What's your opinion on civ switching?

[McSpank01]

Who said (or pretended) that it was a minority viewpoint?

Hitting back at criticism of the game with the same old 'hey that is just your opinion buddy' kind of response is kind of tiring. It implies it's just one person's thoughts, but clearly and obviously, criticism of the game, especially around age transitions is quite widespread and Firaxis are more than aware of it.

I just don't see the point of arguing this point over and over.

 

[McSpank01]

Exactly and the poll here indicates quite a balanced view on either side. So no its not all doom and gloom

The poll is purely about Civ Switching, which I think is a feature that is bound to have mixed results. I would be that one based on a question around ages would be more definitive.

 

[valerislysander]

The sales and player count compared to it’s predeccessors clearly show there IS a serious problem. Pretending that doesn’t exist won’t make it go away.

Trying to say it’s because of the usual launch problems won’t either, because 5 and 6 had the usual launch issues as bad or worse

It’s clear what the issue is.

No it doesnt. The game sold on multiple platforms and is being played on those too. I play 5,6 and 7 they all have their strengths and weaknesses and it is competeting with these two games too. Do you have sales data to hand?

Wrong. Neither V nor VI had a flat, unpolished UI on release.

Neither V nor VI had a cross-platform release with significant problems on said target platforms (particularly PlayStation).

VII has new things that have gone wrong, in addition to the mechanics you're pointing at. It's hard to tell what the launch would've looked like if those pain points were solved, and only issues with transitions and the Age structure remained.

you are kidding right? CivVI didnt even have a production queue on release. Did you play them on PlayStation? There were reported issues.
CivVI had its negative feedback many of which were around map graphics and UI. It took many years for it to reach CivV player counts.

 

[Gorbles]

Hitting back at criticism of the game with the same old 'hey that is just your opinion buddy' kind of response is kind of tiring. It implies it's just one person's thoughts, but clearly and obviously, criticism of the game, especially around age transitions is quite widespread and Firaxis are more than aware of it.

I just don't see the point of arguing this point over and over.

That's fair, but at the same time I don't really see any recognition of my point from anyone who does want the game to change substantially (in general - unsure where you sit on that). What about those of us who like the game as-is? Are we just sacrificial lambs? Does our opinion matter less?

I think that last question is probably the most pertinent.

you are kidding right? CivVI didnt even have a production queue on release. Did you play them on PlayStation? There were reported issues.
CivVI had its negative feedback many of which were around map graphics and UI. It took many years for it to reach CivV player counts.

I had to Google the PS version for VI, and it looks like it was released well after release (2019, according to Wikipedia).

As for what VI had or didn't have, I'm saying that the general look and feel of the UI didn't cause it to be met with endless (imo justified) complaints of it looking unfinished (and bland).

 

[Crashdummy]

A recent YouTube video I saw discussed a classic mode that locked you into more coherent Civ Switching choices. So going from Han > Ming > Qing but then also locking in your leader to be say Confucious. To be fair, that is mostly how I play anyway, I rarely if ever make an ahistoric civ choice.

Maybe the problem with the game is that there are just not enough civilisations and leaders and so there is too much incongruence when they get mix and matched. I am perfectly fine playing as Augustus as Rome and then going Spain or Norman, that totally makes sense to me. But then I will see that the Egyptians are being led by Lafayette and I groan and it breaks my immersion completely. If they had a mode that made those choices really restrictive and historic, more so than now, with more choices I think Civ Switching just wouldn't be an issue at all.

The real issue with the game is the age system.

That's not a Classic Mode and its even more restricting than now, it would be an instant failure

And no, its not a matter of how many Civs there are, please listen to those of us that actually dont like the system instead of trying to imagine player's feeling. We dont want to change Civs, we want to play a single Civ, the whole game. Han>Ming>Qing would me changing Civs, we dont want that

Both the age systems and civ switching are equally the problem. You guys like the new system, thats why you think like that

 

[Maiq]

That's not a Clacssic Mode and its even more restricting than now, it would be an instant failure

And no, its not a matter of how many Civs there are, please listen to those of us that actually dont like the system instead of trying to imagine player's feeling. We dont want to change Civs, we want to play a single Civ, the whole game. Han>Ming>Qing would me changing Civs, we dont want that

Both the age systems and civ switching are equally the problem. You guys like the new system, thats why you think like that

No amount of civ "x" to civ "y" to civ "z" is going to change the fact that people just want to play as civ "z" the whole game.

 

[Kev1916]

Exactly and the poll here indicates quite a balanced view on either side. So no its not all doom and gloom

Eh the Poll is about Civ Switching?? and at the mo the majority -

"hate civilization switching and I can't play Civ7 because of it"

There are also many many other reasons that people are not playing this "civ"
The statement you made "Many are enjoying it as much as many do not." is at best extremely optimistic or borderline naive

 

[McSpank01]

That's fair, but at the same time I don't really see any recognition of my point from anyone who does want the game to change substantially (in general - unsure where you sit on that). What about those of us who like the game as-is? Are we just sacrificial lambs? Does our opinion matter less?

I think that last question is probably the most pertinent.

I would question what you mean by 'as is'. If you mean you think the game is totally perfect and cannot be improved, which I assume you don't, then that would be an extremely minority view.


My own view, which I suspect is closer to yours, is that Civ 7 absolutely needs to be a game with a distinct identity. Therefore I think ages and civ switching need to be part of that. Anyone who is simply not interested in a game that does that should just walk away and find another game, because that is the basis for how Civ 7 works. The devs should not be attempting to water the game down by rolling back to a more generic and bland version of the game which does not align to that identity.

However, both ages and civ switching need improving (I would suggest quite a lot) in order for them to be made fun and successful mechanics. At the moment I think a large number of people do not like the way they work and so have moved away from the game. I am of the opinion that many people will like civ switching and ages if they were done in the right way, but that the implementation is poor right now.

Firaxis should stick to their vision and make the basic mechanics of Civ 7 as good as they can be. Right now for many many people they just don't work very well and don't lead to fun gameplay loops. I do believe in the concept, and I hope its possible to make it work.

 

[Gorbles]

I think there's some leeway, that there are some concessions that can be made.

But ultimately we agree on the core point: that Firaxis should stick to their vision.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Yes indeed some people like it, some dont. Just because you dont like it doesnt mean "Clearly there are big issues with the game". Its all about opinion and so all I've seen the past months since release are statements like these. Many are enjoying it as much as many do not.
The devs scrabbling around? They are doing what they would do, listening and improving as they've done every previous civ game.

The game couldn't outsell its predessecor and has less players than a 15 year old title in the same franchise, clearly there are big issues with the game regardless how the fact that "some people" enjoy it

Exactly and the poll here indicates quite a balanced view on either side. So no its not all doom and gloom

Polls here are simple polling a small fraction of the fanbase and doesn't account for those who have wholesale written the game off (you know what lead to poor sales and retention). Even then the poll shows more hating Civ and being prevented from playing than those who love it.