Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[uppi]

The problem with testing here is that 2 potential expansions are expected to be quite different - one about 4th age and one about overall game improvement. And those expansion could be received quite differently.

On a side note, while a lot of people speak negatively about 4th age expansion, I can't say that it would necessary perform worse than the other one. The notion about game being "unfinished" is also strong.

So, I expect 2 expansions released at some points of the game lifecycle.

I would expect an expansion which focuses on improving the existing ages to do much better than one which mainly adds a 4th age no one really wants. A straight up 4th age would have all the problems of Modern, but worse.

If the intent is to "finish" the game, there is plenty of opportunity to expand each age. There are considerable gaps to be filled between all ages and this way, you would not need another transition. And with less gaps (or maybe even some overlap?) the transition might be smoother for some, because you feel like less time is passing during the loading screen.

 

[GeneralZift]

Anticipation of promised experiences as delayed gratification, and after 300-500 hours when those experience never materialize, a sense of frustration and betrayal.

Yea this and, if I pay 80 quid or something on a game, best believe I'm playing whether I enjoy it or not

 

[stealth_nsk]

I would expect an expansion which focuses on improving the existing ages to do much better than one which mainly adds a 4th age no one really wants. A straight up 4th age would have all the problems of Modern, but worse.

That's based on the current state of the game, but I expect first expansion to be announced around next fall and released several months later. I really expect victories to be heavily revised by then and legacy paths having some adjustments, so Modern age problems will not be as big there.

Also, if 4th age gameplay will be unique enough, that would be interesting by itself and there's a lot of material for unique gameplay in 1960+ era (and if doesn't have unique gameplay, it doesn't make sense, of course).

 

[uppi]

That's based on the current state of the game, but I expect first expansion to be announced around next fall and released several months later. I really expect victories to be heavily revised by then and legacy paths having some adjustments, so Modern age problems will not be as big there.

Also, if 4th age gameplay will be unique enough, that would be interesting by itself and there's a lot of material for unique gameplay in 1960+ era (and if doesn't have unique gameplay, it doesn't make sense, of course).

While Modern can certainly be improved, it has a fundamental problems:

First, as long as your empire arrives in it mostly intact (and despite the hyperbole to the contrary, it very much does), the pacing will depend very much on the state of your empire at the beginning of the age. It will play very differently if you start with 40 settlements on one extreme or a 4 settlement advanced start on the other. So getting the pacing in such a way that it feels right for everyone is near impossible. And that is not related to victories or legacy paths. At around turn 40 in the modern age, I just run out of things to do.

Second, there will always be a point where you need to start converting your Empire into a victory. All activities which do not contribute to that are useless or even detrimental to victory. In a game about managing an empire this will become tedious, when 95% of what you do will have no impact.

All Civ games and the majority of 4X games have this late game problem. But packing it into a separate age, exposes these problems much more clearly. And a 4th age would have these problems even worse than the current Modern age has.

 

[stealth_nsk]

While Modern can certainly be improved, it has a fundamental problems:

First, as long as your empire arrives in it mostly intact (and despite the hyperbole to the contrary, it very much does), the pacing will depend very much on the state of your empire at the beginning of the age. It will play very differently if you start with 40 settlements on one extreme or a 4 settlement advanced start on the other. So getting the pacing in such a way that it feels right for everyone is near impossible. And that is not related to victories or legacy paths. At around turn 40 in the modern age, I just run out of things to do.

Second, there will always be a point where you need to start converting your Empire into a victory. All activities which do not contribute to that are useless or even detrimental to victory. In a game about managing an empire this will become tedious, when 95% of what you do will have no impact.

All Civ games and the majority of 4X games have this late game problem. But packing it into a separate age, exposes these problems much more clearly. And a 4th age would have these problems even worse than the current Modern age has.

I agree on all points. I think that it's possible to improve the situation, though, by making victory projects longer and requiring different activities.

It's also logical if we consider that each age should be playable as a final one (that was a feature promised in gameplay reveal, but not yet delivered). So, to have ages playable as both final and not final, the victory project need to prolong the age enough.

 

[Leucarum]

I have to be honest, I have big doubts about whether they can fix modern or whether it is a flaw in how Civ7 was designed. There's tension between wanting your empire to feel continuous and keeping the game competitive enough that each age matters.

I have a sinking feeling that there isn't a balance you can strike which enough players would buy into... And then Civ switching makes the whole thing worse by making 1/3 of civs significantly less relevant.

