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

[AD1730]

No proofs so far.


No, I don't. I clearly focus on how different changes are.


I don't make this argument either.

And my response wasn’t targeted at you. So I’m not sure why you’re responding here?

 

[stealth_nsk]

And my response wasn’t targeted at you. So I’m not sure why you’re responding here?

Sorry. It didn't have any quotes and was located directly after my post, so I assumed it does.

 

[Krikkit1]

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.

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. Without certain expectations and limitations you don't have a franchise, you just have a name you slap on things to try to sell it.

Prior to this entry, any explanation of the Civilization franchise would have included that you play as the same civ throughout the game. It was a core feature and Firaxis chose to mess with it. Many fans reacted extremely negatively, making discussion of Civ 6's art style look like child's play. This was a predictable result to anyone with an understanding of Civ fans. Apparently, Firaxis lacks such an understanding.

And part of the problem is they had ways of mitigating that damage without altering mechanics. You still have American uniques in Modern, but your civ can be Rome (with American uniques)

So much opportunity for interesting narratives that could provide extra immersion wasted. The big problem was not enough time… if the UI had been done well and options to smooth the transitions with Narrative devices, they could probably have the exact same mechanics and get 60-70% favorable reviews instead of 50% and more playerbase.

 

[0urBall]

I think Firaxis were very clear about their focus on multiplayer, consoles and shorter games availability from the start

But was this a good idea? I mean, I know there's a vast multiplayer market in general, and across multiple platforms. But is/was there a vast multiplayer market of Civ, or Civ 6 specifically that felt left out or untapped by the previous Civ games?

 

[Noble Zarkon]

if the UI had been done well and options to smooth the transitions with Narrative devices, they could probably have the exact same mechanics and get 60-70% favorable reviews instead of 50% and more playerbase

Absolutely 100% agree, they had to nail these things and didn't.

 

[stealth_nsk]

But was this a good idea? I mean, I know there's a vast multiplayer market in general, and across multiple platforms. But is/was there a vast multiplayer market of Civ, or Civ 6 specifically that felt left out or untapped by the previous Civ games?

You never know, before you try. But 4X SP games market on PC is now heavily crowded, while for both consoles and MP competition is much less. If Firaxis had any research proving their aim, it could be a nice shot.

 

[coolhandluke11]

i dont think its hate i blame the era mechanics because it destroys unit momentum. If they want to fix it they need to leave units where there standing and just upgrade them.
i honestly think this game peaked at civ 5 as it had the right amount of tiles and takes only a few hours to complete. civ 6 snowflake map and four corners made that game playable but 7 and its 32/9 ratio map size is a joke. devs have a bit of work to put this game back into a playable mode but i wont be holding my breath for that.

 

[Gori the Grey]

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.

 

[stealth_nsk]

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.

Yes, exactly. Ability to play single age and "online" speed make MP games pretty fast and comparable with some RTS.

EDIT: Did some minimal research and looks like it's not there yet. Target time for Age of Empires multiplayer games is about 30 minutes. Marbozir playing Civ7 on online speed had about 2 hours per age videos, although with a lot of explanations and thoughts. Still 2 hours sound like more or less reasonable time for one-evening MP game.

 

[queenpea]

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 say: let them eat Fortnite!

 

[_hero_]

You never know, before you try. But 4X SP games market on PC is now heavily crowded, while for both consoles and MP competition is much less. If Firaxis had any research proving their aim, it could be a nice shot.

"The market's crowded, better target something else" is a wild strategy from the genre leader.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Still 2 hours sound like more or less reasonable time for one-evening MP game.

Yeah, that's not bad at all. That's less than you would invest in a game of Risk, say.

I guess I'm thinking of myself in single player. I take my time with every decision. Games take two weeks, even if I'm playing 2-3 hours per day.

 

[stealth_nsk]

"The market's crowded, better target something else" is a wild strategy from the genre leader.

But it doesn't leave current market either, just extend. Yes, extending that way weakens position on SP PC market, but Firaxis hoped for gain in the end.

P.S. Also, it's not a wild strategy. Actually when market leaders grasp on shrinking market hearing their customers requests, they very often lose. There's a book "The Innovator’s Dilemma" about it (and many following books and articles)

 

[itix]

Fallout 3 totally changed genre from previous games and it went really well, same with Dune 2 (although in its time there were no internet as we know it). Civ7 has much less changes than those two

There is an interesting development story behind Dune 1 and Dune 2

 

[AD1730]

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 agree. To me, multiplayer is sort of an add-on accessory to Civ. It's definitely nice to have, but it shouldn't be prioritized to the extent that it harms the single-player experience.

"The market's crowded, better target something else" is a wild strategy from the genre leader.

If this was their mentality, it's exactly what I see all the time in the film industry. They neglect or alienate the audience they have in an attempt to attract some other potential audience, all while hoping that the audience they have doesn't leave or get upset about it. It's a nonsensical strategy that has tanked numerous franchises, Star Trek and Star Wars perhaps the most prominent among them, and Marvel is far down the path of doing it too.

 

[Ornen]

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.

been meaning to make a whole thread about this, but haven't had the time (or really the interest in Civ lately). but I don't think the series has a real way forward with Beach at the helm, unless they want to turn it into a Super Smash Bros kinda thing we're they're making the same game just slightly better every few years

 

[Dedrytus]

Oh people like changes but not in core mechanics. How ended Sim City? What happened to The Settlers? Change is good if it improves product but wrong when you get sth completely different. Imagine Doom Racing or Mario Kombat I think fans will be disappointed.

 

[Ornen]

I also think the era changes are a fun idea, but I don't think they have much impact. you change civs but keep your empire and units, it's just a soft reset that takes about 1000 years of history out of the game.

no revolutions, no civ collapse, no upstart empires, etc. the things that would make this concept interesting just.... aren't in the game. this is supposed to be the game's biggest, most central innovation, but it's pretty half-ass if you ask me

 

[AD1730]

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.

been meaning to make a whole thread about this, but haven't had the time (or really the interest in Civ lately). but I don't think the series has a real way forward with Beach at the helm, unless they want to turn it into a Super Smash Bros kinda thing we're they're making the same game just slightly better every few years

I think it's possible that Beach might be more of a firefighter manager than someone who is fit to serve as a project overseer in normal times. By firefighter manager, I mean someone who is good at scrambling to save a struggling project or dealing with emergencies. There is no doubt that Civ V was rocky at first, and Beach is cited as the person who saved that game through its DLC. Perhaps that's the role he's better at?

 

[misesfan]

Ed Beach is good at iterating designs that have already been established - for example, he expanded the Great Campaigns of the Civil War series of boardgames, insofar as he didnt ruin the greatness of the original games. But that is a boardgame wargame which does not have a AI, UI/UX development is basically what can be published on 1/2" counters and a big static map, etc.. Video games have much more demanding specs and requires much more expertise in the space.

I dont hate Civ 7, I think its a poorly designed game, geared toward more mobile game deckbuilding mechanics vs deep, immersive strategic campaigns.