Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[socratic]

I don't know if the Aztecs and Byzantium are the best examples, though! The Aztecs were a pre-order bonus that everyone else had to wait 90 days for and Byzantium wasn't added until NFP. Civ Vi seemed to do just fine without them, though.

I do think that a much expanded roster would help a lot. In previous games, you played only one civilization, so you could play a lot of games without repeating. In this game, you play three at a time, so you're going to start repeating much sooner.

I mentioned them mainly because of their continuity with other civs we already have. It was disappointing that we couldn’t play Rome into Byzantium or Aztec into Mexico. I’m sure more people will turn around on civ switching once more civs and leaders are added

 

[queenpea]

I mentioned them mainly because of their continuity with other civs we already have. It was disappointing that we couldn’t play Rome into Byzantium or Aztec into Mexico. I’m sure more people will turn around on civ switching once more civs and leaders are added

Rome to Byzantium to Ottomans seemed like an obvious thread for marketing purposes. I hope they deliver these civs in an expansion soon.

 

[SerbianYugoThief]

I wonder how much of the negative reception is based on the poor launch state and predatory DLC versus dislike of the core game design. If the backlash is mostly the latter, I don’t see this game having a very long lifespan. If it’s the former this game can definitely bounce back once the creases are ironed out and series staples like Aztec and Byzantium are eventually brought back. I’m not sure if there’s anyway to measure that but it could be worth looking into.

Unless they more or less roll everything back, which they won't even if they had the time and resources to, I will have to skip this one for its mechanical incongruency with what I love about civ.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I downloaded Civ VI via netflix over Christmas, I wonder if that counted as 1 of the 3 million units they mentioned. It's technically a sale as presumably netflix give them some kind of royalty fee for it?

I'm sure it would. They want to count every unit sale they can, as its in their best interest to maximize the lifetime sales of (and therefore value of) the Civ franchise.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I downloaded Civ VI via netflix over Christmas, I wonder if that counted as 1 of the 3 million units they mentioned. It's technically a sale as presumably netflix give them some kind of royalty fee for it?

As far as I know, streaming services never have per download agreements, they pay per month for availability on their platform unless they own the game/video themselves. So I really doubt those count.

 

[Gori the Grey]

sitting in the sofa is pretty relaxing compared to a PC + chair.

laptop + recliner ftw

 

[Askia Muhammad]

Rather than rushing Civ8, I think it would be better for Firaxis to release a spinoff first. Maybe a good candidate would be a true remake of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.

A whole generation never played that game. Game mechanics are still very good and replayability is very high. And I'm sure that with modern graphics, maybe slightly more content like a few new factions, it would have a very strong potential.

I’d rather see a colonization remake. Sci fi isn’t very interesting in a 4x setting when you’re based on one planet.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I’d rather see a colonization remake. Sci fi isn’t very interesting in a 4x setting when you’re based on one planet.

They started experimenting with fantasy like elements in the NFP. I'd love it if that became a steppingstone for something like Civilization: Mythology to be a thing.

 

[Chiyo]

Rome to Byzantium to Ottomans seemed like an obvious thread for marketing purposes. I hope they deliver these civs in an expansion soon.

I think it sounds horrible. It makes sense if you made a game about developing a single city. Then you can found it as a Roman city, at some point the empire you belong to is split and so the culture changes. Then you are being sieged several times until someone completely different like the Ottomans conquer you and change your culture again and then that empire is conquered and you now belong to a new Turkish culture. I think I could enjoy that. But as an empire builder? Rome as a natural Ottoman city will definitely stop me from playing it as it just feels so wrong. Which brings us back to the birth mistake of Civ7. "This is what happened to the city of London so it must happen the same way to complete civilizations, and meaning all civilizations, on the whole planet at exactly the same time."

 

[Gorbles]

"This is what happened to the city of London so it must happen the same way to complete civilizations, and meaning all civilizations, on the whole planet at exactly the same time."

This isn't how Civ VII works though. You seem to be confusing the Age transition itself, with the evolution of Antiquity civ -> Exploration civ -> Modern civ. Ancient Rome -> Ottomans is a civilisation unlock / progression path (in theory). The game ending Antiquity and fast-forwarding the setting by however many hundred years (to the start of Exploration) is what you seem to be talking about.

