Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[itix]

That article is very interesting... quotes:

Rather than moving between stately eras, a Civilization VII campaign is divided into three ages (Antiquity, Exploration and Modern) that all start by presenting you with a fresh selection of civilisations to choose from. It’s a massive alteration to the flow of the game – history is now built of distinct layers – and Beach admits that there were times when the team were not sure it would work. He was adamant it was worth trying, though, because the data had long suggested a fundamental problem with Civilization: people rarely finished a campaign. “The number-one issue that the ages system solves for us is it helps you get towards the end of a game,” he says, “and not feel like you’re overwhelmed with too many things to manage, too many.

(...)

As members of the design and QA team continue to test the game daily, he adds, “I’m getting so many more reports of people playing all the way to finishing a game, and having an interesting conclusion.” In other words, ages address an underlying problem with 4X games: the first two Xs, explore and expand, are more compelling than the final two, exploit and exterminate. Why? There’s more potential and less bureaucracy early on, and you’re making consequential decisions more regularly as a result. In the ages system, then, transition points are a means to make adjustments along the way, by reducing the complexity and number of things to manage, so the first 20 to 30 turns of a new age feel like a period of reset. “The tension in the world has drained out,” Beach says, “and you’re just building back up again.” Ages always end with a crisis event, giving each part of the game its own shape and momentum. Even so, Beach promises, to make sure these transitions don’t rob players of things they enjoy – an army that’s constructed with precision, say – the team has done more playtesting for Civilization VII than it did on previous games.

 

[itix]

Well, that's exactly what I mean. He just throws out a statement that sounds pretty anecdotal at best after all. Who in the community did he talk to, and how can he be so sure that this kind of feedback is representative? Sounds more like wishful thinking on his part, if you ask me.

I feel a slight confirmation bias here.

 

[ColtSeavers]

That article is very interesting... quotes:

As members of the design and QA team continue to test the game daily, he adds, “I’m getting so many more reports of people playing all the way to finishing a game, and having an interesting conclusion.” In other words, ages address an underlying problem with 4X games: the first two Xs, explore and expand, are more compelling than the final two, exploit and exterminate. Why? There’s more potential and less bureaucracy early on, and you’re making consequential decisions more regularly as a result. In the ages system, then, transition points are a means to make adjustments along the way, by reducing the complexity and number of things to manage, so the first 20 to 30 turns of a new age feel like a period of reset. “The tension in the world has drained out,” Beach says, “and you’re just building back up again.” Ages always end with a crisis event, giving each part of the game its own shape and momentum. Even so, Beach promises, to make sure these transitions don’t rob players of things they enjoy – an army that’s constructed with precision, say – the team has done more playtesting for Civilization VII than it did on previous games.

Alright then! Just wondering if he’s thought about the fact that people kinda need to start playing the game before they can actually finish it. Right now, not that many are even playing, but hey, as long as he’s happy!

 

[ThERat]

One has to wonder who Beach was talking to. We should all be too familiar with this sort of bias because management tends to surround themselves with yes men/women and anyone who disagrees, is seen as noise or nuisance.
I agree though that in Civ, Gandhi is sort of known as the 'peaceful' nuker. However, not many who talked about Gandhi or Gilgamesh, thought of them detached from their civilizations. I don't think many players like Gandhi of the Mayans.

 

[Evolena]

My post was mainly a reply to Kent77’s claim that Firaxis doesn’t need to read threads like this because they’ve got amazing telemetry and already know everything. I think that’s nonsense. Just look at the kind of lousy calls they made when they thought they understood the Civ 6 player data.

That aside, I do think it’s pretty likely the Devs twisted a few arguments to justify their ideas for Civ switching. Like that claim about players supposedly identifying more with leaders than with civs, just to back up Civ Switchung instead of doing Leader Switching. There’s no real evidence for that, and it’s certainly not something you can pull from player data. It feels more like they were looking for a straw man to defend decisions they’d already made anyway.

I remember reading that they did focus group tests with Leader switching, and it didn't feel good, that Civ switching felt better, but I don't recall the source (it's not in https://civilization.2k.com/civ-vii/game-guide/dev-diary/leaders-and-civs/ that only talk about the result of their thinking).

 

[Krikkit1]

I remember reading that they did focus group tests with Leader switching, and it didn't feel good, that Civ switching felt better, but I don't recall the source (it's not in https://civilization.2k.com/civ-vii/game-guide/dev-diary/leaders-and-civs/ that only talk about the result of their thinking).

I think the issue is

the Other player are identified best by their Leader

My identification is best with the Civ.

