Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[stealth_nsk]

Interesting. So instead of the strategy of building on something you already have the strategy is to prevent losing what you have acheived and then get new tasks which were never before or not due to your own strategy. Interesting that you find this fun. I would never find something like this fun, but I can imagine this being fun for certain type of player. Like interestingly lots of people like demolishing type games, where you destroy stuff to make the game advance. Also there are the kind of games which have levels, like first level in a forest, second is on a mountain (I remember older ones like C64 were such). I guess this can be fun too, but not for me.

It's not like this. Fun is about making interesting strategic decisions. If you think about age transition from standpoint of "losing", it may not look fun, but if you look at it from "planning" standpoint, it's interesting.

Instead of complaining how bad it is to have wars automatically ended and units returned, think how this adds decisions about war timing. Instead of being sad for buildings losing their adjacency bonuses, think about planning your settlements for era to come.

Not to mention you actually lose very few things on age transition.

 

[GeneralZift]

Instead of complaining how bad it is to have wars automatically ended and units returned, think how this adds decisions about war timing. Instead of being sad for buildings losing their adjacency bonuses, think about planning your settlements for era to come.

This is like saying "Don't be sad when you get fired from your job, think about it like getting more free time"

You can try to spin it but people are upset because it doesn't make sense if you think about it for too long and it feels clunky. Telling people to ignore stuff and focus on upsides is why game industry gets worse every year. Although I appreciate you have your own opinion.

 

[AD1730]

Instead of complaining how bad it is to have wars automatically ended and units returned, think how this adds decisions about war timing. Instead of being sad for buildings losing their adjacency bonuses, think about planning your settlements for era to come.

Successful games don't require enforcement of a certain type of thinking in order to enjoy them. Perhaps that's why Civ 7 isn't a successful game so far.

Not to mention you actually lose very few things on age transition.

If you're going to do the age transition thing, at least do it full out. As currently implemented, it appears to be a half measure.

 

[stealth_nsk]

This is like saying "Don't be sad when you get fired from your job, think about it like getting more free time"

You can try to spin it but people are upset because it doesn't make sense if you think about it for too long and it feels clunky. Telling people to ignore stuff and focus on upsides is why game industry gets worse every year. Although I appreciate you have your own opinion.

The main difference is that it's the game. You point supposes people shouldn't play shooters, because enemies could injury your character.

Some losses are inevitable part of any game, and, as I said, the actual losses are quite small and manageable by rules.

I understand a lot of points how age switching could upset people, but focus on losses looks quite strange to me.

 

[Gorbles]

Successful games don't require enforcement of a certain type of thinking in order to enjoy them.

The entire Soulsborne franchise (and related genre) would beg to differ.

All games expect you to do things in certain ways. This is separate to you enjoying or not enjoying those things.

 

[Nikolai II]

The entire Soulsborne franchise (and related genre) would beg to differ.

All games expect you to do things in certain ways. This is separate to you enjoying or not enjoying those things.

Hehe that is a very good point.

 

[bitula]

It's not like this. Fun is about making interesting strategic decisions. If you think about age transition from standpoint of "losing", it may not look fun, but if you look at it from "planning" standpoint, it's interesting.

Instead of complaining how bad it is to have wars automatically ended and units returned, think how this adds decisions about war timing. Instead of being sad for buildings losing their adjacency bonuses, think about planning your settlements for era to come.

Not to mention you actually lose very few things on age transition.

I get it, but planning to account for consequences of some forced "artificial" event in the future is not fun for me (according to my own experience). So I mean if this is the supposed fun factor, its not for me. But thanks for the info.

 

[Gorbles]

I get it, but planning to account for consequences of some forced "artificial" event in the future is not fun for me (according to my own experience). So I mean if this is the supposed fun factor, its not for me. But thanks for the info.

All events are artificial. All events are forced. Nothing in a video game is organic.

This is about feeling, and whether or not you like something. That's fine. Say that. I dislike how we have to phrase things in ways that make the feelings objective, when the whole point is that they're not. But that doesn't make the feelings wrong.

 

[GeneralZift]

Yes guys it's all a video game so it doesn't matter if you don't feel immersed or anything. And when you watch a movie and the plot is awful, don't forget, the movie is fake and the plot is made by writers so you shouldn't expect it to feel organic. Those are your feelings and not objective.

All events are artificial. All events are forced. Nothing in a video game is organic.

This is about feeling, and whether or not you like something. That's fine. Say that. I dislike how we have to phrase things in ways that make the feelings objective, when the whole point is that they're not. But that doesn't make the feelings wrong.

