Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Gori the Grey]

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.

I'm experiencing that (i.e. the opposite of what Civ 7 does, that uniques in 6-and-earlier did) in my Civ 5 gameplay right now. After having played domination only for several years, I've just shifted to trying to get a cultural victory (the only one I've never got on deity). So now I roll Zulu (who I previously would have been thrilled to roll) and I say "how's any of that going to help me with a cultural victory?"

 

[GeneralZift]

I'm experiencing that (the opposite of what Civ 7 does, that uniques in 6-and-earlier did) in my Civ 5 gameplay right now. After having played domination only for several years, I've just shifted to trying to get a cultural victory (the only one I've never got on deity). So now I roll Zulu (who I previously would have been thrilled to roll) and I say "how's any of that going to help me with a cultural victory?"

I love doing this in Civ5 because it feels like an interesting challenge. It's definitely possible but you have to pivot it in a weird way. Like for Zulus you have to look for a Facism Culture Victory, probably by eliminating the high Culture Civs to make it easier to get cultural dominance over the others. It's really fun.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yes, it has been a ton of fun. I've tried some, let us just say, "military into culture" approaches. Haven't got them to work yet, but it has been fun.

Flip side, I used to roll Brazil and go "aaarrrrggghhh." But now I go "yummy!"

 

[McSpank01]

I'm experiencing that (i.e. the opposite of what Civ 7 does, that uniques in 6-and-earlier did) in my Civ 5 gameplay right now. After having played domination only for several years, I've just shifted to trying to get a cultural victory (the only one I've never got on deity). So now I roll Zulu (who I previously would have been thrilled to roll) and I say "how's any of that going to help me with a cultural victory?"

Ha yeah, though it can be a little frustrating to roll as such a one dimensional civ that really just wants to do one thing, but there is fun in that as well, if you have enough civs to balance it.

If you ever go through all the Zig guides on Steam Community, they always rated civs on victory suitability, and every single civ had something they would excel at and something they would be bad at. I loved that. I have no idea how that would look in Civ 7.

 

[King Flevance]

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.

That is a fair point and does add some value to the packs. But I agree the point still stands that for many of us 2 extra "civlets" does not make up the $20 difference but it does help anyone seeking some justification for the FOMO purchase.

The "civs feels similar" argument for me is that it rarely feels like "this is what my civ is good at" but rather "this is what my civ does". While each civ does have a unique feel (the reason civ switching can feel jarring) no/few civs feels like they hold an edge. Maya always breaks this in my head because they are so blatantly overpowered. But overall, most civs just feel like they do something unique for the sake of it. As this meme points out:

This sums up what a lot of civs can feel like in the game. Sure, it feels unique but often, you feel like it doesn't really impact much. At least, that is my own issue with the system. I think they did a good job of making each civ feel unique but also as GeneralZift points out, everything always feels unique, all the time, in every direction. You are unique, your neighbors are unique, each age you are all unique in new ways, all the time. Which makes every game feel the same - not every civ feel the same. Especially because the same strategies can be deployed mostly regardless of what civ you pick.

 

[Sagax]

Yeah, I'm not specialist in China. I know there are several languages from the same group, which are called dialects by Chinese official linguistic. So, I could assume non-mandarin Chinese people could use simplified Chines more and there could be big regional / social differences. It could also be difference in education level, for example, or some nationalists using traditional (here in Serbia we have both Cyrillic an Latin alphabets and various traditionalists/nationalists/religion groups use Cyrillic more often, while more neutral audience more often use Latin).

All this could be connected to how China is represented in Civ7 - particular dynasties for example (in particular I could assume Qing could trigger some people) or it could be about Confucius, with Confucianism being praised by current Chinese government. Or it could about some groups of people playing mostly as China (i.e. those with traditional views), while other playing other civs. Or it could be about some social groups only recently gotten access to personal computers and thus not having much prior civ experience...

I could generate a lot of hypotheses actually, I don't think we have a way to validate them.