That said I think civ switching instead of leader switching was the right call… However, they should have done a lot more work on that identification issue (allow you to control the name/graphics separately from uniques or had semigeneric bonuses available for playing out of main age, etc.)

 

[Leucarum]

I remember reading that they did focus group tests with Leader switching, and it didn't feel good, that Civ switching felt better, but I don't recall the source (it's not in https://civilization.2k.com/civ-vii/game-guide/dev-diary/leaders-and-civs/ that only talk about the result of their thinking).

I will add that "better" still doesn't mean "good"

 

[zerokarma]

Kind of sounds like Ed Beach has a lot of confirmation bias going on.

 

[Wrenched]

That said I think civ switching instead of leader switching was the right call…

I'm glad this works for some!

I have had a much better experience with leader switching across games like Old World, Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings, and others.

To me, it makes much more sense that human individuals would die and be replaced within the timeframe of an empire.

I have never played a Civ/4X game where I thought I am getting bored of this Culture I NEED to change now. That is usually a thought that occurs after game end; let's try this other nation/empire/culture in the next game session.

 

[Xur]

According to some people in here it’s unfair to point out that Ed Beach had anything to do with poor design or poor decisions. I wonder if that delusion is also present in the Firaxis offices.

 

[0urBall]

Also, memes as statistical data points for evidence based decisions?!?

 

[Gorbles]

I think it's unsurprising that people who don't like the direction the game has gone in, have also decided that the data available to Firaxis causes negative outcomes.

Confirmation bias might indeed exist at Firaxis, but it's not like it isn't present here either!

Also, memes as statistical data points for evidence based decisions?!?

The existence of memes as an indicator of community consensus (of something positive or negative) has been a long-studied thing. Why do things become memes? Because they resonate.

The Dawn of War franchise has more than a few, for example (the most Internet-famous of which is probably "METAL BAWKSES"). You're telling me the developers should take nothing from these? Nothing at all? You're arguing that community sentiment isn't, in fact, evidencial when it comes to what the community does or doesn't engage with?

I mean, other posters are already arguing that the statistics that shows games aren't completed is somehow to be ignored / not important / who needs to finish games. We're seeing people discount literal statistics when it suits their criticism of VII. So what are we supposed to believe in? It's easy to say "VII bad, we know it's bad because it's rated poorly". But that data doesn't exist before a game launches.

Let's say Civ VIII happens. My personal vote would be "don't release the game in an unfinished and rushed state" first and foremost. But that's irrelevant to design decisions made much earlier in the development process. For these design decisions, how should Firaxis aggregate data in order to form a picture of what the players want? Open question.

 

[Smegger213]

After the last update, I started a new game.
I started in Antiquity with Egypt and Hatshepsut ( I am very interested in Ancient Egypt).
At the start of the Exploration Age, I chose Songhai, as I believe its supposed to be a natural progression from Egypt. Sticking with Hatshepsut.
But yesterday, I finished the Exploration Age, and moved to the Modern Age. Firstly, I must say that, by the time I had explored all the map, after that, I was bored to tears.

But the choice of Civ's I was given at the start of the Modern Age was bloody awful.
None of them felt like a natural progression from Egypt or Songhai.
In the end I chose Meiji of Japan.
Half of the other Civs listed were locked.

This is the major thing I hate about this game. I WANT to play as Egypt from start to finish.
I also want an end to the dumb idea of "any leader can play any Civ". No more Benjamin Franklin of The Roman etc. Its pathetic.

So, now, I am at the start of the Modern Age, pissed off with game because of all these forced choices pushed on me.

 

[Kev1916]

2K should pass the torch to another developer, or better still pass the IP off altogether.

Fans should expect a company to not con long term fans .
A massively overpriced unfinished mess released with withheld content and a dozen plus micro transactions is just not on.
Having Mary Poppins lead the Na’vi before morphing into the Mongols then the French is not on .
4 mini games in one may suit the console and casual player but it ain’t for me

 

[Crashdummy]

They've been pretty clear that their design was already locked in when Humankind came out. I agree that Civ switching sucks and sucks hard... but can we stop with this particular comment. It doesn't sound like it's actually true.

They had 3 and a half years to change. Lets be honest, they were cocky and thought they could succeed where Humankind failed. They thought the Civilizatrion name was going to be enough to sell Civ Switching to the people

They were wrong

They also saw the business part of it and selling Civlets at the price of full Civs was a very good deal for them

That article is very interesting... quotes:

Rather than moving between stately eras, a Civilization VII campaign is divided into three ages (Antiquity, Exploration and Modern) that all start by presenting you with a fresh selection of civilisations to choose from. It’s a massive alteration to the flow of the game – history is now built of distinct layers – and Beach admits that there were times when the team were not sure it would work. He was adamant it was worth trying, though, because the data had long suggested a fundamental problem with Civilization: people rarely finished a campaign. “The number-one issue that the ages system solves for us is it helps you get towards the end of a game,” he says, “and not feel like you’re overwhelmed with too many things to manage, too many.

