Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[queenpea]

That would be good approach if those things would coexist in the same game. But since they only important in context of comparing different games of the series and you need to specify which games you're comparing anyway, I don't see it as a valuable term. In your sample sentence, using "civilization" instead of "civlet" will not cause any misinterpretations. Moreover, that way calling both "civilizations" make more sense as it makes more sense to compare similar entities.

So, in my view, the term "civlet" is only used by people who want to emphasis that they don't see Civ7 implementation of civilizations as civilizations.

I don’t think you can assume that every use of “civlet” is an attempt to malign the game design.

In my view, the player controls a civilization over the course of the ages, and each age brings on a new chapter and identity.

I guess, in your view, is there any value in differentiating the current cultural identity of the civilization from the longer term entity?

 

[Siptah]

They just should have gone with civilization for the whole book, and culture for the three chapters. But maybe Humankind prevented that.

 

[Gori the Grey]

By the way, in another thread, by someone who is not a "hater," and who gave the game a 400-hour shake, there is a good description of why the "more" that the developers put into each of Civ 7's "civs" (also known in some circles as "civlets") doesn't necessarily translate into better gameplay experience:

I just don't feel like my civ is built in layers. My game doesn't feel "Rome-Norman-French," and I see three main reasons why: the bonuses are too weak, there are too many of them, and the most powerful and memorable ones disappear.

[snip]

Back to the Romans: they have some sort of bonus to culture, food, gold, happiness, influence, and production in their toolkit; all they're missing is science. The bonuses come from every direction and yet can't really be leveraged into changing the game. They're underpowered and overbalanced, and with bonuses to everything, it lacks focus. Surely, I'm cherry picking, but few abilities in my games have been decidedly memorable.

(emphasis added).

This squares with something said in a video posted about a month back, [Edit: and that King Flevance says below]

It's a sad irony, given the effort that the designers put into each civlet, that in some ways the two or three uniques that civs had in 5 and 6 have a more powerful impact on game play than the dozen-per-age in 7.

 

[queenpea]

They just should have gone with civilization for the whole book, and culture for the three chapters. But maybe Humankind prevented that.

That’s interesting. I’ve never played HK so I’m not sure how these elements and concepts were described in that game.

 

[itix]

This was addressed already, but for completeness, here are the final player peak/average stats for August:

 

[Xur]

While i hate the civ switch system, I still see them all as "civs" that are limited to certain eras. If you aren't a programmer, chances are that most people will be oblivious to what an applet is and what is meant by a civlet. No need to confuse people more than necessary, when we already disagree on most parts of the game. I see what you mean by civlet, but is the discussion enhanced to another level or are we inventing new topics for us to disagree on?

 

[queenpea]

By the way, in another thread, by someone who is not a "hater," and who gave the game a 400-hour shake, there is a good description of why the "more" that the developers put into each of Civ 7's "civs" (also known in some circles as "civlets") doesn't necessarily translate into better gameplay experience:


(emphasis added).

It's a sad irony that in some ways the two or three uniques that civs had in 5 and 6 have a more powerful impact on game play than the dozen-per-age in 7.

Yeah this is a good point and I agree with much of this take.

I think the game suffers from a bit of an identity crisis, leaning much more into Civ-switching than civ-evolution. I rarely feel the presence of my previous identities, defaulting to identifying with the current civlet/culture. Especially by the Modern Age (the sprint to the finish doesn’t help things) — I find there are few memories left of past ages. It’s just all a bit muddled in my opinion.

I’m going to use this opportunity to dunk on the lack of a real victory screen here. Of all the previous iterations of Civ, Civ VII could really benefit from a detailed victory screen which reminds you of the accomplishments and actions (you know, the “layers”) that you as the player have achieved over the course of three ages.

 

[itix]

Back to the Romans: they have some sort of bonus to culture, food, gold, happiness, influence, and production in their toolkit; all they're missing is science. The bonuses come from every direction and yet can't really be leveraged into changing the game. They're underpowered and overbalanced, and with bonuses to everything, it lacks focus. Surely, I'm cherry picking, but few abilities in my games have been decidedly memorable.

