Playing as a Continuous Civ- A HUGE Mistake

[Albertan Civfanatic]

Recently, Ed Beach discussed the fact that Firaxis will be playtesting civs to see if there can be continuous civs all through the game, ie you would no longer have to change civs. While changing civs will still likely be an option, I believe even allowing players the choice to play as a single civ all throughout the game is a massive, huge mistake. For starters, think of all the time and resources that could and should go toward improving the already existing (and subpar) religion, crisis and government mechanics. Also, this will mess with the core identity of the game. Civ 7 was sold to us as "history as built in layers". I think that is a great founding principle and one that sets Civ 7 apart from previous entries. I really appreciate the attempt here to make the ages, and thereby the game, more historical in its feel.
I fear that Firaxis is also caving and following what the crowd wants more than sticking to their original vision of the game. I believe Civ 7 has greatness in its bones but it needs devs with vision and the will to make it that way. Keeping the same civ, even the option to, is taking the game off its unique path and moving it into crowd pleasing territory. Hint: you can't please everybody, stick with what you know to be true and sharpen it.

 

[Siptah]

I basically agree with you. Yet, I think if there is a large crowd that wants to play San Marino in every game, it's fine to give them that. I don't think that the 3-age-evolving-civs base will go away because of that – simply because that's already there and new civs will be made to fit into this structure as well. I don't think that San Marino will take over as main way to play the game anytime soon.

But yes, civ 7 transitions and eras need work. And I fear that implementing San Marino in a non-trivial way takes resources from that task. Which is why I think it should be kept simple. Don't make 40+ civs new from scratch. No new units, civics, buildings, etc. Keep civs as they currently are in their era, and make 6 generic civs for the other ages, based on the "main" civ's attributes. So, if you want to play Songhai full game, you have the economic civ in Antiquity and Modern. It's of course still labeled Songhai and you have the respective city lists etc., but you get an economic civic tree in these ages, economic traditions, and no unique units.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think this thread needs to be merged with other threads on the topic.

 

[Maiq]

stick with what you know to be true and sharpen it.

The truth is that this was a failed experiment.

 

[Gori the Grey]

more historical in its feel

Playing Harriet Tubman of the Han-o-Songhai-Mexicans is arguably less historical in feel than playing America-in-4000-BC.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Playing Harriet Tubman of the Han-o-Songhai-Mexicans is arguably less historical in feel than playing America-in-4000-BC.

I think the existence of this comparison proves that it makes zero sense to judge Civilization games by how "historical" they are.

 

[Crashdummy]

I fear that Firaxis is also caving and following what the crowd wants more than sticking to their original vision of the game. I believe Civ 7 has greatness in its bones but it needs devs with vision and the will to make it that way. Keeping the same civ, even the option to, is taking the game off its unique path and moving it into crowd pleasing territory. Hint: you can't please everybody, stick with what you know to be true and sharpen it.

Their vision failed, hard. The game cannot be sustained with the amount of players that liked Civ switching. The game is getting wrecked not only by 1, but 2 earlier entries of the franchise and even after 6 months of constant improvements, numbers never really improved

I am sorry you think its a mistake, but you have to understand that civ switching players are just not enough to pay for a game like Civ 7

 

[tman2000]

I believe Civ 7 has greatness in its bones but it needs devs with vision and the will to make it that way.

This I find hard to believe.
However, the marketing necessity of letting you keep your civ is indisputable given that whatever 7 has ended up being, it's not great.

Also, letting you keep your civ can be implemented in a number of ways that changes little to the formula. For instance, just creating default civs.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I think the existence of this comparison proves that it makes zero sense to judge Civilization games by how "historical" they are.

I agree. I think of Civ as a "strategy game with historical flavoring." The word "flavoring" saves me from having to worry about any level of historical "accuracy" that is or isn't in the game.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I think the existence of this comparison proves that it makes zero sense to judge Civilization games by how "historical" they are.

It’s more of a flavour thing, what game designers used to call “chrome”

For such a a “Huge Mistake”, it seems to have served the previous 6 titles well

 

[disjointaccount]

I can't help but feel a little like all the talk of "vision" that's been cropping up is some kind of weird pivot in the criticism/backlash of the game now that the previous big complaint (civ-switching) has been addressed.

As someone who personally quite enjoys civ-switching, am I personally a little sad time that could be spent adding other stuff to the game is being spent on an option I probably won't use much? Sure. (Like, to be clear, I have a horse in this race. I'd rather have new civs or whatever than a one-civ mode.) But I have a very hard time being convinced anything that just gives players more choice isn't objectively good. i don't particularly buy into all the talk around "vision". I mean, in the sense there would have been a plan for what Civ 7 would look like as it was being conceived of and worked on, sure, but I really don't think this is the kind of thing where having, and sticking to, a very rigid creative vision the whole way through is particularly necessary or even beneficial.

