What's your opinion on civ switching?

[vorlon_mi]

I doubt most players (especially casual ones) are just waiting around and examining each patch to understand whether to buy the game or come back to the game. There are a smaller subset of dedicated players, who probably hang around here and other forums who will be more engaged in that content, but I doubt it applies to most.

I suspect that for Civ 7 to be truly successful there needs to be large scale, almost universal buzz about the game that radiates out into the wider world. If you get a standard narrative that Civ 7 started out flawed but is now definitely an amazing game, then you might get a second wind of people rediscovering it.

It’s going to take a lot more work on the game and the systems involved to make that happen I think. Bite sized DLC which are basically flavour packs are not going to be enough.

^^ This ^^

The game launched with anticipation, which was followed by a large wave of disappointment. Negative reviews and low player numbers have reinforced that. The current buzz, or reputation of the game has been set. The views expressed by @aieeegrunt , @Verified_Confection_Being , and @Crashdummy (among others) are prevelant in the larger community.

As a result, I don't expect either the sales or the Steam player counts to change much for *months*, patches or no patches. I would expect that a sale later in 2025, closer to the holiday season, will convince some more folks to give the game a try. I expect that the reviewers / streamers / gaming press will wait until the first expansion pack or season pass to pay attention again. Only a widespread change in perception will move the numbers.

Speaking for myself, I think that I will wait to buy the additional DLC. The incremental fun from the new civs is not worth the $$ at this point. I'm still getting a lot of enjoyment from the content I have already purchased (Deluxe). I will probably get a new gaming machine later this year, with a bigger SSD. That should shorten my loading times for both Civ6 and Civ7.

 

[Leucarum]

The price of DLC is a big ask when so far I've only enjoyed 1-2 of the civs/leaders and then only get to play the civs for a single age...

 

[WillK96]

The price of DLC is a big ask when so far I've only enjoyed 1-2 of the civs/leaders and then only get to play the civs for a single age...

It is wild that Firaxis sold the gameplay, 30 civs and 19 leaders for $70, and then squeezed $60 out of the player base for 8 civs and 4 leaders. The base game, excluding gameplay, was like $1.42 a civ/leader. The expansions are $5 a civ/leader. And like you said, you only use the civs for 1/3rd of a game. Insane.

 

[Leucarum]

It is wild that Firaxis sold the gameplay, 30 civs and 19 leaders for $70, and then squeezed $60 out of the player base for 8 civs and 4 leaders. The base game, excluding gameplay, was like $1.42 a civ/leader. The expansions are $5 a civ/leader. And like you said, you only use the civs for 1/3rd of a game. Insane.

The rumoured lineup for civs possibly under development really doesn't inspire me either...

 

[WillK96]

The rumoured lineup for the first expansion really doesn't inspire me either...

Where does one view this rumor?

 

[Leucarum]

Where does one view this rumor?

Thread 'Asset file hinting at future and/or cut content' https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/asset-file-hinting-at-future-and-or-cut-content.695000/

 

[stealth_nsk]

Regarding buzz on civilization. After each patch I see a wave of youtube videos and articles with various clickbait titles ("the game is finally saved" or "are they serious?" or "this should be from the start", that sort of things).

I know how recommendation algorithms work and I understand that people less interested in Civ games will see much less of those materials, but any person following a couple of video game magazines will meet those articles and people who have at least some interest in Civ will see some of those videos/articles recommended.

So nope, parches generate some sales, although not large ones. Sales and DLCs bring more (as we've seen a month ago). And expansion could bring even more people.

 

[McSpank01]

Regarding buzz on civilization. After each patch I see a wave of youtube videos and articles with various clickbait titles ("the game is finally saved" or "are they serious?" or "this should be from the start", that sort of things).

I know how recommendation algorithms work and I understand that people less interested in Civ games will see much less of those materials, but any person following a couple of video game magazines will meet those articles and people who have at least some interest in Civ will see some of those videos/articles recommended.

So nope, parches generate some sales, although not large ones. Sales and DLCs bring more (as we've seen a month ago). And expansion could bring even more people.

