Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[VGT]

Isn't discussion back and forth happening because you are all right, but context matters? I relate with arguments that age transision, crisis and civ switching is forced, because I don't like it. And also I as technical mind, understand argument that everything is forced, because every part of game is design decision implemented by developers as game mechanic, therefore have rules, therefore it's limiting what you can do freely.

The context is people complaining it's forced from the perspective of franchise. I wouldn't mind all those if this was new game, new IP, they can do any design decission they want and it won't be forced. It is forced for some, because it's going against the current of franchise expectations.

It's like call of duty would try in its next iteration to be top down twin stick shooter. Or if you really would like to stay in the FPS area, than maybe next iteration deciding it's paintball shooter.

 

[bitula]

Why would you be open to Crises if there were some tangible mechanics behind it? So you could avoid them?

The point is that they're unavoidable. That is the design. You can dislike this, or disagree with it, but in turn so can others disagree with the concept of being able to avoid a Crisis in the first place.

Yes, but I was reacting to the usage of the word "artificial" here. Whether it is fair to use it or not.

No, you can't.

Where is the resistance to describing things as subjective coming from? Do you think the developers won't take you as seriously? Do you believe your opinions therefore override the opinions of other demographics? I don't really understand, so I'm left with guesses.

The way I understand, there is nobody thinking that the "feature" is not "so" "artificial". 0% of playerbase. Would there be a single person who disagrees I wouldn't call it objective as well.

 

[Gorbles]

When the age reset happens, it is mandated by the narrative even if you, the player, are winning heavily, or losing heavily. Somehow, your prosperous nation has to somehow lose military and cities, change culture, and all this over a cutscene.

I did an Antiquity transition last night and lost zero cities (or settlements), and zero units. In fact, I gained a city by relocating my capital

The game really falls down on signposting mechanics and giving appropriate information to the player (though it is improving). But I can't believe you're not aware that there are plenty of ways to keep things.

It's like call of duty would try in its next iteration to be top down twin stick shooter. Or if you really would like to stay in the FPS area, than maybe next iteration deciding it's paintball shooter.

It's not though. This argument is simply "it's not Civ anymore", which (again) we have separate threads for, and is ultimately an opinion that people are going to disagree with. I know I do.

EDIT: if you want to say that the context anytime anyone ever uses the words "forced" or "artificial" is that in the context of the franchise, people feel that it is one of those things, then we're saying the same thing. It's about what people feel. It's not about what the mechanic, or even the game, is.

Which, like I said previously, is a harder problem to solve than something objectively being out of place. Machine guns in Antiquity are closer to being objectively out of place. Defining a transition mechanic to simulate the real-world history of the rising and falling of nations and empires gives a lot more room for a spectrum of disagreement over implementation.

Yes, but I was reacting to the usage of the word "artificial" here. Whether it is fair to use it or not.

I thought exploring what you thought about Crises at this point would be a good thing to move on with. I understand where you're coming from - sorry for not making that clear.

 

[VGT]

It's not though. This argument is simply "it's not Civ anymore", which (again) we have separate threads for, and is ultimately an opinion that people are going to disagree with. I know I do.

It's not an argument (in context of current discussion). It's context for subjective "this feels forced".

EDIT: if you want to say that the context anytime anyone ever uses the words "forced" or "artificial" is that in the context of the franchise, people feel that it is one of those things, then we're saying the same thing. It's about what people feel. It's not about what the mechanic, or even the game, is.

Which, like I said previously, is a harder problem to solve than something objectively being out of place. Machine guns in Antiquity are closer to being objectively out of place. Defining a transition mechanic to simulate the real-world history of the rising and falling of nations and empires gives a lot more room for a spectrum of disagreement over implementation.

Yes, that was mostly my point.

 

[bitula]

The context is people complaining it's forced from the perspective of franchise. I wouldn't mind all those if this was new game, new IP, they can do any design decission they want and it won't be forced. It is forced for some, because it's going against the current of franchise expectations.

Yes, that is correct. Main issue is that it will be long till civ 8 which would probably get back on tracks.