Civ is the kind of game that was always going to naturally grow and change over time in response to player feedback (that sort of evolution is, imo - and assuming it's done right - one of the big advantages of games these days being able to be updated and devs having spaces to see what the community are saying. Anyone who was around for Silksong two months ago will know that devs making a point of adamantly sticking to a vision and having very little interaction with the community can definitely be a mixed bag, even for a more story-focused single-player game where that type of mentality probably goes further).

I'm open to whatever they cook up for one-civ playthroughs. At worst, I'll just keep enjoying switching, and at best, I'll find it adds some fresh new twist to the game and get a new mode to enjoy. Either way, the addition of a new option just adds value for players, and in this specific case, hopefully it'll mean new players who were previously put off get to have fun the game too, which, ultimately, is the point of games - something I feel people lose sight of in a lot of internet discourse.

 

[Brutus2]

"Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!"

I think the OP makes an excellent point and I think we have already seen a perfect example of it with the new continuous mode. It sounded like a good idea for all the people who didn't like the "reset" on transition (which really isn't as big a deal as people make it sound). However after playing with it awhile, I have gone back to just using the regroup mode. Allowing the player to pre-build a bunch of settlers, scouts and galleys and park them on each coast of your homeland so they are ready to immediately set out on turn 1 of Exploration age is such a huge advantage over the AI, it feels like cheating. It's like lowering the difficulty level without actually lowering the difficulty level. I guess that's good if you want to brag about how you can dominate on Deity level but personally I'm not looking for ways to put the AI at any more of a disadvantage than they already are.

Love it or hate it, the game was designed around civ switching and age transitions. As soon as you change that, you just break the game. If it makes the game more enjoyable for some people, and gets more people playing then I'm all for it. More options are always better than less options even if I will never use it myself but I do wonder if it will actually make the game better or more fun to play.

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

"Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!"

I think the OP makes an excellent point and I think we have already seen a perfect example of it with the new continuous mode. It sounded like a good idea for all the people who didn't like the "reset" on transition (which really isn't as big a deal as people make it sound). However after playing with it awhile, I have gone back to just using the regroup mode. Allowing the player to pre-build a bunch of settlers, scouts and galleys and park them on each coast of your homeland so they are ready to immediately set out on turn 1 of Exploration age is such a huge advantage over the AI, it feels like cheating. It's like lowering the difficulty level without actually lowering the difficulty level. I guess that's good if you want to brag about how you can dominate on Deity level but personally I'm not looking for ways to put the AI at any more of a disadvantage than they already are.

Love it or hate it, the game was designed around civ switching and age transitions. As soon as you change that, you just break the game. If it makes the game more enjoyable for some people, and gets more people playing then I'm all for it. More options are always better than less options even if I will never use it myself but I do wonder if it will actually make the game better or more fun to play.

Yes indeed. Civ 7 IS 3 ages and civ switching. Continuous mode simply messes with its core identity and will seriously mess it up. Devs should stick with their original vision and fix already existing underbaked features, like government, religion and crisis.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Yes indeed. Civ 7 IS 3 ages and civ switching. Continuous mode simply messes with its core identity and will seriously mess it up. Devs should stick with their original vision and fix already existing underbaked features, like government, religion and crisis.

I tend to agree with this, I understand why they are going in the direction they are but I worry they will end up annoying everyone! If they are going to make major changes to the core identitiy it might be better to wait for an expansion.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Keeping the same civ, even the option to, is taking the game off its unique path and moving it into crowd pleasing territory. Hint: you can't please everybody, stick with what you know to be true and sharpen it.

Setting these general phrases aside, can you please elaborate, what's your problem with adding more options to broaden the player base (which this game definitely needs)?

 

[Gorbles]

Setting these general phrases aside, can you please elaborate, what's your problem with adding more options to broaden the player base (which this game definitely needs)?

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.

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

Setting these general phrases aside, can you please elaborate, what's your problem with adding more options to broaden the player base (which this game definitely needs)?

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.

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

I remember in early 2012 and before, almost everyone was complaining about how horrible Civ 5 was. "Worst game ever made". We all know what happened: Civ 5 is now one of the most legendary strategy games of all time. I think people should remember the past more.

 

[GIO888]

I've been playing Civ in all its iterations since the first, in the early Nineties.

I don't play Civ VII yet because I can't play as one Civ (its a game!) from the beginning.

I know I'm part of a very large group of CivFanatics who haven't bought Civ VII yet simply because of the "Humankind" mistakes - borne out by how it has tanked, and badly.

Firaxis/Take2 have obviously listened and taken action - its very heartening and will probably save the game, allowing more future DLC and significant patches.

 

[Evie]

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.