The hate for Civ7 will end the series, if not soon then eventually

[stealth_nsk]

I don't think analyzing manager capabilities like this makes any sense. As a manager myself, I could say I constantly analyze my strength, weaknesses and performance, trying to fill the gaps either by self training or by relying on other team members in areas where I afraid I will not be the best fit.

The idea that Ed is bad at something just because he's good at something else (based on 15 year old data), or because he already worked on the games before, is quite wild. I don't think we could reasonably see internal processes of Firaxis.

 

[itix]

If that's the case, where would it leave us? If investment is still forthcoming, the logical thing would be for Firaxis to make Civ8 a lot like Civ6. Maybe introduce a few well-liked features from Civ7. Would that be successful? Maybe. By then they'd be a new generation of players who haven't played Civ6, so it'll be fresh to them. But then would happen for Civ9? Do the same song and dance?

Maybe it is just that this genre has been played to death.

 

[user746383]

These are all such great replies. I am more and more convinced that releasing a half-finished game (I think nobody really claims this wasn't the case?) at the same time as having grown tired of existing fans and wanting to find a new audience was a recipe for disaster, and has to to some extent speak to the competence of the people in charge. It's the worst of both worlds, losing the old at the same time as not being ready for your new audience, and I think fits neatly with the evidence we do have that at least for Steam concurrent users the level is somewhere around Brotato, getting dunked on by games like VPet and Cookie Clicker.

The best we've come up with is that maybe their strategy was to sell a lot of copies to fans on Steam who wouldn't like or play it as one last cash-in, but then not have very the new audience playing it either until at some future date when they put it on discount. In which case mission accomplished, but okay? Congrats to Ed Beech and the team I guess.

 

[Xur]

To be fair I only skimmed some that text, and skipped most of it because you are usually economical with the truth and unusually defensive regarding the game/company. I read the last sentence though, and I agree. I'm totally ok with no more civ games if this is what they want to deliver.

What if the Coca Cola company suddenly changed the recipe of Cola out of the blue because people liked the the sweeter taste of Pepsi? Well, they did in the 80s and it was a massive disaster that they corrected within months. They went back to the original recipe and they suddenly sold more Cola. That's what Firaxis has to do. Go back to the core, but improve it. Don't make an entirely different product. You don't have to (and can't) make a product that everyone likes. The Classic Coke made them popular like the old civ games made them popular.

In this case you like New Coke and I like Classic Coke. The equivalent argument in this case would be; If you don't like New Coke and stop saying you don't like it, we might never drink Coca Cola again. It's kinda silly, right?

I'm not saying it's a bad game. I'm just saying it's not a civ game to me. If they had called it Civilization Revolution 3, then it might have better reviews (because it would not sell as much as civ7). It's a juxtaposition of expectations. If Coca Cola company had called their new coke something else and didn't replace the old, then they would also be fine probably.

Defending a company that makes poor products is silly. Criticism is essential and not the reason why Firaxis won't (possibly) make more civ games. It's all in Firaxis' own hands wether or not they can or want to deliver a product that the majority of people want. It's not on us, the media or anyone else but Firaxis.

 

[user746383]

If you don't like New Coke and stop saying you don't like it, we might never drink Coca Cola again. It's kinda silly, right?

Definitely pretty silly when you put it that way, that's a pretty nice way to sum it up. Darn those change-fearing cola fans not liking New Coke enough and ruining everything!

 

[aelf]

I think quite a few people still don't understand. I get it. It's hard to take a step back from our personal feelings (well, if you simply didn't read, then tough). This is not about silencing criticism or whatever shallow idea is frequently tossed about. It's about the challenge of keeping an old and popular series fresh and, ultimately, alive. And how the response to Civ 7 shows it might become an impossible challenge.

The previous 6 games were commercial successes. This one appears that it is not. One of my many issues with your argument is that you seem to frame all changes as having the same weight. Clearly, they do not. The argument that "people just don't like change" is over-simplistic and fails to account for the previous success of the franchise.

