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

[tman2000]

To the OP, only one remark : I don't think Firaxis made changes for the sake of competition with other games :

I've read that the changes other than the big controversial ones (like no buildings, towns vs. cities) all come from one or two major competitive franchises.

It reminds me a lot of those videos about Bethesda GS and Emil Pagliorulo/Todd Howard. There was some speculation that Red Dead Redemption 2 came out at a point in Starfield's development where there was a hard sci-fi frontier/farming faction, and due to RDR's popularity, someone decided to "cowboy up" that faction. This speculative point was used to exemplify the impression that basically Bethesda's leadership was phoning it in. That Starfield was a totally original IP and that a lot of its content was pretty shallow plagiarizing, like, not inspired by, but just copy and pasted over without modifying it for context.

I just get really strong vibes that Civ 7 fell into this type of management death spiral. Like, greedy execs who are buddies with very rich management that have no incentive to work hard anymore, at a point in their life with families and other priorities. Maybe COVID had something to do with it. The WFH disruption seems to be part of Starfield's development stalling, maybe Civ 7 fell of its original track due to remnant COVID/WFH issues.

Either way, it really does feel like we got a minimum effort product. The concepts are half-baked, shallow. The new features seem plunked directly from competitors, like directly. They don't come together well. And then the UI being so terrible. And then how HMS Revenge wasn't even an original model.

The complaint with Starfield was that it felt like there was a team of maybe 15 people at BGS actually making the quests and the game proper, working 6 hour days, while the entire rest of the game was outsource to foreign game asset shops. Civ 7 feels a lot like that. Like, how many people actually are working on it right now that it's taking so long to get updates out?

In this forum alone, there have been a dozen excellent concepts for how to improve the religion system, for instance. Firaxis right now thinks they can go quiet, slowly work on token bullet point "we fixed that, we listened to you see, we listen, here look at the auto-explore, we're listening" and that will be enough to eventually keep charging $30 DLCs for a couple of short civic trees and a building or two? Like, they should have been fixing the religion system from day one of launch and patching in free updates to prove that they are serious about correcting whatever it was that went wrong in development.

The narrative right now is "I'll buy it in a year or two after the first expansion fixes it". That's all Firaxis has left in terms of goodwill for this game. They need to be trying to deliver.

The correct business decision is to implement free updates for the massively terrible features, to build and maintain goodwill going into expansions.

Instead they'll "address community concerns" with slow drip band-aids, then expect that we're going to fork over $45 for half-baked fixes to the bad game systems in the expansion. No, I'm not going to pay $45 for a non-crappy UI if it's gated as DLC.

 

[tman2000]

. Firaxis strategy, as we could see it,was a bit risky (although any strategy is risky in one way or another), but pretty solid and the plan was good. Execution wasn't perfect, but again

The execution wasn't imperfect, it was a total failure and insulting to fans. The plan couldn't possibly be called solid when the execution was this bad.

They don't even have a map larger than "standard".

This is not about conceptual design decisions and how that interacts with community expectations. The narrative is about an almost completely botched development and a failure of management.

 

[Trainwreck20]

So, if they renamed the maps 'small, medium, and large', that wold fix the map size issue?

 

[protocol7]

You really have to have your head in the sand to think there’s no evidence things are going poorly imho.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The execution wasn't imperfect, it was a total failure and insulting to fans. The plan couldn't possibly be called solid when the execution was this bad.

They don't even have a map larger than "standard".

This is not about conceptual design decisions and how that interacts with community expectations. The narrative is about an almost completely botched development and a failure of management.

Your example of map size is a perfect example of Civ7 complain, because it's purely subjective and totally based on previous civ experience (without which you wouldn't have any expectations for map size).

If you look at Civ7 on release through the eyes of new player, you'll see a totally playable and interesting game. And if you come to it as experienced player, but without prejudice, you could also totally enjoy it (while still noticing it's problems).

 

[SammyKhalifa]

And if you come to it as experienced player, but without prejudice, you could also totally enjoy it (while still noticing it's problems).

Like all of the other initial releases (which also didn't destroy everything). It's as if we haven't done this before.

 

[VGT]

Your example of map size is a perfect example of Civ7 complain, because it's purely subjective and totally based on previous civ experience (without which you wouldn't have any expectations for map size).

