way to deal with this was to use a function to transform "raw science" into "actual science". Something like the inverse tangent function could be used for this purpose.
Raw science is input as the x-value, actual science is output as the y-value. This will have the result that:
-For small values of raw science, the slope of the adjustment function is near 1, and there's basically a 1-to-1 transformation to actual science (no science is lost)
-For medium values of raw science, the slope is less than 1, and the transformation is less than 1-to-1 (some science is "lost")
-For large values of raw science, the slope approaches 0, and additional raw science add very little to actual science (much science is lost)
For this to work, the ceilingof the function will have to increase every turn, so that as the game progresses the players can increase their scientific output without being limited by the ceiling from the early game.
Raw science is input as the x-value, actual science is output as the y-value. This will have the result that:
-For small values of raw science, the slope of the adjustment function is near 1, and there's basically a 1-to-1 transformation to actual science (no science is lost)
-For medium values of raw science, the slope is less than 1, and the transformation is less than 1-to-1 (some science is "lost")
-For large values of raw science, the slope approaches 0, and additional raw science add very little to actual science (much science is lost)
For this to work, the ceilingof the function will have to increase every turn, so that as the game progresses the players can increase their scientific output without being limited by the ceiling from the early game.
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,770
I suspect Civ7's future is far more modular than 6. What people like and dislike is quite diverse, so the more features firaxis can turn into game modes or setup sliders the more people they'll please. They already did it with crises... Alternative legacy paths for each age have been hinted at IIRC, so I wouldn't be surprised to see that change first, but a lot of unpopular/controversial features could be sliders or game modes, and it would help firaxis save face.
It would need rebalancing, but most civ traditions/UIs/UDs would work in all ages with scaling, so I'd say making "sticky civs" into a game mode is eminently possible. You's mostly be deciding what to do about UUs... Ages are harder to make optional, but sliders for how much stays and goes/becomes obsolete seem plausible and is functionally similar. The only controversial feature which seems intractable to make optional is leader/civ mixing/matching.
And firaxis never have to admit they did anything controversial at all. They're just giving us more ways to play!
Last edited:
civlateintothenights
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2025
- Messages
- 33
Curious to what extent Steam reviews play a role in everyone's game-buying decisions? If it's a game/series I love, I find I look for at least Mostly Positive to take the plunge and make a purchase. Also, I realize the mostly negative is just for recent reviews - but what with the trend of going down around 1% a month, in a few years, it could very well be mostly negative overall.
Attachments
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,498
Might be folded into the "player stats" thread.
Core Imposter
Felon
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,452
I have continued to support the company. I have pysical copies of 5 (PC) and 6 PS) literally less than 4 feet from me. Both still in shrink wrap. And I had a copy of 7 (PS) here right before I had my heart surgery- my son has it. So, I have supported the company and the way I see it that gives me the right to speak about them.
I haven't installed any of these games because they are not worth my time. Firaxis has gone small, simple, and pretty turning the series into a civ city building game with loads of gimmicks and no grit. They have convinced themselves that following common trends will make the most money. This is just opposite of the ethic that made the series great. Civilization has become common, ordinary, and released in disgraceful condition this time around.
Civilization is dead. Along with the Marvel failure it's clear that Firaxis should just be disbanded and I predict that or something similar lies before us.
Give up the ghost.
I haven't installed any of these games because they are not worth my time. Firaxis has gone small, simple, and pretty turning the series into a civ city building game with loads of gimmicks and no grit. They have convinced themselves that following common trends will make the most money. This is just opposite of the ethic that made the series great. Civilization has become common, ordinary, and released in disgraceful condition this time around.
Civilization is dead. Along with the Marvel failure it's clear that Firaxis should just be disbanded and I predict that or something similar lies before us.
Give up the ghost.
Moderator Action: Threads merged.
stealth_nsk
Deity
That's one of the things nobody knows for sure. I believe the importance of those numbers dropped in the recent years since review bombing became a thing, but I don't have any statistics.
Similar threads
