Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[bitula]

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.

From my point of view it is not about how they received the feature as a whole, but their oppionion of it being "forced"/"artificial" when compared to previous civ version. I think (my oppionion is) that even those who like the feature won't say it is not forced or artificial - its just that they enjoy being slightly forced and they don't care about the gamely aspect, cause it is a game and altogather their is more positives to this then negatives.

Neither are useful, would be my opinion.

But the word "artificial" is in a context (refers to something concrete) in the former case. In the latter it is just a word.

 

[Leucarum]

A lot of things do seem pretty objective. Player numbers are underwhelming; negative reviews disproportionately mention the most drastic changes to the series. From there though - how the changes feel or what firaxis should do - it gets a lot more subjective. I will press X to doubt at anyone who claims to know exactly what firaxis should do - not least because what they should do in the short versus long terms are likely quite different.

Personally, I would say their best priority is to speed up release of modding tools. They need a blunderbuss of mods fired at the playerbase to see what sticks so they can immitate, and the longer they delay the less engaged the modding community will be, and the smaller/less representative that playerbase will be also. Civ 7's design seems quite modular so hopefully even some quite dramatic changes are possible, and I hope firaxis are ready to sacrifice some sacred cows for the good of the game.

Disclaimer: I am in the "I like Civ7" camp.

 

[Gorbles]

From my point of view it is not about how they received the feature as a whole, but their oppionion of it being "forced"/"artificial" when compared to previous civ version. I think (my oppionion is) that even those who like the feature won't say it is not forced or artificial - its just that they enjoy being slightly forced and they don't care about the gamely aspect, cause it is a game and altogather their is more positives to this then negatives.

I like the feature and don't think it's forced or artificial (in any real way that is different to any other game mechanics I've come across in my time).

Again, raising the example of the Marian Reforms in Rome: Total War. Have you played that?

From there though - how the changes feel or what firaxis should do - it gets a lot more subjective. I will press X to doubt at anyone who claims to know exactly what firaxis should do - not least because what they should do in the short versus long terms are likely quite different.

Yup, exactly.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

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?

I have no insider information, so these are just my guesses:

• Planning for Civ 8 was underway even before Civ 7 was released.
• The reception of Civ 7 will shorten the Civ 7 development cycle, unless sales numbers are better than reviews and player counts suggest (possible) and/or DLCs released over the next year or two are favourably received (even more possible).
• Civ 8 will be developed under a new leadership team (this was likely regardless of the commercial success of Civ 7, and pretty much certain now).
• Even if Civ 7's cycle is shortened, it will be a minimum of 6 years until Civ 8 is released (2031 at the earliest). Six years is the gap between Civ 5 and Civ 6, and that was with leadership team continuity. Game development times have been increasing across the industry. The leadership for Civ 8 will want to take the time to understand the lessons of Civ 7. They're also likely to build a new engine from scratch (Civ 5, 6 and 7 run on a core that is now getting long in the tooth). That will take time.
• There will be no quick pivot, but there may be a diversion of resources from longer-cycle Civ 7 DLCs to core Civ 8. That could happen as soon as this year, but may not happen until the first-cycle DLC reception is confirmed (i.e. no decision until next year).
• If Civ 7 sales numbers are really bad, there may be an interim project between now and Civ 8, such as a re-skin of an earlier version of Civ, something to replace future Civ 7 DLCs and generate current revenues while Civ 8 progresses. Different parts of the development team are busy at different times in the development cycle, so efficient use of resources mean enough projects in parallel to keep all of them gainfully employed at all times.

Bottom-line: with a commercially successful Civ 7, the development cycle would likely have seen Civ 8 brought to market in about 10 years (approx. 2035). If Civ 8 is accelerated, it's still likely to be at least 6 years before it would come to market. In the meantime, we'll continue to see Civ 7 DLCs unless they really flop, in which case we may see a modest interim project between now and Civ 8.

 

[AD1730]

From there though - how the changes feel or what firaxis should do - it gets a lot more subjective. I will press X to doubt at anyone who claims to know exactly what firaxis should do - not least because what they should do in the short versus long terms are likely quite different.

Of course, the best we can do is use previous games to make educated guesses of what would work to fix the situation. I think Stellaris' post-release development is probably the best approximation of what needs to happen, but Stellaris also had a much more positive release than Civ 7 has.

I hope firaxis are ready to sacrifice some sacred cows for the good of the game.

