What's your opinion on civ switching?

[aieeegrunt]

I will make this as simple as I can

People are using “launch issues” as an excuse for Civ7 being a flop

Civ5, a 15 year old game with launch issues so bad it wouldn’t even start for people that was launching in a much smaller market without the momentum of 6’s success behind it, has more people playing it than 7 does

So it can’t be that, or 5 would have failed even harder

It didn’t

What could it possibly be? Surely not the biggest gameplay change!

 

[Crashdummy]

but they do make one stands the test of time.

They extend the lifetime of games for sure, there are more than 20kpeople playing Skyrim thanks to mods

 

[ombak]

Why would it be just one thing?

There are multiple issues, some which can be (and have been) addressed in subsequent patches, some which can't. But I don't think that's enough to isolate one cause behind the overall reception. It seems much likelier that when you have multiple issues generating negative feedback at launch (UI, civ switching, eras are the big ones I can think of) you end up with an effect that is greater than the sum of the parts and harder to overcome.

 

[Gorbles]

(spoilers: most players don’t play with mods)

I agree. I even said this, earlier on

You were making a claim that Civ7’s dismal performance was the result of bad UI

I did not, actually. It is a factor, and not more than that. But at the same time, you can't discount individual factors just because you feel they detract from the ones you want to blame

So it’s not the UI, or Civ6 (and 5) would have crashed and burned just as hard as 7 has.

You keep repeating this. It continues to be untrue.

Maybe we're all treating anecdoral evidence as proof? I'd love to see what info Firaxis have access to. How many of us are playing a game to completion? When do we usually stop? Which legacy paths are we ignoring?

Those are the sort of data points which would answer our debates... Not that the debates aren't fun, but maybe we should all be less certain and strident about our positions.

Everyone is, everyone does. Even unconsciously. We all want the things we want. It's pretty self-defining, but also true.

I've played games that are completely unpopular before. Liked them too. This is not that. Has it resonated with a majority of the existing playerbase? No. But several thousand concurrent (on the lower end) is still a userbase that generates revenue, which is (unfortunately) all that matters. All that I personally hope for is the game gets the chance to turn things around with time (and developer investment). No more, no less.

Beyond that, all everyone is doing is arguing for their own preferences. Nothing wrong with that, so long as it's respectful (imo).

 

[Crashdummy]

I've played games that are completely unpopular before. Liked them too. This is not that. Has it resonated with a majority of the existing playerbase? No. But several thousand concurrent (on the lower end) is still a userbase that generates revenue, which is (unfortunately) all that matters. All that I personally hope for is the game gets the chance to turn things around with time (and developer investment). No more, no less.

I dont think 10k players 6 months after the launch of an entry that has been developed for 9 years is enough to sustain it

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

I dont think 10k players 6 months after the launch of an entry that has been developed for 9 years is enough to sustain it

Even ignoring the cratering player counts (Which tbf, VI had less players than V for quite a while), We still don't have any evidence that VII managed to sell more or even close to what VI was capable of almost a decade ago. Add to the fact that i'm pretty sure VII's had much higher devolopment costs than VI and I just don't see how Firaxis generates profit for shareholders selling DLC to such an negilible playerbase

 

[Gorbles]

You both could be right. I simply hope you're not. And it's nothing to do with either of you, it's simply because I want this iteration to find its legs, because I think it has the potential to. I don't expect everyone to be as optimistic!

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

You both could be right. I simply hope you're not. And it's nothing to do with either of you, it's simply because I want this iteration to find its legs, because I think it has the potential to. I don't expect everyone to be as optimistic!

That's totally fair, you for the most part enjoy the game you purchased and just want it to improve without losing its core identity. Understandable.

The sad reality of contentious change is that many of the features that you enjoy completely revolt and turn off a large chunk of their audience and the game seems to be struggling both commercially and critically for it. The most sensible way of reconciling this would be by providing an optional classic mode and making many of the unpopular features they've made mandatory and fundemental to the game's current design optional rulesets themselves but I think it's quite obvious at this point, even to Firaxis, that something has got to change dramatically.