If you're saying "only cities ever changed hands, not countries", I can only disagree, really. And I don't really understand how "Rome as a natural Ottoman city . . . feels so wrong". Is it any worse than playing as Rome in VI and conquering New York? Does the explicit action of conquest make a difference vs. a transition where it happens off-screen?

Would improving the UX and narrated elements around an Age transition help your gameplay at all? As right now I can understand how it seems a bit sudden. The gameplay elements of the transition are front-and-centre. The narrative, less so.

 

[Nikolai II]

laptop + recliner ftw

Works well except for the mouse situation. A mousepad is horrible and a separate mouse in a recliner is not easy to manage.

 

[GeneralZift]

Does the explicit action of conquest make a difference vs. a transition where it happens off-screen?

Yes.

 

[Gorbles]

Yes.

Would you like to respond to the suggestion I proposed to Chiyo to improve the UX around this?

 

[queenpea]

I think it sounds horrible. It makes sense if you made a game about developing a single city. Then you can found it as a Roman city, at some point the empire you belong to is split and so the culture changes. Then you are being sieged several times until someone completely different like the Ottomans conquer you and change your culture again and then that empire is conquered and you now belong to a new Turkish culture. I think I could enjoy that. But as an empire builder? Rome as a natural Ottoman city will definitely stop me from playing it as it just feels so wrong. Which brings us back to the birth mistake of Civ7. "This is what happened to the city of London so it must happen the same way to complete civilizations, and meaning all civilizations, on the whole planet at exactly the same time."

You’re free not to enjoy Civ switching.

My comment was just to express that two of the civs needed for this (essentially historic) play through are missing from the game.

 

[GeneralZift]

Would you like to respond to the suggestion I proposed to Chiyo to improve the UX around this?

Also yes. They definitely need to dress it up. But it still feels janky. Game won't feel fluid until there's enough options to pad absolutely everything.

But I figured another issue, is that once they have enough Civs, you'll start facing choice paralysis, and you'll be unlocking like 12 Civs at once, which will feel equally tacky.
Don't forget most of those Civs will be DLC, so you'll have to basically buy your way into the game making sense / feeling good. Or buy the collection in 5 years.

Unfortunately, and ignoring my personal opinion about Civ switching, I don't see a feasible way forward for it, except to make it somehow optional for players. I'll explain why.

Most people think (or thought) about Civ like some kind of alternate history. So when you play England it's as if you're playing the story of England, if England was somewhere else and had different circumstances, and you could control the development of that Nation in your own specific way.

So the control over how you lead it is the crucial aspect that people enjoy, they play as the Supreme Leader, and have to face adversity and enemies in a story taking their country to the top.

Once you introduce this new layer, there's some inherent dissonance. On paper it makes sense - you switch with the Ages and follow a path that occured in real life - Romans, Normans, English.

But the circumstances are not the same, so it doesn't make sense. Some Civs don't have successors, so you have to make a leap of logic. Some Civs don't have predecessors.
At this point, the story starts to lose shape, and it's more like you are switching character in a video game, rather than a natural progression.

If every Civ had a genuine successor and predecessor, then switching Civ would be a foregone conclusion. But there isn't and never will be, so it's not.

 

[UWHabs]

Also yes. They definitely need to dress it up. But it still feels janky. Game won't feel fluid until there's enough options to pad absolutely everything.

But I figured another issue, is that once they have enough Civs, you'll start facing choice paralysis, and you'll be unlocking like 12 Civs at once, which will feel equally tacky.
Don't forget most of those Civs will be DLC, so you'll have to basically buy your way into the game making sense / feeling good. Or buy the collection in 5 years.

Unfortunately, and ignoring my personal opinion about Civ switching, I don't see a feasible way forward for it, except to make it somehow optional for players. I'll explain why.

Most people think (or thought) about Civ like some kind of alternate history. So when you play England it's as if you're playing the story of England, if England was somewhere else and had different circumstances, and you could control the development of that Nation in your own specific way.

