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

[aelf]

HOMM made it to like 7. I wouldn't say that caused the series to end. I actually enjoyed the later games too. Shame it ended.

I forgot to address this. Of course, I didn't say that HoMM4 ended the series. It didn't. There was this whole thing about a big company (Ubisoft) getting the rights and continuing the series - some might say trying to cash in on the name.

On the other hand, fans of the old series might say that those aren't true successors (just Google around; easy to find), so to them, the series did end with or soon after 4.

If the same fate happens to Civ (if it's 'lucky' enough to have a new owner), what I said in the OP would still be true. A zombie series, a corpse forced to go on living, is still dead, so to speak

 

[Gori the Grey]

They did this already

Civilization: Eras & Allies

eras-and-allies-civilization.2k.com

I went and watched a YouTube Walkthrough.

How's that selling, I wonder.

Because if it's selling well, then we know where the franchise is headed.

 

[kaspergm]

I forgot to address this. Of course, I didn't say that HoMM4 ended the series. It didn't. There was this whole thing about a big company (Ubisoft) getting the rights and continuing the series - some might say trying to cash in on the name.

On the other hand, fans of the old series might say that those aren't true successors (just Google around; easy to find), so to them, the series did end with or soon after 4.

At the risk of turning this into a Heroes discussion, was that really a widespread opinion, though? I mean, in the circles I frequented, Heroes 5 was held in very high regard, I would even go so far as saying it was about an inch from being the best of the series.

And while we are on the not-addressed comments in that line, I don't agree completely with the picture you paint of Heroes 4. I don't think it's correct to say that it was a good evolution of the series that just got scorned by fans who didn't like the change (I maybe be paraphrasing you wrong here, but bear with me). I think Heroes 4 was arguably a step back compared to Heroes 3 on most if not all parameters of the game: The graphics - or at least the art style - was but-uggly and lacked all the charm of Heroes 2 and 3, the factions were a mess, the lack of unit upgrades was at least as big a step backwards as the alternative units was a step forward (and I would argue a bigger step backwards, given that most of the "choices" between alternates were really non-choices in 95 % of the situations), the combat map without proper grid was impossible to navigate and completely killed the strategic elements of the game, and the heroes fighting in the armies was just a horrible idea (I do not know if you are right that this idea was promoted by the fans, but I know for sure it worked horribly in practice).

But in order to attempt to turn this back to a Civ7 discussion, I was wondering: Are there any prominent streamers who have expressed an explicit and unconditioned love for Civ7? (Honest question - I'm not a huge game streamer watcher, I've seen some videos from Marbozir and occasionally watch a bit of Potato, and neither of them seem particularly enamored with the game.)

 

[queenpea]

I went and watched a YouTube Walkthrough.

How's that selling, I wonder.

Because if it's selling well, then we know where the franchise is headed.

I don’t know if it was even released or if it’s still under development. I don’t know a lot about it, but I do see a lot of ads for it on Instagram.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I don't know about any streamers that just praise it unconditionally either

I do know spiffing Brit has done some Civ VI videos with 4mil+ views. I also know he has done 3 Civ VII videos and only 1 has managed to break 1mil views.

 

[tman2000]

I don't know about any streamers that just praise it unconditionally either

I do know spiffing Brit has done some Civ VI videos with 4mil+ views. I also know he has done 3 Civ VII videos and only 1 has managed to break 1mil views.

Spiff hasn’t even done a British playthrough AFAIK

One vid he split in two to show off two “exploits” in the form of straight up bugs. He didn’t even use them in the same game and didn’t even use them to win or anything.

 

[MutilationWave]

We decimated the mammoths.

Did the other 90% fall in line or revolt?

Yeah yeah I know the meaning of the word has changed but this IS a civilization forum.

 

[tman2000]

Did the other 90% fall in line or revolt?

Yeah yeah I know the meaning of the word has changed but this IS a civilization forum.

I recently watched Graham Hancock and at white sands there’s footprints showing humans and great game co-existed for thousands of years. It was probably the comet and drastic climate change that got the mammoth, perhaps humans finishing the job

 

[Haig]

But Civ 6 already copied and modified Endless Legend's core mechanic.
And Civ 7 likewise copied and modified Humankind mechanics and ideas.

