Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Skojardu]

I think 7 was to be expected. For me, from 4 onwards the game has been moving in this direction. I think less and less effort has been made from 4 onwards to hide the fact that you are playing a board game, not leading an empire. I think the AI has gotten worse since 4, not better. I think less effort has been made to add personality to the game and to add personality to your opponents. Effort seems to have been focussed on initial prettiness and accessibility.

I enjoyed both 5 and 6, i clocked up a few thousand hours in both but could feel the way the game was heading -especially with 6.

Yet sales of the game kept improving each time, 5 sold more than 4 eventually and 6 was the biggest success of all. So i can see why the developers made the decisions they did with 7.

One big issue that has increased from 4 to 5 to 6 to now 7 is that the Civs have gotten more and more divergent in their abilities. (In 7 they are so distinct they are all ephemeral and impossible outside of their "Great" period.) There may be some slight cultural differences in real life, but when you enter your kitchen at home, are you mentally unable to roll a sushi roll if you're not Japanese? Are you unable to make borscht if you are not a Slav? Are tamales impossible if you are not Latin American? (Answer: absolutely not)

There was some wisdom in the original Civ games where your choice of Civ (not leader) was just your preferred flag and color rather than some way of determining what victory path you were going to pursue. It's fun to make factions extremely divergent, and that is more the province of fantasy games where the factions are often different species.

 

[m_mus]

Man, I know this may be the minority speaking: but boy do I hope that they double down on the age system, instead of steering around to create a half-baked mixture of Civ5&6.
Civ7 has to be distinct, in a good way of course, and we all should give them time to enhance the age system, the civ-switching, the legacy paths and not water them down to something inconsequential and an irrelevant game detail. I don't want to sound too sarcastic, yet I cannot help but wonder why so many people fall into a profound identity crisis in regard to civ-switching instead of cherishing the possibility to experience immersive and unique cultures each step of the way throughout the game's timespan. From a strategic point of view the endless synergies of leader- and civ-combinations are mind-boggling ... in a good way! You are not stuck with whatever combination of civilization and starting terrain RNGesus has befitted upon you. You can turn things around and start fresh in a given game without restarting. It really starts to bother me why so many people here don't see this.
Is there room to enhance the given mechanics? Yes, plenty. Are they lacking in some regards? Yes, deeply. I won't deny that.
But please stay true to your vision, dear FXS, dear devs.
If there's a classic mode to come, make it optional and for the love of god: don't make it the new default option (like the continuity option, which is really damaging to the much needed antisnowballing-measures ...). If they do make it the new default option, we know that they have abandoned the core of Civ7. If that were to happen, I really don't know, why I should continue to play Civ7. If I want a polished version of Civ5 or Civ6 I go play these games. They are already there, and they are fantastic, and I come back to them every now and then.
Civ7 has to stay distinct, people should be careful for what they are asking and devs should weather this storm and stay true to their original vision.

(Sry for the slightly polemical tone. I don't wish anyone harm here, but I just cannot fathom the energy invested into all this negativity present this thread.)

 

[Uberfrog]

One big issue that has increased from 4 to 5 to 6 to now 7 is that the Civs have gotten more and more divergent in their abilities. (In 7 they are so distinct they are all ephemeral and impossible outside of their "Great" period.) There may be some slight cultural differences in real life, but when you enter your kitchen at home, are you mentally unable to roll a sushi roll if you're not Japanese? Are you unable to make borscht if you are not a Slav? Are tamales impossible if you are not Latin American? (Answer: absolutely not)

There was some wisdom in the original Civ games where your choice of Civ (not leader) was just your preferred flag and color rather than some way of determining what victory path you were going to pursue. It's fun to make factions extremely divergent, and that is more the province of fantasy games where the factions are often different species.

I find this a strange argument. Sure, the Italian chef can make tamales. But I think most customers in the restaurant are there for the pizza.

Civ is a historical themed strategy game. Unique cultures are a well established part of the flavour. If people select Rome, they want to be playing as a civ with legions and aqueducts. If they pick Japan, they want to see samurai.

Even with as many unique as we have in Civ 7, 90% of what you’re building is available to everyone. You can still build ballistae as the Mayans or send Japan into space.

 

[aieeegrunt]

To me it is clear Civ 7 has not been very well received at this point, and i don't believe it is parallel to how 5 was received at all.
I don't personally like it at all, its the first time i have uninstalled a civ game to make space on my drive.

