Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Xandinho]

I genuinely think people enjoy the antiquity age because it plays the most similar to “classic” civ. Everyone’s built their empire only to see it altered arbitrarily in the exploration age and people quit.

For me, even the antiquity age takes a lot of adjusting to get used to. I miss the more purposeful city planning six had. Aside from that (and this may just be a me issue) deciding to essentially change even building names threw me off.

The Ancient/Classical Era has always been the most interesting part of any Civ game, but that interest tends to decline in later eras, eventually reaching the Atomic and Information Eras, which often felt quite dull. Among the recent entries, I personally think Civ5 had the best late game, since its ideologies truly changed the course of the game, and even the victory conditions were more engaging. Civ6, on the other hand, drags on for too long, filled with tedious and low-impact decisions, while Civ7 feels far too short, and you barely get the sense that you’re actually playing as its modern civilizations.

 

[Leucarum]

The Ancient/Classical Era has always been the most interesting part of any Civ game, but that interest tends to decline in later eras, eventually reaching the Atomic and Information Eras, which often felt quite dull. Among the recent entries, I personally think Civ5 had the best late game, since its ideologies truly changed the course of the game, and even the victory conditions were more engaging. Civ6, on the other hand, drags on for too long, filled with tedious and low-impact decisions, while Civ7 feels far too short, and you barely get the sense that you’re actually playing as its modern civilizations.

Civ7 doesn't even have a late game which is significantly worse than any previous entry in the series. It just draws a lot more attention to it with the era system and civ switching, and adds in a bunch of obvious stopping points. A boring late game wasn't a wedge issue before...

 

[aieeegrunt]

Civ7 doesn't even have a late game which is significantly worse than any previous entry in the series. It just draws a lot more attention to it with the era system and civ switching, and adds in a bunch of obvious stopping points. A boring late game wasn't a wedge issue before...

Because before you could decide, or not decide when and if you were going to hit restart

 

[Core Imposter]

I am convinced that Firaxis has created a game that will be remembered just as the world remembers the Trojan horse.

 

[Gorbles]

I think the point was that it didn’t improve enough to change the overall trend

A Classic Mode is a bit of a Hail Mary, you have to get the word out to all the people who passed on 7 because of Civ Switching/Era Resets

shrugs

They called it (the patch) a failure, which is why I asked the hypothetical (Hail Mary or not).

 

[bumpyglint]

I chose on release simply because it is a baseline with easy equivalencies without needing to factor in where in the DLC cycle we are at. CIV VI had a lot of DLC interspersed before its first expansion, while Civ V had similar add-ons before its first expansion. Minimizing variance seems important when trying to make fair comparisons.

I mean, if we want to see the increasing pattern, we should look at the whole picture. You want a comparison, but I want to show you an increasing pattern, and the fact that the game had a specific percentage and then it increased with time clearly supports the idea that there’s an increasing pattern.

The broader pattern that I am seeing here is that women have historically been underrepresented and as has been seen over the past several months, the very notion of adding just two more women in than the last game leads to post after post of people losing their minds over it. Many times these posts create their arguments off of points that have no basis in reality and no basis in the history of the Civ games (despite all of these posts claiming to be from long-time fans who just want Civ to get back to "how it used to be").

I'm not going to really engage with the critiques on Gorgo and Catherine de Medici here since I am not a historian (just a fool who is interested in history), but I will say that it is always interesting how under the microscope women leaders are under compared to their male counterparts.

I’m aware that there are probably other posts with little basis in reality — I’m sure they exist. That’s why I shared the raw percentages, so we can discuss the objective numbers instead of opinions.

About the “microscope” you mentioned: it’s totally fair that you like it. In fact, I think many people nowadays share your perspective, which is why so many companies have recently started catering to that preference. I just find it impossible to say, “you’re wrong because you like something I don’t.” That’s why I was a bit surprised by your previous post, where you seemed to suggest that Bug Repellent’s post "was wrong simply because he liked something you don't" (I know you've not wrote it directly, but to me it seemed the "subtext" of your message, you've even called him in bad faith).