 

[Nikolai II]

I did an Antiquity transition last night and lost zero cities (or settlements), and zero units. In fact, I gained a city by relocating my capital

Yeah, same here. My current game I lost no settlements, 1 out of 3 cities remained, but the two "lost" cost me 200 gold + 400 gold to reclaim. Kept all my units as far as I can see, kept 20 units in five army commanders and got 10 additional units in my settlements too.

 

[Gorbles]

It's not an argument (in context of current discussion). It's context for subjective "this feels forced".

People should say that, in my humble opinion. Maybe I'm a stickler, but "it is forced" and "it feels forced" seem like two pretty different things to me.

For example, I'd understand (as I do with the UI complaints and Crisis pacing) if there were something I could see, despite not personally being bothered with it. Age transitions are not that, for me. I see them, and enjoy them. They feel more historical to me, despite the gamification (as all things ultimately are, to greater or lesser extents).

I played a lot of Rome: Total War back in the day. It's kinda like the Marian Reforms. I wonder if anyone else, who played R:TW, feels the same? Or differently?

Main issue is that it will be long till civ 8 which would probably get back on tracks.

What if it doesn't? What if VI is your stopping point, just as IV or even V was for others?

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

No, you can't.

Where is the resistance to describing things as subjective coming from? Do you think the developers won't take you as seriously? Do you believe your opinions therefore override the opinions of other demographics? I don't really understand, so I'm left with guesses.

It's called sentiment analysis, it's very widely applied, so much so that another Civ fanatic has already applied it to steam reviews.

 

[bitula]

What if it doesn't? What if VI is your stopping point, just as IV or even V was for others?

Sure, possible. VII is also an option, as soon as the "classic mode" or "classic mod" arrives. I don't care if it is a mod or mode, as soon as it is there its an instant purchase from my side - i don't have issues with prices.

 

[0urBall]

Yeah, same here. My current game I lost no settlements, 1 out of 3 cities remained, but the two "lost" cost me 200 gold + 400 gold to reclaim. Kept all my units as far as I can see, kept 20 units in five army commanders and got 10 additional units in my settlements too.

What position was the AI in though? Did you put yourself in an advantageous position due to the fact that you knew the age transition was coming up (from previous games) and were able to plan accordingly?

 

[Gorbles]

It's called sentiment analysis, it's very widely applied, so much so that another Civ fanatic has already applied it to steam reviews.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. You can say, objectively, that a significant portion of the user reviews for Civilisation VII are negative. You can say that of those, a signification portion (of the original portion) display dissatisfaction with the Age-based design.

You cannot say that "objectively, Ages are an artificial mechanic". You can't even argue that based on all available user reviews, because a lot of them differ in the minutae or don't offer enough explanation beyond "I don't like it" or "it's bad".

Sentiment analysis is not the same thing as calling a subjective opinion objective just because it occurs at scale. The numerical quantity is the objective measure, not the validity of the opinion itself. Heliocentricity didn't stop being true just because nobody believed in it. It didn't start being true when we started believing in it, either. This isn't a philosophical exercise - it's one of measuring user feedback and turning that into actionable advice for the developers.

 

[aelf]

The context is people complaining it's forced from the perspective of franchise. I wouldn't mind all those if this was new game, new IP, they can do any design decission they want and it won't be forced. It is forced for some, because it's going against the current of franchise expectations.

The franchise has no perspective. It doesn't have intentionality like a subject (i.e. a person). Perspective is the domain of subjects, hence its subjective nature. Maybe immersion is not your point, but that and the concept of being 'forced' has been closely associated in the past few pages.

From my perspective, Civ7 is exactly as immersive as Civ6. Sometimes I get mad when an AI does something. Sometimes I feel nervous about being able to pull something off. At no point in either game do I start to believe that I'm leading a nation through the ages, because the level of abstraction of a game like Civ precludes any sense of realism. So age resets have no impact on my level of immersion.

Now, YMMV. But trying to argue that something breaks immersion in some kind of non-subjective sense is mistaken and futile. This is something that is entirely subjective.