However, i have to be honest. And i appreciate this will be an unpopular take, not looking to argue with anyone, its just how i feel.

I think 7 was to be expected. For me, from 4 onwards the game has been moving in this direction. I think less and less effort has been made from 4 onwards to hide the fact that you are playing a board game, not leading an empire. I think the AI has gotten worse since 4, not better. I think less effort has been made to add personality to the game and to add personality to your opponents. Effort seems to have been focussed on initial prettiness and accessibility.

I enjoyed both 5 and 6, i clocked up a few thousand hours in both but could feel the way the game was heading -especially with 6.

Yet sales of the game kept improving each time, 5 sold more than 4 eventually and 6 was the biggest success of all. So i can see why the developers made the decisions they did with 7.

The AI has one million percent gotten worse. I recently started a game of Civ3 and got bodied pretty hard because I am so used to the passive incompetence of 6.

The biggest thing that could be done to reduce snowballing is for cities you take instead of founding to not magically become mindless drones churning out yields for you.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I don't want to sound too sarcastic, yet I cannot help but wonder why so many people fall into a profound identity crisis in regard to civ-switching instead of cherishing the possibility to experience immersive and unique cultures each step of the way throughout the game's timespan.

No harm taken of course, it's always good to debate these things!

This bit of your response I thought was interesting and worth drawing out though. Framing it as a profound identity crisis is a little off for me.

Effectively where I'm coming from, if a new game was released tomorrow and it had Civ switching (humankind being a perfect example of this really) I wouldn't buy it. I just have absolutely 0 interest in that as a concept. It doesn't appeal to me, it doesn't scratch the itch. It's just not a fun idea for me, it's not to my taste. So I'm not gonna pick it up off the shelf and buy it and play it.

I've had exactly the same reaction to Civ VII. The brand means nothing to me. That they've slapped it on a game I have no interest in the premise of doesn't qualify it as deserving a go, I just don't have any interesting in spending my time on the kind of game Civ VII is.

For me, Civ VII might as well be a first person shooter for how much it appeals to the kind of enjoyment I load up civilization games for. I don't particularly care for dry mechanics or stacking bonuses, I'm not a min maxxer.

I play Civ for the premise of building a civilization that stands the test of time - that slogan captured the essence of what I enjoyed about Civ games, and for me at least, that just isn't what you can do in this game anymore. And the Devs seem to agree having changed the slogan...

So if I can create an alt history American empire that started out in 4000bc, or take the ancient Egyptian empire through to launching rockets in space, they could get my purchase once they've proven it's a fun game (something I didn't even realise they'd need to prove to me on launch...), but until that point it's not my cup of tea, and doesn't really sound like my kind of fun.

Maybe it's just because of some nationalistic impulse as a typical Englishman I want to enslave and destroy the french for eternity and this game limits that to one era, but I say that's my prorogative as a gamer that Firaxis have taken from me.

 

[reyaik]

I found Civ 6 really worse when it came to completely ahistorical aspects, such as the crazy dumb apostle fights. That itself was, gameplay-wise, a chore and purely fantasy instead of history. My first reaction to civ switching when they announced that was that this is going to be a ridiculous cash grab and something that Humankind already failed at. I am not super in love with it, but it's not a total disaster either. I would say starting out as Rome, going Norman and Britain is far more believable as a history simulator than this apostle-bashing nonsense, for example. The main issue I see with Civ 7 so far is that the civ switching is not fully fleshed out for every major civilisation to stay within what is socio-culturally and geo-historically believable.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I found Civ 6 really worse when it came to completely ahistorical aspects, such as the crazy dumb apostle fights. That itself was, gameplay-wise, a chore and purely fantasy instead of history. My first reaction to civ switching when they announced that was that this is going to be a ridiculous cash grab and something that Humankind already failed at. I am not super in love with it, but it's not a total disaster either. I would say starting out as Rome, going Norman and Britain is far more believable as a history simulator than this apostle-bashing nonsense, for example. The main issue I see with Civ 7 so far is that the civ switching is not fully fleshed out for every major civilisation to stay within what is socio-culturally and geo-historically believable.

