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

[0urBall]

And maybe this is the ultimate problem that Firaxis have created; in that it's not just Civ 7 imo that has been released initally in what some might described an "unfinished" state. I've never played 5, but definitely with Civ 6 I got Vanilla late in the cycle (2020), then quickly bought the DLCs/expansions to have the "full" version of the game which is a much better gaming experience. So, aside from the specifics of what makes Civ 7 unique/different to previous versions, maybe what could "end the series" is people losing the will to pay (more?) for a game that is only really finished years after its initial release?

 

[Civinator]

At the risk of turning this into a Heroes discussion

You can also make a Master of Orion 3 discussion out of it.

 

[aelf]

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.

The thing is I don't think they set off to make a flawed game. I doubt anyone does. And I think it's sufficiently clear that the issue isn't simply about the lack of polish or bugginess, not according to the evidence.

So the studio's takeaway isn't going to be simply "Let's not screw it up the next time," because that's not a strategy. As I said, no one probably intends to screw up. The takeaway, looking at the aggregate response will be, "Let's be conservative next time." That way, if there are any screw ups, they're more likely to be forgiven for them anyway.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

The thing is I don't think they set off to make a flawed game. I doubt anyone does. And I think it's sufficiently clear that the issue isn't simply about the lack of polish or bugginess, not according to the evidence.

So the studio's takeaway isn't going to be simply "Let's not screw it up the next time," because that's not a strategy. As I said, no one probably intends to screw up. The takeaway, looking at the aggregate response will be, "Let's be conservative next time." That way, if there are any screw ups, they're more likely to be forgiven for them anyway.

This doesn't hold up to your own logic though. You aren't the only person in the world to realise you can't sell the same game again full price.

They just haven't got the change right this time. As long as there aren't idiots making decisions, I'm not worried anyone's conclusion with the abundance of evidence on this forum alone is going to be "we should be really conservative". Everyone who has criticised Civ VII on this thread has acknowledged they've managed to make 6 successful and well received games before this one.

 

[aelf]

Sorry, but none of that makes sense to me.

This doesn't hold up to your own logic though. You aren't the only person in the world to realise you can't sell the same game again full price.

Reads like a non-sequitur. The second sentence has no apparent relation to the first, so I don't understand the point you're trying to make at all.

They just haven't got the change right this time. As long as there aren't idiots making decisions, I'm not worried anyone's conclusion with the abundance of evidence on this forum alone is going to be "we should be really conservative". Everyone who has criticised Civ VII on this thread has acknowledged they've managed to make 6 successful and well received games before this one.

Seems like it's just an assertion and I think completely ignores the change in stakes as laid out in the OP.

Or maybe you're saying that because Firaxis succeeded in the past, they won't fail in the future if they do everything right. Which is saying nothing.

 

[user746383]

Maybe the lesson should be don’t ship an unfinished game, people don’t put up with it any more? That feels like a positive choice and coherent strategy. Or, maybe embrace shipping an unfinished game and do an early access strategy. But not “charge for finished but ship unfinished.”

 

[queenpea]

Maybe the lesson should be don’t ship an unfinished game, people don’t put up with it any more? That feels like a positive choice and coherent strategy. Or, maybe embrace shipping an unfinished game and do an early access strategy. But not “charge for finished but ship unfinished.”

Consumer standards have never been higher, and we have never had more outlets to express our opinions (this forum, social media, steam, etc., etc.). Quality needs to meet the moment or risk public scorn.

 

[aelf]

That feels like a positive choice and coherent strategy.

As much as "don't make mistakes" is a strategy.

 

[user746383]

My brother in Christ I work in the video game industry. Choosing not to ship before a game is ready is definitely a thing that exists and isn’t a fantasy created by angry change-fearing fans. As evidenced by all the examples of games around us that didn’t ship before they were ready, or used early access to build the game with their customers honestly.

I mean shipping unfinished games because you know the fans are suckers is a strategy too.. I was at EA for a while, believe me I know. Its a bad strategy that doesn’t really work any more, but maybe Firaxis never got the memo.

 

[Xur]

To be fair to Firaxis, any talk about a rushed release date is down to 2K. I doubt Firaxis has much say in the end. In a way Firaxis has only 1 customer and that is 2K, the owner and publisher.

It doesn't matter to me if they had 2 more years and if the UI was perfect. I'm not interested in this version.

 

[Yzman]

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

I actually think it would be really interesting if something like the following would happen instead of how it is currently

You start as the Maya. During the game, you settle 3 coastal settlements. At some point you get a message similar to what you have now about a rising power in your empire that lives in the sea. You then get an option for a revolution and switching to the Chola if you choose. Otherwise you can continue upon your merry way with the Maya if you so choose as well. This would eliminate the hard transitions and also give more flexibility to staying as the Maya if that is something you want. I think the older civs can even be at a bit of a disadvantage, which could make people looking for something harder and achievements something like "Survived as the Maya to modern day" etc.

