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

[VGT]

That's another thing we discussed here. You're talking about old fans, but they aren't and can't be primary focus. Old fans numbers, by definition, don't increase, they could decrease only. The grow is in gathering new fans and the question is how successfully Civ7 does this. And 2 of those arguments are in this context:
- Console players are audience which Civ7 clearly targets and we don't know how successfully
- New players rarely buy games on full price, they mostly do it on discounts. So buying patterns should be totally different from much more conservative Civ6 and somehow different from Civ5, which didn't target new audiences with its changes

Why are you going in circles as you yourself described with arguments that are irrelevant?

I jumped into discussion when you tried to dismiss this post:

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.

None of those arguments are relevant for argument "a lot of people are deciding they are unhappy with the game".

 

[stealth_nsk]

Why are you going in circles as you yourself described with arguments that are irrelevant?

I jumped into discussion when you tried to dismiss this post:


None of those arguments are relevant for argument "a lot of people are deciding they are unhappy with the game".

I think it was answered already. There are currently 15K negative reviews on Steam and 15K positive ones. I can't say that's "a lot", considering estimated Steam sales of 1M and that there are as many positive reviews as there are negative ones. Based on numbers I'd reformulate it into "there are some people who are very loud about being unhappy with the game".

 

[VGT]

I think it was answered already. There are currently 15K negative reviews on Steam and 15K positive ones. I can't say that's "a lot", considering estimated Steam sales of 1M and that there are as many positive reviews as there are negative ones. Based on numbers I'd reformulate it into "there are some people who are very loud about being unhappy with the game"

And I've added to that number another group of players which I am member of where I don't think I'm imaginary person and you exploded with going in circles about wrong arguments of game being successful or not. Why do I have to repeat myself.

 

[stealth_nsk]

And I've added to that number another group of players which I am member of where I don't think I'm imaginary person and you exploded with going in circles about wrong arguments of game being successful. Why do I have to repeat myself.

You mean group which don't buy game at all and thus don't leave a review? Sure. There are other groups, like people who are happy with the game, but didn't leave a review too.

Anyway, this thread is about whether Civ7 strategy will be a commercial success and both those arguments have nothing to do with this. Some number of unhappy people are an expected consequences of shifting focus of the game.

 

[user746383]

I think if your idea is reviews don’t matter unless they are approaching 100% of response rate, then you’d have to explain why that would be the case in general or specific to civ because that’s not my experience in anything else that has reviews. Maybe if there was 3 reviews or something, but once there’s 40k (https://steamdb.info/app/1295660/charts/#reviews) I don’t find them to be wildly different from reality.

But again, not really sure what that has to do with this thread in the first place which is mainly what I’m wondering. How do not enough review counts and accuracy mean toxic fans are or are not killing the franchise?

 

[VGT]

like people who are happy with the game, but didn't leave a review too.

Like every other game that exists.

Anyway, this thread is about whether Civ7 strategy will be a commercial success and both those arguments have nothing to do with this.

Then why did you trigger offtopic discussion by dismissing argument with irrelevant counterarguments.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Then why did you trigger offtopic discussion by dismissing argument with irrelevant counterarguments.

All my arguments are ontopic - about potential commercial success or failure of Civ7. It's not me who brought unhappiness of unmeasured number of people as counterargument.

 

[user746383]

I feel like I’m having a “but this one goes to 11” conversation.

 

[VGT]

I feel like I’m having a “but this one goes to 11” conversation.

I see no point in overloading. Will go back to "agree to disagree"

 

[Marla_Singer]

The real question is whether Civ7 is fun. And from what I've seen, many people don't think so. More precisely, they don't consider replaying it is fun, because the game grows too predictable, isn't really challenging, therefore losing much of its thrill.

For decades now, I noticed a tendency in Firaxis to blame "fans hatred" when new titles don't meet the expected commercial success. That was the case in 2008 with Civ Revolution, then again with Beyond Earth. From what I've gathered, Sid Meier has kept a certain distance from the fan community, often blaming them for pushing the series toward ever-greater complexity whereas he believes the games should stay within a narrower scope to remain accessible and fun to new players. As a side note, I don’t think that’s a real contradiction here: it’s entirely possible to design a game accessible at first, yet deep and complex for those who want to go further. There are many such examples in the industry.