 

[Crashdummy]

You both could be right. I simply hope you're not. And it's nothing to do with either of you, it's simply because I want this iteration to find its legs, because I think it has the potential to. I don't expect everyone to be as optimistic!

I dont want that to happen, which is why i am so vehement on Classic Mode, which im my opinion is the only thing that could save the game

I wont reinstall the game without a Classic Mode, and surely i am not the only one. And i wont buy a single DLC before we have such mode

Civilization, alongside with Heroes of Might and Magic were my favourite franchises when i was a teenager, one was already killed, i dont want the other to die too. But Civ 7 is not a Civilization game in my eyes because of age transitions and civ switching

 

[socratic]

But then I will see that the Egyptians are being led by Lafayette and I groan and it breaks my immersion completely.

Yeah the leader choice is easily what I dislike most about this game. I don’t mind non-leaders like Lovelace, but wow the devs really should’ve thought more about what regions get represented. Giving America (a civ that basically doesn’t exist for 2/3 of the game!!!!) three associated leaders (4 if you want to count Tecumseh) while China gets one is indefensible. France and Germany too. Lafayette, 2 Persona Napoleon, Charlemagne, and 2 Persona Friedrich all in one game... why??? The fact that America and Europe are stacked with more leaders than there are European civs means you’re getting crazy combos almost every game.

Only those that already "like" the system think by adding more Civs it will be fine. Adding more Civs changes nothing, you are still changing civs, and thats the problem.

I cant speak for the wider community, but as someone who sits in-between option 4 and 5, adding more civs and improving on switching in general would 100% get me to play this game more.

Why would it be just one thing?

There are multiple issues, some which can be (and have been) addressed in subsequent patches, some which can't. But I don't think that's enough to isolate one cause behind the overall reception. It seems much likelier that when you have multiple issues generating negative feedback at launch (UI, civ switching, eras are the big ones I can think of) you end up with an effect that is greater than the sum of the parts and harder to overcome.

This games pricing and absurd DLC is also overlooked. Paying $70 for a game with mixed ratings and two $30 DLCs not even a year from release is not attractive to the average gamer

 

[Skojardu]

I wouldn't mind if the civilizations could evolve rather than switch. Let's say that the American civilization represented by the Mississippians wanted to become nomadic horse people, then they would choose the Comanche. And then maybe they could become some sort of alternate western nation like the Jeffersonians. The issue is that the cost of creating animations for each of the required leaders requires too many resources. Old World tackles this differently in that they have tons of different leaders for each faction, and they are all represented by a single portrait. No animation. It would look rather cheap if a AAA publisher like 2K were to go this route, but it would afford them the nimbleness that I think is necessary to pull off the extreme number of civilizations they would need to make Civ switching feel more like evolving.

 

[Skojardu]

PS I changed my vote from equal yeses and nos on both sides to 100% Hate. If change is integral to the game and cannot be removed, I want evolving, not switching!

 

[McSpank01]

Why would it be just one thing?

There are multiple issues, some which can be (and have been) addressed in subsequent patches, some which can't. But I don't think that's enough to isolate one cause behind the overall reception. It seems much likelier that when you have multiple issues generating negative feedback at launch (UI, civ switching, eras are the big ones I can think of) you end up with an effect that is greater than the sum of the parts and harder to overcome.

Bingo.

The feedback loop on the game is pretty negative all round. Maybe the negativity is a bit unjustified but still, when you have discussion boards mainly made up people moaning about the game, when there is little active community celebrating it or even discussing strategies and ideas, and when all the major streamers and YouTubers have basically given up on the game, then it is clearly more than one thing.