(emphasis added).

It's a sad irony, given the effort that the designers put into each civlet, that in some ways the two or three uniques that civs had in 5 and 6 have a more powerful impact on game play than the dozen-per-age in 7.

I can't bother to find the reference now, but this is one of the features they found through playtesting, and Ed Beach thought it was cool that playtesters found ways to get insane yields.

Edit: oh, not exactly like that, but I think it goes along these lines.

Maybe you start as Rome, and where did Rome evolve? Maybe it evolved into another European Civ and that would get you to a Germany or a Britain or France by the end of your game. And players like that historical storytelling and immersion. And we did allow some wackier combinations, and some of our fans love that because they love the theory crafting, I want to mix this with that and I'm going to be super overpowered in science.

What is the wackiest combination that you've seen so far?

Beach: Well, we're not talking about all the leaders and Civ's that we have now, but you can do things like, you can have Augustus Caesar lead India, you can have Hatshepsut of Egypt lead Rome. So some of the things do strike you as a little bit wacky, but there are really good reasons and compelling reasons to try those things out... leaders that don't normally go together might have bonuses in the same part of the game and you just want to explore, wow, what if I get really powerful in culture or in my military strategies?

And so those combinations are really compelling. Our quality assurance department who's playing the game all the time is like, "Oh, you got to try this one with that one, because that's amazing." So it's great to hear that kind of stuff.

 

[aieeegrunt]

They're charging the same price as before, and less once you consider inflation. The so-called "civlets" are also include more stuff than the old civs. They certainly don't play a lesser role in the game.

When everyone is special, no one is

Including a bunch of small uniques for every age actually detracts from that special identity feeling.

And yes, a civlet is a third of a civ. You can only use it for a third of the game. So it takes three civlets to equal one real civ.

 

[Gori the Grey]

If you aren't a programmer, chances are that most people will be oblivious to what an applet is and what is meant by a civlet.

The person who coined the term does not know the word "applet"; -let is a known suffix meaning "little version of," e.g. piglet. The meaning of the word should therefore be pretty obvious, particularly in this context.

is the discussion enhanced to another level or are we inventing new topics for us to disagree on?

My hope is that the discussion is enhanced.

With the new term, you have a slightly better way of saying that, "in their quest to design engaging civlets for each age, the designers lost sight of what would give the combination of those civlets any cohesion in the player's overall experience of the game." Or, "they're going to sell Scythia and Kyiv civlets in separate DLCs, so I have to buy two DLCs to play Russia as a continuous civ, aren't they?"

It is also, of course, something new for us to disagree on, this being the internet.

@itix, yes, I remember that quote. I thought these boards would be alive with "guys, guys, guys, you gotta try Franklin with Han-Siam-Mexico. It's killaaaaaa." There has been almost none of that, as far as I can tell. (I have my own pet theory as to why.)

 

[King Flevance]

They're charging the same price as before, and less once you consider inflation. The so-called "civlets" are also include more stuff than the old civs. They certainly don't play a lesser role in the game.

Same price? Portugal pack is $4.99 at full price. You get a leader, a civ, a wonder, and a new game mode. The packs with 2 civs are $8.99 and you get 2 civs & 2 leaders plus other content like wonders, new game modes, new natural wonders, new city states, etc. And, as I stated before, you can play a whole game with those civs - instead of 1/3 of the turns in a whole game. (Ignoring the discussion of each Age turn count goes down and exploration and Modern civs play less of a role mechanically)

In Civ 7 it is $29.99 and you get 2 leaders and 2 "civs" and 2 wonders. Done. That is not the same price or less considering inflation. Even as bad as America's inflation is right now. That is more than 3x the price for less content.

