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.

 

[stealth_nsk]

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.

Yes, but all things indicate the poll is likely to have error in another direction:
1. From other sources, we had sentiment analysis of steam reviews, which shows civ switching is not an important negative factor
2. Looking at the audience here, I see mostly old timers, who are usually more resistant to changes than average players (especially players who never played Civ game before)

 

[Crashdummy]

The context of the Poll is important. Its made in a fan site, with most people that would not like civ switching not playing the game

The fact that is 50-50 is terrible for civ switching, but i guess not everyone would agree

The fact that hundreds of thousands of people watch the patch reviews, but they still dont play the game should say something

 

[Leucarum]

Do people think that doubling down on Civ7's controversial features would turn around its commercial fortunes? I'm not saying you couldn't end up with a good game if you did, just that it would likely not have the mass appeal of previous civs. Unless ages and civ switching can somehow be made popular, I'd expect a trajectory more like Beyond Earth of one Xpac and over... I don't know if Firaxis can stomach that for their flagship product? I am not sure that trying to flog the cash out of a smaller number of whales is the right play for Firaxis.

I get that people don't want to lose what made 7 special, but I would posit that the incremental changes (no builders, army commanders, detailed civs, towns & cities) are really what makes the game special. Civ switching and ages were experiments that haven't quite panned out.

 

[Niallism]

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.

I'm not.

You said "The real issue with the game is the age system."

"The real issue". Not 'there are big issues".

You are misrembering your own posts.

 

[McSpank01]

Do people think that doubling down on Civ7's controversial features would turn around its commercial fortunes?

Maybe not, but I do believe that just trying to water down the core concepts of Civ 7 to the point where the game just feels like a less complete version of Civ 6, well that absolutely won't be bringing people back. Civ 7 has to be different to what came before, Civ 6 was massive, and was well liked. I don't see any benefit to just basically reskinning that game, and I doubt other people do either.

 

[McSpank01]

I'm not.

You said "The real issue with the game is the age system."

"The real issue". Not 'there are big issues".

You are misrembering your own posts.

No, I don't understand what point you are trying to make here. Sorry.

 

[Crashdummy]

Maybe not, but I do believe that just trying to water down the core concepts of Civ 7 to the point where the game just feels like a less complete version of Civ 6, well that absolutely won't be bringing people back. Civ 7 has to be different to what came before, Civ 6 was massive, and was well liked. I don't see any benefit to just basically reskinning that game, and I doubt other people do either.

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

 

[stealth_nsk]

The context of the Poll is important. Its made in a fan site, with most people that would not like civ switching not playing the game

The fact that is 50-50 is terrible for civ switching, but i guess not everyone would agree

35% of people not wanting to buy the game indicate that it's likely a mistake, even if we take into account that it's a fan site. Even if Firaxis is aiming at gaining some new audience, making old fans unhappy results in bad reviews from early players (who are usually old fans as well). So, yep a mistake.

But, the next question - should Firaxis change it now? And I think it's clear that they shouldn't:

1. There are a lot of people who actually like the game with its current identity, own and play it. They expect improvements on the game, not radical changes
2. People who hate the game as is now, are unlikely to buy it even with large changes. So, those changes are much likely to lose some players than to gain ones
3. Changing core mechanics that way is an enormous amount of work

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Do people think that doubling down on Civ7's controversial features would turn around its commercial fortunes? I'm not saying you couldn't end up with a good game if you did, just that it would likely not have the mass appeal of previous civs. Unless ages and civ switching can somehow be made popular, I'd expect a trajectory more like Beyond Earth of one Xpac and over... I don't know if Firaxis can stomach that for their flagship product? I am not sure that trying to flog the cash out of a smaller number of whales is the right play for Firaxis.

I get that people don't want to lose what made 7 special, but I would posit that the incremental changes (no builders, army commanders, detailed civs, towns & cities) are really what makes the game special. Civ switching and ages were experiments that haven't quite panned out.

There are a few among us who think the game was some huge hidden success and there are a million new console players out there somewhere secretly enjoying the game and all the negativity towards civ swapping is negligible or simply overblown by old curmudgeons , so it’s not surprising that we can’t reach such an obvious consensus as “the game is doing poorly and is going to fail unless they walk back unpopular changes”

 

[Leucarum]

Maybe not, but I do believe that just trying to water down the core concepts of Civ 7 to the point where the game just feels like a less complete version of Civ 6, well that absolutely won't be bringing people back. Civ 7 has to be different to what came before, Civ 6 was massive, and was well liked. I don't see any benefit to just basically reskinning that game, and I doubt other people do either.

So, I haven't been able to go back to Civ6 after Civ7 - and it's entirely for the incremental changes. Builders, infinite city spam, the intense micromanagement - those are the changes made between 6 and 7 which excite me. So I think I have a different view of what the core of the Civ7 is. I think if you ditched Civ switching and watered down eras, you'd still have a new and innovative game. If anything it's a testament to just how much evolution happened in Civ7 that game-defining changes are buried under even bigger game-defining changes.

I am less negative on ages. I really like the concept. But I think it's a big mechanical ask to fix them especially in the short time window Firaxis have to work with. They can only ever be as good as their weakest link, and fixing modern requires fixing snowballing, late game micromanagement, late game decisions not mattering... I don't think they can solve this before Civ7 dies. This is something the industry as a whole has been trying and failing to fix without a time crunch on their backs. I love Firaxis and they have made my favourite games of the last 20 years, but you need to pick your battles and this is not the battle to pick.

Civ switching in particular is a big negative for me though, and is probably what will push me out of the franchise if not addressed in some way or another. The largest chunk of it is emotional too so I don't think mechanical updates can fix it. I feel like when I pick my civ I am picking the identity of the game I play, so I don't want to have to change. It also doesn't help that I only like 1 modern civ (which is a terrain-dependant one), and only about 1/3 of the exploration era civs, so my motivation to continue drops off a cliff after antiquity. But on a practical note, unless you can fix modern, then 1/3 of the civs in the game won't matter. It's a big issue for XPACs as well, if I like 50% of the civs in an expansion, then that is a problem when I only get to play each of them for 1/3 of the game. So XPACs feel like way worse value than Civ6, cost more, and 7 needs a much bigger lineup to feel complete.

If there is an option to "transcend" a civ and gain some moderately compelling bonuses for doing so that would be enough for me. I don't know if it would be enough for everyone.

But, the next question - should Firaxis change it now? And I think it's clear that they shouldn't:

1. There are a lot of people who actually like the game with its current identity, own and play it. They expect improvements on the game, not radical changes

I think the question is whether there are enough people who like the game to sustain it. At the moment I suspect the answer is no, and that means something big needs to change.

1. People who hate the game as is now, are unlikely to buy it even with large changes. So, those changes are much likely to lose some players than to gain ones

Firaxis are so far trying to keep everything optional, do that and you can probably avoid losing players.

You can definitely make civ switching optional, the question is how you add interesting gameplay so if doesn't feel like you're being cheated if you don't.

Ages are the tougher sell, but we're seeing more and more game optionsreducing the impact of age transitions. Honestly, at some point you "Ship of Theseus" ages out of existence anyway if you go down that route.

1. Changing core mechanics that way is an enormous amount of work

I don't expect we'd see super radical change until there is a full expansion pack. But since if that expansion pack flops then 7 probably flops too, and Firaxis are stuck working on 8... I think it might be less work to "fix" 7 than the alternative.