Playing as a Continuous Civ- A HUGE Mistake

[stealth_nsk]

Interesting that the discussion seems fairly evenly split between "this pivot is a mistake" and "this pivot is necessary", with most of the posts assuming that Firaxis was forced into doing something they didn't want to.

I think those are two totally separate points. Firaxis was probably forced to publish the game early by publisher, BUT it has nothing to do with age transition, which is totally Firaxis initiative. The wording in which Ed described this decision clearly states that the decision was internal. I could imagine there could be some potential suggestions from 2K for targeting multiplayer more, for example, but I can't imagine them being in a form of a specific feature.

I always thought that they were going to eventually re-introduce continuous play in an expansion (5 quid says it would be called The Test Of Time).

Hard disagree. If Firaxis would suspect that age transition will be a failure, they wouldn't do it in first place (see above). To me it's clear that Firaxis didn't consider any continuous play mode until the backlash.

I'm sure the commercial response accelerated those plans, and took them out of a paid expansion, but I don't think it's a new idea.

Again, that's the point of disagreement. Some people think age transition (and/or civ. switching) are the main reason of Civ7 problems, but there are no strong evidence toward that conclusion. Original negative reviews mostly mentioned bad UI, unfinished state and the like; together with recent review improvement it suggests that age transition wasn't that huge source of negativity. But again, that's not a hard evidence either.

 

[Leucarum]

Neither extreme (disaster or essential) is right I think. Civ7 could have muddled through without continuity, and Firaxis clearly are be able to work on multiple things at once.

Let's assume they do the most discussed option and add alternative tradition trees for each attribute. Even if you love civ switching, that's adding an interesting option any time you do switch - effectively you have another 6 new civs per age which are also letting people roleplay better.

Maybe Firaxis don't go down that route, but it show's it's at least possible to create interesting gameplay decisions out of it. Amd the work is almost certainly less than creating new civs as I doubt these would get new art assets/units/UIs.

 

[pjotroos]

In both scenarios, it would also be possible to mix civs – which I consider rather important. Just having forced switch or static civs as options seems quite suboptimal for everybody

I'm the exact opposite here. In order to address the implicit objective - attract the players put off by civ switching - this needs to be an explicit mode, applied to everyone from the start; one civ, no swaps. I'd go further, and say that AI opponents should also be restricted to their best historical matches.

 

[pjotroos]

I think those are two totally separate points. Firaxis was probably forced to publish the game early by publisher, BUT it has nothing to do with age transition, which is totally Firaxis initiative. The wording in which Ed described this decision clearly states that the decision was internal. I could imagine there could be some potential suggestions from 2K for targeting multiplayer more, for example, but I can't imagine them being in a form of a specific feature.

Hard disagree. If Firaxis would suspect that age transition will be a failure, they wouldn't do it in first place (see above). To me it's clear that Firaxis didn't consider any continuous play mode until the backlash.

Again, that's the point of disagreement. Some people think age transition (and/or civ. switching) are the main reason of Civ7 problems, but there are no strong evidence toward that conclusion. Original negative reviews mostly mentioned bad UI, unfinished state and the like; together with recent review improvement it suggests that age transition wasn't that huge source of negativity. But again, that's not a hard evidence either.

I won't try to change your mind more broadly, since neither of us has a way of knowing what's true, so we're all going on our hunches - but I agree with you that they were surprised by the response to the eras, but I don't agree that "three distrinct eras" also meant "no antiquity America ever", even on release. The design allows for the latter but not the earlier. The decision to have 6 generic attributes allocated to each civ allows for generic civic trees.

I also phrased it poorly, but "Firaxis was forced into doing something they didn't want to" meant the current development work for single civ play, not the original design.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I won't try to change your mind more broadly, since neither of us has a way of knowing what's true, so we're all going on our hunches - but I agree with you that they were surprised by the response to the eras, but I don't agree that "three distrinct eras" also meant "no antiquity America ever", even on release.