It’s a culmination of a bunch of issues where a game that was released too early and has some major gameplay flaws just isn’t resonating with the people who play it

I dont want that to happen, which is why i am so vehement on Classic Mode, which im my opinion is the only thing that could save the game

I wont reinstall the game without a Classic Mode, and surely i am not the only one. And i wont buy a single DLC before we have such mode

Civilization, alongside with Heroes of Might and Magic were my favourite franchises when i was a teenager, one was already killed, i dont want the other to die too. But Civ 7 is not a Civilization game in my eyes because of age transitions and civ switching

honestly I kind of want Classic mode to be added, so people can play it and realise what a totally dull experience it will be for most of the game. Then 2 weeks later when they have ditched the game again they can come back and admit it’s a bad idea.

 

[Vandlys]

I will make this as simple as I can

People are using “launch issues” as an excuse for Civ7 being a flop

Civ5, a 15 year old game with launch issues so bad it wouldn’t even start for people that was launching in a much smaller market without the momentum of 6’s success behind it, has more people playing it than 7 does

So it can’t be that, or 5 would have failed even harder

It didn’t

What could it possibly be? Surely not the biggest gameplay change!

Not really a fair comparison now is it? You use both past tense and present tense in one sentence. You claim the launch issues of Civ V were very bad but -currently-, after 15 years, has more people playing it. Let's be honest, V is a great game but had time to mature (patches, DLC, mods > the amount of times I see V and Vox Populi in one sentence...) and create a loyal fan base. The landscape of reviews and influence is extremely different from what it was 15 years ago, and people have a market that is saturated and leaves plenty of choice in games. It's not a simple to compare the two in the way you did.

So, no, you didn't rule it out, and it could be launch issues still.

Personally, I don't believe that's the issue, and I might even agree with you that the biggest gameplay change is the thing not attracting people, but that's beside the point. The argument argument is flawed.

Edit: I might sound harsh and it's not intended

 

[Haig]

honestly I kind of want Classic mode to be added, so people can play it and realise what a totally dull experience it will be for most of the game. Then 2 weeks later when they have ditched the game again they can come back and admit it’s a bad idea.

Well I think I would give the game another chance if I could simply pick a single civ like England, Japan or Russia and play it from ancient to modern, and preferably with a leader of their own nation. (The game looks gorgeous and I like the diplo system and commanders)

Even the way Civ 7 has India and China in three separate ages is not fun for me.

I actually like civs having strenghts and weaknesses for different eras, I dont want perfect balance.

I feel that having mixed leaders with changing civs has actually given less strategy discussion in reddit, impossible to memories all the.combos.
They make fun posts about yield bonuses though.

Also new civs released dont put up as much discussion on reddit as before..

By the way does it feel there has been a lot less livestreams from Fxs now? Like from New frontier pass there was quite many livestreams.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Different? Yes, but even if Ages and Civ switching is removed, Civ 7 would still be different from Civ 6. It has different combat, the influence system, navigable rivers, etc, etc

The franchise has always improved and grew without changing ages and adding civ switching, why is it that some people think that if those are not present, then it suddenly is the same game than before? It wont, it didnt in the past

Civ 7 isnt similar to Civ 6, even without age transitions and civ switching

I would really like to try all of that, but having my civ deleted and replaced off screen via developer fiat, twice makes it a non starter

Given the reception this game has recieved, that is the majority opinion.

That's totally fair, you for the most part enjoy the game you purchased and just want it to improve without losing its core identity. Understandable.

The sad reality of contentious change is that many of the features that you enjoy completely revolt and turn off a large chunk of their audience and the game seems to be struggling both commercially and critically for it. The most sensible way of reconciling this would be by providing an optional classic mode and making many of the unpopular features they've made mandatory and fundemental to the game's current design optional rulesets themselves but I think it's quite obvious at this point, even to Firaxis, that something has got to change dramatically.