 

[Xandinho]

What makes the situation even worse is that many of the fans’ favorite civilizations can only be played in the modern era: France, Great Britain, America, Japan, Russia, and Prussia. What about the player who wants a deeper gameplay experience with France if that isn’t possible? At that point, 90% of the decisions don’t matter anymore, you’re just chasing your victory. And what about players who want to emulate the British Empire? That will only be possible for four or five dozen turns. The classic Civ player wants to feel like they’re truly playing with their traditional civilizations, but quickly becomes frustrated when they realize that’s hardly possible. I can’t help but wonder if they actually tested the modern era enough before releasing it as it is. This era doesn’t just need a fix; it needs a massive overhaul, almost a complete reset, to be honest.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I have to be honest, I have big doubts about whether they can fix modern or whether it is a flaw in how Civ7 was designed. There's tension between wanting your empire to feel continuous and keeping the game competitive enough that each game matters.

I have a sinking feeling that there isn't a balance you can strike which enough players would buy into... And then Civ switching makes the whole thing worse by making 1/3 of civs significantly less relevant.

They could push it to 4th age, making only 1/4 of the game syffering from victory race problems. But even 1/3 is much less than in previous civ games, so I think I could live with that. But yeah, unfortunately some of the issues will persist.

 

[Leucarum]

They could push it to 4th age, making only 1/4 of the game syffering from victory race problems. But even 1/3 is much less than in previous civ games, so I think I could live with that. But yeah, unfortunately some of the issues will persist.

A 4th age with no new civs would maybe be a slight band aid but I can't see how Firaxis square this particular circle.

Ultimately though, if it is a fatal flaw, it's only a fatal flaw in combination with Civ Switching. Without Civ switching you just have the same snowballing situation you had in 6. With it, you have 1/3 of the content very badly devalued.

 

[stealth_nsk]

A 4th age with no new civs would maybe be a slight band aid but I can't see how Firaxis square this particular circle.

Ultimately though, if it is a fatal flaw, it's only a fatal flaw in combination with Civ Switching. Without Civ switching you just have the same snowballing situation you had in 6. With it, you have 1/3 of the content very badly devalued.

I think it's not necessary a fatal flaw even with civ switching. If the final ages are long enough and civilizations of that age are designed to modify your strategy on that path, those civs will be interesting even when played for final age.

But that's a question of doing both victory conditions and civilizations right.

P.S. With the ability to finish the game in any age, it could require adjustments to earlier civs as well.

 

[Leucarum]

I think it's not necessary a fatal flaw even with civ switching. If the final ages are long enough and civilizations of that age are designed to modify your strategy on that path, those civs will be interesting even when played for final age.

But that's a question of doing both victory conditions and civilizations right.

P.S. With the ability to finish the game in any age, it could require adjustments to earlier civs as well.

I dunno... At the moment it's not just length. The quality of the gameplay in modern is a lot worse, more busywork, more micromanagement, less important decisions. There's an element where it being over quickly is a blessing. The snowball creates more problems than just premature victory.

This is really making me wonder if the classic mode boosters are right. I don't see a good way to have an interesting modern era AND empire continuity... And if you follow the logic from there, Civ switching is fatal.

 

[Bug Repellent]

Without Civ switching you just have the same snowballing situation you had in 6.

I will never understand what is so bad about snowballing. I think it's the amazingly satisfying gift for playing really well. If it happens in too many games and you find the game too easy, increase difficulty. Ideally, the game should have a difficulty for which even playing really well you have a 50-50 chance of losing. Chopping the game into age transitions to kneecap people that play the game very well is very, very strange to me. It's like trying to make Magnus Carlson enjoy a chess game against a novice teenager and every time Magnus pulls ahead someone gives the teen three queens and a knight to even things out. Does anyone think Magnus would enjoy such games for long? If snowballing is an issue, all we need is competent AI. Not "rubber band" gimmicks.

 

[Leucarum]

I will never understand what is so bad about snowballing. I think it's the amazingly satisfying gift for playing really well. If it happens in too many games and you find the game too easy, increase difficulty. Ideally, the game should have a difficulty for which even playing really well you have a 50-50 chance of losing. Chopping the game into age transitions to kneecap people that play the game very well is very, very strange to me. It's like trying to make Magnus Carlson enjoy a chess game against a novice teenager and every time Magnus pulls ahead someone gives the teen three queens and a knight to even things out. Does anyone think Magnus would enjoy such games for long? If snowballing is an issue, all we need is competent AI. Not "rubber band" gimmicks.

So I played Civ7 with my Civ6 multiplayer group where most were playing for the first time. It was fascinating in hindsight seeing the reaction to the age transition play out in real time. 2/3 of the group dropped out and swore off Civ7. But the strongest reaction was from the player who really loved playing tech-heavy games. His reaction was basically that the thing he enjoyed in Civ7 was getting a big lead and then leveraging it. Essentially, he played Civ for the snowball.