The "civlets" may include more "stuff" but not $20 worth of stuff. An extra UB maybe? Maybe Great People that were ripped out of the core mechanics? Let's not pretend a couple extra uniques per civ is some massive content addition. That is an extra $20 for just a couple extra uniques to be added to the ocean of uniques in the game on top of the original price of $10 that gives you 90% of previous DLCs. Everyones UU is also basically just +5 strength. Plus, when everyone has uniques at all times, your uniques feel more like just flavor instead of a competitive edge. Even with a couple extra uniques thrown in, the "whole" is not always valued by the sum of its parts. At the end of the day, the uniqueness of civs feels the same as it did in previous versions despite the couple extra uniques.

Actually, those asking for "classic mode" are asking for less uniques per game. Trying to quantify the role civs play is going to depend on your criteria. If you value their 'on screen time' it was reduced by 66% this iteration. If you value windows where uniques stand out and above the competition, this game has removed that. If you value having more unique things in general, this game offers more.

 

[Siptah]

I don‘t really follow with the „all civs are too similar“ complaint. They seem very different to me. At least currently, with 13 per age, there aren’t many larger overlaps inside the same age (which is the important part imho - whether Greeks and Shawnee overlap isn‘t problematic, quite the opposite). You can go superficial and say Normans and Mongols are same, because both have very good cavalry, but I don‘t think that‘s fair a fair reduction of their kits (well, for Mongols maybe it‘s 80% of their kit, for Normans maybe 30%).

@King Flevance not that it changes much of your argument, but for civ 7 it‘s 4 civs per pack, not 2.

 

[GeneralZift]

Same price? Portugal pack is $4.99 at full price. You get a leader, a civ, a wonder, and a new game mode. The packs with 2 civs are $8.99 and you get 2 civs & 2 leaders plus other content like wonders, new game modes, new natural wonders, new city states, etc.

In Civ 7 it is $29.99 and you get 2 leaders and 2 "civs" and 2 wonders. Done. That is not the same price or less considering inflation. Even as bad as America's inflation is right now.

The "civlets" may include more "stuff" but not $20 worth of stuff. An extra UB maybe? Maybe Great People that were ripped out of the core mechanics? Let's not pretend a couple extra uniques per civ is some massive content addition. That is an extra $20 for just a couple extra uniques to be added to the ocean of uniques in the game on top of the original price of $10 that gives you 90% of previous DLCs. Everyones UU is also basically just +5 strength. Plus, when everyone has uniques at all times, your uniques feel more like just flavor instead of a competitive edge. Even with a couple extra uniques thrown in, the "whole" is not always valued by the sum of its parts. At the end of the day, the uniqueness of civs feels the same as it did in previous versions despite the couple extra uniques.

Actually, those asking for "classic mode" are asking for less uniques per game. Trying to quantify the role civs play is going to depend on your criteria. If you value their 'on screen time' it was reduced by 66% this iteration. If you value windows where uniques stand out and above the competition, this game has removed that. If you value having more unique things in general, this game offers more.

If you see

For the prices they charge I wish the leaders came with more voiced lines and animations.

The Civs coming with a lot more stuff is nice, but as you point out, they are mostly stuffed ripped from the base game (great people).
Or... Policies which probably take 20 min to code.

 

[Xur]

The person who coined the term does not know the word "applet"; -let is a known suffix meaning "little version of," e.g. piglet. The meaning of the word should therefore be pretty obvious, particularly in this context.

That seems to underline the confusement part more? I understand what you are saying, but I just dont understand the point of it.

 

[GeneralZift]

I don‘t really follow with the „all civs are too similar“ complaint. They seem very different to me. At least currently, with 13 per age, there aren’t many larger overlaps inside the same age (which is the important part imho - whether Greeks and Shawnee overlap isn‘t problematic, quite the opposite). You can go superficial and say Normans and Mongols are same, because both have very good cavalry, but I don‘t think that‘s fair a fair reduction of their kits (well, for Mongols maybe it‘s 80% of their kit, for Normans maybe 30%).

