Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Maiq]

In fairness to Firaxis, they swung for the fences and presented a bold redesign of Civ with 7.

Yeah but it is like they swung on a 3-0 pitch

 

[Crashdummy]

View attachment 739296
There are certain people who don't want to play Harriet Tubman of the Greeks who become Bugandans.

There are certain people who don't want to play Harriet Tubman, full stop.

We had less known leaders before, it was never an issue

 

[Gori the Grey]

Then let me say it this way. There are certain people who don't want Harriet Tubman to be the face of America. And it doesn't have to do primarily with how well known she is.

 

[Crashdummy]

Then let me say it this way. There are certain people who don't want Harriet Tubman to be the face of America. And it doesn't have to do primarily with how well known she is.

Yes i understand, i dont think its a main reason why the game is doing poorly

I think the missing leaders do more harm than the ones that arre present. Garriet Tubman sticks out more in the absence of Ghandi, Montezuma, Alexander the Great, etc

And i feel that decision had nothing to do with a certain agenda and a lot to do with saving them to sell as DLC in the future

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yes i understand, i dont think its a main reason why the game is doing poorly

It's hard for me to get a fix on what percentage of lost sales was due to this, and what percentage was just a matter of the game-design elements.

That's why I used the "why not both?" meme. Both are certainly in the mix.

 

[Civinator]

Ed Beach has been with Firaxis since at least CiV.

There is a very long lasting cooperation in creating pc games between Sid Meier and Ed Beach (when remembering well, since the game Gettysburg). Ed Beach and Breakaway Games have created the Civ 3 Conquests campaign for C3C many years ago, long before he was involved in Civ 5. In this Civ 3 Conquests campaign 9 different scenarios from Mesopotamia up to WW 2 are bundled to a campaign and connected by a point score system.

The "core" of Civ 7 in many aspects seems to be very similar to the C3C campaign, that Ed Beach designed about two decades ago. The three ages of Civ 7 are three of the nine different scenarios of Ed Beach´s C3C campaign with the try to replace the connection by a point score system between the different scenarios with a more improved solution using the age transition feature.

For more details it could be a good idea to read that post in former Civ 7 discussions: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...eculation-thread.697557/page-51#post-16824495

 

[Maiq]

There is a very long lasting cooperation in creating pc games between Sid Meier and Ed Beach (when remembering well, since the game Gettysburg). Ed Beach and Breakaway Games have created the Civ 3 Conquests campaign for C3C many years ago, long before he was involved in Civ 5. In this Civ 3 Conquests campaign 9 different scenarios from Mesopotamia up to WW 2 are bundled to a campaign and connected by a point score system.

The "core" of Civ 7 in many aspects seems to be very similar to the C3C campaign, that Ed Beach designed about two decades ago. The three ages of Civ 7 are three of the nine different scenarios of Ed Beach´s C3C campaign with the try to replace the connection by a point score system between the different scenarios with a more improved solution using the age transition feature.

For more details it could be a good idea to read that post in former Civ 7 discussions: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...eculation-thread.697557/page-51#post-16824495

Yeah I remember reading this and it all kind of clicked in my head. Kind of seems like he just went and made the game he always wanted despite the obvious issues.

 

[AD1730]

Trying to frame all opposition to non-traditional heads of states for leaders as being racist, sexist, or right wing politically reactionary as a means to dismiss them (as aelf clearly wants to do) simply falls on deaf ears and I say this as an African American who finds Tubman’s inclusion condescending. People want to play as well known presidents, founding fathers, emperors, kings and statesmen that actually lead nations, not as historical footnotes like Ada Lovelace and Ibn Battuta

I’m fine with Tubman, because she was at least involved in the political/activism realm (though I think Douglass would have been a better fit). Lovelace is such a ridiculous developer self-insert (hey, let’s put a nerdy computer girl in the game!) that it reveals the core drive behind this game: they were making the game for themselves. That’s all well and good, but a large portion of the fans aren’t buying it.

 

[fantsu]

i don't believe it is parallel to how 5 was received at all

I do. Won my first three games on CIV 5 deity and never bothered to go back. Its for lesser minds.

to hide the fact that you are playing a board game, not leading an empire

Boardgames were more complicated than any civ game (or any 4X for that matter) even during the 70s. So its a silly comparison.