A classic mode might help, the challenge there is you essentially have to relaunch the game and get the word out to all the potential buyers who basically did a Do Not Want to civ switching/era changing

I dont want that to happen, which is why i am so vehement on Classic Mode, which im my opinion is the only thing that could save the game

I wont reinstall the game without a Classic Mode, and surely i am not the only one. And i wont buy a single DLC before we have such mode

Civilization, alongside with Heroes of Might and Magic were my favourite franchises when i was a teenager, one was already killed, i dont want the other to die too. But Civ 7 is not a Civilization game in my eyes because of age transitions and civ switching

Honestly I’ve now seen most of my favorite game franchises comitt suicide by either pointless change for the sake of change or chasing some dumb trend or both

Watching Civ7 do it is like…Jesus do you Triple AAA people learn NOTHING? Like you just watched the Fallout76 debacle, you saw the reception to Humankind, and thought this was a good idea?

Yeah the leader choice is easily what I dislike most about this game. I don’t mind non-leaders like Lovelace, but wow the devs really should’ve thought more about what regions get represented. Giving America (a civ that basically doesn’t exist for 2/3 of the game!!!!) three associated leaders (4 if you want to count Tecumseh) while China gets one is indefensible. France and Germany too. Lafayette, 2 Persona Napoleon, Charlemagne, and 2 Persona Friedrich all in one game... why??? The fact that America and Europe are stacked with more leaders than there are European civs means you’re getting crazy combos almost every game.


I cant speak for the wider community, but as someone who sits in-between option 4 and 5, adding more civs and improving on switching in general would 100% get me to play this game more.


This games pricing and absurd DLC is also overlooked. Paying $70 for a game with mixed ratings and two $30 DLCs not even a year from release is not attractive to the average gamer

Ya putting Great Britain behind a price wall, like the predatory nature of that was a massive turn off.

Not really a fair comparison now is it? You use both past tense and present tense in one sentence. You claim the launch issues of Civ V were very bad but -currently-, after 15 years, has more people playing it. Let's be honest, V is a great game but had time to mature (patches, DLC, mods > the amount of times I see V and Vox Populi in one sentence...) and create a loyal fan base. The landscape of reviews and influence is extremely different from what it was 15 years ago, and people have a market that is saturated and leaves plenty of choice in games. It's not a simple to compare the two in the way you did.

So, no, you didn't rule it out, and it could be launch issues still.

Personally, I don't believe that's the issue, and I might even agree with you that the biggest gameplay change is the thing not attracting people, but that's beside the point. The argument argument is flawed.

Edit: I might sound harsh and it's not intended

Seriously?

A grammer critique?

A 15 year old game has better player retention than the newest one. That is ridiculous.

Spin that all you want, it’s a massive fail.

 

[McSpank01]

Well I think I would give the game another chance if I could simply pick a single civ like England, Japan or Russia and play it from ancient to modern, and preferably with a leader of their own nation. (The game looks gorgeous and I like the diplo system and commanders)

Sure you may give it another chance, but I’d bet that you’d ditch the game again after that one chance, because it won’t make the game any better, and will have in fact removed many of the interesting features form playing longer games.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Sure you may give it another chance, but I’d bet that you’d ditch the game again after that one chance, because it won’t make the game any better, and will have in fact removed many of the interesting features form playing longer games.

I mean it’s hard to say without trying it. Currently the person is not playing it at all after all

 

[McSpank01]

I mean it’s hard to say without trying it. Currently the person is not playing it at all after all

I think it’s quite easy to imagine that if you keep the age system but remove civ switching then the game is going to be more boring, with less to do than before. Hard to see how the game improves.

 

[Crashdummy]

I think it’s quite easy to imagine that if you keep the age system but remove civ switching then the game is going to be more boring, with less to do than before. Hard to see how the game improves.

The 6 previous games were NOT more boring than this one for many of us. And yes, i tried it, for several hours and several games with different Civs untill i decided to uninstall

So i dont know why you think it would be more boring to us when it is exactly what we are telling you is preventing us from playing the game. You are projecting your tastes on us and thinking everyone has to like the same stuff you do. You see, we acknowledge some people like the current system, thats why we ask for a new MODE, not a game revamp.

I do think Civ 8 will not have this features though, at least thats what i would do if i were them