Personally, I’ve felt forced to see Gorgo instead of Leonidas — just like I’d feel forced to see Queen Victoria’s husband instead of Victoria herself. But that’s just a matter of taste and it's perfectly fine to prefer Gorgo.

Looking back at Civ VI it is interesting to me that certain choices such as Philip II have never been under such scrutiny despite him having been someone who took power at the peak of the Spanish Empire and who oversaw its decline. There are many reasons associated with this some entirely his fault (such as his micromanagement and zealotry) and some not at all his fault (extensive propaganda against him and some bad luck). You could carry out this exercise with most new leaders that get selected, but somehow it is always women that are under the microscope and not men.

From my perspective, I wouldn’t exclude a leader just because they were responsible for an empire’s decline, I'm not even sure why you're discussing about this. When I think of potential leaders for the game, I prefer historically famous and impactful figures — for better or worse. Take Philip II, for example: you mentioned him, but I can think of dozens of leaders in the Civilization series who were responsible for their nation’s downfall, or even for atrocities like genocide or war crimes and yes, as you said, nobody cares (or at least, the majority of people doesn't care).
Again, it’s all a matter of personal preference, but I definitely would not say that one of the most impactful leader in the spanish history felt "forced" (even if he was impactful for the "wrong" reasons!). Maybe people like you prefer only “positive” figures — which again is totally fine - but that would definitely narrow the range of possible leaders in the game.

This seems like much ado about nothing. So what if now a whopping 36% of civ leaders are female? Are we to take the claim that that's too many female leaders as valid criticism? Or that somehow it becomes too many if specific male leaders are not in the base game (which has been the case in past few iterations of the game)?

I’ve already said I don’t care that much — I only calculated the percentages because it seemed clear there was a pattern, and it felt odd to deny it.

 

[Gorbles]

I’ve already said I don’t care that much — I only calculated the percentages because it seemed clear there was a pattern, and it felt odd to deny it.

Spending time to carve an exemption out for Civ II while not including it in the list certainly suggests that there isn't as much of a pattern as you seem to think there is.

This is all downstream of a pattern being relevant. It's not odd to deny anything if the premise is faulty, and curated lists that ignore or minimise the impact of games not on that list isn't really solid data either.

 

[bumpyglint]

Spending time to carve an exemption out for Civ II while not including it in the list certainly suggests that there isn't as much of a pattern as you seem to think there is.

This is all downstream of a pattern being relevant. It's not odd to deny anything if the premise is faulty, and curated lists that ignore or minimise the impact of games not on that list isn't really solid data either.

I've literally discussed Civ II in the first post, read it again please

 

[marius_kaparius]

I find myself playing the game more. I played for 6 hours straight yesterday. The patch is a success (for me). I also see more pushback in comments sections against the civ/era switching being the death of the game. There will be a certain audience that will never accept that but there is a completely different audience that might adopt the game instead - this is why I hope the game introduces scenarios - the game's systems are so well primed for excellent scenarios.

 

[Leucarum]

I also see more pushback in comments sections against the civ/era switching being the death of the game.

As most other problems are fixed the more the issues here become more prominent.

Unless the late game is interesting, I think civ switching in particular will be a millstone around 7's neck. 1/3 of civs are currently locked to a portion of the game which is significantly less relevant. Firaxis have said they are working on improving how we identify with Civs so I guess we'll have an idea what they plan soon...

I hope the game introduces scenarios - the game's systems are so well primed for excellent scenarios.

Arguably the three ages are scenarios already. And advanced start/single age games are quite a lot better than the ages played as a chain.

 

[Krikkit1]

As most other problems are fixed the more the issues here become more prominent.

Unless the late game is interesting, I think civ

I think that is the key…Civ7 was designed to make the late game interesting. They haven’t succeeded yet and that will be a millstone regardless of civ switching.