(...)

As members of the design and QA team continue to test the game daily, he adds, “I’m getting so many more reports of people playing all the way to finishing a game, and having an interesting conclusion.” In other words, ages address an underlying problem with 4X games: the first two Xs, explore and expand, are more compelling than the final two, exploit and exterminate. Why? There’s more potential and less bureaucracy early on, and you’re making consequential decisions more regularly as a result. In the ages system, then, transition points are a means to make adjustments along the way, by reducing the complexity and number of things to manage, so the first 20 to 30 turns of a new age feel like a period of reset. “The tension in the world has drained out,” Beach says, “and you’re just building back up again.” Ages always end with a crisis event, giving each part of the game its own shape and momentum. Even so, Beach promises, to make sure these transitions don’t rob players of things they enjoy – an army that’s constructed with precision, say – the team has done more playtesting for Civilization VII than it did on previous games.

I believe they need new testers... The current ones are clearly not in touch with what the community likes

And they also need a new designer if Ed beach pushed this even when he was told it wasnt going to work

 

[GeneralZift]

I think that even though your opponents are best defined by their Leader, you are best defined by your Civilization.

This is why the Leader switch would work better. Take this for example, if Genghis is bullying you in the Medieval era, then you will go to the forums and write "I hate Genghis"

Even if/when Genghis switches to somebody else as time goes on, he still retains his notoriety.

And when you play as Mongols, you are allowed to retain your own identity even if/when you choose to change your Leader.

So this would work out well for everyone. I think for a Leader switch system, that was optional as well, that would be the ideal scenario for players.

I can imagine somebody being very attached to playing Caesar to the modern age, and someone else switching leaders every age to gain the most relevant bonuses.

If you could level up your leader with time you can grow an attachment, feel a sense of progression.
And if you really really wanted you could just play the same way you've always played. No problem!

 

[itix]

For these design decisions, how should Firaxis aggregate data in order to form a picture of what the players want? Open question.

It is not about the data. It is what conclusions you draw from that data.

In Civ 7, antiquity is often cited as the best era and some dont even progress to the next era.

Possible conclusions:

• "Our players love antiquity. They dont want other eras."
• "Our players love antiquity. Antiquity should last forever, to 2000 AD. They obviously want that."
• "Our players love antiquity. Lets have 3x antiquity minigames. The winner is decided in the last game."

Like, the thought of a train can go completely to the wrong direction and QA could deliver excellent feedback...

 

[Smegger213]

I think that even though your opponents are best defined by their Leader, you are best defined by your Civilization.

This is why the Leader switch would work better. Take this for example, if Genghis is bullying you in the Medieval era, then you will go to the forums and write "I hate Genghis"

Even if/when Genghis switches to somebody else as time goes on, he still retains his notoriety.

And when you play as Mongols, you are allowed to retain your own identity even if/when you choose to change your Leader.

So this would work out well for everyone. I think for a Leader switch system, that was optional as well, that would be the ideal scenario for players.

I can imagine somebody being very attached to playing Caesar to the modern age, and someone else switching leaders every age to gain the most relevant bonuses.

If you could level up your leader with time you can grow an attachment, feel a sense of progression.
And if you really really wanted you could just play the same way you've always played. No problem!

I have to disagree. Leaders should be restricted to the countries / Civs that they came from or led. Plus proper leaders (Kings, Queens, Presidents, & Prime Ministers) should be added for FREE. Or at least some of them for free., Its blindingly obvious that they want to keep all the good proper leaders for paid for DLC.

 

[Crashdummy]

I think they need to go back to the formula that worked for decades. No switching of anything, Leaders belong to their Civs

The changes and improvements need to come from somewhere else, town and cities and navigable rivers are examples. I think naval combat can be improved a lot for example, diplomacy took a step back in Civ VII, that can be improved a lot too

 

[Leucarum]

I like leader and civ mixing. I hope that is the one thing which becomes evergreen.Civ switching in particular needs to go the way of the dodo.

But I love that they have given us the ability to include civs with poorly attested leadership, leaders who are just interesting characters from history rather than another same-y prime minister... And the strategic options from mixing are great.

Civ switching is awful. Leader mixing and matching would have been enough novelty in Civ7 IMO.