 

[Gorbles]

Yes guys it's all a video game so it doesn't matter if you don't feel immersed or anything.

Nobody said it didn't matter. Why say something if it isn't true? I literally said these feelings aren't wrong. How can they be? They're honest feelings about enjoyment (or a lack thereof) of a video game.

 

[user746383]

Your point is just that he should be specifically required to use the world “feelings” instead of only saying it isn’t fun for him according to his experience? But why? I feel like what he said was clear and we are now sort of debating how people should be allowed to talk instead of the topic. I don’t think we need a disclaimer in every post that the content within is the person’s opinion based on their feelings and experiences, that’s safe to assume.

 

[user746383]

To me it makes a lot of sense why someone playing a civ game might not like your civ dying offscreen multiple times as part of guaranteed events you have no control over, even if it brings some super fun and interesting decisions (if it does) about how to build over the remains of the old one. If you’re supposed to think about it differently to have fun, why make it work that way in the first place?

 

[Gorbles]

Your point is just that he should be specifically required to use the world “feelings” instead of only saying it isn’t fun for him according to his experience?

Not at all. My bugbear with the word "artificial" (and similarly, "forced") is both public and repeatedly expressed here on CFC.

I'm criticising the argument. That's how this works, no? It's not artificial, is my point. No more than anything else is. People use the word because it's a way of expressing their frustration and / or dislike. Pretty sure I'm allowed to deconstruct that, right or wrong as I may be.

 

[trev1972]

Looking forward to civ 8, i understand that its impossible to know for certain but do you expect civ 8 to arrive more quickly than the normal gap between iterations?
Normally they keep the latest evolution of the game- but i would personally not be surprised if they dropped civ switching in 8, what do you think?

 

[Kev1916]

All events are artificial. All events are forced. Nothing in a video game is organic.

I would disagree, try open world building games aka Valheim , Conan exiles .

You can organically build anywhere, you can totally ignore the levelling Bosses and just play as an explorer.
You can change servers and play PvE PvP .
You do whatever you choose, build whatever you like

 

[user746383]

Their point seems to be more that nothing a human makes can be on a spectrum of artificial or organic/natural/realistic, in theirdefinition they’d like us to use, everything is always equally artificial because it’s made by a human. Although probably I won’t adopt that definition - I can think of lots of human-made things that seem more or less artificial.

 

[Gorbles]

I would disagree, try open world building games aka Valheim , Conan exiles .

You can organically build anywhere, you can totally ignore the levelling Bosses and just play as an explorer.
You can change servers and play PvE PvP .
You do whatever you choose, build whatever you like

PvP forces you to play against players. PvE forces you to play against an AI (sometimes in a co-operative manner). FPS games force you to shoot in a first-person camera mode.

The list goes on.

"is Civ a sandbox" is a very different kind of argument, and one we have other, dedicated threads for. The original point was someone not agreeing with a mechanic and calling it forced. Even earlier Civ games still had mechanics.

 

[Siptah]

Their point seems to be more that nothing a human makes can be on a spectrum of artificial or organic/natural/realistic, in theirdefinition they’d like us to use, everything is always equally artificial because it’s made by a human. Although probably I won’t adopt that definition - I can think of lots of human-made things that seem more or less artificial.

Obviously, that’s not at all their point and snarky intentional misunderstandings don‘t help. Why ridicule others instead of spending a few seconds to try to understand them?

 

[user746383]

What did I miss? I did leave out the second part, but just because it’s predicated on the first. But I can also say to be clear I don’t agree that thinking something is artificial is another way to say you don’t like it. There’s lots of art and food for example I would call more artificial that I like, in addition to more organic foods or approaches to art, video games, or anything really. I also disagree anything human made is equally artificial and there’s no interesting spectrum or discussion to be had there. I’m definitely not trying to misunderstand their point on purpose. If anything I was trying to steelman it, although I disagree I could see how someone might take a very strict definition of artificial like that.

All events are artificial. All events are forced. Nothing in a video game is organic.

This is about feeling, and whether or not you like something. That's fine. Say that. I dislike how we have to phrase things in ways that make the feelings objective, when the whole point is that they're not. But that doesn't make the feelings wrong.

My bugbear with the word "artificial" (and similarly, "forced") is both public and repeatedly expressed here on CFC.

I'm criticising the argument. That's how this works, no? It's not artificial, is my point. No more than anything else is. People use the word because it's a way of expressing their frustration and / or dislike.

 

[queenpea]

Meanwhile it looks like Steam reviews are still trending towards the negative.