Each one of those previous games had many changes from the previous iteration. So, when the hypothesis of your post is "people just don't like change and that's why they don't like Civ 7" that fails to address what happened with the series overall. If your hypothesis was true, the series would have failed long ago and we would never have gotten close to Civ 7 being a reality.

Did you read what I wrote? You didn't catch this the last time as well and accused me of some post-hoc rationalisation or whatever. The difference is 6 is way more popular. One of the main theses of the OP is success plants the seeds of failure because it's no longer as easy losing a chunk of your customers and win new ones in their place. And the things that people like about a popular product are sticky in more people's minds.

The Civ 6 2.0 point is a straw man. I haven't seen people calling for that and you use it here to frame those you disagree with as obstinate Luddites who seek to sabotage Civ 7. Instead, frequently people cite the things are more of an evolution (commanders, lack of workers, city/town system, unique civics, etc.) as the things they like, because those things are within the boundaries of what is acceptable for the franchise.

That's basically Civ 6 2.0. There's a spectrum, right? If you keep the main mechanics of a game and add or change some peripheral features, that can justifiably be called a 2.0 version.

1. I was constantly sitting on HoMM forums during HoMM4 development and I could say it's main problem was that it was based exactly on the things players asked for. Heroes presented on the battlefield was the most requested feature, but it became one of the most hated. I can't say what happened inside the company, but I believe it's just wrong approach to game design than the amount of changes.

But, as you say, a lot of the reactions after release were different. Maybe not that many people actually asked for it?

Anyway, I was talking about having fewer creature types from one town, which I know to be less contentiously something people disliked.

To which I have to add:

So what?

IF the entire Civ franchise goes up the spout because people didn't like Civ VII, then you can be sure that someone will come up with a successor, and very fast. Any set of games that has managed to define a genre - 4X Historical - for 30 years will NOT disappear without a trace. It will be Succeeded/Supplanted by something that attracts the gamer base better, and the series of Civish 4X Historical games that have sprung up in the last few years show that some Money People believe there is a market there, and so whether it is called 'Civilization' or not, the Civ-type of game is not going to disappear regardless of what happens with Civ VII.

Exactly. That's creative destruction.

I said it before, I wish good things for the series, but if it were to end, I'd be fine with that too. It's just a game. And I'd rather see them try to innovate than follow the exact same formulas just so we get Civ 10+. This is coming from someone who totally disliked 1UPT. I didn't like it, still don't see how it's necessarily better, but I recognise the need to keep tweaking the formula.

 

[AD1730]

These are all such great replies. I am more and more convinced that releasing a half-finished game (I think nobody really claims this wasn't the case?) at the same time as having grown tired of existing fans and wanting to find a new audience was a recipe for disaster, and has to to some extent speak to the competence of the people in charge. It's the worst of both worlds, losing the old at the same time as not being ready for your new audience, and I think fits neatly with the evidence we do have that at least for Steam concurrent users the level is somewhere around Brotato, getting dunked on by games like VPet and Cookie Clicker.

The best we've come up with is that maybe their strategy was to sell a lot of copies to fans on Steam who wouldn't like or play it as one last cash-in, but then not have very the new audience playing it either until at some future date when they put it on discount. In which case mission accomplished, but okay? Congrats to Ed Beech and the team I guess.

Yep. If you're going to do radical changes that alienate a large portion of your fans, you better have that game beyond reproach from a technical standpoint. In addition, the new pricing just adds further gasoline to the fire.

 

[stealth_nsk]

These are all such great replies. I am more and more convinced that releasing a half-finished game (I think nobody really claims this wasn't the case?) at the same time as having grown tired of existing fans and wanting to find a new audience was a recipe for disaster, and has to to some extent speak to the competence of the people in charge. It's the worst of both worlds, losing the old at the same time as not being ready for your new audience, and I think fits neatly with the evidence we do have that at least for Steam concurrent users the level is somewhere around Brotato, getting getting dunked on by games like VPet and Cookie Clicker.

