Playing One civ through the Ages

[Leucarum]

...Civ III and IV was well into the internet era, Leucarum.

I knew I was going to get nitpicked the moment I wrote that We definitely have significantly more ways to interact and express our connection online to a franchise now than we did during 3 and 4, no?

 

[Evie]

Other than the Steam review system, surprisingly few. Pretty much every social media you can think of (and YouTube and comment section) already existed when Civ IV released. What's changed, of course, is that by and large none of them had hit their exponential growth phase, so the mass of people on each of those services wasn't yet where it would be around the time Civ V released.

Which ultimately I suspect is where a lot of this shift happened - the growth of community naturally caused the number of what I might call "possessive" fans to grow, until it went from a tiny fringe of two or three curmudgeon easily ignored into a very visible vocal minority of a couple dozen voices actively involved in every discussion and reinforcing each other. The increased visibility helped normalize that kind of fandom-possessive reaction, making more people embrace it (to avoid getting drowned out by the louder voices, and because it's more emotionally satisfying, among other reasons). More people embracing it gave the possessive attitude in turn even more visibility, and normalized it even more, etc, etc, and, absent any measures to check that kind of possessiveness, it just became an accepted norm.

(and, because all those sites and communities were interrelated, even if one site DID take steps to check the possessiveness, it would continue spreading everywhere else and new members of that one site would still join with the exception that the posessive attitude toward your fandom was how things should be, leading to complaints about not being allowed to do that, etc, etc.).

In effect, a normalization critical mass, if you will.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Gori ; it's quite likely true that you, specifically, haven't engaged in the behavior I describe. Certainly your posts here have been measured and respectful. I'm not attempting to accuse you of doing wrong, I'm arguing with you as to the overall nature of the backlash, and its intensity, as a whole.

Got it. And thank you.

But maybe my position is in a third space, in between: "if this iteration's changes are not for me, I can just take a pass on it" and "Civ is X and X only; the designers have betrayed long-time fans by making it Y instead."

Rather it is, as a more general principle, "how can game designers strike the difficult balance @Evolena mentions between innovating sufficiently that the new game isn't #.2, on the one hand, and getting too far away from the winning formula, on the other?"

And if that is our focus, then I would claim that a long-running conception of the game's intrinsic nature (history as continuity) expressed in a long-appealing slogan ("build a civilization that can stand the test of time") might operate as a guide, i.e. marketing having a say in design.

 

[Leucarum]

Other than the Steam review system, surprisingly few. Pretty much every social media you can think of (and YouTube and comment section) already existed when Civ IV released. What's changed, of course, is that by and large none of them had hit their exponential growth phase, so the mass of people on each of those services wasn't yet where it would be around the time Civ V released.

Which ultimately I suspect is where a lot of this shift happened - the growth of community naturally caused the number of what I might call "possessive" fans to grow, until it went from a tiny fringe of two or three curmudgeon easily ignored into a very visible vocal minority of a couple dozen voices actively involved in every discussion and reinforcing each other. The increased visibility helped normalize that kind of fandom-possessive reaction, making more people embrace it (to avoid getting drowned out by the louder voices, and because it's more emotionally satisfying, among other reasons). More people embracing it gave the possessive attitude in turn even more visibility, and normalized it even more, etc, etc, and, absent any measures to check that kind of possessiveness, it just became an accepted norm.

(and, because all those sites and communities were interrelated, even if one site DID take steps to check the possessiveness, it would continue spreading everywhere else and new members of that one site would still join with the exception that the posessive attitude toward your fandom was how things should be, leading to complaints about not being allowed to do that, etc, etc.).

In effect, a normalization critical mass, if you will.

I'm happy to agree with that statement. I don't think it affects the point much? Expressing discontent is easier/more impactful recently.

 

[Evie]

I think the distinction between easier because we have more ways to do it and easier because it's been normalized and there is now a critical mass of negative voices reinforcing each other actually matter a lot.

One speaks to something that was always there, just not able to express itself due to lacking the means. The other speaks to a change in society and its norms that has made an attitude far more widespread than it used to be.