 

[Sagax]

Thank you for making me laugh, while at the same time engaging in good faith with my argument, I want to respond in kindred spirit:

Maybe it's just because of some diversity-oriented impulse of someone who fostered his interest in history during the times, when the liberal / leftwing-mindset was still able to sustain its cultural hegemony, that I want Civ to mirror the historical "fact", that none of the civilizations people love(d) to play did exist from 4000 BC to 2000+ AD continuously and unchanged in their identity. The "typical Englishman" and their animosity toward the French is a very specific historical product nurtured by the 100-years-war (and god knows what, I am German, forgive my ignorance) that could not have arisen before the advent of nationalism. The English differed to a not so small degree from their Anglo-Saxon ancestors, who in turn differed profoundly in from the Britons whom they pushed into Wales and Cornwall.
I do perceive history to operate way more discontinuous than depicted in prior iterations of Civilization and therefore I actually love the credo of "history is built in layers". I find it more immersive, because I find it historically more plausible.

[Yet alas, I know there is a 'vibeshift' happening right now. And sometimes I wonder, whether Civ7's civ-switching mechanism and their honorable endeavour to portray under-representated civilizations in Civ7 (e.g.: Mississippi) - before including obvious omissions such as the Ottomans, Vikings, or Byzantium etc. - were decided for, when the mentioned cultural hegemony of associated ideas about history (=discontinuous) and identity (=fluid) were at its peak, but released when the vibeshift already began to kick in full force.]



I want to reply to this as well and argue that it does exactly the opposite. It removes something, true, but it adds A LOT in terms of strategic diversity.

What does it remove? It removes the problem, that you could easily miss the at times small timespan to truly play out your unique units or infrastructure, since it makes your civilizational abilities relevant in every age. It also removes the problem, that you can change your at times measly fate / handicap (of an adverse combination of starting location & civilization) without pushing the restart button. This is much more relevant for MP, where quitting is much less tolerated than in SP, and I admit, that I am foremost playing MP with some buddies of mine. It is much, much easier to motivate those to stay in an ongoing game, which may look bleak to them now, when they know (some part of) the cards are being shuffled again once the new age starts. I must admit, that I have under-estimated badly how much some of you like to snowball. But for heaven's sake, pls stop complaining in turn about an AI that cannot keep up with you ... Could the AI be better? Sure, but as is, the AI needs those anti-snowballing mechanics and your human counterparts do as well in case of playing MP.

What does it add? Strategic diversity ... spades of it.
I can react in a unique and meanigful manner to changing circumstances which in previous interations of the franchise would easily have prohibited me from truly playing out my civilization's strengths. e.g.: I am playing Mali in Civ6 and my opponent does settle the desert I so desperatedly crave, and I lack the means to take them by force. In Civ6 for many this would be a valid reason to restart the game. In Civ7 I may have to bite myself through one hard age, but I could forward to the next age, which will allow for the possibility of freeing myself from the fate of falling behind by starting anew: I would select a civilization which will hopefully allow me to catch up as its abilities may suit much better the given terrain/environment of other players.
I can actively hunt for synergies (such as Mississippis weak, but easily placable Potkop + culture Xerxes + chalcedonian seal + Shawnee for that sweet Serpent Mound in explorationage) and theorycraft in a much greater scope than any prior civ-game would have allowed. In that sense I'd say it also adds mechanically to the game.

To conclude, I'd like to combine those two often-cited credos: You become much more adaptable to build an empire to stand the test of time ... because history is built in layers and Civ7 shoud reflect that.

Without repeating the whole thing, I'd like to share this comment of mine in the civ-switching thread that address your arguments to an extent: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/whats-your-opinion-on-civ-switching.699056/post-16847033
In summary, I think there is merit to separating strategic value of civ-switching from its immersion value, at least in its current iteration.

Using your words, I think the issue many anti-switching players have is that the current system doesn't really do a good job at the "plausibility" part. Yes, modern Mexico is the result of Spain's influence layered on top of that of the Aztecs, who in turn were layered on top of the cultures they themselves subjugated - but was that the only way for things to play out? Does that mean a Civ game should offer no path for those who wish for a Mesoamerican playthrough unaffected by the European influence? Because it was possible in previous games, but impossible in the current setting without making up a non-existent civ/polity. The past games didn't overly detail your empire's evolution, and thus left enough ambiguity for players to suspend their disbelief as they please. Yes, with enough scrutiny, how non-Western the "Aztec Democracy" with a "New Deal" policy can really be, but at the same time you could still construct your unique buildings the whole game, keep your unique abilities, and have a leader that remains culturally tied to your civ.