Yes I see these videos cropping up after each patch as well. The actual content of those videos is a bit more tempered however, usually being overall positive about the changes, but rarely outright saying the game is saved. At the same time I still see a steady stream of Youtubers bemoaning the state of the game and creating content that is very critical of it. I would suggest that Civ 7 is never going to succeed until the overall sentiment about the game becomes overwhelmingly positive. Also, it really needs the popular streamers to fall back in love with the game, I would really be happy if Potato McWhisky felt able to play the game again, and there are a few others out there who would create buzz by making gameplay videos.

Might be me, but I almost never see proper gameplay videos in my stream any more... or maybe I just ignore those.

 

[Mesix]

Just about everything you wrote here is unappealing to me. This probably means Civ's sandbox qualities are high up on my list, but not yours. Now that I think of it, this must be it. In Civ6, I don't think I've played more than one game with dramatic ages. Since it forces me to focus so much on era score, it ruins the game for me (on deity I'd lose a ton of cities if I enter a dark age). Abrupt age transitions and forced civ switching in Civ7 are similar to Civ6's dramatic ages. This is why I think it was a mistake to have them baked into the core of the game and not offered like an optional game mode. I get that many like Civ7's core mechanics and I'm happy for every single one of you. But they're not for me though. Last weekend I went back to a Pharaoh + Cleopatra campaign. Yep, that's how much I love sandbox games.

Have you tried Old World? It was designed by Soren Johnson (from Civ4) and is a much deeper game than Civ7 (or even Civ6 for that matter). I have been playing a lot of Old World since giving up on Civ7.

 

[valerislysander]

I'm getting used to it. It is a major change from any Civ game and in fact historical 4X games in general. I struggled with it in Humankind too. However from a gameplay perspective I have to admit I'm having great fun with all the unique content in each age with each Civ.
I am now planning around those unique districts and units. When to upgrade, when to not and it makes each age interesting.
Also now they have added the 10 or 20 turn countdown to the end of the age it makes it much better and smoother to plan for the next age.

 

[McSpank01]

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.

 

[Niallism]

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.

For you.

Your concerns and dislikes are valid. But so are the opinions of those of us who like it.

 

[McSpank01]

For you.

Your concerns and dislikes are valid. But so are the opinions of those of us who like it.

Honestly I'm not going to get into a tit for tat over who likes what. Clearly there are big issues with the game and a lot of people have cited the age system as a problem. The devs know this which is why they are scrabbling around trying to implement fixes to smooth it out.

I'm not sure what the point of trying to argue against that is.

 

[valerislysander]

Honestly I'm not going to get into a tit for tat over who likes what. Clearly there are big issues with the game and a lot of people have cited the age system as a problem. The devs know this which is why they are scrabbling around trying to implement fixes to smooth it out.

I'm not sure what the point of trying to argue against that is.

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.

 

[Kev1916]

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.

Check out the poll result's, clearly there are big issue's this is also reflected in current state of player count and reviews which you appear to discount .

 

[McSpank01]

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 devs are responding to feedback, the feedback is negative. I don't think it's even up for debate if I'm honest.

The devs have literally said:
"we mentioned there that we had heard feedback from significant segments of our community that we needed to do more work on the abruptness of Age Transitions"

So please lets not do the whole thing where we pretend this is a minority viewpoint.

 

[Gorbles]

So please lets not do the whole thing where we pretend this is a minority viewpoint.

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

There is a substantial amount of people who dislike aspects of the game. However, there remains a substantial amount of people who are playing the game right now. This is a challenge, when individual posters express ideas that change the game as it is now, for a different kind of game the players who like it now, might not like.

You might say "well it's got to happen". But that doesn't negate the opinions of those who like it now. That's all, I think, was being said.

Personally, I dislike arguments to popularity, but at the same time, the developers want their game to be popular. It's a difficult thing to solve (far from the no-brainer some consider it to be, imo).

 

[aieeegrunt]

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 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.

 

[valerislysander]

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

There is a substantial amount of people who dislike aspects of the game. However, there remains a substantial amount of people who are playing the game right now. This is a challenge, when individual posters express ideas that change the game as it is now, for a different kind of game the players who like it now, might not like.

You might say "well it's got to happen". But that doesn't negate the opinions of those who like it now. That's all, I think, was being said.

Personally, I dislike arguments to popularity, but at the same time, the developers want their game to be popular. It's a difficult thing to solve (far from the no-brainer some consider it to be, imo).

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

 

[Gorbles]

because 5 and 6 had the usual launch issues as bad or worse

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.