I’ve skimmed through Simplified Chinese reviews for about 10 mins, and honestly they mention about the same stuff as the English reviews. Barely any mention of Qing, to the surprise of some.

I did notice one more nuance, though. My understanding is that Civ is priced in China via simple currency conversion, so they pay the equivalent of 70 USD in CNY. The problem is, despite China’s overall economy, your average Chinese citizen’s purchasing power is still greatly behind that of the Western counterparts, so the recent jump from 60 to 70 hurts them so much more. Given the current still unpolished state of the game, many reviewers don’t see the game as good value for the money.

All things considered, CN reviewers just seem less forgiving towards the same issues.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I’ve skimmed through Simplified Chinese reviews for about 10 mins, and honestly they mention about the same stuff as the English reviews. Barely any mention of Qing, to the surprise of some.

I did notice one more nuance, though. My understanding is that Civ is priced in China via simple currency conversion, so they pay the equivalent of 70 USD in CNY. The problem is, despite China’s overall economy, your average Chinese citizen’s purchasing power is still greatly behind that of the Western counterparts, so the recent jump from 60 to 70 hurts them so much more. Given the current still unpolished state of the game, many reviewers don’t see the game as good value for the money.

All things considered, CN reviewers just seem less forgiving towards the same issues.

I wonder if there's a significant economical difference on average between those who use traditional and simplified Chinese.

 

[ombak]

I wonder if there's a significant economical difference on average between those who use traditional and simplified Chinese.

Traditional Chinese is localization for Taiwan.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Traditional Chinese is localization for Taiwan.

And Hong Kong and Macau, so all the richer parts! So that would track.

Fair play on the lack of Qing mentioning too. Maybe it's not a particularly significant issue, or maybe it's played out that the people who do care about it haven't bought it and therefore haven't reviewed.

Either way, interesting that it doesn't seem to explain the difference in reviews by language

 

[tman2000]

I think trying to push the civ switching even after Civ VII failure would be a massive mistake, but at this poiint i dont trust Firaxis anymore, so maybe they are enough out of touch with the community that they attempt this

Civ switching is something I personally like because of history. However, now that we have a pretty solid post-mortem on 7, we can tell why it didn't work as a mechanic. It interrupts the flow of the game. The game is "one more turn" and everything that happens or changes in the game has to occur seamlessly within a succession of one more turns.

If there is a way to do switching, it's also clear now that it has to be built along with day 1 classic mode where the mechanic can be ignored, meaning the core design of the game can't rely on switching for major mechanics.

Regardless, civ-switching could have been Civ 7's version of Civ 6's unstacked cities. A failed experiment that didn't ruin the one game, but won't be returned to in the future.

There's a weird narrative around Civ 6 that has emerged due to its late-stage success. 6 wasn't hated on launch, and elements of the districts system were praised, but overall the consensus was that the districts was a poor direction for the game to go, and that 6 was destined to be one of the weaker iterations. It just somehow built up a huge audience through some of its DLC additions, and I'm not completely sure what changed. I'm only really conscious of canals being a thing that people love. The other DLC systems seem to be less praised. I suppose loyalty was beloved, and people seem to like how city-states are handled.

So, instead of treating 6 like a one off, the company doubled down on it and its design leadership. That was the mistake.

Again, civ-switching could have been a one time experiment that wouldn't have been as controversial, but with a firm consensus that the mechanic wouldn't continue.

 

[Gori the Grey]

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.

It probably matters more to get the phrasing right in a game that is titled "Civilization."

The game has had that title for six previous iterations, and for those six iterations has handled what "civilizations" are understood to be in one particular way. Now, what they are calling "civilizations" are specific to each age, so the larger entity--that you guide throughout the game, that is made up of those three "civilizations"--is without a name. Yes, one could call it an "empire." But here that clashes with the very title of the game itself.

If you are going to call each civlet a "civilization," the title of the game itself would need to change to "Civilizations" to capture what it is the player manages over the course of the entirety of the game.