 

[queenpea]

I actually think it would be really interesting if something like the following would happen instead of how it is currently

You start as the Maya. During the game, you settle 3 coastal settlements. At some point you get a message similar to what you have now about a rising power in your empire that lives in the sea. You then get an option for a revolution and switching to the Chola if you choose. Otherwise you can continue upon your merry way with the Maya if you so choose as well. This would eliminate the hard transitions and also give more flexibility to staying as the Maya if that is something you want. I think the older civs can even be at a bit of a disadvantage, which could make people looking for something harder and achievements something like "Survived as the Maya to modern day" etc.

From early on with the game previews, I found the age transitions extremely jarring. The fade to black, the loss of in game years, the loss of units, the age selection screen, the legacy point attribution screen. It really breaks immersion. And if not immersion, then it breaks up the game rhythm.

I really wish the transitions could work in the organic or gradual way you are describing.

Unfortunately, I have the sense that the fade to black—even the age mechanic itself—was secondary in design to Civ switching. The ages act as forced chapters which begin and end to facilitate Beach’s Civ switching concept (assuming it was his idea as presented in marketing).

 

[aelf]

My brother in Christ I work in the video game industry. Choosing not to ship before a game is ready is definitely a thing that exists and isn’t a fantasy created by angry change-fearing fans. As evidenced by all the examples of games around us that didn’t ship before they were ready, or used early access to build the game with their customers honestly.

But your contention is that execution is flawed, not that the game is simply unfinished

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

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.

Do you think FXis will decide a different direction for the VIII ?
Because so far. none of these copycats satisfy me much. and Civ-Evolution concept is still needs to be refined.
it is likely that rivals could do.

So far i've not trying ARA yet. (really short on cash, waiting for sales season).

.....

Second, I think it's safe to say that, in general, people tend to dislike change, especially when it comes to something they're comfortable with. If you disagree with this, you should probably stop reading here. But you may want to peruse relevant literature on this topic (such as this).

With that, I think we can start with an illustrative example of the Heroes of Might and Magic series. Heroes of Might and Magic 3 might be one of the best turn-based strategy games of all time. Compared to its predecessors, it's simply bigger and better. By the time all the official expansion packs had been released, it's practically massive. So what could the developers do for the next iteration of the series? An even bigger game - more factions, more buildings, more creatures, more artifacts? It would really start to get unwieldy. There was not a whole lot more room to grow in those simple directions, not for a brand new entry to the series. So what did they do? They decided to streamline major parts of the game and add interesting, meaningful decisions at each stage. And lots of players hated the changes. Lots of them had good experiences with the series that culminated in HoMM3. They had certain ideas of what the series was about, and the changes, while not really deviating from the flavour of the series much, didn't conform to those ideas. They just wanted more of what HoMM3 offered, although how a new viable game could improve on that entry substantially was a difficult question. So HoMM4 is, by and large, considered a failure.*

*Of course, the thing that truly spelled doom for it was 3DO's financial troubles. But after the success of HoMM3, HoMM4 was definitely not close to being as successful. Sounds familiar?

HoMM4 was, in some ways, a victim of HoMM3's success. Its predecessor was so iconic that the many people who loved HoMM3 expected a sequel that was could satisfy their wants in the same ways. They rejected streamlining, for example, because it reduced the variety of creatures you could recruit in one town since you had to choose between Building A and Building B. A design decision that introduced meaningful decision-making and allowed new features to shine more (fielding heroes on the battlefield) was disliked because players saw it purely as a reduction, a downgrade.

And I contend that the Civilization series is going down this route.
....

Not many aspects of Civ6 is really good. what I HATE most is unit class systems that not only has Tag Class but also comes with rigid promotional class.

And back then it dragged the entire Might and Magic series down. and Jon van Caneghem eventually lost the series he created for good.
and his successor--Ubisoft-- doesn't seems to handle the franchise well. Now they ended Caneghem era 'MMVerse' and instead looked up at Lord of the Rings hype at that time to create Ashan, and the whole new settings. regardless that Caneghem era also has its own HoMM 5 which also took place in the same world and a direct sequel, one that story-wise hooked the whole 'game world' together (the vanilla campaign of HoMM4 are all about Foundings, of every empires. be there Palaedra (which itself Neo-Erathia founded by a knight and later an overlord named Lysander, and his campaign (the first) is about legitimacy crisis he faced, and through the campaign he finally realized that he is actually one of he last living descendants of the Gryphonheart dynasty, and his enemy is a son to a swordbearer who ordered a false regalia sword to be made) or The Great Arcan (Neo-Bracada, ruled by respective peoples of the previous wizard empire)
Basically I like how heroes can be fielded as combatant. but not city development schemes that comes with mutually exclusive slots. and removals of Siege Engines. (actually storywise the next game should include gunpowder units if Caneghem still hold this series. but much of his era came from Hollywood Fantasy.. Too classic Hollywood Medieval to me, particularly much a surprise that I learned much of medieval history through making Civ6 mods). The proposed Heroes5 (if made by New World Computing) will be when the empires founded in previous game has met, and clashed. and according to MWC loremaster, it is revealed that leaders of the three empires are actually brothers, and all are illegitimate sons of King Nicholas Gryphonheart (Father to Queen Catherine Gryphonheart), only Lysander is knighted by a person who he later revealed to be his half sister! the rests were kidnapped and never met again.