I hope so too. So far, I haven't seen much evidence that they're willing to do so.

there may be an interim project between now and Civ 8, such as a re-skin of an earlier version of Civ, something to replace future Civ 7 DLCs and generate current revenues while Civ 8 progresses.

I would be shocked if any AAA publisher isn't asking their studios what they think are good remaster candidates after seeing Oblivion: Remastered's sales numbers. If I had to guess, I would say that Civ 4 would be the most likely candidate.

 

[Leucarum]

I think Stellaris' post-release development is probably the best approximation of what needs to happen, but Stellaris also had a much more positive release than Civ 7 has.

Stellaris has been reinvented so many times and in so many ways that I think this statement is pretty much true regardless of which side of the fence you are on.

But I will say that Paradox's outreach and engagement in the context of stellaris are really things to duplicate. And a development cycle with open public testing would be another stellar choice.

I hope so too. So far, I haven't seen much evidence that they're willing to do so.

So far their focus has been on dealing with the things that are actively on fire so I don't think they reveal much about firaxis' longer term priorities...

 

[bitula]

I like the feature and don't think it's forced or artificial (in any real way that is different to any other game mechanics I've come across in my time).

No, but I mean when you compare it to the previous civ versions, not other games. This part is very important: civ1-6 as base. Doesn't make any sense without this, cause sure, many games are for example scenario based, like Jurrasic Park, but those are different games.

 

[Kev1916]

I like the feature and don't think it's forced or artificial (in any real way that is different to any other game mechanics I've come across in my time).

Again, raising the example of the Marian Reforms in Rome: Total War. Have you played that?

I think it is forced and defo artificial, like what several thousand years go by in the blink of a black screen.

The Marian reforms in Total War were hard coded and were a great concept , think it was related to a particular high tier building ( cant mind which one ), and certain conditions ( population? location ) the player or Ai had to meet.
The huge difference was choice .
The player had the choice to go for this game event when they choose, and in there own time and also depending on which faction they chose
Also you could just ignore it all together and just play a non Roman faction

 

[Gorbles]

No, but I mean when you compare it to the previous civ versions, not other games. This part is very important: civ1-6 as base. Doesn't make any sense without this, cause sure, many games are for example scenario based, like Jurrasic Park, but those are different games.

So Districts were forced? 1UPT was forced?

Like, agree or not with each of them, like or dislike . . . these things need to be separate. No? If all "forced" means is "I don't like it", then just say you don't like it! It's easier for everyone. I'm getting a headache and I'm a native English speaker

It doesn't seem to me like the label helps at all. Simply not liking something is enough. Like I said earlier - it's valid feedback (for the devs).

I think it is forced and defo artificial, like what several thousand years go by in the blink of a black screen.

. . . no?

Upper bound seems to be around 1300 years?

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1gm5lrv/i_love_the_fact_that_there_is_a_time_skip_between

Also you could just ignore it all together and just play a non Roman faction

Yes, my point was "when playing as the Romans", which are the default faction, the name on the label of the game, and the first one recommended you play as to understand the game itself (the Julii specifically).

There really isn't much choice - it's pretty much guaranteed if you or the AI is playing one of the Roman the factions. I don't think I had a single playthrough where it didn't happen (assuming you, you know, didn't lose the game before then). Imperial Palace is pretty straightforward to get and all post-reform units were considered to be the superior choice overall.

 

[user746383]

My personal advice is it will be easier for you to learn what everyone else means by those words than to get the rest of the forum to adopt your preferred usage. I’m also a native speaker and it seems perfectly clear what’s intended. Which isn’t to say you can’t keep trying, it’s just my gentle suggestion to avoid a headache.

 

[Gorbles]

My personal advice is it will be easier for you to learn what everyone else means by those words than to get the rest of the world to adopt your preferred usage. I’m also a native speaker and it seems perfectly clear what’s intended.

Really, because I'm having multiple discussions with multiple people and they all seem to mean slightly different things. Somebody's arguing for objectivity in subjectivity, somebody's owning their opinion (nothing wrong with that either), and someone else is insistent that Ages are uniquely the worst / most forced thing Civ has ever changed.

Separately, these are all valid tangents. But aggregating them under a single umbrella is somewhat proving my point, here. If three people mean three slightly different things, despite being united in their negative perspective, then understanding those differences is key to any possible changes that could be made.

