Playing as a Continuous Civ- A HUGE Mistake

[Albertan Civfanatic]

The problem is there is ALSO large group of CivFanatics who DO have the game now and DO like it, who will be pissed if design resource start being spent on making it completely different game than the one they like.

But somehow, mysteriously, the people boycotting the game *now* seem to think that only THEIR opinions will ever impact sales, and that it's therefore okay to piss off the people who like the game right now, because they obviously have no standards and will continue buying the game and expansion anyway.

Thus they keep insisting that no, the only way to fix the game is to make it exactly to their standard, centered only on their need, and without any compromise for the people who like the game now.

In other words, attempting to please everyone will please no one.

 

[ColtSeavers]

More "options" do not necessarily make a game better: purposeful and fun choices do. Refining and sharpening what already exists is the best course of action.

The problem is there is ALSO large group of CivFanatics who DO have the game now and DO like it, who will be pissed if design resource start being spent on making it completely different game than the one they like.

But somehow, mysteriously, the people boycotting the game *now* seem to think that only THEIR opinions will ever impact sales, and that it's therefore okay to piss off the people who like the game right now, because they obviously have no standards and will continue buying the game and expansion anyway.

Thus they keep insisting that no, the only way to fix the game is to make it exactly to their standard, centered only on their need, and without any compromise for the people who like the game now.

Kind of ironic that the group who’s completely unwilling to compromise, and keeps repeating the same bland catchphrase, “stick to their vision”, is now complaining about an alleged lack of willingness to compromise. Anyway, it seems the Devs have already decided to implement some sort of classic mode, and I’m convinced there’s a feasible way to do this without investing too many resources. Let’s see what they come up with before we start complaining about something we currently have no idea about how it’ll work or what it will look like in the end.

 

[Evie]

Yeah, the people who want the game they were advertised, which they actually purchased, to...stay the game they purchased...are being so unreasonable.

It's true there ARE compromise paths. But whenever actual compromises come up the terms "this is not enough:" so that the discussions always end up back at some form of "Civs should have bonuses in all ages so you can play them at all points while still having the full game experience", which is not "without investing too many resources", is not even close to that, and so forth. Likewise "change all the bonuses so that they all apply to all ages".

The "we need classic mode"'"s side idea of compromise is "We should be able to play a single civ the whole time while having relevant abilities and uniques in each era, even if that means designing new versions of every civ for every age they're not in, but you can keep the ability to change civ if you want it." That's not a compromise, that's barely even table scraps.

 

[Siptah]

FWIW Humankind also allowed to continue playing one civ from start to finish. And even had a (small) mechanic built around it. Let‘s see how FXS envisions their take ok this matter.

 

[Evie]

Exactly. A small mechanic - I've seen someone mention extra points for buying your own abilities - are a compromise.

"Every civ need to be a fully designed civ in every era"' is not.

 

[Sagax]

But whenever actual compromises come up the terms "this is not enough:" so that the discussions always end up back at some form of "Civs should have bonuses in all ages so you can play them at all points while still having the full game experience", which is not "without investing too many resources", is not even close to that, and so forth. Likewise "change all the bonuses so that they all apply to all ages".

The "we need classic mode"'"s side idea of compromise is "We should be able to play a single civ the whole time while having relevant abilities and uniques in each era, even if that means designing new versions of every civ for every age they're not in, but you can keep the ability to change civ if you want it." That's not a compromise, that's barely even table scraps.

I'd genuinely like to see where this was explicitly suggested by civ-switch naysayers, to the point where this is seen as their primary, non-negotiable demand. I know the vocal few on this forum, and how some of their positions are on the extreme side of anti civ-switching. But as far as I can tell, even they never explicitly stated that they need a civ to maintain the same power level in all ages - which was never a thing in previous Civ games either.

I'll also preemptively point out that "having bonuses applicable in all ages" is not the same as "every civ need to be a fully designed civ in every era". Most civ abilities today can already function fine outside of their designated ages, not to mention this is the whole premise behind Traditions - so the precendence is already set.

 

[Siptah]

Traditions are a one-way street though, only working as a legacy, not as a promise. Of course that doesn‘t mean that a promise is not going to happen, but it requires a premise that so far doesn‘t exist.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Some have explicitly said, "I'll take no bonuses in the other two ages; that's how I'm used to playing in 5 and 6."

I don't know the numbers for each of the two positions; I guess one could make a poll.

 

[Siptah]

Some have explicitly said, "I'll take no bonuses in the other two ages; that's how I'm used to playing in 5 and 6."