But in the end it never happened.

 

[tman2000]

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.

Hopefully the executives realize that it wasn't innovation that killed the game, but bad management and a botched dev cycle. Ed Beach saying, "Gosh golly we just were too ambitious and leaned too hard into change so we just won't do that next time" as a way to keep his job (and insert whoever's at fault, it's not necessarily Beach). I mean that's just avoiding the issue that they released an unfinished, half-baked, improperly conceived game.

There are ways civ switching, leaders and crisis might have worked that would have been a lot more fun.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Do you think FXis will decide a different direction for the VIII ?
Because so far. none of these copycats satisfy me much. and Civ-Evolution concept is still needs to be refined.
it is likely that rivals could do.

IF Civ VII turns out as bad economically as it has started out mechanically, then for sure the next iteration of Civ will be a completely different game: in systems, approach, design, concept, etc. - and probably the efforts of a completely new team of designers.

Whether it turns out to be any better or just Different is another question: The examples on the market in the past few years indicate (to me, at least) that there are far more ways of getting it Wrong or Almost Right But Not Quite than there are of getting it Right.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

IF Civ VII turns out as bad economically as it has started out mechanically, then for sure the next iteration of Civ will be a completely different game: in systems, approach, design, concept, etc. - and probably the efforts of a completely new team of designers.

Whether it turns out to be any better or just Different is another question: The examples on the market in the past few years indicate (to me, at least) that there are far more ways of getting it Wrong or Almost Right But Not Quite than there are of getting it Right.

and this tend to gives out worse games, or at best--a promising but not really good enough games (Such as Humankind. and yet i've got to try ARA).

The only good thing Civ7 take is Technical Upgrades. (through Civics and 'Mastery' systems. though it only benefits associated unit classes once).

 

[Morgawr]

Endless Legend 2, despite having lots of changes, also seems to be exciting rather than dividing the fans in the same way Civ7 did, even pre-launch. Maybe Amplitude is another studio to draw inspiration from, or who could take the helm from Firaxis.

I've also decided to take a break from civ7 for now, and am playing AoW4. That game really has some nice polish and care, everything seems really smooth and systems are well connected. Lots of in-game help you'd expect from a complicated 4X game.

How's the AI in AoW4 these days? I played about 200 hours at launch and it was fun but even at highest difficulty I was ahead of the AI a quarter into game. (Last played Dec 2024) W/o a challenge I gave up; which is the same point I'm at with Civ 7 rn. But I cannot give up Civ 7 as I'm one of those die hard fans with emotional attachment, playing it since 1993, so I will support it till death.

 

[user746383]

But your contention is that execution is flawed, not that the game is simply unfinished

Accidentally or on purpose not finishing your game is a pretty epic execution fail.

 

[Morgawr]

Lots of good opinions in this thread. Having played Civ from the very beginning and having spent my gaming life almost exclusively playing 4x games, this is my interpretation of what has happened here.

Yes Civ 7 came with massive expectations, but the developers did do a good job of communicating what was coming. I was not surprised - in every new release there exists bugs, balance issues, bad AI etc but then gets better in a few months / years. This has always been the case so why are people so shocked. I accept the system. Arguing about how this system is bad, all about sucking our $, etc are not wrong but fruitless because it's not going to go back to 90s.

My reaction first few hours into the game was "Wow this is awesome and DIFFERENT, the devs must have a bold vision indeed for where gaming is going. With its graphics and style feels like a modern 2025 era game". Months later I still stand by that.

Despite its current flaws one thing devs got right is that the game is FUN to play. Commanders, exploration, new diplo system, the intricate detail of graphics that looks so good on a big monitor, the different civ / leader combo possibilities - keep bringing me back.

Of course there are so many things I DONT currently like about the game (hint= AI) but I focus my energy instead on reporting that and bugs. IMO people posting ideas on massive revamps to the game's systems are being resistant to change and will be disappointed in the near term at least.

I do agree with the OP that success isn't guaranteed and we should be ready for the circle of life where all things - including video games - eventually die but as long as a player base is still there, new ones will emerge. I posted above that I'll play civ till death - not to be taken literally lol but I do hope so and rn I would put my $ bet on its survival vs death.

Most important comment I left to the end: this social media environment we now live in massively AMPLIFIES the negative voices. Unhappy people are very loud but again not surprising because big success always attracts lovers AND haters. Not different at all from all other aspects of 2025 life. Don't read too much into it.