Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[stealth_nsk]

You need literally three times as many civs as previous titles to have the same level of diversity

That's the neat part, we don't need the same level of diversity. In previous civ games, the number of civilizations was so big, that their diversity was minimal. There were some civs with unique mechanics like Babylon, but in general your strategy didn't change much whether you played Russia, Greece or Egypt.

Civilizations in Civ7 are much more distinctive and each requires a bit of separate mastery.

 

[Krajzen]

And don't even get me started on the Exploration Era Economic path, as if resource-extracting colonization of a second-class continent was the only way for nations to progress economically.

I have been too busy pointing out how stupidly eurocentric it is (remember - this is a game with supposedly non-eurocentric periodization and overall philosophy lol) to notice how stupid it is from the economic point of view and how miserable from the humanist point of view

Exploration era economic path should be really obviously about developing capitalism (even if you are marxist by belief ) and going towards the industrial revolution, not about pure extraction of whatever treasure overseas. Has anybody even noticed that the exploration era economic path is explicitly modeled (and even named) after the economic approach of the Spain... Which has been pretty much the WORST approach possible in the early modern age and it had permanently ruined the country, turning it into a persistently impoverished pariah light years from the real "winners of this era's economic victory"? To put it shortly, the game's exploration era's economic victory is strictly modeled about the real life's exploration era's crushing economic defeat

 

[stealth_nsk]

I have been too busy pointing out how stupidly eurocentric it is (remember - this is a game with supposedly non-eurocentric periodization and overall philosophy lol) to notice how stupid it is from the economic point of view and how miserable from the humanist point of view

Exploration era economic path should be really obviously about developing capitalism (even if you are marxist by belief ) and going towards the industrial revolution, not about pure extraction of whatever treasure overseas. Has anybody even noticed that the exploration era economic path is explicitly modeled (and even named) after the economic approach of the Spain... Which has been pretty much the WORST approach possible in the early modern age and it had permanently ruined the country, turning it into a persistently impoverished pariah light years from the real "winners of this era's economic victory"? To put it shortly, the game's exploration era's economic victory is strictly modeled about the real life's exploration era's crushing economic defeat

Yep. To me, the worst decision is not ages or civ switching - those are pretty interesting - but the distant lands concept and both legacy paths relying on it. Not only it's pretty terrible view of history, it also really hurted some areas of gameplay, like map generation.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Yep. To me, the worst decision is not ages or civ switching - those are pretty interesting - but the distant lands concept and both legacy paths relying on it. Not only it's pretty terrible view of history, it also really hurted some areas of gameplay, like map generation.

Yeah, I think it could be really helped byt adding additional methods of gaining the paths as the age gets hopefully more fleshed out. I think that cultural is actually worse off than econ.

 

[itix]

I can't get over the fact that Firaxis went out of its way to make the inherently extremely controversial decision of civ switching as invasive, unpopular and annoying as humanly possible:
1) Don't make them optional as in Humankind, no no no, force players and AI alike to make them, therefore wiping out the age old "Sumer can into space" motivation to play the game without any substitute.
2) But also don't focus on making paths as immersive as possible to minimize the controversy, no let's also
- force native Americans to become the US (I guess according to civ7 those noble savages can't reach modernity )
- already having Maya and Mexico fill the gap with... Inca
- turn Cambodians into Javanese and then Thai (led by Vietnamese)

It is always messy if historical paths have to be preserved.

Like Sweden. It fits the exploration and modern era. Since it never ceased to exist, it would be silly if Sweden were gone in the modern era.
How about Finland then? Culturally, Sweden would be its natural predecessor. Unfortunately, Sweden still exists, and Sweden never became Finland, so no.

If looking for other alternatives, there is the Sámi people. It could be an ancient tribe that could lead to Norway, Sweden, or Finland, but it is another ethnic minority absorbed by the nation.
And since they were nomads, they don't fit into the Civ universe.

Similarly, I don't know where to put the Danes or the Norwegians. Strong exploration nations that still exist.

 

[Bug Repellent]

Oh, yes, they are totally going to make you pay a thousand dollars.

Come on now.