I don't know the numbers for each of the two positions; I guess one could make a poll.

Not quite though. Most civs in 5 and 6 have bonuses that last throughout the game. And while unique units go obsolete, unique buildings and districts don‘t.

 

[Monene]

I think many of the skills they gave to civilizations have more to do with their types of government because they focused more on states than cultures; they look more complete but feel less special.

 

[Sagax]

Traditions are a one-way street though, only working as a legacy, not as a promise. Of course that doesn‘t mean that a promise is not going to happen, but it requires a premise that so far doesn‘t exist.

I was referring more to the feasibility of designing such bonuses. Takes time to brainstorm and refine, but in no way some kind of a resource-devouring, insurmountable mountain.

Some have explicitly said, "I'll take no bonuses in the other two ages; that's how I'm used to playing in 5 and 6."

I don't know the numbers for each of the two positions; I guess one could make a poll.

We had a thread here, and it eventually fizzled out. Not sure if a poll will be productive either. With the Feature Workshop on the horizon, I think more constructive discussions will be concentrated there.

 

[disjointaccount]

Again, I have a really hard time believing that adding options to the game isn't just objectively good. The options that current players - even ones who might not like new options - already enjoy aren't going anywhere. At worst the game just gets something new you can ignore if you don't like it.

Yes, there's a theoretical tradeoff in how dev time is allocated, but for one, we are not flies on the wall at Firaxis and have absolutely no idea how dev time actually is being allocated. For two, that argument can just be extended all the way back to "Civ 7 wasn't the exact game I personally would have considered perfect from the moment of its conception, therefore its objectively terrible because time was spent on features I consider anything less than peak fun". I'm being a little flippant, but the idea of almost refusing choice is weird to me.

It was a similar thing when the update came out with all the settings for customising difficulty and disabling legacy paths. There was a lot of decrying it as "going back on the vision" or whatever other nebulous complaint, but I don't think I've seen any of that mentioned once since the update actually dropped. Likely because people just found what worked for them and ignored whatever options they didn't like. Because that's the power of giving players options.

It's also worth mentioning we haven't seen what they've got in mind for civ switching yet. Any notions of whatever "compromise" dev time is being spent on are entirely hypothetical. The feedback program they're running suggests there's a real desire to at least try and take the community's wants on board as directly as they can, which, combined with all the improvements the game has seen since launch thus far, leaves me confident the end result will be a pretty solid result for whatever scope they've decided it should have. Writing it off as a compromise or caving that pleases no one before even seeing the testing versions feels a little like tilting at windmills.

 

[Gorbles]

Yes, there's a theoretical tradeoff in how dev time is allocated, but for one, we are not flies on the wall at Firaxis and have absolutely no idea how dev time actually is being allocated.

This is true. But it also cuts both ways. It applies as equally to my hypothetical as it does (for example) Sagax talking about what effort something does entail.

Regardless, respecting the validity of opinions we disagree with is the cornerstone of good faith discussion.

For two, that argument can just be extended all the way back to "Civ 7 wasn't the exact game I personally would have considered perfect from the moment of its conception, therefore its objectively terrible because time was spent on features I consider anything less than peak fun".

Whereas, taking an argument to a logical extreme in order to undermine a more reasonable argument is, well, not good faith. Nor is it respecting the argument as written. It's almost a strawman, effectively.

Or am I missing some nuance? Would it be helpful if I pointed out that your quoted hypothetical here is exactly how many critics have responded to everything else that's been added that hasn't been a continuity mode?

You seem to be suggesting that people can't respond to effort the devs are investing on a personal level of whether or not that effort lands for the player in question. Am I off-base?

For the record: I've supported a bunch of the options that have been added. And I think there is potentially value in a continuity mode. But I also think it's more than reasonable for fans to prefer effort to be invested in the game they're currently playing that's still in sore need of all sorts of polish. Nevermind more modding support.

 

[disjointaccount]

You seem to be suggesting that people can't respond to effort the devs are investing on a personal level of whether or not that effort lands for the player in question. Am I off base?

My point really is just that not personally liking the specific allocation of dev time =/= the game is objectively bad or the devs are objectively making bad decisions. It's perfectly valid to feel disappointed by time being spent on a given feature, since it presumably means there's less time for others (this was my reaction personally to the news that single-civ mode was being worked on), but I think there's a bit of a leap from that to "This is a huge mistake", especially given we know next to nothing about what the "huge mistake" in question is actually going to look like.