I don't really agree with some points here:

1. "Not being ready for your new audience" is a questionable take. First, the majority of new audience don't buy game on release at full price, so they are yet to come. Second, they come without specific expectations, so the game which looks unfinished for Civ6 fan could look ok for someone who didn't play civ games before.

2. The state of game on release corresponds with the amount of changes. Only Valve and Blizzard have unlimited money flow to release games when they are ready, other companies have to set deadlines and limit resources, so the bigger changes are, the less polished the game will be. We've seen the same situation with Civ5. So, I wouldn't put it against Firaxis, providing their strategy was right.

The best we've come up with is that maybe their strategy was to sell a lot of copies to fans on Steam who wouldn't like or play it as one last cash-in, but then not have very the new audience playing it either until at some future date when they put it on discount. In which case mission accomplished, but okay? Congrats to Ed Beech and the team I guess.

I strongly disagree on the first part. Firaxis clearly communicated their goals and how they are going to achieve them. So, they clearly expected fans who buy the game to like it (and expected those who don't like to not buy it). It looks like underestimated loyalty of fanbase as even many people who complained about civilization switch, bought the game, continuing their compains in Steam reviews.

For the second part, that's normal rule of segmentation. You have smaller, but more profitable sales on higher paying segment and more sales with less profit each on lower paying segment.

 

[Serenya]

Are there other successful multiplayer games that take as long to play as a Civ game? That's what I've always thought has kept Civ multiplayer relatively minimal: you have to find X number of players (8 if you want to duplicate standard SP) who all agree to be present for longish stretches of time. Maybe groups that do it successfully just arrange to meet from 7-9 every evening, so all players just build it into their life schedule?

I suppose the age system might have been an attempt to address this. A particular group could agree to play just one age, and that would shorten the time commitment to which they all had to sign on.

It's always been fundamentally a single player game in my mind.

I played many many hours of V as team multiplayer with friends. We played Monday nights for three hours or so and just picked up the ongoing game each week. VI took a lot longer to get stable multiplayer so we didn’t end up playing it as much

 

[Ornen]

I don't think analyzing manager capabilities like this makes any sense. As a manager myself, I could say I constantly analyze my strength, weaknesses and performance, trying to fill the gaps either by self training or by relying on other team members in areas where I afraid I will not be the best fit.

The idea that Ed is bad at something just because he's good at something else (based on 15 year old data), or because he already worked on the games before, is quite wild. I don't think we could reasonably see internal processes of Firaxis.

my original point should not be taken personally against Ed Beach, I don't agree with his every instinct as a designer but Civ 6 was an improvement on Civ 5 in my book.

trying to pin this on Ed Beach as a designer or manager is missing my point, which is that the 'radical innovation' thing only works if you have someone bringing new ideas and a new philosophy to each new game — which doesn't work if you just have the same guy run it back three times in a row.

 

[AD1730]

That's basically Civ 6 2.0. There's a spectrum, right? If you keep the main mechanics of a game and add or change some peripheral features, that can justifiably be called a c,2.0 version.

No, this is a straw man. Your continued framing of anything that isn't a completely radical departure from franchise as "Civ 6 2.0" is ridiculous.

On your logic, Civ 4 is just Civ 1 2.0. No reasonable person would frame it that way, but that's what you're doing.

 

[stealth_nsk]

my original point should not be taken personally against Ed Beach, I don't agree with his every instinct as a designer but Civ 6 was an improvement on Civ 5 in my book.

trying to pin this on Ed Beach as a designer or manager is missing my point, which is that the 'radical innovation' thing only works if you have someone bringing new ideas and a new philosophy to each new game — which doesn't work if you just have the same guy run it back three times in a row.

