What's your opinion on civ switching?

[Samson]

Where is the radioactive monkey option?

 

[The Walking Dad]

I dont like age transition or civ switching. I just want to have one civ that I play to the end. The whole everything gets upgraded etc and boom now you are no longer Civ A but now Civ B is jarring. My perfect idea for Civ 7 would just be an updated Civ 6. But thats just me. I tried 7 but couldnt stand it. Back to 6. Hopefully a mod will come out so I can play the game i paid for.

 

[The Walking Dad]

I assume that when the game receives more polish and content, civ switching won't stop as many as 35% of people from playing or enjoying the game. Which means, civ switching wasn't an issue in the first place. Which brings us to the list of issues I provided in my comment.

It also depends on what we refer to in the context of civ switching. If we're talking strictly about the concept of changing civs between eras, that's one thing. If we're talking about everything related to its implementation in Civ 7 (the UI during the switching, the pool of civs to choose from), it's a different thing. I thought the survey posted in this thread referred to the concept, not implementation nuances, and comment accordingly.

I disagree as its not polish and content that pushes people away but being forced to change the Civ mid way through a game. I am one of the 35%. You could roll it in glitter and switching will never be appreciated by me.

 

[kotpeter]

I disagree as its not polish and content that pushes people away but being forced to change the Civ mid way through a game. I am one of the 35%. You could roll it in glitter and switching will never be appreciated by me.

Well, you have at least 2 civ games that run on modern hardware and satisfy your requirement. And cost 10x less on a sale.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Well, you have at least 2 civ games that run on modern hardware and satisfy your requirement. And cost 10x less on a sale.

It still blows my mind that the people who unironically tell other long time fans of the series "well if you don't like it, just go play one of the older titles" haven't figured out that is exactly many of us are doing (not even factorign in those who just moved on from the series altogether) which is exactly why the newest game in the series has flopped disastoriously and has less players than than a 15 year old game in the same series.....

funny how quickly the goal post moved from "oh I assume civ swapping isn't actually that divisive" to telling the people telling you otherwise in a thread where 35% are polled saying its preventing them from playing/enjoying the game that this sequel is not for them and to go play something else.

 

[Krajzen]

But your brain isn't asking you anything. You have the mental model backwards. A player making a choice has already rationalised that choice. They don't need to come to terms with it

I knew somenody is gonna complain about this artistic choice (of talking to the brain as if it were a separate entity) in my post, which is very ironic considering the time I devoted in my life towards studying cognitive science and fighting such Cartesian notions... But I came to the conclusion it's gonna be evocative and cute way of expressing this type of dissonance so I did it anyway. Hence I deserve the complaints I guess

I was jokingly referencing something a certain legendary movie reviewer said when criticizing certain subtle yet major flaws of the Star Wars prequels, "you may have not noticed it... but your brain did". Which is a way of expressing those uncanny emotional and intellectual moments of dissonance, of feeling something is wrong but not being quite able to put into words *why exactly*, those things implicite and subconscious which may still e.g. ruin the fun of interaction with the certain media, be it movies or video games.

To put it shortly, it is fairly easy and natural and instinctive for me to explain away the logical holes of the "persistent eternal essentialist civs" setup of civ5, whereas it is much harder for me to do so with the logical holes of civ7 style civ switching. Mainly because the logical holes of essentialism could be explained away, like I have argued, by the obvious implications of the ingame dynamics and mechanics, whereas the same can't be said about civ7 sudden and extreme mutations of black industrial people into white merchant people out of nowhere. So the seeds of the emotional dissonance which couldnt really grow in the soil of civ5 do grow in that of civ7, since it is far more difficult to quell it with some rationalizations.

 

[Lebo44]

"well if you don't like it, just go play one of the older titles" (...) that is exactly many of us are doing

Exactly, just take a look at what popular Civ streamers are playing.

Potato McWhiskey - last Civ 7 video posted 3 months ago. Now streaming Anno 1800.
Marbozir - last Civ 7 video 3 months ago. But he streamed Civ 5 a month ago. The only streamer openly criticizing Civ 7 from the beginning.
Ursa Ryan - switches between playing Civ 6 and Civ 7

 

[stealth_nsk]

Exactly, just take a look at what popular Civ streamers are playing.