Well, age transition and civ switching are different things. In realistic expectations, age transition will stay, but various ways of playing the same civ through ages are potentially possible.

The design allows for the latter but not the earlier. The decision to have 6 generic attributes allocated to each civ allows for generic civic trees.

As many other things, when you start implementing those things, there will be more issues. Just off the top of my head, here's the thing - civilization have unique wonders to let them go through civic tree and still get a wonder to build. If we'll have generic attribute civic tree, they either will not a have a wonder, or, even worse, they'll have the same wonder attached for every civ using this tree (and this wonder need to be different from unique wonders reused by civs).

I'm pretty sure once you start implementing and playtesting such feature, much more issues will surface.

I also phrased it poorly, but "Firaxis was forced into doing something they didn't want to" meant the current development work for single civ play, not the original design.

Ah, ok. Yes, that's for sure.

 

[pjotroos]

Well, age transition and civ switching are different things. In realistic expectations, age transition will stay, but various ways of playing the same civ through ages are potentially possible.

Yep, my point from the start.

As many other things, when you start implementing those things, there will be more issues. Just off the top of my head, here's the thing - civilization have unique wonders to let them go through civic tree and still get a wonder to build. If we'll have generic attribute civic tree, they either will not a have a wonder, or, even worse, they'll have the same wonder attached for every civ using this tree (and this wonder need to be different from unique wonders reused by civs).

Can't think of a single reason to expect a dedicated wonder in all eras. In fact, having special access to a wonder in your own civ's era becomes that much more special if you only get it in that one era.

 

[Krikkit1]

I'm the exact opposite here. In order to address the implicit objective - attract the players put off by civ switching - this needs to be an explicit mode, applied to everyone from the start; one civ, no swaps. I'd go further, and say that AI opponents should also be restricted to their best historical matches.

I think it should be an always option... so you could say
-Standard (can play normal civs or "out of age civs".. each player chooses each age what they want to do)
-No "out of age civs" (what we currently have)
-Single civ/player games (players cannot choose a new civ in a new age)

But the standard would be to allow each player to do it in each age... but some people will choose one of the other options as their preferred play.

 

[UWHabs]

I think it should be an always option... so you could say
-Standard (can play normal civs or "out of age civs".. each player chooses each age what they want to do)
-No "out of age civs" (what we currently have)
-Single civ/player games (players cannot choose a new civ in a new age)

But the standard would be to allow each player to do it in each age... but some people will choose one of the other options as their preferred play.

I'm not sure if I'd call the mixed option as "standard", but I do think having potentially all 3 variations makes sense. I can definitely see some people want to challenge themselves and win a game where you stay as Mexico for the entire game against AI who can do Egypt->Songhai->Buganda etc but other times where you want everyone fixed in the setup. I could also see the "what we currently have" also have an optional "civs transition except sometimes keep their old identity" type of option as well. Which kind of would be like the first option except no civ would be played before their era.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I dont thik individual Civs need unique bonuses on the off Ages. Maybe they can make some generic ones (maybe based on the type of Civ, like militaristic, economic, religious, etc, or maybe based on something else) That is probably going to be enough and its not an insurmountable amount of work

Uniques units are not neccesary, i actually thik its better to have periods of power and others where the enemy has its period of power. Its a better dynamic than everyone being equally powerful all the time

The previous titles did fine without them.

When everyone is special, no one is.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I'm the exact opposite here. In order to address the implicit objective - attract the players put off by civ switching - this needs to be an explicit mode, applied to everyone from the start; one civ, no swaps. I'd go further, and say that AI opponents should also be restricted to their best historical matches.