Well, my point was exactly this. It's totally possible to bring new ideas under same leadership. Both because leaders themselves change and because in healthy companies most of ideas come from non-leader team members .

 

[user746383]

I believe it was possible to make a new Civ that existing fans don't think sucks and also innovates and moves the franchise forward. And that accidentally or on purpose losing your existing audience is a bit of a boneheaded move, and didn't have to happen. Other, smaller studios with less budget seem to be able to release innovative new iterations of games that fans love so it's not like once you've been successful once you're doomed to have your fans hate you and you need to get rid of them asap, and then grow your audience through putting your poorly reviewed game on discount. Though I would love to read a parody business strategy book someone wrote on that approach.

EDIT: okay, ChatGPT delivered in spades: https://chatgpt.com/share/680115b1-1824-8000-81b5-79da29c4a863. My favorite: '“I’d never pay full price for this. But for $4.99? Sure.” – Your new core demographic'

 

[stealth_nsk]

By the way, Firaxis never shied from innovation before and it's their approach for success. Civ5 was probably the first 4X game with strong tactical layer, while XCOM was reinvention of turn-based tactics when turn-based games were considered nearly dead. Both games ended up huge success and I think it was logical to expect big changes now.

 

[user746383]

I guess that's the core question here, if Firaxis never shied away from innovation before which I more or less agree with, how is Civ7 simultaneously proof that they never innovate and if they do fans hate it and will rather kill their franchise rather than appreciate it?

 

[kent77]

EDIT: okay, ChatGPT delivered in spades: https://chatgpt.com/share/680115b1-1824-8000-81b5-79da29c4a863. My favorite: '“I’d never pay full price for this. But for $4.99? Sure.” – Your new core demographic'

This is the first ChatGPT output I've read that actually made me laugh out loud.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I guess that's the core question here, if Firaxis never shied away from innovation before which I more or less agree with, how is Civ7 simultaneously proof that they never innovate and if they do fans hate it and will rather kill their franchise rather than appreciate it?

I don't see the problem here. Civ5 also brought hate from some of the fans. On this very forum, while discussing Civ7, many people still claim 1UpT was a mistake and Civ4 is the best game of series. All those things just naturally cause each other.

 

[user746383]

"Some people hate it" is way different than "permanently kills the franchise". The disconnect is between these two beliefs:

1. It's impossible to innovate on civ games because fans fear change and hate it and will kill the franchise
2. Previous versions of civ games innovated and most fans liked them and it didn't kill the franchise

 

[Ornen]

Well, my point was exactly this. It's totally possible to bring new ideas under same leadership. Both because leaders themselves change and because in healthy companies most of ideas come from non-leader team members .

okay, that's a separate point from the one I quoted. technically I don't disagree with you that it's "possible" to successfully bring in new ideas under the same leadership. but I don't think they've done so with Civ 7.

it is also possible that old leadership keeps iterating on old ideas and have failed to succesfully move the series forward. that is my point of view about Civ 7, as I articulated here:

I don't actually think Civ's radical changes sequel model works if you have the same person designing every Civ game. The first few civs have the benefit of having new lead designers like Brian Reynolds & Soren Johnson step in with fresh ideas and fresh takes.

it turns out you can't really achieve the same thing by having the same lead working two and a half games in a row. Beach's innovations at this point just feel like more Beach, and Civ 7 feels less like a step forward than the logical endpoint of Beach-ilization.

 

[stealth_nsk]

okay, that's a separate point from the one I quoted. technically I don't disagree with you that it's "possible" to successfully bring in new ideas under the same leadership. but I don't think they've done so with Civ 7.

it is also possible that old leadership keeps iterating on old ideas and have failed to succesfully move the series forward. that is my point of view about Civ 7.

I clearly see a lot of new ideas in Civ7, that's that this thread is about isn't it? People complain about too many changes, not too few