(as for scenarios, that is where they really need the option for premodern Victory conditions ..ie a game that ends in Antiquity or Exploration. Given the work they seem to need to do to get Modern victories working well, I think that is part of why they haven’t implemented earlier Victories yet.)

 

[Leucarum]

I think that is the key…Civ7 was designed to make the late game interesting. They haven’t succeeded yet and that will be a millstone regardless of civ switching.

The reason I don't think late game boredom is the millstone is that it never was before. Firaxis have yet to make an interesting late game experience*, but that didn't materially harm Civs1-6, SMAC, etc...

7 however puts a bunch of sirens up drawing attention to a flaw. I think Ages could survive this more easily than Civ switching which effectively becomes a content lock.

My current skepticism is also informed by the fact that this problem is something Firaxis have never been able to solve before. And now they have to solve it in real time, with an irate playerbase judging their every move. If I were Firaxis I don't know if this is the battle I would really want to be fighting...

* I'd credit Civ3's WWII scenario as actually being a good modern experience but that just pushes the argument that 7 is a good fit for scenarios...

 

[GeneralZift]

The reason I don't think late game boredom is the millstone is that it never was before. Firaxis have yet to make an interesting late game experience*, but that didn't materially harm Civs1-6, SMAC, etc...

7 however puts a bunch of sirens up drawing attention to a flaw. I think Ages could survive this more easily than Civ switching which effectively becomes a content lock.

My current skepticism is also informed by the fact that this problem is something Firaxis have never been able to solve before. And now they have to solve it in real time, with an irate playerbase judging their every move. If I were Firaxis I don't know if this is the battle I would really want to be fighting...

* I'd credit Civ3's WWII scenario as actually being a good modern experience but that just pushes the argument that 7 is a good fit for scenarios...

I mostly agree with you but still don't understand why people think the modern age is boring.

As long as the AI challenges you, and also stays somewhat within your power level, the ending is always bound to be interesting.
This is obvious when you play online with other players of near skill.

The game doesn't mechanically have a late game issue. Or if it does, it doesn't need an overhaul. It has an issue that the AI is too easy or too exploitable and sometimes unfair or otherwise "too robotic" to feel like an interesting, substantially different, opponent every time.

IF you get a terrible start, I recommend playing it out. You'll find that trying to make the most of awful surroundings and crawling your way to relevancy by the modern period tends to be filled with interesting challenges.

As fun as the God start is, it doesn't provide any challenge.
And when all the starts are the same, and the AI is easy too, you don't feel challenged at all ever.

This is the source of the Civ7 late game problem.

 

[Leucarum]

I mostly agree with you but still don't understand why people think the modern age is boring.

As long as the AI challenges you, and also stays somewhat within your power level, the ending is always bound to be interesting.
This is obvious when you play online with other players of near skill.

The game doesn't mechanically have a late game issue. Or if it does, it doesn't need an overhaul. It has an issue that the AI is too easy or too exploitable and sometimes unfair or otherwise "too robotic" to feel like an interesting, substantially different, opponent every time.

IF you get a terrible start, I recommend playing it out. You'll find that trying to make the most of awful surroundings and crawling your way to relevancy by the modern period tends to be filled with interesting challenges.

As fun as the God start is, it doesn't provide any challenge.
And when all the starts are the same, and the AI is easy too, you don't feel challenged at all ever.

This is the source of the Civ7 late game problem.

Modern age has other problems beyond just AI challenge.

I'd particularly highlight
Decisions matter less - you are making more decisions because you have more resources, and any individual choice is less impactful to the overall game than it is in an earlier phase.
Micromanagement explodes. Here firaxis made improvements - less production queues, no builders. But millitary adventures in particular are micromanagement hell, and since you have a larger empire, you're gonna have more stuff to do.

And "make the AI better" brings us back to another issue of, Firaxis haven't done this in recent times... Do we expect them to suddenly develop the ability to do so while under time pressure with other fires to put out?