If they could, they absolutely would. #TTWO is not a charity. In fact, their fiduciary duty to their shareholders is to maximize profits.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

If they could, they absolutely would. #TTWO is not a charity. In fact, their fiduciary duty to their shareholders is to maximize profits.

Maximizing profits, though, does not mean setting the overall price so high that your customer base becomes miniscule and so you sell nothing at any price.

- Or, for that matter, having a product so flawed that people aren't willing to buy it at any price.

CEOs and Boards of Directors that focus only on how much profit they can extract and not on product quality/price are pursuing fiscal disaster.

Full disclosure: was in retail management for almost 20 years, have seen the consequences of these follies more than once.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

1. Almost every Külliye was made during the 16th century.
2. You're telling me that a district which it's primary real life feature was that it was centered around a mosque/cami/whatever doesn't need to be religious in nature? I would hope that when actual religion mechanics are added, they will update the Abbasid mosque to be more religious.

If Ottomans are in Modern it wouldn't be religious in nature is all I'm saying, because religion doesn't play a big part in the Modern age. I understand in real life that they are centered around Mosques but I don't see them repeating for another civ, unless they were to be called an Ottoman Mosque but I wouldn't really like the redundancy. What they could do is make the buildings food and happiness based but the district itself generate culture.

It is always messy if historical paths have to be preserved.

Like Sweden. It fits the exploration and modern era. Since it never ceased to exist, it would be silly if Sweden were gone in the modern era.
How about Finland then? Culturally, Sweden would be its natural predecessor. Unfortunately, Sweden still exists, and Sweden never became Finland, so no.

If looking for other alternatives, there is the Sámi people. It could be an ancient tribe that could lead to Norway, Sweden, or Finland, but it is another ethnic minority absorbed by the nation.
And since they were nomads, they don't fit into the Civ universe.

Similarly, I don't know where to put the Danes or the Norwegians. Strong exploration nations that still exist.

Antiquity Norse>Exploration Denmark>Modern Sweden would be my guess. The Norse could then progress into Denmark, based around the Kalmar Union, or the Normans. Modern Sweden would be the Swedish Empire plus potentially have Great People centered around the Nobel Prize.

 

[user746383]

Yep. To me, the worst decision is not ages or civ switching - those are pretty interesting - but the distant lands concept and both legacy paths relying on it. Not only it's pretty terrible view of history, it also really hurted some areas of gameplay, like map generation.

For me, civ replacement is a pretty terrible view of history too. It did happen, but not like it was guaranteed, and from a gameplay standpoint I liked trying to take my civ that may have gone extinct at some point in the real world, with a new civ living in their cities, and make that not happen as a kind of alt history gameplay. Now every civ is doomed to this fate (offscreen no less) so I can get some new game bonuses in each era. For me the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.

All this is subjective of course, I can totally understand how someone would see colonial extraction being a core gameplay mechanically equally bad or worse for sure.

 

[bumpyglint]

I think a good example of "Civ Switching" can be found in the Europa Universalis series.

In Europa Universalis, the game begins in 1444 with a large number of civilizations (or "nations") across the world. By the end of the game, many of these will have changed significantly—or disappeared altogether. This dynamic evolution of civilizations happens for a variety of reasons:

1) Elimination through conquest – This is the most straightforward scenario: many civilizations are conquered and removed from the game.
2) Transformation into new civilizations – Some nations can evolve into entirely new entities under specific conditions. For example, a nation with a majority of Italian sub-cultures (es. tuscanian, venetian etc...) between his population that conquers a certain portion of Italy can form the nation of Italy, even though it didn't exist in that time. Similarly, a nomadic Central Asian tribe that takes over much of India can form the Mughal Empire (which instead appeared in the 1444-1821 era, where EU4 takes place). These transitions reflect the emergence of new national identities through conquest, cultural shifts, and political ambition.
3) Emergence of new civilizations – New nations can also arise "from nothing." Every province has the potential to spawn independence movements (under specific conditions, but they can appear anywhere). If rebels take control of enough territory and aren't suppressed, they can declare independence, creating a brand-new nation—or reviving a previously defeated one. Also, with similar but different conditions, in the later stages of the game colonial regions like the Americas frequently see revolutions happen: colonies can rebel and form their own countries, such as the USA, Mexico, or Canada, depending on the territories they control.