I don't think that viewpoint is rare either....

He also hated that pushing tech caused rhe age to end from all the future techs. He also found that that felt like punishment.

From Firaxis' point of view though, I think the answer is that they keep on having to make material for the late game but nobody plays it. So it ends up withering further and further... I can see why they wanted to make it more interesting.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I dunno... At the moment it's not just length. The quality of the gameplay in modern is a lot worse, more busywork, more micromanagement, less important decisions. There's an element where it being over quickly is a blessing. The snowball creates more problems than just premature victory.

I still this as a victory conditions problem. You only need one legacy path, after which the victory projects are very straightforward. This makes other parts of the game irrelevant, i.e. after you got Mass Production you only need gold and a bit of influence to win economic victory (providing you have enough peace to trade for resources). Science, culture, most buildings are irrelevant.

I also think making more complex score with hall of fame (and probably some leaderboards across multiple players) would make the game surprisingly more interesting by making those parts which are irrelevant to the actual win, contribute to the points.

This is really making me wonder if the classic mode boosters are right. I don't see a good way to have an interesting modern era AND empire continuity... And if you follow the logic from there, Civ switching is fatal.

Civilization switch highlights the problem, but doesn't cause it, so removing it won't make the game better from pure gameplay standpoint.

 

[Leucarum]

I still this as a victory conditions problem. You only need one legacy path, after which the victory projects are very straightforward. This makes other parts of the game irrelevant, i.e. after you got Mass Production you only need gold and a bit of influence to win economic victory (providing you have enough peace to trade for resources). Science, culture, most buildings are irrelevant.

I don't think that's true, the snowball gets so big it makes most decisions irrelevant. You are in god mode by Modern. And it's tough to square that against players wanting more - not less - continuity. Streamlining legacy paths is a good idea. But I doubt it solves the issue.

I also think making more complex score with hall of fame (and probably some leaderboards across multiple players) would make the game surprisingly more interesting by making those parts which are irrelevant to the actual win, contribute to the points.

Unlockinng and levelling up leaders is 100% the thing which made me want to play games to completion. Not the modern age split. I don't think that's neccessarily a positive, but if Firaxis want to get us to finish games, they might have found out how to do it.

Civilization switch highlights the problem, but doesn't cause it, so removing it won't make the game better from pure gameplay standpoint.

I don't think it fixes it, but if Civ6's snowball was bearable, a classic mode's snowball should also be...

Yes I am saying "maybe it's best if Firaxis accept defeat." I am starting to suspect they are in a Kobayashi Maru of their own making.

 

[bumpyglint]

I will never understand what is so bad about snowballing. I think it's the amazingly satisfying gift for playing really well. If it happens in too many games and you find the game too easy, increase difficulty. Ideally, the game should have a difficulty for which even playing really well you have a 50-50 chance of losing. Chopping the game into age transitions to kneecap people that play the game very well is very, very strange to me. It's like trying to make Magnus Carlson enjoy a chess game against a novice teenager and every time Magnus pulls ahead someone gives the teen three queens and a knight to even things out. Does anyone think Magnus would enjoy such games for long? If snowballing is an issue, all we need is competent AI. Not "rubber band" gimmicks.

I genuinely dislike snowballing in video games, and I can explain why (obviously, this is my opinion). I love a good challenge—I usually play on higher difficulty settings—so maybe I’m more sensitive to this issue, but what frustrates me about snowballing goes beyond difficulty; it’s about how the game’s pacing and balance break down over time.

In a 10-hour game, snowballing often means I get 2 hours of engaging, strategic gameplay (if you played the correct difficulty for you), followed by 8 hours that feel like watching a cutscene (regardless of the difficulty you chose). The tension disappears, and I’m either steamrolling everything or stuck against an impossible challenge. The difficulty curve doesn’t evolve organically—it spikes or collapses, making the experience either tedious or dull.

I'll add another point talking about Civilization VI, but this is the same for the game with similar problems. The early game—like the Classic Ages—are fun and well-balanced. But as you progress, especially into the later eras, things start to unravel. The final stages often feel disconnected from the core mechanics. What’s the point of unlocking advanced units like airplanes if, by the time you get them, they’re practically useless? Air combat could be a highlight, but snowballing makes it irrelevant—you never really get to enjoy it. All the things you unlock at the end can't be "played as intended" basically.

You say “just increase the difficulty,” but that completely misses the point. For me, snowballing isn’t about winning too easily—it’s about the game losing its structure, its challenge, and ultimately, its meaning.