I don't want Civ7 to become Civ6.5 but I very much doubt that the late-game issue can be solved by Firaxis (even though that was one of the key things they wanted to solve). I think they'd be better off planning for how they'll make the game work in spite of that.

 

[GeneralZift]

Modern age has other problems beyond just AI challenge.

Decisions matter less - you are making more decisions because you have more resources, and any individual choice is less impactful to the overall game than it is in an earlier phase.
Micromanagement explodes. Here firaxis made improvements - less production queues, no builders. But millitary adventures in particular are micromanagement hell.
The eXploration part of 4X is gone.

And "make the AI better" brings us back to another issue of, Firaxis haven't done this in recent times... Do we expect them to suddenly develop the ability to do so while under time pressure with other fires to put out?

No of course I don't expect a magical solution, but in terms of retrospect I think it's been obvious for games what the worst aspect of the series is. Attributing to a design issue what is an AI issue is part of the downfall.

I will say this, Xandinho actually put it best:

Among the recent entries, I personally think Civ5 had the best late game, since its ideologies truly changed the course of the game, and even the victory conditions were more engaging. Civ6, on the other hand, drags on for too long, filled with tedious and low-impact decisions, while Civ7 feels far too short, and you barely get the sense that you’re actually playing as its modern civilizations.

 

[Gorbles]

I've literally discussed Civ II in the first post, read it again please

I know you did. I referenced you doing so.

Still doesn't change the fact the list is incomplete, and in doing so presents an inaccurate "pattern".

 

[Leucarum]

I will say this, Xandiho actually put it best:

That would be the Monkey's paw for me - I bounced off Civ5 completely.

Far more than Civ7, what Firaxis tried to do in 5 just didn't work for me at all. I can't put a clear finger on why, since 5 didn't do anything obviously wrong - I didn't like the graphical style or the push to tall gameplay, but those aren't dealbreakers. I think more than anything the pace of 5 felt off and I just always lost interest. I bought the expansions when they were practically being given away, and it still didn't win me over.

 

[GeneralZift]

That would be the Monkey's paw for me - I bounced off Civ5 completely.

Far more than Civ7, what Firaxis tried to do in 5 just didn't work for me at all. I can't put a clear finger on why, since 5 didn't do anything obviously wrong - I didn't like the graphical style or the push to tall gameplay, but those aren't dealbreakers. I think more than anything the pace of 5 felt off and I just always lost interest. I bought the expansions when they were practically being given away, and it still didn't win me over.

It's a slightly emptier game than Civ6 for example, where you have many moving parts like Governors, Housing, Appeal, Global Warming, Emergencies etc.
Perhaps that's why

Although it has the best end game in my opinion. The ideology is a big power spike so it can feel like a shuffle button on everyone's empires.
Alliances sometimes change as ideology comes in. Also, you might find yourself under pressure from enemy ideology which can force you to change strategies.

It's very dynamic for a simple system which makes it easy to play with.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I think that is the key…Civ7 was designed to make the late game interesting. They haven’t succeeded yet and that will be a millstone regardless of civ switching.

(as for scenarios, that is where they really need the option for premodern Victory conditions ..ie a game that ends in Antiquity or Exploration. Given the work they seem to need to do to get Modern victories working well, I think that is part of why they haven’t implemented earlier Victories yet.)

The biggest millstone is that they took the sandbox, immersive gameplay story and roleplay part of the game and dumpstered it to essentially solve a problem nobody really cared that much about.

There are other issues for sure, like it seems like they took the funnest aspect of 6; Play The Map, and dumpstered that as well, but that’s like hexes and 1UPT, the individual mechanics may or may not land for you, but at least it’s still Civ

For the majority of the playerbase, Civ7 is not, and people voted with their wallets

 

[aelf]

I’ve already said I don’t care that much — I only calculated the percentages because it seemed clear there was a pattern, and it felt odd to deny it.

What's this pattern and why does it matter?