It’ll require shelling out a lot of money for DLC. Whether this was intentional or not…

 

[Crashdummy]

I don't want to sound too sarcastic, yet I cannot help but wonder why so many people fall into a profound identity crisis in regard to civ-switching instead of cherishing the possibility to experience immersive and unique cultures each step of the way throughout the game's timespan.

I am going to reply to this

Its not thaty we dont see it, it adds nothing and removes a lot, thats the problem. We could already start a new game if we wanted to play with a different Civilization, it was just a few clicks away. But the new system removes the ability to build a Civilization to stand the Test of Time, which is why i played Civ for over 3 decades

So, for the add of NOTHING, you remove the core premise of your franchise

I understand some might like it, some people liked Beyond Earth too as well as Halo Infinite etc, but the issue is this system is not being liked by way too many people, and doubling down on it would be a huge mistake

 

[Gorbles]

I think seeing your civilisation in Exploration as not being the same as the one you've built in Antiquity is part of the problem. Some folks can visualise this progression. You keep your buildings, you can now even keep all your units, you keep your Wonders, your building and district choices . . . the only things that really change are the diplomacy banner text, and the city name pool founded from the new Age onwards. And for some people, this is critically important.

To me, my civilisation is the thing I'm leading throughout all the Ages. The empire itself. The fact it was called Egypt and then the Abbasids, doesn't stop me being invested in the journey that the empire I am managing is going on.

For others, it does.

But the new system removes the ability to build a Civilization to stand the Test of Time, which is why i played Civ for over 3 decades

Small correction, but the slogan was to build an empire. The point of Age transitions is that your empire endures, even as it changes (in order to survive). The only way your empire fails, and doesn't stand the test of time, is if you literally get wiped out. The same as it has always been.

I'm also partial to "one more turn" as being an equally-identifiable slogan when it comes to Civ as a franchise.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

I don't want to sound too sarcastic, yet I cannot help but wonder why so many people fall into a profound identity crisis in regard to civ-switching instead of cherishing the possibility to experience immersive and unique cultures each step of the way throughout the game's timespan.

If I wanted to play as Mongols, I would pick Mongols in the new game setup. If I did not pick it, then I have literally no desire to play as them.

Just as I don't want my Egyptian empire to turn into Mongols just because game timer said so.

But please stay true to your vision, dear FXS, dear devs.

Civ7 has to stay distinct, people should be careful for what they are asking and devs should weather this storm and stay true to their original vision.

The game failed, it's the least played Civ among the recent ones but sure, devs, go ahead and keep sinking the ship.

 

[Maiq]

caliber of the development team at Firaxis

9mm if I remember correctly

 

[Gori the Grey]

but the slogan was to build an empire

Box art for 1 has it this way. End of trailer for 5 has it as "civilization."

Interestingly, I don't see the slogan at all in box art or trailers between those two points. Trailers for 3 and 4 have no voiceover, just evocative images and music.

Trailer for 2 has "build an empire to span history."

Trailer for 1 has "build a legacy to stand the test of time."

 

[Gorbles]

Box art for 1 has it this way. End of trailer for 5 has it as "civilization."

Interestingly, I don't see the slogan at all in box art or trailers between those two points. Trailers for 3 and 4 have no voiceover, just evocative images and music.

Trailer for 2 has "build an empire to span history."

So we can see that V changing it didn't cause the same problem that VII changing it has caused. So, arguably, the problem isn't even the slogan (despite people pointing to it), it's the underlying sentiment for the mechanical changes.

Either that, or folks weren't aware how inconsistent it was before

 

[Gori the Grey]

I think the key word for getting at the psychology of people who don't like civ-switching is "build," actually. In the previous games, you felt your game action was a continuous process of building. There could be some small set-backs. Civ 3 had plagues that could set back the population you'd built. In lots of iterations barbs can destroy how you've developed a tile. But mostly, it was a continuous process of accumulating stuff. That accumulation of stuff was done by your "civilization" and it also was your civilization (your civilization is coextensive with the sum total of buildings you've built in your cities). That's why retaining one identity through the whole of the game, through the whole of that building process that is the fundamental mechanic of the game, is so important to some players.

 

[Crashdummy]

I think seeing your civilisation in Exploration as not being the same as the one you've built in Antiquity is part of the problem. Some folks can visualise this progression. You keep your buildings, you can now even keep all your units, you keep your Wonders, your building and district choices . . . the only things that really change are the diplomacy banner text, and the city name pool founded from the new Age onwards. And for some people, this is critically important.