If it seems perfectly clear to you, that's great. It isn't clear to me, and saying "it's clear to me" doesn't actually help me understand

It's not about adopting usage, it's about removing ambiguity. If "forced" means something else other than "I don't like it", then say that instead. It could be a lack of choice. It could be a lack of narrative framing. It could be the severity of the impact. It could be two or more of the three!

My advice to you - to anyone - is that if you want these mechanics changed (personally, I don't, but YMMV), is that making up words in place of other words will not help convey exactly what you want changed, unless you want it flat-out removed. And if that's what you want, just say that and I'll stop trying to understand any deeper than that. Other than disagreeing, of course, but disagreeing over change has a lot more discussion potential than disagreeing over removing something.

 

[user746383]

Ok, sure, if you’re getting something out of it that’s great! You just mentioned the headache so I thought I’d offer an alternative. It’s easy enough for anyone not involved to hide the messages as needed so it’s fine either way of course.

 

[itix]

I have no insider information, so these are just my guesses:

• Planning for Civ 8 was underway even before Civ 7 was released.
• The reception of Civ 7 will shorten the Civ 7 development cycle, unless sales numbers are better than reviews and player counts suggest (possible) and/or DLCs released over the next year or two are favourably received (even more possible).
• Civ 8 will be developed under a new leadership team (this was likely regardless of the commercial success of Civ 7, and pretty much certain now).
• Even if Civ 7's cycle is shortened, it will be a minimum of 6 years until Civ 8 is released (2031 at the earliest). Six years is the gap between Civ 5 and Civ 6, and that was with leadership team continuity. Game development times have been increasing across the industry. The leadership for Civ 8 will want to take the time to understand the lessons of Civ 7. They're also likely to build a new engine from scratch (Civ 5, 6 and 7 run on a core that is now getting long in the tooth). That will take time.
• There will be no quick pivot, but there may be a diversion of resources from longer-cycle Civ 7 DLCs to core Civ 8. That could happen as soon as this year, but may not happen until the first-cycle DLC reception is confirmed (i.e. no decision until next year).
• If Civ 7 sales numbers are really bad, there may be an interim project between now and Civ 8, such as a re-skin of an earlier version of Civ, something to replace future Civ 7 DLCs and generate current revenues while Civ 8 progresses. Different parts of the development team are busy at different times in the development cycle, so efficient use of resources mean enough projects in parallel to keep all of them gainfully employed at all times.

Bottom-line: with a commercially successful Civ 7, the development cycle would likely have seen Civ 8 brought to market in about 10 years (approx. 2035). If Civ 8 is accelerated, it's still likely to be at least 6 years before it would come to market. In the meantime, we'll continue to see Civ 7 DLCs unless they really flop, in which case we may see a modest interim project between now and Civ 8.

If Civ 7 is commercially short-lived, the existing engine and assets could be reused to create Civ 8. They don't have to make everything from scratch.

 

[Gorbles]

If Civ 7 is commercially short-lived, the existing engine and assets could be reused to create Civ 8. They don't have to make everything from scratch.

The existing engine is always repurposed. VI kept a whole bunch of code from V, and despite the major differences, I believe this pattern repeats further back (and forward).

 

[stealth_nsk]

The existing engine is always repurposed. VI kept a whole bunch of code from V, and despite the major differences, I believe this pattern repeats further back (and forward).

The core graphics engine was new in each iteration of civ game. I don't know if there are many leftovers in other parts of the code, but providing modding tools are also totally new each time, I suppose each version of civilization is mostly clean new game, probably with some libraries reused.

 

[Kev1916]

1300 or 2000 years yea whatever, from my point of view either length of time is pretty artificial

Yes, my point was "when playing as the Romans", which are the default faction, the name on the label of the game, and the first one recommended you play as to understand the game itself (the Julii specifically).

There really isn't much choice - it's pretty much guaranteed if you or the AI is playing one of the Roman the factions. I don't think I had a single playthrough where it didn't happen (assuming you, you know, didn't lose the game before then). Imperial Palace is pretty straightforward to get and all post-reform units were considered to be the superior choice overall.

Yes label on the game good spot , "there really isn't much choice ." - very subjective of you.

Choice is there, play as the Romans or one of the other 16/17 nations, play as the Romans and never build it

To build the palace you had to achieve a fair number prerequisite objectives , if you cant mind do your own checks , I cant remember them all
You could in dozen different ways or strategies plan for when you wanted to build said Palace , or dont build it .
re the AI same through War's and or diplomacy deny them Italian soil, plague there cities and they cant built it .

