Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

So then go play the game they like instead of advocating for 7 to become 5 2.0
I'm so tired of this argument. Was Civilization 5 Civ 1 5.0 because it didn't have ages and civ switching? Why do we only make this sort of strawman argument with this issue? It's very odd. There are numerous ways to change the game without messing with the traditional way civs were portrayed. How do I know this? Civs 1-6 all exist and were all successful.
Nothing in Civ is anathema.
This is just not true. If they made Civ a RTS, I would see that as anathema as well and I believe I wouldn't be alone in that sentiment. There are certain things you just don't change with a franchise. With civ switching and ages, it's clear that they crossed the line for a significant portion of the fanbase.
 
Im so sorry that you're tired of the argument that Civ 7 is awesome because it's different, and homoginizing it would be a bad thing. Difference is a good thing. Variety is the spice of life.

Okay. I'll conceed that being a 4X game is anathema, but thats it. (What definition of anathema are you using? Im trying to use it in the same context as you but the definition doesn't seem to fit)
 
Im so sorry that you're tired of the argument that Civ 7 is awesome because it's different
Two things:
1. That wasn’t the argument you made. In fact, you didn’t make an argument at all. It was an assertion that somehow any Civ game without civ switching was Civ 1 #.0.
2. “Different” is a value neutral proposition. Being different doesn’t inherently make something better.
 
Two things:
1. That wasn’t the argument you made. In fact, you didn’t make an argument at all. It was an assertion that somehow any Civ game without civ switching was Civ 1 #.0.
2. “Different” is a value neutral proposition. Being different doesn’t inherently make something better.
1) No, what i said was, they have 6 other civ games to play that will fix the "problem" they are having. Literally what my argument was.

What I said was happening is that people are trying to turn 7 into 5 2.0.

2) So, being the same would be better? That's you're argument? Then please, go play civ 6 or 5 and stop trying to turn 7 into those games.


Also; what's your definition of "anathema." I'm sure you dont mean the definitions I am finding for it.
 
So, being the same would be better? That's you're argument? Then please, go play civ 6 or 5 and stop trying to turn 7 into those games.
Never said that. In fact, basic logic would lead you to the conclusion that sameness is also a value neutral proposition.
 
Never said that. In fact, basic logic would lead you to the conclusion that sameness is also a value neutral proposition.
That's why I put it in the form of a question. Im trying to understand your angle here but it seems like all you want to do is add labels to my statements. So you dont want them to change the current game?

Also; anathema means Universally Hated, or its an act by the pope. Im not sure that's the word you were looking for.
 
That's why I put it in the form of a question. Im trying to understand your angle here but it seems like all you want to do is add labels to my statements. So you dont want them to change the current game?

Also; anathema means Universally Hated, or it’s an act by the pope. Im not sure that's the word you were looking for.
 
It's plain for most to see that this rule of thirds was abandoned for VII, though. I think it has worked for some players and hasn't for others.
I think this is a matter of interpretation, and as usual it'll fall along the usual lines of the folks in this discussion.

I believe the developers said that they might have pushed one third a bit more than usual, but not unduly so.
 
I’ve never heard of anathema meaning universally hated. It means that something or someone is hated or avoided by the person or group it is anathema to. “Micromanagement is anathema to well designed strategy games”, that sort of thing.
Except what follows the "to" should be some person or group of people: hated, loathed (and therefore presupposing agents that can hate or loathe); not just "intrinsically incompatible with," as your sample sentence uses it.

"Micromanagement is anathema to players looking for a quick game."

"Civ switching has proven to be anathema to some long-time players of the franchise."
 
Last edited:
I would rule a no on that one, @Leucarum.

Polite disagreement is anathema to people who hold entrenched opinions.

The "universally hated" comes from the fact that the Pope can officially declare someone or some theological position anathema and then the Universal Church is collectively to hold that person or thing in contempt. But that's a technical usage and rarer these days.
 
Last edited:
I think a lot of it has to do with the rise of Cancel Culture. People have seen that negative reviews can sometimes get you exactly what you want. I feel like people that are slightly put off by one feature or another feel the need to review bomb products until the manufacturer capitulation to their demands.
"civ switching and ages" is not a feature, its a "core mechanics". Were these just features, I personally wouldn't have any issue (eg.: there are multiple features in civ 6 I dislike but can live with it). But this puts the whole game into a different category.
 
I think that in formulations like the following
“Micromanagement is anathema to well designed strategy games”

Polite disagreement is anathema to entrenched positions?
the (kinda similar) word that people are looking for is "antithetical."

It took me about a half an hour to get that to come into my head. I kept feeling "but there is some word that does mean 'intrinsically incompatible with,' isn't there?" So thank you all for what amounted to a word puzzle.
 
"civ switching and ages" is not a feature, its a "core mechanics". Were these just features, I personally wouldn't have any issue (eg.: there are multiple features in civ 6 I dislike but can live with it). But this puts the whole game into a different category.

Yup, i found myself unattached to the civ i was playing as it will change anyway.

You can argue that civ has long been a board game, but now they don't try and hide that at all, which they did in the past. As a story teller / sandbox type player the Maps, Quests, Ages and civ switching quickly made it clear that this game was not for me. It has fundamentally changed the game for me in a way that 1upt etc did not. The maps in particular make me chuckle as they are so ridiculous.

After 72 pages of posts i honestly believe it is that simple, those who play the game to tell a story are 'probably' disappointed with the game. If however you are more of a strategy board game player, you may well love it.

To be fair, 4 was the peak for me, whilst i did play a fair amount of 5 and 6 it was already moving away from the game i wanted.
 
I think a lot of it has to do with the rise of Cancel Culture. People have seen that negative reviews can sometimes get you exactly what you want. I feel like people that are slightly put off by one feature or another feel the need to review bomb products until the manufacturer capitulation to their demands.
I disagree, i think a significant number of people who have embraced change in previous iterations (or at least accepted them eventually) feel that the core mechanics of civ 7 attack what make a civ game- civ.

Initially i did think it was just me that felt this way, but after reading an unhealthy number of reviews this last few months i think it is a good chunk of the traditional player base. Perhaps the developers feel new players they pick up will easily compensate for any lost players.

There is nothing wrong with loving and defending civ 7 of course, my fave show got cancelled tonight and i am livid.
 
Around the Horn?

It was sad to watch.
Wheel of time, i grew up reading the series- i was obsessed and read the book series at least 20 times.
S1 and S2 were a bit rough (covid and actor leaving) but S3 was fantastic and i am utterly gutted.

And it made me think, i got annoyed at people bashing the show and wanting it cancelled. Me criticising civ 7 must annoy fans in a similar way, although i have always tried to make it clear it is down to taste.
 
It was discussed and I looked into it, and civ 6 took about 2 years, not until the expansions started to roll in, to outpace civ 5 in player counts. No data compared to civ 4 (as most people owned it off Steam). For long running franchises, they often have a lot of people who bought the old versions for cheap who want to keep playing, and aren't interested in spending 100$ on the new game.
Put it this way. If Civ 6 took 2 years to outpace Civ 5 in player counts, how many years will Civ 7 need?
 
Back
Top Bottom