@King Flevance not that it changes much of your argument, but for civ 7 it‘s 4 civs per pack, not 2.

I think it's just because they are all very different on paper but in practice the Civilizations don't have any 'punch', and their gameplay doesn't feel as impactful as previous titles. I'm not sure how true that is but I saw it cited multiple times.

I think streamlined gameplay means that despite the differences, the end result varies little.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I understand what you are saying, but I just dont understand the point of it.

The participants on this discussion board are used to the word "civilization" meaning one particular thing. The "civilizations" in 7 are not that thing. Therefore a distinguishing term is useful.

 

[Siptah]

I think it's just because they are all very different on paper but in practice the Civilizations don't have any 'punch', and their gameplay doesn't feel as impactful as previous titles. I'm not sure how true that is but I saw it cited multiple times.

I think streamlined gameplay means that despite the differences, the end result varies little.

But that’s what I actually meant. To me, they feel different enough when playing, and I don‘t quite understand the often repeated complaint.

The problem here seems to be not related to the civs, but the other bonuses in the game that are super powerful. Most importantly, attributes and city states. The +800 gold per turn from playing Songhai would be much more impactful, if not everybody would also get +500 from attributes and city states. Attributes and city states can turn any civ in an allrounder, and so a lot of the civ differences aren‘t shining except if you are aware of what they actually are (and at what the civ excels at besides mere yields). Endeavors are better here, because they at least depend on your leader, and aren’t the same in each game. But in short: the solution to make civs feel more distinct to everybody is to reduce global yields from other sources.

 

[King Flevance]

For the prices they charge I wish the leaders came with more voiced lines and animations.

The Civs coming with a lot more stuff is nice, but as you point out, they are mostly stuffed ripped from the base game (great people).
Or... Policies which probably take 20 min to code.

Well, for $3.99 you can buy a new persona for that leader.

 

[McSpank01]

I think it's just because they are all very different on paper but in practice the Civilizations don't have any 'punch', and their gameplay doesn't feel as impactful as previous titles. I'm not sure how true that is but I saw it cited multiple times.

I think streamlined gameplay means that despite the differences, the end result varies little.

Yeah I think the problem is that you don't really play the game in an inherently different way by selecting a different Civ. I think because you can basically do everything to the same level without making huge sacrifices, I can be an amazing scientific / military / culture and economic civ all at the same time, so I rarely need to specialise, and that also leads to Civs rarely needing to make serious choices or really lean into any one type of gameplay. We all have amazing UUs to fight each other with at the same time as well.

Outside of maybe Carthage and Mongolia, most of the civs just feel like they get boring, under the hood bonuses that you barely notice.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

German 53% positive
Brazilian Portuguese 49% positive
English 49% positive
Japanese 48 % positive
Polish 47% positive
French 46% positive
Russian 44% positive
Traditional Chinese 43% positive
Spanish 42% positive
Italian 41% positive
Korean 36% positive
Simplified Chinese 32% positive

I'm curious how these differences can be explained. I could see some difference between European players (e.g., Italians being put off by no option to continue in Italy when starting in Rome). But why do Traditional and Simplified Chinese differ so much? And why would reviews be so much lower in Korean as well, but not in Japan?

I'm most surprised by the fact that Brazilian Portuguese is second considering there is currently nothing Brazilian, or even Portuguese in the game.
Korea makes sense because there is no representation of Korea yet, though Silla is coming. But from what I've seen Koreans, as a whole, are particular about the representation of Korea in the game.

The way I interpret “civlet” is that it represents just one chapter of a longer civilization story. Thus the civilization is your polity/culture as a whole over the course of three ages, and a civlet represents 1/3 of that identity.

The thing is the developers are still using the word "empire" to describe your whole journey, to the best of my knowledge. But I agree with the statement above that going the Humankind route it might have been better to call each playable civilization, cultures instead, that way all 3 make up your civilization.
But since Humankind did it first, they wanted to keep the "3 civs" make up your empire.