I don't get it. So it's wrong to have expectations when it's your 3rd, 4th entry into the franchise you liked? One of my strong complaints is to not ba able to play the game in similar way as before is lack of large map sizes so I would like to understand why this complain is me doing something wrong.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't get it. So it's wrong to have expectations when it's your 3rd, 4th entry into the franchise you liked? On of my strong complaints to not ba able to play the game in similar way is map size so I would like to understand why this complain is me doing something wrong.

It's not wrong to have expectations and it's totally ok to be upset if they aren't met. It's wrong to project your subjective feelings to all actual and potential players.

 

[Krikkit1]

The narrative right now is "I'll buy it in a year or two after the first expansion fixes it". That's all Firaxis has left in terms of goodwill for this game. They need to be trying to deliver.

The correct business decision is to implement free updates for the massively terrible features, to build and maintain goodwill going into expansions.

Instead they'll "address community concerns" with slow drip band-aids, then expect that we're going to fork over $45 for half-baked fixes to the bad game systems in the expansion. No, I'm not going to pay $45 for a non-crappy UI if it's gated as DLC.

First of all the first expansion has always been required to "Fix" civ games .. at least for 5 and 6.. expansions add or drastically change mechanics to give them a degree of proper depth and balance.

Things like UI and bugs, and minor mechanics/balances tweaks however have always been (and are so far being) fixed for 0$... the question is how much time it will take. (some bugs, etc. never get fixed)

 

[VGT]

It's not wrong to have expectations and it's totally ok to be upset if they aren't met. It's wrong to project your subjective feelings to all actual and potential players.

I'm on the fence to dismiss any argument by just picking that it's a projection to whole set of something/someones. Yes, in discussions we have issues with wording a lot, we often say "we", "all", "everyone", "always", "nobody". To be honest, I'm trying to read every post as if it started with "In my opinion...".

 

[tman2000]

Your example of map size is a perfect example of Civ7 complain, because it's purely subjective and totally based on previous civ experience (without which you wouldn't have any expectations for map size).

Sorry this is a very bad argument.

If I made Star Wars about dragons and knights and then someone complained that it wasn’t Star Wars, you couldn’t actually argue “well you only think it’s not Star Wars because you personally have a previous expectation that Star Wars has to be about space”

They named the middle sized map “small” for a reason. It’s because half of the entire scope of experience is left out. We’re not talking about huge or giant maps, just “large”.

Another way to put this is, if Civ 6 released as nothing other than online speed tiny map sizes and it was multiplayer matchmaking only, you couldn’t honestly argue “well you’re just unwilling to embrace change”

It’s not the change. It’s an incomplete game.

 

[tman2000]

It's not wrong to have expectations and it's totally ok to be upset if they aren't met. It's wrong to project your subjective feelings to all actual and potential players.

I mean, no one is stopping them from playing. The issue is that we’re observing that a lot of people are deciding they are unhappy with the game.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I mean, no one is stopping them from playing. The issue is that we’re observing that a lot of people are deciding they are unhappy with the game.

We're observing 1% of game owners on Steam leaving bad reviews and another 1% leaving good ones. The rest of the observations can't be counted.

 

[VGT]

We're observing 1% of game owners on Steam leaving bad reviews and another 1% leaving good ones. The rest of the observations can't be counted.

I would add to the count "civ 6 release day/weekend/week playercount subtract civ 7 release day/weekend/week playercount" (because we don't have access to actual sale numbers, this is next best thing). I'm in that category.

Not every person that was there from day one with civ6 and didn't purchase civ7 hates it (to not get into projecting mode), but in my opinion (see? ) it's most likely majority. Day one buyers are fans. One other option included in that count I can think of is migration to consoles, but I still don't buy that such PC centric franchise would have major drift of old fans in that direction.

 

[MutilationWave]

They've messed around with core features in most iterations since at least IV - 1UPT, hexes, unstacked cities etc etc. I still maintain 1UPT is the biggest single change the franchise has ever had and they still haven't fully worked out how to cope with the implications.

Agreed. I played with doomstacks and I think they were ridiculous. Commanders were a great addition and totally change the way combat works in a great way. I love that they shifted experience to the commanders instead of the units so you can go to war knowing that there will be casualties that won't cripple your military for the rest of the game.

As many things as I dislike or outright hate about 7, commanders are a fantastic choice that really helps with 1UPT.

 

[Trainwreck20]

While I initially did not like the changes much at all, I am starting to come around to it and my interest has definitely picked up. As mentioned above, the exp being on the commander and not the units is a good streamline change. On the other hand, I think I always take 'assault' (or whatever it is called) so I can swamp units in and out quickly and the AI can't seem to do that at all.