Firaxis could literally start sending mails saying "Gesundheit" whenever someone in Bercy sneezes.

If you talk about districts, they were done way before than Humankind: In Civ 4 Fall from Heaven mod.

Civ 7 started.developement 2020 so they probably designed the civ-switching way before HK.

I'd say that Amplitude owes a LOT more to Firaxis than vice versa.

 

[Naokaukodem]

My point is that great changes happen from necessity. If we are not still in caves hunting mammoths, it's because they disappeared, to take this parabola again. If the agricultural revolution happened, it's because there was no room for everybody anymore with a nomad way of life.
If Civ7 came out, it's because Civ6 sells fall was expected. Civ7 sells fall is also expected, hence the future expansions releases and Civ8.
Not to mention the other side of the view : demand : novelty always sold things, and it's kinda contradictory with some people opinion here. But maybe too much novelty kills novelty ? I don't think so. If there's no grain of sand, nothing can stop novelty to rule the markets.
I just think there's a grain of sand.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

Civ VII is a good game. Is it better than Civ V or Civ VI? Is it worse? Idk. But it's a good game.



I mean, yeah, this is the thing. It's obvious from reading criticism that there are a lot of people out there who hate the idea of civ-switching and were simply never going to be ok with it. Many "critiques" of the game don't really make sense and come off as flimsy justifications from people who essentially decided ahead of time that they weren't going to like it.

It sucks that there are so many people out there who are too set on hating change to see the game for what it is. I don't know how many of them will eventually give in and actually give the game a real chance. But I expect that Civ VII will find its audience one way or another, simply because it is in fact a good and fun game.

The largest issue is actually the age resets - not the Civ switching

 

[MutilationWave]

The largest issue is actually the age resets - not the Civ switching

Everyone has their own opinion on what's worst. Many people share yours. For me it's obfuscation of important information, removed necessary functionality like the wait key that would have been trivial to add, and unfinished jank like city connections.

I'm not trying to PC master race here, but it's clear the game was simplified for consoles and released unfinished because they had to split focus between the console releases and PC. So we get dumb things like we're out of buttons on the controller, so no more things you can do. PC is different and should have more keys.

I still like the game. I play it way too much. My wife is disturbed. If there was a simple as can be wait key it would seriously decrease my hate of modern. There's even an option to turn off auto unit switching, and it doesn't even work! It literally does nothing. Fixing that would be almost as good as a wait key.

 

[Core Imposter]

Everything we think we know about games like Civ will be wiped out in three or four years when the new wave of games that will capitalize on AI advances arrive. Game worlds are going to be bigger and much more complex. We are going to spend a lot more time and more money and have more fun than ever.

 

[kaspergm]

The largest issue is actually the age resets - not the Civ switching

I actually don’t agree completely with this. You may be right from a gameplay perspective, but the problems with the age resets was not what turned me away from even buying the game in the first place (although the negative reception of that feature has only proven me right).

What turned me away from the game was not so much the Civ switching itself, but rather a feature that is a (necessary?) consequence of that feature, and that is the mix-and-match of leaders and civs combined with the ahistorical leaders. The fact that you can have Benjamin Franklin leading the Ancient Greece or Confuzie leading the Mayas just completely kills immersion for me. No matter how I try to twist or turn this in my head, it just completely goes against what is the spirit of the game for me. Of course, that the game itself sounds rather unfun and poorly executed does not make me want to reevaluate my decision.

 

[Isca Dumnoniorum]

What turned me away from the game was not so much the Civ switching itself, but rather a feature that is a (necessary?) consequence of that feature, and that is the mix-and-match of leaders and civs combined with the ahistorical leaders. The fact that you can have Benjamin Franklin leading the Ancient Greece or Confuzie leading the Mayas just completely kills immersion for me.

On this point specifically, one of the background things that adds to the disconnect for me is how some of the leaders have inherited the Civ VI (and older) jerseys of their historical civs. So Augustus is purple and yellow, which works fine while he’s playing as Rome but if he ends up as say Meiji Japan, I can’t help but do a double double-take; once for the civ and once for the off colours.