 

[user746383]

They don’t likely mean the franchise itself has intentionality or perspective like a person, but “from the point of view of the franchise” is an idiom that means “when considering the entire franchise”.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. You can say, objectively, that a significant portion of the user reviews for Civilisation VII are negative. You can say that of those, a signification portion (of the original portion) display dissatisfaction with the Age-based design.

You cannot say that "objectively, Ages are an artificial mechanic". You can't even argue that based on all available user reviews, because a lot of them differ in the minutae or don't offer enough explanation beyond "I don't like it" or "it's bad".

Sentiment analysis is not the same thing as calling a subjective opinion objective just because it occurs at scale. The numerical quantity is the objective measure, not the validity of the opinion itself. Heliocentricity didn't stop being true just because nobody believed in it. It didn't start being true when we started believing in it, either. This isn't a philosophical exercise - it's one of measuring user feedback and turning that into actionable advice for the developers.

In the aggregate, you are looking at the population level. That can change across time as trends move, but it is reasonable to say that the aggregate view of subjective opinions is indistinguishable from an objective assessment of the game.

 

[bitula]

You cannot say that "objectively, Ages are an artificial mechanic".

Oh, sure you can. You can also say any game mechanics is artificial. Both are objectively true. But the latter one is not too usefull in this context...

 

[user746383]

It’s funny how in this thread we seem to regularly come back to big philosophical questions like if anything is truly knowable and is there such a thing as a subjective or objective opinion which can exist. Not to mention a few bouts of deep psychoanalysis of each other. Maybe just because what limited data we have tends to point in one direction and it would be boring to debate otherwise

 

[bitula]

In the aggregate, you are looking at the population level. That can change across time as trends move, but it is reasonable to say that the aggregate view of subjective opinions is indistinguishable from an objective assessment of the game.

Yeah, exactly, I would expect in a game forum that'd be the proper (useful communication mode) vs. philosophical arguments. Btw, I think the confusion stems from "represenataion of Ages as game mechanics in general" and the "Ages as implemented by FX in the game called civ 7". I believe noone was talking about the former one, but maybe I am wrong. But yeah, sure, the act of "representing Ages in a game" is not "artificial" and not "forced". And it is not a bad idea either.

 

[bitula]

It’s funny how in this thread we seem to regularly come back to big philosophical questions like if anything is truly knowable and is there such a thing as a subjective or objective opinion which can exist. Not to mention a few bouts of deep psychoanalysis of each other. Maybe just because what limited data we have tends to point in one direction and it would be boring to debate otherwise

Actually I did not use the word objective or subjective, it just popped up: from my point of view everything in connection with oppionions and feelings is subjective. But usually one does't prefix each and every assertion/assessment of his with "I think", "In my oppinion", "feels like" etc. Too much typing. In this kind of discussion it is natural to presuppose these.

 

[user746383]

Oh I wasn’t calling out anyone in particular or even saying anyone is doing anything wrong just noticing a funny cycle that seems to recur.

 

[Gorbles]

In the aggregate, you are looking at the population level. That can change across time as trends move, but it is reasonable to say that the aggregate view of subjective opinions is indistinguishable from an objective assessment of the game.

It isn't reasonable at all. Or, put more mildly, folks are going to disagree with that. Which I think is the key difference.

Thought experiment time: would your opinion of these mechanics (presuming they're negative) change if the wider playerbase had received them positively? This isn't a leading question, so my prediction is no, they wouldn't change. Which means your opinions exist independently of any greater demographic.

This all seems to be a proxy for "lots of people think X is bad, ergo X needs to change". Why can't we just say that? I'd still disagree, but it beats going around, and around, and around, and around the bush endlessly. This is what I meant about phrasing things as less subjective than they actually are. They're all ways to wordsmith a mandate for change.

Oh, sure you can. You can also say any game mechanics is artificial. Both are objectively true. But the latter one is not too usefull in this context...

Neither are useful, would be my opinion.

It’s funny how in this thread we seem to regularly come back to big philosophical questions like if anything is truly knowable and is there such a thing as a subjective or objective opinion which can exist. Not to mention a few bouts of deep psychoanalysis of each other. Maybe just because what limited data we have tends to point in one direction and it would be boring to debate otherwise

I'm desperately trying to stay away from the philosophical, personally