This could be me reaching and assuming too much, but I feel like anti-switching players want to play out their civs like Vietnam - "yes, Han influenced us a lot, we adopted a lot of their culture and governance both willingly and not, but we are NOT Han, and will fight you over it". And I think they should be able to, at no expense to those who embrace civ-switching. For all its flaws, Humankind addressed this specific problem just fine with the Transcendance mechanic (keep your civ if you want), and I struggle to understand why it's not a thing in Civ 7 from the beginning.

 

[GeneralZift]

View attachment 739296
There are certain people who don't want to play Harriet Tubman of the Greeks who become Bugandans.

There are certain people who don't want to play Harriet Tubman, full stop.

Well I don't think necessarily a culture war made the game fail, but the problem for most people who play Civ for the historical aspect is coming across Civ7, where there's all these new people who are non-leaders AND a complete lack of series favourites.

So there's no Alexander, Elizabeth, Genghis, Montezuma, Saladin, Mansa Musa.

That's just in terms of favourites. There's also just a lack of real-leaders in general.
So if you look at the roster it's quite vacant, which leads some people to complain about those who DID get in.

But the people who got in, under any other day it would not be an issue. It's just because they got priority over the people who make Civ what it is.

You know, the reason is that the Favourites are easy sales. Everyone will buy Genghis. Could you convince everyone to buy Lovelace?

EDIT: I wrote this before realising others have said the same thing.

 

[Crashdummy]

Using your words, I think the issue many anti-switching players have is that the current system doesn't really do a good job at the "plausibility" part. Yes, modern Mexico is the result of Spain's influence layered on top of that of the Aztecs, who in turn were layered on top of the cultures they themselves subjugated - but was that the only way for things to play out? Does that mean a Civ game should offer no path for those who wish for a Mesoamerican playthrough unaffected by the European influence? Because it was possible in previous games, but impossible in the current setting without making up a non-existent civ/polity. The past games didn't overly detail your empire's evolution, and thus left enough ambiguity for players to suspend their disbelief as they please. Yes, with enough scrutiny, how non-Western the "Aztec Democracy" with a "New Deal" policy can really be, but at the same time you could still construct your unique buildings the whole game, keep your unique abilities, and have a leader that remains culturally tied to your civ.

No, the problem we have isnt a "plausability", why do you guys keep not listening to us?

We dont want other Civs to change, we want to be able to NOT CHANGE our starting Civ. We want to be able to start as America and end as America, start as Rome and end as Rome, start as Hawai and end as Hawai. We dont want alternative Civs to switch to

The plausability we want is that one, start with any civ and end with THE SAME CIV

 

[Gori the Grey]

Trying to frame all opposition to non-traditional heads of states for leaders as being racist, sexist, or right wing politically reactionary as a means to dismiss them (as aelf clearly wants to do) simply falls on deaf ears

It's a good thing that that's not what I'm doing, then. But some of the opposition is racist.

I don't think necessarily a culture war made the game fail

Nor do I.

Holy smokes! Why do words like "some" or "in the mix" or phrases like "I don't know what percentage" get lost in people's reading? How much more could a person hedge and qualify and still make a point? Racists passed on this game because it is woke. The posts are out there to read if you want to. What part of its low player count is due to that? I don't know. But not to be able to mention it as a cause for the game's poor sales seems odd.

 

[Sagax]

No, the problem we have isnt a "plausability", why do you guys keep not listening to us?

We dont want other Civs to change, we want to be able to NOT CHANGE our starting Civ. We want to be able to start as America and end as America, start as Rome and end as Rome, start as Hawai and end as Hawai. We dont want alternative Civs to switch to

The plausability we want is that one, start with any civ and end with THE SAME CIV

I think you misunderstood me - that's exactly what I meant. I see a single, unchanging civ as a plausible path that players should be able to play out. That's the whole point of my examples with Transcendence in Humankind and the Mesoamerican playthrough - I just didn't specify which civ, because it can be Aztec-only, Maya-only, or even Olmec-only, for all I care.

