Playing as a Continuous Civ- A HUGE Mistake

[McSpank01]

I care, in that I want to do it.

Who are you to tell me how the history I'm writing by playing the game should be written?

Exactly! Let’s all argue about whose ahistorical fantasy is better shall we?

 

[ColtSeavers]

I care, in that I want to do it.

Who are you to tell me how the history I'm writing by playing the game should be written?

Are you trying to misunderstand me on purpose? Nobody is taking away anything from you, this whole discussion ist about an additional OPTION to play the way we used to play before! Nothing more, nothing less!

 

[Snowchild]

Exactly! Let’s all argue about whose ahistorical fantasy is better shall we?

Probably the one that doesn't struggle to have more players than its 15 year old predessecor, that isn't sitting on mixed reviews, and didn't have to change a decades old tagline to justify itself but of course that's just my subjective opinion.

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

Probably the one that doesn't struggle to have more players than its 15 year old predessecor, that isn't sitting on mixed reviews, and didn't have to change a decades old tagline to justify itself but of course that's just my subjective opinion.

The Civ 5 that we know and love had many years of development, patches, DLC and mods. Civ 7 hasn't even been out for a year.

 

[Crashdummy]

I cant believe we are still discussing if Civ VII wold well or not based on the phantom console sales...

Even the 2k executive said Civ VII had a slow start but they were expecting to reach their goals in the long term. That meant is sold badly at launch, or at least worse than expected

Why we ares till discussing this i have no clue

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

Civ fans are passionate about their franchise. They don't call us Civfanatics for nothing!

 

[Crashdummy]

Probably the one that doesn't struggle to have more players than its 15 year old predessecor, that isn't sitting on mixed reviews, and didn't have to change a decades old tagline to justify itself but of course that's just my subjective opinion.

Is there any other franchise whose current game cant surpass 2 previous entries of the same franchise?

And if exist and i am missing it, is there anyone trying to claim such entry of such franchise is successful?

 

[Evolena]

In the end, I wonder if these endless arguments are not more boring than the actual game can ever be.

 

[reddishrecue]

I cant believe we are still discussing if Civ VII wold well or not based on the phantom console sales...

Even the 2k executive said Civ VII had a slow start but they were expecting to reach their goals in the long term. That meant is sold badly at launch, or at least worse than expected

Why we ares till discussing this i have no clue

Really? I actually have been noticing a few more people online. However I still feel like the game sort of snowballs still particularly in modern era.

 

[Crashdummy]

In the end, I wonder if these endless arguments are not more boring than the actual game can ever be.

Havent played Civ VII in months because i have it uninstalled, but its hard for me to think of anything more boring than Civ VII at launch

 

[Crashdummy]

Really? I actually have been noticing a few more people online. However I still feel like the game sort of snowballs still particularly in modern era.

Apparently 1.3.0 increased the player numbers (nothing huge, but noticeable) and its getting better reviews

That being said, it came with the announcement of them working on continous civs, so i guess everything could have impacted on the mood of the fans

 

[Evolena]

Havent played Civ VII in months because i have it uninstalled, but its hard for me to think of anything more boring than Civ VII at launch

Yet here we are.

 

[Crashdummy]

Yet here we are.

Its the last of the franchises from my youth that remains without Devs trashing it, i am willing to fight for it. It is likely to be in vain, but i will try

 

[Snowchild]

Is there any other franchise whose current game cant surpass 2 previous entries of the same franchise?

And if exist and i am missing it, is there anyone trying to claim such entry of such franchise is successful?

Age of Empires IV is the one that comes to mind, honestly not a bad game and I wouldn't call it a failure because I doubt Microsoft expected this third party reboot to outsell AOEII like 2K and Firaxis were banking on with VII.

 

[Niallism]

Are you trying to misunderstand me on purpose? Nobody is taking away anything from you, this whole discussion ist about an additional OPTION to play the way we used to play before! Nothing more, nothing less!

The OP said that they think it is a waste of work, time, and resources that could be spent on fixing current issues.

That has been repeated a few times in the thread.

 

[King Flevance]

I fully understand and support the concept of leaning into your intended design and not designing into 5 different directions. However, this product was also made to be profitable as it's primary purpose. And if the original design has fundamental problems in conflict with the primary purpose of the design, the logical step is to change the design - not lean into it. I do think there is a great game here at the core, civ switching aside. Plus, I will always believe it to be reality that this game was shoved out to market WAY before it was even finished being designed. And that detail really compounds and amplifies this dichotomy everyone is arguing.

Continuity mode gave me an option I was more comfortable with early on. Clearly some people hate it and even see it as cheating. Granted I would like something between regroup and continuity settings personally, but if Civ 7 was still "regroup only" I wouldn't enjoy it as much.

I believe you could lean into the original design of Civ 7 and make an awesome game. I also believe you can pull away from civ switching and make an awesome game in this design. I also think trying to do both is possible but harder and a lot more work. You will have to keep a lot of the core design intact. But there is a lot still needing fixed in the core design. It is possible to fix broken features with new design implementations. So both arguments hold merit.

Pulling that off... good luck, Firaxis!

 

[casulZ]

y cant we have both?

my initial PTSD on the reveal of "age transitions" was further consolidated by Sin Vegas review (Eurogamer i think), my rationale still is this agonizing trend of "friction" in (overall) game design ever since Soulslike became a genre (btw, i consider myself Soulsborne).

even (the long overdue) recruitment of Sucritact couldnt convince me to test (!) Civ VII, cuz the (personal) horror of age transitions. it is simply an absolute no-go for many - btw not exclusively emotional - reasons, which probably have been debated en detail ad infinitum.

for many of the civ-community empire continuity (NO AGE TRANSITIONS) is a not negotiable signature characteric, as sales, concurrents and reviews verify. my second impulse on the reveal of "age transitions" was the prognosis of a (in Civ terms) flop and the consequential u-turn to regain player attention - y wouldnt Firaxis, as the "visionaries" have already purchased...

overall the comeback of the "classic" mode will be healthy for the game for many, but especially economic reasons.

 

[MutilationWave]

If you're expecting classic mode or whatever it ends up being called to not have age transitions, I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised. Each age functions like a separate mod of the base game. The age transition is loading the next map, tech and civics trees, etc.

Now let's say you keep the same civ and everything is in the exact same place except for the resource changes. But you have to go to a loading screen. Is this truly unbearable?

 

[stealth_nsk]

I cant believe we are still discussing if Civ VII wold well or not based on the phantom console sales...

Calling them phantom is weird, because, you know, a lot of people play Civ7 on consoles (or EGS, it's also don't count for Steam stats). We could speculate about how many they are, but disregarding them completely is totally wrong. Even if we consider audience here and on Reddit representative (it aren't even if just for geographic reasons), that's still like 15% of players outside Steam.

Even the 2k executive said Civ VII had a slow start but they were expecting to reach their goals in the long term. That meant is sold badly at launch, or at least worse than expected

No, that means Civilization is sold within expectations, just close to the lower end of them.

Why we ares till discussing this i have no clue

Because arguments you consider winning are not actually that convincing, probably?

 

[Gorbles]

Are you trying to misunderstand me on purpose? Nobody is taking away anything from you, this whole discussion ist about an additional OPTION to play the way we used to play before! Nothing more, nothing less!

You were mocking Ed Beach's decision to make a change* that I personally enjoy because I get value out of it. If you were in charge, and not Ed Beach, this presumably wouldn't have been in the game at all.

Nothing about your post that I responded to was talking about an option. You were criticising the original inclusion of the thing.

*which is fair - no complaints on the mockery or general criticism!