Fundamentally, fans do care of the series. Their criticisms are largely constructive. Even those who regret that the series is no longer addressed to them should be listened to rather than despised as they still represent potential customers. As such, rather than "fans hatred", what I would fear more if I were Firaxis would be indifference. Outside fans circles, the game is hardly discussed any longer. If anything, fans are those keeping it alive and giving it a chance to be saved.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The real question is whether Civ7 is fun. And from what I've seen, many people don't think so. More precisely, they don't consider replaying it is fun, because the game grows too predictable, isn't really challenging, therefore losing much of its thrill.

I think having fun or not is subjective. I have 266 hours in Civ7 already (compared to 564 in Civ5 and 851 in Civ6) and I surely will play more. Moreover, with each patch Firaxis increases the game variety, so I can't say whether it's a big problem or not. Again, not enough data.

For decades now, I noticed a tendency in Firaxis to blame "fans hatred" when new titles don't meet the expected commercial success.

Do you have exact links? The only communication I remember from Firaxis is thanking their fans.

Fundamentally, fans do care of the series. Their criticisms are largely constructive. Even those who regret that the series is no longer addressed to them should be listened to rather than despised as they still represent potential customers. As such, rather than "fans hatred", what I would fear more if I were Firaxis would be indifference. Outside fans circles, the game is hardly discussed any longer. If anything, fans are those keeping it alive and giving it a chance to be saved.

Once again 2 points here:
1. Fans are not homogenous mass, some like the game, some don't. There is some more or less universally accepted criticism (like UI issues), but no major features are in this categories. There are as many fans praising ages as there are disliking it.
2. No product could survive on old fans alone. The main question now is how the game will be received by new people.

 

[Marla_Singer]

2. No product could survive on old fans alone. The main question now is how the game will be received by new people.

No product could survive on old fans alone, but what's the point about making a sequel if your intent is to ignore them? Why not making a different game with a different name instead? Because obviously you still count on them to buy the game and grow the success of the sequel out of them. We're talking here as if the concept of sequels in video games was something new, but it's been 50 years now that such games are being developed. The question isn't whether or not things should be changed (obviously good changes are welcomed and bad changes should be discarded), what matters in the end is how to make the gaming experience better.

 

[stealth_nsk]

No product could survive on old fans alone, but what's the point about making a sequel if your intent is to ignore them? Why not making a different game with a different name instead? Because obviously you still count on them to buy the game and grow the success of the sequel out of them. We're talking here as if the concept of sequels in video games was something new, but it's been 50 years now that such games are being developed. The question isn't whether or not things should be changed, but how making the gaming experience better.

Those are extreme points, reality is in between. No one is ignoring fans, and Firaxis made a lot of efforts to make the game interesting for them, but at the same time Firaxis had to reach new audiences and some of the choices made there alienate some of the old fans.

 

[queenpea]

Those are extreme points, reality is in between. No one is ignoring fans, and Firaxis made a lot of efforts to make the game interesting for them, but at the same time Firaxis had to reach new audiences and some of the choices made there alienate some of the old fans.

I’d like to hear more about this take. In your view, was VI not connecting with fans? I was under the impression that it was the most successful installation yet?

On reaching new audiences, how does VII succeed here in your opinion? Or, if it doesn’t succeed, what was the strategy (outside of a multi-platform launch).

I guess I would say that Civ switching was the banner mechanic advertised in Civ VII marketing leading up to launch. It was a little baffling to me because faction switching is not a popular mechanic, or even a highly requested one, in 4x or historical grand strategy games in 2025.

 

[user746383]

Firaxis had to reach new audiences and some of the choices made there alienate some of the old fans.

The part I'm missing is how we get from an obviously simple and true statement like "some people won't like some changes" to "the hate for Civ7 will end the series, if not soon then eventually" or what even the former has to do with the latter.

EDIT: you know what, agree to disagree was right. Serenity now.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The part I'm missing is how we get from an obviously simple and true statement like "some people won't like the new version" to "the hate for Civ7 will end the series, if not soon then eventually" or what even the former has to do with the latter.

I think the question is not to me. I don't understand that jump as well.

I’d like to hear more about this take. In your view, was VI not connecting with fans? I was under the impression that it was the most successful installation yet?

Civ6 was build within fan expectations and it worked because it was only 6 years after Civ5 revolutionary update and 3 years after last Civ5 expansion pack. You could build games on existing fan base for some time, just not that long.

Thinking about it, it looks like Civ as franchise starts using the strategy of iterating between revolutionary and evolutionary versions. Which, in the ling run is quite good.