So the control over how you lead it is the crucial aspect that people enjoy, they play as the Supreme Leader, and have to face adversity and enemies in a story taking their country to the top.

Once you introduce this new layer, there's some inherent dissonance. On paper it makes sense - you switch with the Ages and follow a path that occured in real life - Romans, Normans, English.

But the circumstances are not the same, so it doesn't make sense. Some Civs don't have successors, so you have to make a leap of logic. Some Civs don't have predecessors.
At this point, the story starts to lose shape, and it's more like you are switching character in a video game, rather than a natural progression.

If every Civ had a genuine successor and predecessor, then switching Civ would be a foregone conclusion. But there isn't and never will be, so it's not.

Once they get a few more civs released, I wouldn't hate to see them balance some of the unlocks. Some are way too easy, some are way too hard. Like I can't imagine any game where I don't build 3 Altars, so Bulgaria is a 100% unlock. But Spain and Hawaii for example are a lot more challenging in most games.

If they do get to the point where every civ has multiple civs/leaders that can unlock them, I don't hate if they amp up the difficulty on the rest. So basically you'd still always have your 3-4 "natural" unlocks from civ/leader, but you have to sort of go out of the way to unlock the next tier. So like Bulgaria, maybe their unlocks would be to have like 7 altars, or have pillaged 25 tiles. Songhai could change to only unlock if your settlements are actually ON a navigable river, not just near them, etc.. Then at least every progression would either be from a natural point, or alternately, it's actually a significant under-taking to unlock, and you're not just going to randomly unlock them.

 

[Gorbles]

Also yes. They definitely need to dress it up. But it still feels janky. Game won't feel fluid until there's enough options to pad absolutely everything.

Fair enough - thanks! I've suggested it a couple of times at this point, so I'm trying to get feedback from folks who don't get on with the system as-is (vs. folks that do).

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

This isn't how Civ VII works though. You seem to be confusing the Age transition itself, with the evolution of Antiquity civ -> Exploration civ -> Modern civ. Ancient Rome -> Ottomans is a civilisation unlock / progression path (in theory). The game ending Antiquity and fast-forwarding the setting by however many hundred years (to the start of Exploration) is what you seem to be talking about.

If you're saying "only cities ever changed hands, not countries", I can only disagree, really. And I don't really understand how "Rome as a natural Ottoman city . . . feels so wrong". Is it any worse than playing as Rome in VI and conquering New York? Does the explicit action of conquest make a difference vs. a transition where it happens off-screen?

Yes it is

 

[McSpank01]

If you're saying "only cities ever changed hands, not countries", I can only disagree, really. And I don't really understand how "Rome as a natural Ottoman city . . . feels so wrong". Is it any worse than playing as Rome in VI and conquering New York? Does the explicit action of conquest make a difference vs. a transition where it happens off-screen?

Rome into Byzantium into Ottomans really brings home one of the issues of how civ switching doesn't really work very well. The fantasy that we have when we play a civ is that we take them from the stone age into modernity and we craft them through that time, maintaining them across history. The Eastern Roman Empire was conquered and destroyed by the Ottomans, they didn't 'become' the Ottomans. If that was a Civ game it would be one player wiping out the other one.

For what it's worth, I like the concept of a civ evolving over ages, going from Greece to say Spain, well it's kind of cool. It's just so crude at the moment. If instead I remained Greece, but had the option of taking on more and more elements of Spanish culture and personality as time goes on, well that would be good, and maybe at some point I can choose to rename my cities and my civ as Spanish, but it would less abrupt, and would be due to the consequences of my actions and choices.

 

[Gorbles]

Rome into Byzantium into Ottomans really brings home one of the issues of how civ switching doesn't really work very well. The fantasy that we have when we play a civ is that we take them from the stone age into modernity and we craft them through that time, maintaining them across history. The Eastern Roman Empire was conquered and destroyed by the Ottomans, they didn't 'become' the Ottomans. If that was a Civ game it would be one player wiping out the other one.

I mean, to be clear, we're using a theoretical example to say how civ switching doesn't work well?

Regardless, fair enough, but similar to queenpea I was making a different point overall. Folks are going to feel about civ switching however they do.