(It worked for the movie Alien. I think "Aliens" is the best sequel title of all time, better even than Dumb and Dumberer. Because, if one of those suckers was so much trouble in film 1, imagine how much worse a number of them are going to be!)

 

[Crashdummy]

Civ switching is something I personally like because of history. However, now that we have a pretty solid post-mortem on 7, we can tell why it didn't work as a mechanic. It interrupts the flow of the game. The game is "one more turn" and everything that happens or changes in the game has to occur seamlessly within a succession of one more turns.

If there is a way to do switching, it's also clear now that it has to be built along with day 1 classic mode where the mechanic can be ignored, meaning the core design of the game can't rely on switching for major mechanics.

Regardless, civ-switching could have been Civ 7's version of Civ 6's unstacked cities. A failed experiment that didn't ruin the one game, but won't be returned to in the future.

There's a weird narrative around Civ 6 that has emerged due to its late-stage success. 6 wasn't hated on launch, and elements of the districts system were praised, but overall the consensus was that the districts was a poor direction for the game to go, and that 6 was destined to be one of the weaker iterations. It just somehow built up a huge audience through some of its DLC additions, and I'm not completely sure what changed. I'm only really conscious of canals being a thing that people love. The other DLC systems seem to be less praised. I suppose loyalty was beloved, and people seem to like how city-states are handled.

So, instead of treating 6 like a one off, the company doubled down on it and its design leadership. That was the mistake.

Again, civ-switching could have been a one time experiment that wouldn't have been as controversial, but with a firm consensus that the mechanic wouldn't continue.

I dont want to repeat myself, but i think Civ switching will never work in the Civilization franchise, because "build a Civilization to stand the Test of Time" is too ingrained into the playerbase

If civ switching (or culture switching or whatever you want to call it) is going to work in a 4x game, it needs tobe in another franchise/IP. I dont think it would either, but if there is any chance of it working, its in another place

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It worked for the movie Alien. I think "Aliens" is the best sequel title of all time, better even than Dumb and Dumberer.

Yeah, if it was "Dumber and Dumberer" then that would win.

I do agree that with each iteration it the idea of "civilization" seems to mean less than what it meant. I remember with Civ 6 people were starting worry about the major emphasis in leaders in the civ design, that it was turning into more of "Leaders" the game. With immortal leaders still in the game, they might be right.

Someone should start a historical 4X game called "Leaders" where you do switch leaders throughout the ages but keep the civilization/culture.

 

[tman2000]

I dont want to repeat myself, but i think Civ switching will never work in the Civilization franchise, because "build a Civilization to stand the Test of Time" is too ingrained into the playerbase

If civ switching (or culture switching or whatever you want to call it) is going to work in a 4x game, it needs tobe in another franchise/IP. I dont think it would either, but if there is any chance of it working, its in another place

At this point, for sure.

 

[itix]

There's a weird narrative around Civ 6 that has emerged due to its late-stage success. 6 wasn't hated on launch, and elements of the districts system were praised, but overall the consensus was that the districts was a poor direction for the game to go, and that 6 was destined to be one of the weaker iterations. It just somehow built up a huge audience through some of its DLC additions, and I'm not completely sure what changed. I'm only really conscious of canals being a thing that people love. The other DLC systems seem to be less praised. I suppose loyalty was beloved, and people seem to like how city-states are handled.

Civilization, and especially Civilization VI, is a game based on popular history. No matter if you never went to school, lived in a barrel, never had internet, you can still name a few great works and wonders. Everyone can name a few famous leaders like Napoleon and Julius Caesar, or nations like the Greeks, Egyptians or Chinese. Familiar city names that you see if you ever looked at the world map, let alone have travelled to other countries, there are so many connections to our common knowledge. Then there are wonders and great arts you have never heard before, and you feel excited to learn about them. I believe Civ 6 perfected this.

 

[Kwami]

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.

This is incredibly misleading.