On reaching new audiences, how does VII succeed here in your opinion? Or, if it doesn’t succeed, what was the strategy (outside of a multi-platform launch).

Based on that Firaxis said, I see 3 partially overlapping audiences. Console players, multiplayer players and just next generation who prefer shorter games.

For the first part, the information already exists, but looks like it's not public. The only two articles we have give quite contradictory info. And for the rest of new audience we have zero info, because they'll mostly buy the game on discounts.

I guess I would say that Civ switching was the banner mechanic advertised in Civ VII marketing leading up to launch. It was a little baffling to me because faction switching is not a popular mechanic, or even a highly requested one, in 4x or historical grand strategy games in 2025.

It's necessary for 2 segments of new audience out of 3. It's needed both for short games in general and for short games in multiplayer. It also is connected with better balanced civs, which, again is part of the multiplayer focus. All this was communicated in a pretty clear way.

Also, unstated, but very likely goal was to warn players to whom civ switching would be a show stopper and save them from disappointment. This seem to not work as expected, though, as we see a lot of people still bought the game and complained about ages in Steam reviews.

 

[tman2000]

Those are extreme points, reality is in between. No one is ignoring fans, and Firaxis made a lot of efforts to make the game interesting for them, but at the same time Firaxis had to reach new audiences and some of the choices made there alienate some of the old fans.

But this ignores a point that’s been made in this thread over and over that it’s not merely fear of change but rather that the game came out and is underbaked and repetitive and poorly designed that’s causing a loss of interest since launch.

You sound weirdly invested in Firaxis’s success.

 

[tman2000]

Based on that Firaxis said, I see 3 partially overlapping audiences. Console players, multiplayer players and just next generation who prefer shorter

It's necessary for 2 segments of new audience out of 3. It's needed both for short games in general and for short games in multiplayer. It also is connected with better balanced civs, which, again is part of the multiplayer focus. All this was communicated in a pretty clear way.

This is not what I would call clearly communicated. It’s oddly specific knowledge of business strategy.

I’m tired of triple A execs thinking that all video games have to be GTA online or Fortnite. I don’t know what’s going on with Wall Street that this requirement has been imposed on gaming. Civ would have had an audience and made money. It was never going to be Call of Duty

Thanks for revealing to us though that Civ 7 was ruined because it was designed to be a multiplayer console game for short attention span young people.

Oops looks like a turn based strategy game about history didn’t capture that audience

 

[stealth_nsk]

But this ignores a point that’s been made in this thread over and over that it’s not merely fear of change

I never said anything about fear of change. I'm mostly talking about different player segments and how strategy approaches them.

but rather that the game came out and is underbaked and repetitive and poorly designed that’s causing a loss of interest since launch.

All things about game being not interesting are subjective. Some people dislike it, but others put hundreds of hours there and want to play more.

Some game criticism is widely accepted, but it's mostly about UI. Core game features have as many fans as haters.

Finally, the point about loss of interest is incorrect as well, because tendencies in loss (and regaining on updates) are standard for all and every other game. Civ7 doesn't show anything extraordinary here.

You sound weirdly invested in Firaxis’s success.

Nope. All I'm saying over and over again is that we don't have information whether Civ7 will be a success or not, because metrics we have don't touch the key points yet.

 

[tman2000]

I never said anything about fear of change. I'm mostly talking about different player segments and how strategy approaches them.


All things about game being not interesting are subjective. Some people dislike it, but others put hundreds of hours there and want to play more.

Some game criticism is widely accepted, but it's mostly about UI. Core game features have as many fans as haters.

Finally, the point about loss of interest is incorrect as well, because tendencies in loss (and regaining on updates) are standard for all and every other game. Civ7 doesn't show anything extraordinary here.


Nope. All I'm saying over and over again is that we don't have information whether Civ7 will be a success or not, because metrics we have don't touch the key points yet.

You said that accommodations for new audiences might alienate old fans, that’s unhappiness with change. We’re not unhappy with change we’re upset over an unfinished garbage UI and terrible insulting features like the modern age cultural victory.

Some of this isn’t that subjective. It’s true that low hours of play, casual players might think well of the game as a pretty distraction and people who want a strategy game would be disappointed and you can call that subjective preference, but objectively judging the game as a strategy game, it falls short. You can objectively argue that there’s little meaningful choice or trade offs when placing buildings or growing towns. That’s objective.

Again your argument is that there’s this secret massive console base of new casual fans that will give the game massive success. Beyond wishful thinking, this is also indicative of just contempt for the former core audience.