There must be an option for the AI not to swap! Just let me play as Prussia vs. America, etc., throughout all ages! No swapping for anyone! (Just as an option! I wouldn’t mind whether it’s the default mode or not)

 

[stealth_nsk]

There must be an option for the AI not to swap! Just let me play as Prussia vs. America, etc., throughout all ages! No swapping for anyone! (Just as an option! I wouldn’t mind whether it’s the default mode or not)

I think whichever option for playing as one civ will be chosen in the end, it should be possible to set the same option for AI

 

[Leucarum]

I mean... It already is just that it's a bit fiddly. Honestly maybe this might be something better left to a mod (very strict Civ / leader preferences and remove a bunch of civless leaders and leaderless civs)

Also as Civ7 gains more modes, I expect the list of 'sticky' settings will have to grow.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I mean... It already is just that it's a bit fiddly. Honestly maybe this might be something better left to a mod (very strict Civ / leader preferences and remove a bunch of civless leaders and leaderless civs)

Also as Civ7 gains more modes, I expect the list of 'sticky' settings will have to grow.

Those options clearly look like mod territory, but there are other options, which some people will enjoy.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I mean... It already is just that it's a bit fiddly. Honestly maybe this might be something better left to a mod (very strict Civ / leader preferences and remove a bunch of civless leaders and leaderless civs)

Also as Civ7 gains more modes, I expect the list of 'sticky' settings will have to grow.

What exaclty do you mean? How is a simple set up, that you and the AI keep their existing Civ, fiddly?

 

[Leucarum]

What exaclty do you mean? How is a simple set up, that you and the AI keep their existing Civ, fiddly?

You can already select civs and leaders. Presumably this will still be possible once civ continuity is added. It just is a little fiddly unless Firaxis make it simpler.

The other issue would be that upon civ transitions this could go out of historicity, but mods exist which change the preferences for leaders to pick civs so that can be made more strict.

I.e. even if Firaxis don't introduce it as a mode, all the tools are probably there for modders to create an only "historic" mode once civ continuity exists. And given that historicity is relative, it wouldn't surprise me if Firaxis prefer to leave this to modders.

 

[Timothy001]

My 2 cents. Have a simple option. Yes or No, Play as 1 Civ thru the ages. If yes, you can choose any Civ from any age, but they only get bonuses from there age. Benifits that are not locked to an age can be used, but the Unique Units, quarters (if any), buildings or improvements are only unlocked in the age in which they were intended. In the other 2 ages, the Civ is basically generic. If the answer is no, you play CiVII as it is now. Very little resources expended. Another solution, which will take time and resources. Create true paths for Civs'. Direct connections from 1 age to the next. A few currently exist, but add more direct paths.

 

[Sekou]

I'm rather ambivalent to the civ switching mechanic, personally. And as someone who played since the OG, one Civ is all I've ever known heretofore. But here I am, unbothered by it.

However, I will maintain til it's changed or VIII is released that Age Transitions are VII's true Cardinal Sin. That being said, the Continuity option has made the Transition system more palatable and allowed me to get back into the game.

 

[McSpank01]

Personally I think Civ Switching is probably the best thing about Civ 7. It’s a feature that excites me when I play the game , I love the idea of my civ evolving over the game and getting a new set of toys to play with as the game goes on. Ages.. well that doesn’t work so well, but that’s a separate topic.

So I’m actually quite angry at what looks like an utter capitulation to a vocal minority who I think are reacting to what they imagine the game is like rather than the reality. I understand that some don’t like the idea of civ switching just in principal or because another game did it badly, but you’d hope people would come in with more of an open mind on it. I think even now the implementation of civ switching is pretty good, it’s a bit jarring at times, but mainly due to the way ages work. If like me you generally take the historic option most times then it’s hardly noticeable.

I think Firaxis are making a hole for themselves with this move however. There is no version of the game they can make that will give the anti civ switching crowd what they want. There will always be an outcry against civ 7, and as they discover that the game is not fun with a continuous civ and fall away. Firaxis will have wasted valuable dev effort and time in trying to satisfy players who have no intention of playing the game long term.

So maybe Firaxis are just going through a PR exercise here, making small effort to appease this crowd whilst never actually implementing a full version with no civ switching. The wording of their statement made me suspect that they know the game just doesn’t work with continuity civs and would require an enormous overhaul to do it any justice at all, and so they are just ‘testing ideas’. They have probably been thinking about how it would work for years, and come to the conclusion that it just doesn’t.