Or am I missing some nuance? Would it be helpful if I pointed out that your quoted hypothetical here is exactly how many critics have responded to everything else that's been added that hasn't been a continuity mode?

I mean yeah, that's kinda what I'm saying. Whichever side it's coming from, "I personally don't like this" doesn't make much sense as grounds for objective critique of a game. Not that there isn't room for talking about opinions, but I don't think presenting the latter as the former particularly lends itself to any kind of fruitful conversation.

 

[Gorbles]

My point really is just that not personally liking the specific allocation of dev time =/= the game is objectively bad or the devs are objectively making bad decisions. It's perfectly valid to feel disappointed by time being spent on a given feature, since it presumably means there's less time for others (this was my reaction personally to the news that single-civ mode was being worked on), but I think there's a bit of a leap from that to "This is a huge mistake", especially given we know next to nothing about what the "huge mistake" in question is actually going to look like.

Fair enough! I don't really think it's meant as an "objectively" anything, but I'm also not the OP. I figure this is born out of disappointment, just as when critics of the current design post when they don't see changes they want to see. Or see changes and they're not the "right" changes, etc.

Sometimes people just want to share feelings. It is tricky to know when the discussion potential has been exhausted. I think a lot of us like keeping threads we're in alive for emotional reasons as much as topical ones. I kinda like that. It's very human.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

At the end of the day, Firaxis is a business. They want to make products that will appeal to their potential customers. Some of those customers are the ones that have bought multiple games from them in the past but have chosen not to for Civ 7 because of mainly civ switching.
If having the option to have a potential "classic mode" where you can choose a civ and play them from Antiquity to Modern, why wouldn't they choose to implement that if they can improve their sales?

 

[aieeegrunt]

A simple hypothetical would be: effort invested in things take away effort from other things, and all games have a specific amount of post-release support. Time is not the only constraint.

Which means it's possible that this move, which doesn't benefit anyone who currently enjoys the game, also possibly takes something away in the future.

This is not a guarantee. It's just a hypothetical. But not one that should be dismissed.

I think before the resources are allocated a decision needs to be made as to which is the better course

Allocating resources to “Classic Mode” to try and broaden the game’s appeal and attract back the people who hate civ switching

Or

Allocating resources to making the game in it’s current state better.

Bearing in mind that a primary goal is probably making the game a financial success

 

[Leucarum]

This feels like a lot of hyperbole. We have no idea how and to what extent Firaxis are planning to implement Civ Continuity.

Moreover, if the option to stick with your Civ is a genuinely interesting strategic decision, with benefits and tradeoffs, that'll make it a win for both sides of the argument frankly. And that is a possible outcome here.

Personally, I can't wait for civ continuity. I was able to play Civ7 in spite of civ switching, but I never enjoyed having to switch. I appreciate that there are folks who don't want it, but if implemented well this should really increase how much I enjoy the game.

 

[RodRick]

A simple hypothetical would be: effort invested in things take away effort from other things, and all games have a specific amount of post-release support. Time is not the only constraint.

Which means it's possible that this move, which doesn't benefit anyone who currently enjoys the game, also possibly takes something away in the future.

This is not a guarantee. It's just a hypothetical. But not one that should be dismissed.

If you want to play with hypotheticals, you can argue that future content being developed is contingent on the game having a big enough and active enough player base that the future content will sell well. In it's current state, both Civ VI and V have more active players than VII. Investing effort to address a frequent criticism, like continuous civs, even if its not something you specifically would use, could increase the player base and help greenlight more future content to be produced. Otherwise, if the player base stays behind the past two games, they might decide to just cut their loses, close development on VII, and start on the next game.

Which means it's possible that this move, which doesn't benefit anyone who currently enjoys the game, also possibly enables more content in the future.

This is not a guarantee. It's just a hypothetical. But not one that should be dismissed.

 

[Crashdummy]

The problem is there is ALSO large group of CivFanatics who DO have the game now and DO like it, who will be pissed if design resource start being spent on making it completely different game than the one they like.

But somehow, mysteriously, the people boycotting the game *now* seem to think that only THEIR opinions will ever impact sales, and that it's therefore okay to piss off the people who like the game right now, because they obviously have no standards and will continue buying the game and expansion anyway.

Thus they keep insisting that no, the only way to fix the game is to make it exactly to their standard, centered only on their need, and without any compromise for the people who like the game now.

No, the problem is that the current group of players that like the game are NOT enough to sustain it

Civilization 7 cant be sustained on less than 7k average players on its most played platform