Gori - Ultimately, that, to me, is legitimizing the possessive identification even if you don't participate in it yourself. And while companies may well have to do it (and I won't hold it against them when they do), it's not a starting point for a discussion I'm interested in. Possessive identification is not something I wish to engage in legitimizing more than it already. It's an unhealthy way of forming a self-image that stifle creativity and innovation (and favors immobilism in representation of minorities, one might add), and should be denounced for what it is.

On a purely theoretical level, I am happy to discuss certain ways Civ VII could be changed to better accomodate the desire for a stronger identity game wise. The idea of having a stronger identity throughout the game is not some sort of anathema, and the game doesn't need to stay as it is! But when the discussion moves into the idea of what limitations the devs should or should not respect due to this fan possessiveness - I stop at that line.

 

[Gori the Grey]

New one and old one are actually part of the same slogan, look at 23:40

EDIT: The full version is "Build an empire to stand the test of time, build something wonderful, something powerful, something prosperous, build something you believe in"

P.S. It's like slogans built in layers

All I see at 23:40 is "Build something you believe in."

As for layering slogans, while that's a clever way to put it, and may well be what they were trying to pull off, if that is what they had in mind, it runs directly counter to sloganeering 101. Slogans should be as pithy an encapsulation of your appeal as you can make them. They should fit on a bumper sticker, as the first phrase and the last phrase each could, but the whole phrase could not.

Gori - Ultimately, that, to me, is legitimizing the possessive identification even if you don't participate in it yourself.

I would want to say that "trying to discern the most fundamental elements of a product" =/= "possessive identification." But we don't have to continue, if you find this kind of discussion fruitless. We've each sketched out our position with sufficient clarity.

 

[stealth_nsk]

All I see at 23:40 is "Build something you believe in."

It starts there, it's a long sequence

 

[Evie]

I mean, absent the implication that these fundamental elements cannot be changed, I actually agree that the possessive identification is not there.

We can attempt to discern the most fundamental elements of a product. We can certainly state what we ourselves identify as the most fundamental elements of a product.

We just shouldn't mistake our opinions on the topic for some binding obligation on the devs. More as a statement to what we think would make the game something...other to us

(And other doesn't mean bad: look no further than Baldur's Gate II and III - Real Time vs Turn Based, AD&D vs 5E, Wholly unrelated plotline - other than both being DnD games, they really have little in common, and it's very fair to call BG3 a successor in name only...but they're nonetheless both among the greatest computer RPGs ever made, and landmark games of their respective eras)

 

[Leucarum]

One speaks to something that was always there, just not able to express itself due to lacking the means. The other speaks to a change in society and its norms that has made an attitude far more widespread than it used to be.

That'a a whole new kettle of fish which I am honestly not sure I believe. I'd also humbly suggest it's beyond the scope of civ fanatics to prove or disprove.

 

[Evie]

I'd respond that I am not in the business of deciding what I do or believe on the basis of what you believe, or consider proven or disproven.

I hold that normalizing that kind of possessiveness is a bad thing that breeds more of it. So I'll act accordingly. You may or may not agree with my certainty on the matter. That's your right, not my business.

 

[Leucarum]

I'd respond that I am not in the business of deciding what arguments I should make on the basis of what you believe, or consider proven or disproven.

I hold that normalizing that kind of possessiveness is a bad thing that breeds more of it. So I'll act accordingly. You may or may not agree. That's not my business.

I'm ok with leaving it there too. No intention to strike a nerve. This feels like a nitpick that got expanded out of proportion.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I knew I was going to get nitpicked the moment I wrote that We definitely have significantly more ways to interact and express our connection online to a franchise now than we did during 3 and 4, no?

"pre-Social media era" is probably the more correct term.