So when they do release this feature, and the vocal minority play it, say it’s what they wanted, then say it’s not what they wanted and drop the game.. what happens then?

 

[Smegger213]

Personally I think Civ Switching is probably the best thing about Civ 7. It’s a feature that excites me when I play the game , I love the idea of my civ evolving over the game and getting a new set of toys to play with as the game goes on. Ages.. well that doesn’t work so well, but that’s a separate topic.

So I’m actually quite angry at what looks like an utter capitulation to a vocal minority who I think are reacting to what they imagine the game is like rather than the reality. I understand that some don’t like the idea of civ switching just in principal or because another game did it badly, but you’d hope people would come in with more of an open mind on it. I think even now the implementation of civ switching is pretty good, it’s a bit jarring at times, but mainly due to the way ages work. If like me you generally take the historic option most times then it’s hardly noticeable.

I think Firaxis are making a hole for themselves with this move however. There is no version of the game they can make that will give the anti civ switching crowd what they want. There will always be an outcry against civ 7, and as they discover that the game is not fun with a continuous civ and fall away. Firaxis will have wasted valuable dev effort and time in trying to satisfy players who have no intention of playing the game long term.

So maybe Firaxis are just going through a PR exercise here, making small effort to appease this crowd whilst never actually implementing a full version with no civ switching. The wording of their statement made me suspect that they know the game just doesn’t work with continuity civs and would require an enormous overhaul to do it any justice at all, and so they are just ‘testing ideas’. They have probably been thinking about how it would work for years, and come to the conclusion that it just doesn’t.

So when they do release this feature, and the vocal minority play it, say it’s what they wanted, then say it’s not what they wanted and drop the game.. what happens then?

It is not a vocal minority. When you read negative reviews, tons of them cite Civ switching as one reason why they don't like the game. So, I don't know how you came up with the notion that a minority hate Civ switching?
For me, I cannot stand Civ switching. Partly because I also cannot stand the "any leader can play any Civ" crap. For me, things like Benjamin Franklin of The Romans just totally breaks immersion.
I could possibly accept Civ switching, if you were also forced to change your leader to the leader that the switched to Civ is associated with.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Personally I think Civ Switching is probably the best thing about Civ 7. It’s a feature that excites me when I play the game , I love the idea of my civ evolving over the game and getting a new set of toys to play with as the game goes on. Ages.. well that doesn’t work so well, but that’s a separate topic.

So I’m actually quite angry at what looks like an utter capitulation to a vocal minority who I think are reacting to what they imagine the game is like rather than the reality. I understand that some don’t like the idea of civ switching just in principal or because another game did it badly, but you’d hope people would come in with more of an open mind on it. I think even now the implementation of civ switching is pretty good, it’s a bit jarring at times, but mainly due to the way ages work. If like me you generally take the historic option most times then it’s hardly noticeable.

I think Firaxis are making a hole for themselves with this move however. There is no version of the game they can make that will give the anti civ switching crowd what they want. There will always be an outcry against civ 7, and as they discover that the game is not fun with a continuous civ and fall away. Firaxis will have wasted valuable dev effort and time in trying to satisfy players who have no intention of playing the game long term.

So maybe Firaxis are just going through a PR exercise here, making small effort to appease this crowd whilst never actually implementing a full version with no civ switching. The wording of their statement made me suspect that they know the game just doesn’t work with continuity civs and would require an enormous overhaul to do it any justice at all, and so they are just ‘testing ideas’. They have probably been thinking about how it would work for years, and come to the conclusion that it just doesn’t.

So when they do release this feature, and the vocal minority play it, say it’s what they wanted, then say it’s not what they wanted and drop the game.. what happens then?

The “minority” that somehow made the majority of the reviews negative and the sales dismal and also somehow convinced the Fireaxis devs to possibly cater to them?