I also am not missing the builders or having to move my workers around (or repeatedly change focus). I found that very disconcerting originally, but as I am getting accustomed to the new mechanics, I have found it makes the game more relaxing to let all that go and focus on other things.

The 'Ages' concept I did not like, but I am getting used to. It is sort of 3 mini-games, it seems, but it does level the playing field somewhat, or seems to, so the end of the game is not a foregone conclusion so early.

I do wish natural disasters were somehow more streamlined. I have had cities where every turn, I start by repairing tiles. Every. Dang. Turn. Also, more of a UI thing, but it 'focuses' on every town after it grows, which is an annoyance. I will go to the town when I want, thank you very much.

Anyway, I did not write a review on steam, but my initial 'bad' feeling about the game has much improved.

 

[MutilationWave]

While I initially did not like the changes much at all, I am starting to come around to it and my interest has definitely picked up. As mentioned above, the exp being on the commander and not the units is a good streamline change. On the other hand, I think I always take 'assault' (or whatever it is called) so I can swamp units in and out quickly and the AI can't seem to do that at all.

I also am not missing the builders or having to move my workers around (or repeatedly change focus). I found that very disconcerting originally, but as I am getting accustomed to the new mechanics, I have found it makes the game more relaxing to let all that go and focus on other things.

The 'Ages' concept I did not like, but I am getting used to. It is sort of 3 mini-games, it seems, but it does level the playing field somewhat, or seems to, so the end of the game is not a foregone conclusion so early.

I do wish natural disasters were somehow more streamlined. I have had cities where every turn, I start by repairing tiles. Every. Dang. Turn. Also, more of a UI thing, but it 'focuses' on every town after it grows, which is an annoyance. I will go to the town when I want, thank you very much.

Anyway, I did not write a review on steam, but my initial 'bad' feeling about the game has much improved.

I take one of two promotion paths with almost every army commander. I take the ability you mentioned first, then the one that gives extra movement and ignore terrain restrictions when packed. Then do the assault tree (left if I'm using cavalry dominant civ, right if ranged dominant) and take the +5 CS commendation first every time. I take the extra range commendation second, every time, by filling out logistics, then fill out the left tree for my third commendation, the middle one. These are so minimally impactful I don't even know the names. Promotions could definitely be more interesting.

The only time this varies is as I approach the end of an antiquity I'm spamming army commanders and taking two in logistics to get to six units so I can bring more with me on age transition. If I've played well, I never build another army commander for the rest of the game. I do the same towards the end of exploration with naval commanders. And those always get promoted one of two paths just like army commanders. I enter modern with a massive navy and I've already won the military game. Modern sucks.

 

[The_J]

Whether you like Civ7 or not, you should entertain possibility that we're seeing the beginning of the end.

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.

It might be relevant here, because it'll definitely end this forum.
And we kinda don't like that... just saying.

 

[Civinator]

Only a thought: It can be, that here the frustration of civers about former versions of the Civ series, that were in the following version not improved by Firaxis as wished, is snowballing. There are civers who are unhappy with Civ 4, there are civers who are unhappy with Civ 5 and there are civers who are unhappy with Civ 6 (and so on). But they all find a common denominator for their frustration that their favourite version of the Civ series was not improved as wished:

To be unhappy with Civ 7.

 

[tman2000]

Only a thought: It can be, that here the frustration of civers about former versions of the Civ series, that were in the following version not improved by Firaxis as wished, is snowballing. There are civers who are unhappy with Civ 4, there are civers who are unhappy with Civ 5 and there are civers who are unhappy with Civ 6 (and so on). But they all find a common denominator for their frustration that their favourite version of the Civ series was not improved as wished:

To be unhappy with Civ 7.

Actually though something like that but a little different. We hear "well Civ V and Civ VI had poor launches then got better." As if that's an excuse for Civ VII to have a poor launch. Maybe it's actually a problem that V and VI launched poorly, and just because they snatched victory from the jaws of defeat doesn't mean this cycle of launch and repair is acceptable for the franchise, and now they've done the absolute worst launch ever with the least likelihood of improvement and maybe it's time we start thinking, "Gee, maybe they need to stop launching this way."

Civ IV: BTS was phenomenal, but Civ IV vanilla was quite decent as well. Civ VI didn't have a poor launch either. It's just that the district and adjacency system imposed problems that downgraded the franchise, but not terribly so, and then they added so many other features to make up for it. Civ V was a great game and was the only genuinely weak launch, but Civ VII is just a botched launch.