 

[bladex1200]

It's a good thing that that's not what I'm doing, then. But some of the opposition is racist.


Nor do I.

Holy smokes! Why do words like "some" or "in the mix" or phrases like "I don't know what percentage" get lost in people's reading? How much more could a person hedge and qualify and still make a point? Racists passed on this game because it is woke. The posts are out there to read if you want to. What part of its low player count is due to that? I don't know. But not to be able to mention it as a cause for the game's poor sales seems odd.

I think part of the aggravation is it's clear that while racism may have had an impact on sales, the publisher (and I say publisher because it's the publisher who decides on the DLC cadence, not the devs) clearly was leaning into that by having fan-favorite leaders that racists or misogynists would buy sitting in the DLC whilst leaders with more niche appeal like Lovelace or Battuta appear in the base game. As someone mentioned earlier, "everyone will pay money to buy Genghis, will all those people pay to buy Lovelace"?

That's what feels incredibly disingenuous about racism being brought up as a reason for the game's poor sales. It's messed up that people are angry that someone got included in the game who is a minority, but it's clear the publishers were banking on enough initial goodwill that they could then nickle-and-dime back in the leaders that the aforementioned messed-up people would want to buy.

 

[GeneralZift]

Nor do I.

Holy smokes! Why do words like "some" or "in the mix" or phrases like "I don't know what percentage" get lost in people's reading? How much more could a person hedge and qualify and still make a point? Racists passed on this game because it is woke. The posts are out there to read if you want to. What part of its low player count is due to that? I don't know. But not to be able to mention it as a cause for the game's poor sales seems odd.

My bad homie, I wasn't implying anything. Was just continuing the conversation. You have a good point nonetheless.

 

[Sagax]

Before this current dialogue goes further, I just want to clarify that Ada Lovelace is NOT part of the base game. You do pay for her as part of CotW, along with Simon Bolivar.

That’s it, nerd glasses off

 

[Maiq]

This is all well and good but Ben Franklin is there too. Just capital "G" gamers in action.

 

[Leucarum]

True but Ben Franklin is a founding father and statesman which helped secure American independence. Similar to Gandhi for India. Not really comparable to figures like Ada Lovelace, Battuta or Tubman

Ada, Tubman and Battuta are easily in my top 4 leaders... Throw Xerxes in and we've got a party!

 

[bladex1200]

Now this is a good point that I actually agree with for the most part. It’s obvious from many design choices that Firaxis was intent on shallowly criticizing conceptions of imperialism they helped perpetuate and popularize in the past. (Particularly the great man theory) and it largely backfired on them because almost no one wants to play a sequel to a series about building empires that last through all time as Hawaiians lead by Ibn Battatu and Ada Lovelace that shapeshift into small sub Saharan African polities.

I think it's a little uncharitable to say that their intent was a "shallow" criticism. I think it's just not really possible to do an in-depth criticism of empire building in an empire builder game. I think we're seeing that inability reflected in the failure of the game's design to grab much of the existing player base at this time, but I don't think the developers ever intended to do the criticism as just a skin-deep way to grab sales. There really was no reason to do that just to grab sales given the success of their traditional empire builder entries in the franchise, all the way through Civ 6.

One of my favorite criticisms of empire in game form comes from the board game "Pax Pamir". While it's an incredibly frustrating game to play, it does represent really well how empire-building doesn't *really* concern itself with concepts we'd consider traditionally very positive for modern societies - community loyalty, social cohesion, governmental independence/self-government, infrastructural development, etc. That board game is entirely structured around flipping sides so your faction can be aligned with the current big imperial winners on the board, and you'll constantly be throwing away infrastructure and individuals and other cards as you realign based on which faction (Russian, British, independent Afghan/Durrani) you think you can win the game with.

But that's a game that necessarily eschews traditional empire-building (you're either intentionally or as a result of strategy being forced to throw away what you're building to keep up with game objectives) because there's not really a way to make building the empire feel evil and unrewarding when you're the one doing the building. Civ, as a 4x game and by the necessity of its mechanics, puts you in the driver's seat and makes empire-building feel rewarding. When it doesn't, you just don't want to play the game.