Other examples off the top of my head are Himiko being white and red, Catherine being yellow and black and Ashoka being purple and aqua. If there’s some logic there, I don’t know why Machiavelli is Greece’s old light blue and white. It’s also strange because the game wants us to sever the connection between leader and civ but then perpetuates a jersey system will link the two in legacy players’ minds.

 

[Disgustipated]

The largest issue is actually the age resets - not the Civ switching

This is my take as well. I enjoy the game, but as mentioned above about streamers, I'm not enamored by it. I think back to some of my Civ 6 games where I could mess around and focus on side goals and still have a lot of fun. I even tried to win a culture victory (this was back in rise and fall days before rock bands) using only unique improvements. I came close, but couldn't quite get there on a King level game. Or with Mali (and later Portugal since Portugal blows Mali out of the water) trying to make as much gold as possible. Can't really do that in Civ 7 with the resets. I mean you will make a lot of gold in modern age regardless, and yeah some of your gold making ability does carry over, but so much resets on the transition, it makes building up certain things rather pointless. It just doesn't have the sandbox feel of Civ 6. It's like I'm playing the game their way rather than my way.

Civ switching isn't bad, but is a bit clunky. I don't see how it can work well without at least 3 times the number of civs.

TLDR, I just want to play the game my way, not their way.

 

[aelf]

At the risk of turning this into a Heroes discussion, was that really a widespread opinion, though? I mean, in the circles I frequented, Heroes 5 was held in very high regard, I would even go so far as saying it was about an inch from being the best of the series.

At the time, that was the impression I got. And when I look around now, it seems the narrative is still there and rises to the surface of a cursory search.

And while we are on the not-addressed comments in that line, I don't agree completely with the picture you paint of Heroes 4. I don't think it's correct to say that it was a good evolution of the series that just got scorned by fans who didn't like the change (I maybe be paraphrasing you wrong here, but bear with me). I think Heroes 4 was arguably a step back compared to Heroes 3 on most if not all parameters of the game: The graphics - or at least the art style - was but-uggly and lacked all the charm of Heroes 2 and 3, the factions were a mess, the lack of unit upgrades was at least as big a step backwards as the alternative units was a step forward (and I would argue a bigger step backwards, given that most of the "choices" between alternates were really non-choices in 95 % of the situations), the combat map without proper grid was impossible to navigate and completely killed the strategic elements of the game, and the heroes fighting in the armies was just a horrible idea (I do not know if you are right that this idea was promoted by the fans, but I know for sure it worked horribly in practice).

I mean, that's your opinion. And if you didn't like the game, of course you'd probably think that it's not good. Yes, it was hardly perfect, but chances are, execution isn't going to be perfect. If people dislike certain changes, flawed execution is something easy that they can point to and lump together with their personal dislikes to call it a bad product.

Anyway, as I said, it's difficult to take a step back from our own personal likes/dislikes. But, I repeat, regardless of what you think of Civ7, the process I outlined will happen. Player reaction will likely scare Firaxis into being more conservative the next time round (if it doesn't scare away the money), which would please a lot of old fans at first. But at some point, this will open the series up to being replaced by less-constrained rivals.

I guess there will always be a market for familiar formulas, but the series won't have staying power as a popular franchise if they stop innovating and it will have to be scaled down a lot.

 

[user746383]

If they make good, innovative games I’ll keep playing them. Just like I do other franchises. If they continue to undercook it and try to figure out the minimum effort for maximum cash in on goodwill, and the “innovation” is half baked buggy features, missing civopedia entries, and UI that doesnt work or show relevant information, then I won’t. For me at least it’s pretty simple. Other franchises seem to show care in the product, so I’m not worried 4X is gone forever even if Firaxis can’t seem to take their heads out of their nether regions.

 

[aelf]

I think this thread itself has amply shown that "good" is a quality that's hard to pin down. To some, certain changes will never be good. Earlier, someone tried to isolate the issue to ages and civ-switching, only for some others to say that they hate leader/civ mixing and matching the most.

It doesn't really matter who thinks what in particular. The aggregate response is what will drive the future direction of the series.

 

[user746383]

They should at least aim for “working” and then they can have a hope to try to figure out what good is. For all I know I love the new systems if they worked well, were documented in the civilopedia, and the ui supported them. I’m quite certain I’m not the only person who thinks their lack of care and craftsmanship gets in the way of their vision.