While point #1 is a common mechanic in many strategy games, I think Europa Universalis handles points #2 and #3 particularly well. These mechanics bring historical plausibility and dynamic evolution to the gameplay.

Of course, implementing similar features in Civilization would be quite difficult. The fundamental design of Civ differs significantly from Europa Universalis, and replicating these systems would likely require major changes to core mechanics. Still, the Europa Universalis approach could serve as valuable inspiration for designing a meaningful "Civ switching" or "Civ evolution" system in Civ VII.

 

[McSpank01]

I think a good example of "Civ Switching" can be found in the Europa Universalis series.

In Europa Universalis, the game begins in 1444 with a large number of civilizations (or "nations") across the world. By the end of the game, many of these will have changed significantly—or disappeared altogether. This dynamic evolution of civilizations happens for a variety of reasons:

1) Elimination through conquest – This is the most straightforward scenario: many civilizations are conquered and removed from the game.
2) Transformation into new civilizations – Some nations can evolve into entirely new entities under specific conditions. For example, a nation with a majority of Italian sub-cultures (es. tuscanian, venetian etc...) between his population that conquers a certain portion of Italy can form the nation of Italy, even though it didn't exist in that time. Similarly, a nomadic Central Asian tribe that takes over much of India can form the Mughal Empire (which instead appeared in the 1444-1821 era, where EU4 takes place). These transitions reflect the emergence of new national identities through conquest, cultural shifts, and political ambition.
3) Emergence of new civilizations – New nations can also arise "from nothing." Every province has the potential to spawn independence movements (under specific conditions, but they can appear anywhere). If rebels take control of enough territory and aren't suppressed, they can declare independence, creating a brand-new nation—or reviving a previously defeated one. Also, with similar but different conditions, in the later stages of the game colonial regions like the Americas frequently see revolutions happen: colonies can rebel and form their own countries, such as the USA, Mexico, or Canada, depending on the territories they control.

While point #1 is a common mechanic in many strategy games, I think Europa Universalis handles points #2 and #3 particularly well. These mechanics bring historical plausibility and dynamic evolution to the gameplay.

Of course, implementing similar features in Civilization would be quite difficult. The fundamental design of Civ differs significantly from Europa Universalis, and replicating these systems would likely require major changes to core mechanics. Still, the Europa Universalis approach could serve as valuable inspiration for designing a meaningful "Civ switching" or "Civ evolution" system in Civ VII.

Yeah I think Paradox games in general are much better placed to handle stuff like 'civ switching', mainly because they are just so complex that what makes up a 'civ' is highly fluid and under the control of the player. Crusader Kings 3 is a game I love, and I guess it works well because the continuity is in playing less as a civ, but more as a character. Even then I often think that game is really very good at doing things that Civ 7 struggles with.

In CK3 you often lose land, through inheritance or maybe losing a war. You might have a civil war and your empire splits. This stuff happens all the time. It might never feel great, but you are much better able to cope with it because it's easier to get stuff back, and it doesn't always feel like you have lost something. I remember playing EU4 many years ago and realising that sometimes it is good to lose some land if it's not useful, it gives you an opportunity build up somewhere else.

In that way, Civ 7 and crises are trying to rubberband you artificially, but games like EU4 or CK3 have rubber banding baked in. A recent game of CK3 I played, I took over a massive empire due to a war, and the next 5 years were spent trying to consolidate it and make it more stable. I couldn't just endlessly expand without causing myself huge issues. Every decision tends to be impactful and mean making a sacrifice. I don't get that sense in Civ 7, instead they just throw a crisis at you and hold you back that way.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Paradox games are more historical simulators, Civ games are strategies first. That's the core difference in approach.

 

[McSpank01]

Paradox games are more historical simulators, Civ games are strategies first. That's the core difference in approach.

I think it depends what your vision of a civ game is. Paradox games are much more an open sandbox with complex rules. Lots of people kind of try to play Civ like that, though often it really is more of a strategy game with clearly defined goals.