Potato McWhiskey - last Civ 7 video posted 3 months ago. Now streaming Anno 1800.
Marbozir - last Civ 7 video 3 months ago. But he streamed Civ 5 a month ago. The only streamer openly criticizing Civ 7 from the beginning.
Ursa Ryan - switches between playing Civ 6 and Civ 7

That's a bit limited selection. Adding other 3 popular YouTubers I know, only quill18 moved away from Civ7 (last video 4 months ago). VanBradley and JumboPixel continue making Civ7 content.

 

[Gorbles]

To put it shortly, it is fairly easy and natural and instinctive for me to explain away the logical holes of the "persistent eternal essentialist civs" setup of civ5, whereas it is much harder for me to do so with the logical holes of civ7 style civ switching. Mainly because the logical holes of essentialism could be explained away, like I have argued, by the obvious implications of the ingame dynamics and mechanics, whereas the same can't be said about civ7 sudden and extreme mutations of black industrial people into white merchant people out of nowhere. So the seeds of the emotional dissonance which couldnt really grow in the soil of civ5 do grow in that of civ7, since it is far more difficult to quell it with some rationalizations.

Sure, I get that. But this is once again a subjective measure. Everyone has different qualifiers and rationalisations.

And you have to choose it. Dissonance is worse when forced (which is why some object to the mandatory nature of transitions). I do get the principle. It's been raised by a bunch of people over the past several months. It was even raised pre-release.

I'm trying very hard to leave politics and whatnot aside because this is a game subforum. So all I can say is: yes, and? Your example was made-up to boot (and exaggerated, presumably to heighten the impact). Why? Is it because Egypt to Abbasids doesn't seem quite so egregious (even if it's not perfect)?

Why make it look like the game forces more dissonant choices on the player than it actually does? What value does that bring to your argument? Why not use a real, existing, ahistorical progression?

 

[Kev1916]

I disagree as its not polish and content that pushes people away but being forced to change the Civ mid way through a game. I am one of the 35%. You could roll it in glitter and switching will never be appreciated by me.

So apart from being getting all emotional about "Civ " switching it's now on to content, or lack off in some distant future

The poll is no too hard to work out.

 

[ombak]

How could you come to this conclusion when you're posting in a thread where 35% of posters literally answered "hey we hate civ switching and it prevents us from playing"....

civ switching and how poorly implemented it was is absolute a major factor in the poor reception right alongside detached leaders, ages, UI, lack of customization etc.

I think that conclusion comes if you see civ switching and "how poorly implemented it was" as two issues that, while intertwined and therefore inevitably conflated, can ultimately be viewed separately.

To be clear, I don't think fixing implementation would be enough to change the mind of all who say "prevents us from playing", or even most of them, but I do think that if you see things this way (and if you go through some of the suggestions in this and other threads) it stands to reason that, had implementation not put up such tall obstacles at launch (from UI to era transitions) a portion of that group might have tried it.

Ultimately, civ switching is cosmetic, from a gameplay standpoint. You could achieve the same gameplay effects by changing the text strings and variables to make your exploration and modern era civs just "Exploration version of this civ" and "Modern version of that Civ". (Or make Antiquity civs be a version of a modern civ and so on.)

If the implementation did a better job of transitioning, building narrative, or any of a number of suggestions made in this forum, and if the UI hadn't put up such red flags, some more players might overcome that cosmetic aspect of civ switching, and some more mods might have an easier time bridging that gap for some of the remaining players.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

That's a bit limited selection. Adding other 3 popular YouTubers I know, only quill18 moved away from Civ7 (last video 4 months ago). VanBradley and JumboPixel continue making Civ7 content.