The key point is player choice, in my games I would oftern delay and delay as once you got the super troops it was pretty much steam rolling time , may be a different example?

 

[Gorbles]

The core graphics engine was new in each iteration of civ game. I don't know if there are many leftovers in other parts of the code, but providing modding tools are also totally new each time, I suppose each version of civilization is mostly clean new game, probably with some libraries reused.

AssignStartingPlots (always my go-to example because it's one of the areas I actually modded in this franchise) is pretty similar between V and VI, from memory. An absolute beast of a function, too.

I guess I assumed that despite the maturation of the pipelines, etc, that upgrades were always pieces, and the engine itself kept parts across each iteration. I swear there was a dev interview about this, back in the early VI days.

Choice is there, play as the Romans or one of the other 16/17 nations, play as the Romans and never build it

You don't have access to the other factions when you first play the game. Interesting lack of choice there, too.

Though I think at this point you've answered the question. No, you don't consider the Marian Reforms the same, because technically they eventually let you maybe opt out of it. Though notably, if you play a Roman faction, it's pretty hard (if not impossible) to not get to that point (especially as any other Roman faction can also trigger the Reforms).

I mean, there are plenty of other examples. Half of Portal is being told what to do, and there only being certain ways to solve certain puzzles (though Portal's ingenuity is in how this "feels" more organic, despite mechanically being pretty rigid in more than a few cases).

There are a lot of cases of a lot of games emphatically railroading player choice, even taking player agency away from them. These come with varying levels of popularity, success and / or failure (though nobody can really argue with Portal, in my opinion). Taking away control from the user is often seen as a good way to get people annoyed. Which is why the Age transition controls, with Legacy points, optional objectives to pursue that grant you additional Legacies based on how well you do, etc . . . all give you control over how the transition actually impacts you.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

If Civ 7 is commercially short-lived, the existing engine and assets could be reused to create Civ 8. They don't have to make everything from scratch.

I could be wrong, but I suspect they do, if they want Civ 8 to be something other than "Civ Greatest Hits". I think one of the things Civ 7 is demonstrating is the limit of the current engine and how difficult it is to do new things with it. How cities interact with the map, how units interact with the map, etc. are to at least some degree limited by decisions made while Civ 5 was being developed. At some point, I think they're going to say "let's stop being limited by what was possible in 2008 and think about what is possible in 202X".

Maybe the dev team for Civ 8 will consider the existing engine just fine for what they want to do or be able to tweak it instead of outright replacing it. That could shorten the development cycle. At some point, though, renovating becomes more complex than building from scratch. My gut tells me the Civ series is at that point, but my gut is not part of any dev team discussions.

re the other assets, if you mean art assets, no way Civ 8 uses any art assets from Civ 7. That's not done by major publishers. They'd be lampooned mercilessly.

 

[bitula]

So Districts were forced? 1UPT was forced?

Like, agree or not with each of them, like or dislike . . . these things need to be separate. No? If all "forced" means is "I don't like it", then just say you don't like it! It's easier for everyone. I'm getting a headache and I'm a native English speaker

It doesn't seem to me like the label helps at all. Simply not liking something is enough. Like I said earlier - it's valid feedback (for the devs).

Sorry but this is nonsense + irrelevant examples. I don't think I need to explain why. Because I don't think anyone else have problem differentiating between "forced", "artificial" and "dislike". And these were clearly linked (explained) labels - they were linked here in the dissucssion, possibly you skipped those parts.

 

[Gorbles]

Sorry but this is nonsense + irrelevant examples. I don't think I need to explain why. Because I don't think anyone else have problem differentiating between "forced", "artificial" and "dislike". And these were clearly linked (explained) labels - they were linked here in the dissucssion, possibly you skipped those parts.

I don't think at any point I've called your opinion nonsense or irrelevant. I would appreciate it if you did the same.

Why were Districts not forced? You don't get a choice, you have to use them. I can't see you winning any game without using at least one in a city. The same goes for the change from MUPT to 1UPT. You had to like it or leave it. The same presumably goes for the Age system, radical overhauls to the game that have no measurable guarantee of success notwithstanding. If they stuck the course with 1UPT, given how rough V was on release, it makes me think they might do the same here.

Then again, the games industry (and consumers likewise) are in a different place now compared to back in the late 00s. Hard to tell.