Part of the pushback to the latest game is that it railroads users into those goals too strongly. Maybe there is something to learn from Paradox games

 

[trev1972]

Paradox games are more historical simulators, Civ games are strategies first. That's the core difference in approach.

For a lot of people yes civ 7 is a strategy game first (and many view it as a board game).
For an lot of people civ is played as a 'what if' alt history simulator however, which in my mind is why the game is so divisive.

If you view it as a strategy board game, then things such as fleshed out and more realistic feeling AI interactions would seem like 'fluff' to you. Realistic maps would be less important too.

That was a long winded way of saying we want different things from the game and i think 7 has leaned heavily into one type of player at the expense of the other.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think it depends what your vision of a civ game is. Paradox games are much more an open sandbox with complex rules. Lots of people kind of try to play Civ like that, though often it really is more of a strategy game with clearly defined goals.

Part of the pushback to the latest game is that it railroads users into those goals too strongly. Maybe there is something to learn from Paradox games

I think it's good to keep separate niches for different games. As someone who mostly dislikes Paradox games, I'd prefer Civilization to still be strategical.

 

[fantsu]

Paradox games and Civ are both really similar. Simplified board wargames pretty much. Both 4X.
Both really good for players of all skill levels and ages.
And they both also have their own kind of flavor.
Its pretty much matter of taste what players find more fun personally.

 

[bumpyglint]

Paradox games and Civ are both really similar. Simplified board wargames pretty much. Both 4X.
Both really good for players of all skill levels and ages.
And they both also have their own kind of flavor.
Its pretty much matter of taste what players find more fun personally.

I agree and in fact I think there's almost for sure a correlation between the fans of the 2 series, but I would DEFINITELY not consider them "Both really good for players of all skill levels and ages."; EU4 is incredibly complex, expecially considering the number of expansions it has reached now, and you can play something like 100 hours still without having any clues about base game functions (es. trades, personal unions, etc...). The dozens of interfaces, menus and so on are also a reason why I would never suggest it to a young newbie.

 

[McSpank01]

Paradox games are essentially Historic Narrative Simulators. They allow players to jump into worlds that have realistic systems, roleplay a situation and watch stories unfold. I'd suggest there are a large number of Civ players who tend to play in a similar way. I certainly have always been far more interested in the story opening up in the world I'm playing in than I winning or losing. I often think one of the missing pieces Firaxis didn't see when looking at game completion numbers, was that players didn't really care about finishing their games, because it wasn't the reason they were playing. I definitely think that was part of the reason.

I would never want Civ to be as complex and difficult to understand as a Paradox game, but I do miss the 'under the hood' complexity. Paradox games feel like there is a world being simulated, often because the complexity of the systems underpinning them, many of which are not directly controlled by the player. Civ 6 had some allusion to this with systems like Tourism, Religion and Loyalty. They were all things you could influence, but they were sort of just 'there' and doing their own thing passively. Civ 7 doesn't have anything like that. Religion is just wack a mole, a binary of on or off. It's not doing anything if you don't force it. There is nothing else really going on in the game that makes the game world feel 'alive'

 

[Kev1916]

Paradox games and Civ are both really similar. Simplified board wargames pretty much. Both 4X.
Both really good for players of all skill levels and ages.
And they both also have their own kind of flavor.
Its pretty much matter of taste what players find more fun personally.

Would have to disagree, dont think they are similar and they are no were near being "good for players of all ages and skills."

EU3/4 are grand strategy games (simulator) and nothing like a simply boardgame

As for simplfied board games, sure Civ 7 I can give you that, and sure again age rating under 11 be fine .

Thou for most Parodox games would be teen rating 12+
Civ games in general and especially this one are pretty simplistic

 

[Kwami]

Paradox games and Civ are both really similar. Simplified board wargames pretty much. Both 4X.

Paradox games are 3X at best. They don't have any room for exploration since they whole map is revealed before the game starts and it's just Earth, anyway. There's nothing variable about the start conditions. You know exactly what you're getting.

And while Civ VII might be simpler than some of those miniature war games that take 40 hours to play, it's actually fairly complex compared to most other board games.