Jumbo doesn't stream the game, he just makes videos about its updates and the drama surrounding the game for views. Just like he did with Humankind when it was a sinking ship... and VanBradley hasn't updloaded a video in a month

The selection really wasn't that limited, it's quite obvious that Civ VII media/youtube/streaming sphere has largely collapsed and faded away in the wake of its mediocre launch..... just like the game's playerbase

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Sure, I get that. But this is once again a subjective measure. Everyone has different qualifiers and rationalisations.

And you have to choose it. Dissonance is worse when forced (which is why some object to the mandatory nature of transitions). I do get the principle. It's been raised by a bunch of people over the past several months. It was even raised pre-release.

What is this logic? You have to choose because you have no options other than to switch.. you pick a nonsense detached leader because that is your only choice

Again going "well you get to choose" doesn't change that I don't want to choose Hasephut into Arab Empire into Subsaharan Africans. I want to build a civilization that spans the test of time, not a frankenstein monster of different civs of my choice seperated by loading screens.

I'm trying very hard to leave politics and whatnot aside because this is a game subforum. So all I can say is: yes, and? Your example was made-up to boot (and exaggerated, presumably to heighten the impact). Why? Is it because Egypt to Abbasids doesn't seem quite so egregious (even if it's not perfect)?

Why make it look like the game forces more dissonant choices on the player than it actually does? What value does that bring to your argument? Why not use a real, existing, ahistorical progression?

The real question is why do you fixate on the silliest points you to try and discredit people's arguments without having to deal with the actual point being made?

Even if he used real examples from the game, most would be just as ridiculous and egregious. He's not making the game look worse than it is when they literally marketed their game on complete nonsense Harriet Tubman and Ada Lovelace leading the Greeks who become English that become Americans. Forcing players to go from Ancient Eygpt to Abbadids (especially when the Abbasids become Bugandans like you always love to ignore) without any say is hardly any less egregious in a series about building empires that span all of time

What if, and I know this sentiment will be shocking and unheard, what if I didn't want my ancient eygptian empire to collapse and become a completely different Arab empire which conquered the region centuries later?

 

[kotpeter]

It still blows my mind that the people who unironically tell other long time fans of the series "well if you don't like it, just go play one of the older titles" haven't figured out that is exactly many of us are doing (not even factorign in those who just moved on from the series altogether) which is exactly why the newest game in the series has flopped disastoriously and has less players than than a 15 year old game in the same series.....

funny how quickly the goal post moved from "oh I assume civ swapping isn't actually that divisive" to telling the people telling you otherwise in a thread where 35% are polled saying its preventing them from playing/enjoying the game that this sequel is not for them and to go play something else.

I didn't mean to invalidate someone's feelings towards Civ with my claim "there are 2 games that meet your requirements". Apologies if it sounded dismissive.

What I meant was "the game needed to change to move forward". With 33/33/33 formula, nothing is set in stone aside from the genre, which is 4X, and the historical theme. The game could even become realtime, you know.

What we have now is a controversially received installment, that will for sure influence what's going to change in the next installment. In Civ 7, civ switching is not going anywhere, because it's core to many things in this game: gameplay, content, monetization.

All of us have a choice of either accepting this new installment or not. We vote with wallets and (to a lesser degree) reviews. The rest is loads of feedback, with occasionally bright ideas, as well as a lot of blaming and sometimes hatred for game creators for creating a new, different work of art.

Firaxis say we're the best fans in gaming for a reason, which is our passion towards the franchise, and for all of this feedback we're spending hours to write and reflect on here and anywhere else.

 

[Porry]

It still blows my mind that the people who unironically tell other long time fans of the series "well if you don't like it, just go play one of the older titles" haven't figured out that is exactly many of us are doing (not even factorign in those who just moved on from the series altogether) which is exactly why the newest game in the series has flopped disastoriously and has less players than than a 15 year old game in the same series.....

So what are we talking about? If you've gone back to playing older installments, that's the end of the story.
Let those who are enjoying the game enjoy it, and those who are actually playing it offer constructive criticism.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

I didn't mean to invalidate someone's feelings towards Civ with my claim "there are 2 games that meet your requirements". Apologies if it sounded dismissive.