1. The scenario has nothing to do with the normal game and most players never tried the scenarios. It's entirely understandable that the developers stopped using resources on them.
2. The $29.99 pack actually includes four civilizations, not two. And it also includes four wonders, not two.
3. You can buy a civilization for $4.99, just as before. Same price, but with more content.
4. Accounting for inflation in the US since 2016, $4.99 would be $6.72, which means that the current DLC is actually much cheaper.

And I very strongly disagree with this "1/3 of the game" characterization. You might play only part of a game with each civilization, but you also play them more often than in previous games.

 

[itix]

Oh, Aliens... Civilizations:

 

[King Flevance]

This is incredibly misleading.

1. The scenario has nothing to do with the normal game and most players never tried the scenarios. It's entirely understandable that the developers stopped using resources on them.
2. The $29.99 pack actually includes four civilizations, not two. And it also includes four wonders, not two.
3. You can buy a civilization for $4.99, just as before. Same price, but with more content.
4. Accounting for inflation in the US since 2016, $4.99 would be $6.72, which means that the current DLC is actually much cheaper.

And I very strongly disagree with this "1/3 of the game" characterization. You might play only part of a game with each civilization, but you also play them more often than in previous games.

You call mine misleading when I could say the same thing about yours. For example, 1 civ in Civ 6 will last an entire game from 4000 BC to endgame. In 7, 1 civ only gets 1/3 of the turns at most.

Yes, you have 1 or two more uniques in the process. But, at most, 1/3 of the gameplay time. So 2 civs in Civ 6 is 2 whole games. 4 civs is 1.33 games. It isnt hard to understand.

If you are happy paying $30 for these packs, you do you. But many people, myself included, have laid out pretty clear why $30 is WAY overpriced for what you get. Especially, on a game that has failed to engage a large portion of the fanbase - or for those of us where the momentum is running out.

 

[Kev1916]

You call mine misleading when I could say the same thing about yours. For example, 1 civ in Civ 6 will last an entire game from 4000 BC to endgame. In 7, 1 civ only gets 1/3 of the turns at most.

Yes, you have 1 or two more uniques in the process. But, at most, 1/3 of the gameplay time. So 2 civs in Civ 6 is 2 whole games. 4 civs is 1.33 games. It isnt hard to understand.

If you are happy paying $30 for these packs, you do you. But many people, myself included, have laid out pretty clear why $30 is WAY overpriced for what you get. Especially, on a game that has failed to engage a large portion of the fanbase - or for those of us where the momentum is running out.

I think the poster has been proved wrong in the past , peddles the same myth, it's a strange hill to die on, particularly when the common consent is this game is way over priced

Each civlet can be bought for £4.49 what $6 a pop without a leader .., to play for one age at best, or worse you can only play them in game 2 or 3

The DLC has 88% negative! reviews with the main complaint not worth it, cash grab etc etc

"
This "DLC" is honestly a joke. There’s barely anything here, and what is here feels super lazy or reused. I can’t believe they’re charging for this — it’s a total rip-off. I feel straight-up scammed. What makes it worse is that I really didn’t expect this from a developer I usually trust. Super disappointing.
"
"I knew this was just a shameless cash grab with cut-out/not-yet-finished small things which should be simply in the main game from the beginning"

"
$30 DLC for what should have been the base game.

It does not add any mechanics, it is just a micro transaction pack.

"
Disgusting DLC policy. Big step back from Civ 6's DLC policy.
"

Even the one positive review I found mentioned the price

"While overpriced I did enjoy the content, with I could give a sideways thumb tho. Carthage was quite fun, "

 

[Siptah]

Hmm… I think 1/3 of a game doesn‘t quite hit it for me. Modern civs are maybe 1/6, while antiquity and exploration are much longer. Actually also much longer than a third of civ 6, as I never played that for 300+ turns on standard. Not an argument that the dlc is cheap, but that also the rule of 1/3 might not really translate 1:1.