 

[luca 83]

But that's why I phrased the point the way I did: that the slogan has proven effective at capturing the appeal that the game has for its players: "Yes, that I what I like about this game: that in it, I can build a civilization that stands the test of time." If with each iteration you are drawn to use that as your marketing pitch, it is because you have found your way to a slogan that pithily expresses the formula of your game. And it therefore should have some status within the design vision of any new iteration, and yes even a limiting effect on what experiments with the formula you sanction.

As the Civ 7 designers have found out the hard way.

If I say 99 44/100% pure, you know what soap brand I am describing, even if I don't name it. That was the thing that that soap put on offer that turned out to resonate with customers. Nobody at that soap company should say, "hey, let's start making a soap that lathers up well and try to sell that instead."

If you mean mechanics like a + b = it's too mechanical, automatic, artificial, mechanics that dominate over the culture of player choices, the environment, chance, definitely better than a DLC about pirates or adding another civilization just to please a minority, and about artificial intelligence, work still needs to be done.

 

[Crashdummy]

No questions here, that's why we have controversy about civilization switch feature. But if problem exists only in comparison with previous games of the franchise, doesn't it means the problem is not objective?

It means it "might" not be objectivbe

The fact that is hasnt worked well in other franchises give us hints that the problem might be bigger

But as in the examples i listed, there is a maximum amount of change to the way the game is played you can do to an established franchise before it crumbles because the franchise changed too much and doesnt feel like a game of such franchise

Im my opinion, that happened with Civ 7

 

[luca 83]

and much more important indrorure instead of pirates, civil war mechanisms as in civ 1 or religion as in, 4 political events diplomatic scenarios in ancient eta, modern contemporary e.g. cold gueera and collapse of communism Modern
contemporanea

 

[NowhereMan80]

Nice to see that they'll slowly acknowledge that the majority of people who buy Civilization want to play Civilization rather than some Civ-adjacent type game. In another year or so it will actually be worth playing because that's about the amount of time they'll take to fully implement a "normal" Civ type mode in it.

 

[luca 83]

Nice to see that they'll slowly acknowledge that the majority of people who buy Civilization want to play Civilization rather than some Civ-adjacent type game. In another year or so it will actually be worth playing because that's about the amount of time they'll take to fully implement a "normal" Civ type mode in it.

It could be, but there are big problems to solve: the lack of dynamic, political and social change that we have in time, an artificial intelligence that is still very low and that does not evaluate all the political and economic factors, but only single requests and does not have a global vision on multiple fronts.

 

[Folkesito]

Nice to see that they'll slowly acknowledge that the majority of people who buy Civilization want to play Civilization rather than some Civ-adjacent type game. In another year or so it will actually be worth playing because that's about the amount of time they'll take to fully implement a "normal" Civ type mode in it.

Agree with Civ-adjacent type of game. Had they called the game Civ <fill in your preference> like Civ Beyond Earth, I would have expected something else and might have judged it based on its own merits.

Now I have felt a little bit duped as I was comfortable enough to wishlist and prepay for this next installment in the franchise based on my experience from Civ III, IV, V, VI and then felt completely surprised (and disappointed) when Civ VII is not in that continuum, at least not in my subjective opinion. Maybe I should have given more attention to pre-launch discussions...

Glad they are addressing the civ switching, legacy paths etc. Look forward to a more Civ classic mode

 

[luca 83]

Agree with Civ-adjacent type of game. Had they called the game Civ <fill in your preference> like Civ Beyond Earth, I would have expected something else and might have judged it based on its own merits.

Now I have felt a little bit duped as I was comfortable enough to wishlist and prepay for this next installment in the franchise based on my experience from Civ III, IV, V, VI and then felt completely surprised (and disappointed) when Civ VII is not in that continuum, at least not in my subjective opinion. Maybe I should have given more attention to pre-launch discussions...

Glad they are addressing the civ switching, legacy paths etc. Look forward to a more Civ clas

They introduced the pirate mode without any narrative or mechanics explaining how such a government could come about! For example, a monarchy can be hereditary or by acclamation; if by acclamation, there can be power struggles, and even in a hereditary monarchy, there can be power struggles if there are multiple heirs or if a son claims his father's throne.