To me, my civilisation is the thing I'm leading throughout all the Ages. The empire itself. The fact it was called Egypt and then the Abbasids, doesn't stop me being invested in the journey that the empire I am managing is going on.

For others, it does.


Small correction, but the slogan was to build an empire. The point of Age transitions is that your empire endures, even as it changes (in order to survive). The only way your empire fails, and doesn't stand the test of time, is if you literally get wiped out. The same as it has always been.

I'm also partial to "one more turn" as being an equally-identifiable slogan when it comes to Civ as a franchise.

Its it really that hard to understand we want to play with Americans from start to finish, or Japan, or Hawai, or whatever?

I understand some like this "progression" but even those that like it have to admit it doesnt feel the same. Its a new feeling, you might like it, a lot other people dont

One more turn was never a slogan, because the slogan is created by the company, and one more turn was created by the community. I agree one more turn also identifies the franchise, and it was just another mistake to not have it from the start, but the reality is we cant build a civilization (or empire whatever you like) to stand the test of time anymore

 

[Gorbles]

Its it really that hard to understand we want to play with Americans from start to finish, or Japan, or Hawai, or whatever?

Where did I say it was hard to understand?

I think the only thing we disagree on is building an empire to stand the test of time. I think you still do that, and for you, the change in civilisation name and aesthetics is enough of an immersion break that it no longer feels like the same empire.

 

[Crashdummy]

Where did I say it was hard to understand?

I think the only thing we disagree on is building an empire to stand the test of time. I think you still do that, and for you, the change in civilisation name and aesthetics is enough of an immersion break that it no longer feels like the same empire.

Its not just name an aesthetics, its also bonuses, units/buildings/etc (both the ones that you lose and then the new ones, which have no attachment to the original civ you picked) and many more things

And yes, apparently its hard to understand, because the forced Civ change goes against the slogan, which was always about picking a Civ and take it from a Warrior and a Settler into Space, Nukes and Stealth bombers. That is lost

 

[Gori the Grey]

which was always about picking a Civ and take it from a Warrior and a Settler into Space, Nukes and Stealth bombers. That is lost

This is why that developer note that someone cited a while back says that they are working on players' feeling of continuity.

I'll be interested to see if they can make any strides in that area because it runs so much against what is so deeply embedded in this game: a new civ (labeled as such, and of course with all of the trappings that we associate with a "civ," most crucially the name of a RL "civ"*) with each age.

Gorbles is right. If you are going to feel continuity, you need a different label for the entity-you-control-through-the-whole-of-the-game. "Empire" can be the generic term, but it would be impossible to find an overarching term for each particular possible sequence of three. Unless you draw it from the one constant, the leader, and call your empire the "Tubmans." If I ever buy Civ 7, that's what I'm going to do (in my head and as far as the game lets me, in the game). I'm going to give my empire a name derived from my leader and then speak of its "Han" phase, its "Inca" phase and its "Nepal" phase.

If you knew what civ you wanted in modernity, you could use that as your anchor, and reconceive the earlier two as phases on the way to that. "My son, we Americans didn't even call ourselves by that name in our earliest years."

*and sold in DLCs as "civs"

 

[Gorbles]

Its not just name an aesthetics, its also bonuses, units/buildings/etc (both the ones that you lose and then the new ones, which have no attachment to the original civ you picked) and many more things

It doesn't really matter what you think the factors are. The important thing is that it's an immersion break for you in a way that it isn't to me.

 

[Crashdummy]

Gorbles is right. If you are going to feel continuity, you need a different label for the entity-you-control-through-the-whole-of-the-game. "Empire" can be the generic term, but it would be impossible to find an overarching term for each particular possible sequence of three. Unless you draw it from the one constant, the leader, and call your empire the "Tubmans." If I ever buy Civ 7, that's what I'm going to do (in my head and as far as the game lets me, in the game). I'm going to give my empire a name derived from my leader and then speak of its "Han" phase, its "Inca" phase and its "Nepal" phase.

But thats were the assumption is wrong. Most players will not create an imaginary term of their own to make the developers vision work. Most people will feel bad with the new system, close the game, uninstallt and go play something that makes them feel fun, which is what they are doing

Sure, some players, a minority, will fix the game's lacking systems with their own will, but the fact that you have to do that is a problem