Apology accepted and thank you for awknowledging, i'll apologize if my response came off as snarky but point out that it's quite frustrating because the sentiment of "oh this sequel to a series you've enjoyed for over a decade isn't for you, just go play one of the older titles" is just so inherently dismissive, made even worse when the sequel being discussed ended up being a huge unpopular flop and in fact has less players than older titles.

What I meant was "the game needed to change to move forward". With 33/33/33 formula, nothing is set in stone aside from the genre, which is 4X, and the historical theme. The game could even become realtime, you know.

This is another one that just gotten so tired at this point. Changing and adding new things doesn't mean throwing out the identity of the series away so much so you have to redefine its subgenre (which is what you'd do going turn based to real time) or create an entirely new tagline for it. (which is what had to happen with unpopular ages and civ swapping) Changing so much so that you alienate a large portion of your playerbase isn't adhereing to some 33/33/33 formula, it's throwing the baby out with the bath water.

What we have now is a controversially received installment, that will for sure influence what's going to change in the next installment. In Civ 7, civ switching is not going anywhere, because it's core to many things in this game: gameplay, content, monetization.

All of us have a choice of either accepting this new installment or not. We vote with wallets and (to a lesser degree) reviews. The rest is loads of feedback, with occasionally bright ideas, as well as a lot of blaming and sometimes hatred for game creators for creating a new, different work of art.

Firaxis say we're the best fans in gaming for a reason, which is our passion towards the franchise, and for all of this feedback we're spending hours to write and reflect on here and anywhere else.

and the game will fail miserably like it already has if Firaxis doesn't significantly walk back and redesign many of the unpopular core mechanics they decided to double down during its intial production. I'm pretty sure Firaxis has already subtely admitted this reality, it's time for VII fans to reconcile as well. We the naysayers and critics are just trying to explain that reality.

So what are we talking about? If you've gone back to playing older installments, that's the end of the story.
Let those who are enjoying the game enjoy it, and those who are actually playing it offer constructive criticism.

Reminder: Civilization VII sold less than VI, has less players currently than V, and is sitting at nearly overwhelmingly negative user reviews on almost every platform that allows users to leave feedback.

 

[Porry]

Reminder: the game sold less than VI, has less players currently than V, and is sitting at nearly overwhelmingly negative user reviews on almost every platform that allows use users to leave feedback.

And that makes you happy, right? Enjoy it, because those who are having fun with Civ 7 might lose the game they're enjoying.
Nice!

 

[Maiq]

This is another one that just gotten so tired at this point. Changing and adding new things doesn't mean throwing out the identity of the series away so much so you have to redefine its subgenre (which is what you'd do going turn based to real time) or create an entirely new tagline for it. (which is what had to happen with unpopular ages and civ swapping) Changing to much so much so that you alienate a large portion of your playerbase isn't adhereing to some 33/33/33 formula, it's throwing the baby out with the bath water.

They need to go galaxy brain and use the 33/33/33 formula to change their 33/33/33 formula for future success.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

And that makes you happy, right? Enjoy it, because those who are having fun with Civ 7 might lose the game they're enjoying.
Nice!

No it doesn't make me happy, The people most critical of Firaxis' direction with Civilization VII like myself wish they got a fun, succesful, and well designed Civilization game that stuck true to the series' core of building an empire that spans all of time and didn't have to redefine itself and change its tagline to justify unpopular changes no one asked for... sadly that didn't happen and here we are

I know you're the guy who thinks no one should be allowed to criticize video games and we DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT to share our opinions on a public forum but you have to take a step back and realize that the people critical of this game are ultimately are fans of the series too and we want it to be better and are genuinely disappointed at the product Firaxis put out

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Exactly, you have no right because you haven't played the game and don't have the knowledge to constructively criticize it. You're so full of yourself that you took these words as a personal attack. However, I've read your posts on this forum, and all you do is throw mud at the game. I repeat: there are people who are enjoying it and don't want to see people like you trashing it for no reason.

This is a thread asking for opinions on Civ switching with an explicit option for players who would can't play it because of it.

If you don't want to see criticism, you have the free choice to go to threads that don't invite those opinions in, or just close your eyes or something.