 

[Monene]

In effect, the game is decided from the start. The competition is lost, and therefore, the interest. And the real snowball doesn't mean being better than someone else (something that many don't fully understand), just having been lucky.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't think that's true, the snowball gets so big it makes most decisions irrelevant. You are in god mode by Modern. And it's tough to square that against players wanting more - not less - continuity. Streamlining legacy paths is a good idea. But I doubt it solves the issue.

I don't find snowball that big of a problem. Yes, I have some games where I totally dominate opponents in exploration, but much more often I have some challenge in Modern, and I play on Immortal. So, I guess, for majority of players just general improvements in the game and AI to give AI better challenge would make this part better.

Unlockinng and levelling up leaders is 100% the thing which made me want to play games to completion. Not the modern age split. I don't think that's neccessarily a positive, but if Firaxis want to get us to finish games, they might have found out how to do it.

+

I don't think it fixes it, but if Civ6's snowball was bearable, a classic mode's snowball should also be...

I think it's subjective. I finish games in Civ7 much more often than in Civ6. The feeling when you're in midgame and won already takes away all desire to play further. In Civ7 age change provide at least some shake and sometimes creates more challenge.

Yes I am saying "maybe it's best if Firaxis accept defeat." I am starting to suspect they are in a Kobayashi Maru of their own making.

I disagree, but I see why people may feel that way, especially if modern age fails to provide challenge.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What makes the situation even worse is that many of the fans’ favorite civilizations can only be played in the modern era: France, Great Britain, America, Japan, Russia, and Prussia. What about the player who wants a deeper gameplay experience with France if that isn’t possible? At that point, 90% of the decisions don’t matter anymore, you’re just chasing your victory. And what about players who want to emulate the British Empire?

Yeah, in regard to France and Japan those aren't representing my favorite time periods of their respective civilizations, which is the Ancien Regime and Shogunate period, so I feel like those parts are missing. With more DLC I wouldn't be surprised about Japan getting another age to remedy that, but I'm not so sure about France.
I'm not really a fan of Great Britain's design either. I think England in Civ 6 have them beat. Too bad that a proper Exploration England probably isn't coming.

 

[Gorbles]

I will never understand what is so bad about snowballing. I think it's the amazingly satisfying gift for playing really well. If it happens in too many games and you find the game too easy, increase difficulty. Ideally, the game should have a difficulty for which even playing really well you have a 50-50 chance of losing. Chopping the game into age transitions to kneecap people that play the game very well is very, very strange to me. It's like trying to make Magnus Carlson enjoy a chess game against a novice teenager and every time Magnus pulls ahead someone gives the teen three queens and a knight to even things out. Does anyone think Magnus would enjoy such games for long? If snowballing is an issue, all we need is competent AI. Not "rubber band" gimmicks.

My opinion is that interpreting "snowballing" as "playing the game very well" is misunderstanding what snowballing actually is.

Also, in your chess example, that wouldn't help the teenager beat Carlson, so. Not sure it's the best analogy. An experienced chess player might be able to do something with the sheer amount of bonus pieces, but a novice? Unlikely. Not that Age transitions are even redressing the scales that dramatically anyway.

Anyhow, when designing and implementing a video game, "all we need is competent AI" isn't very helpful (plus, it ignores the existence of MP). That's like me saying "well I need twice as many developers on my team". It's a nice idea, but it's not going to happen (for a multitude of reasons). AI should always be being made better, but AI is a research discipline first and foremost. The logistics of getting that effort (that expertise, and funding) into video games is something the entire industry struggles with.

Because of this, games are designed with constraints. These constraints are often set well in advance of any release-ready code being written. At their most flexible, they assume a best-case scenario depending on how implementation progresses (and will also have goals to settle for in worse-case scenarios, should they occur).

But ultimately this is all kinda irrelevant. You don't like feeling punished. It's an emotive (and valid!) argument against the game mechanic. Because it doesn't feel fun for you. Just like sitting there clicking next turn over and over waiting to lose doesn't feel fun for others. And not everyone likes to quit and start again just because they got unlucky, or the AI / another player got lucky, etc. This is the problem Firaxis have in trying to improve how the pacing of the game feels. People like different aspects of the game as it develops from the early game to the late game. This is truly what makes the late game in a 4x game tricky.

I think Ages are a good stab at it (as I've said before, I liked Dramatic Ages in VI for that reason). I think there's room for improvement, albeit maybe not for people that don't like to feel hindered by events outside of their control. Heaven knows I sympathise at times. The Barbarian balance in VI and V always felt either not enough pressure, or way too much.