What's your opinion on civ switching?

[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.

 

[McSpank01]

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.

Maybe the opposite for me, I've got a new found appreciation for all the things that Civ 6 did really well. I'm loving the complexity and the systems and the interaction with other civs and mostly I love the freedom and the sandboxy nature of it.
Personally I don't think Civ 7 have fixed any of the issues you have mentioned there, I find selecting new tiles less rewarding and more tedious than builders, I find infinite city spam has been replaced by infinite city sprawl and actually I don't think micromanagement has actually changed all that much, despite the addition of towns and commanders. Even if those things were fixed in Civ 7, they are really just Quality of Life improvements rather than the basis for the game itself.

The big changes to Civ 7 are Ages and Civ Switching. There is no getting around that, they are the foundations of what make Civ 7 different and notable. Those things are not going away, and without those mechanics all you have is Civ 6 with half of the features removed.

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.

I understand the emotional nature of it, even if I am personally able to get on board with Civ Switching, because with the right civ progression it is far more logical and immersive than previous versions. The problem I have right now is that changes are too abrupt and there is a disconnect between civs and especially between civs and leaders.

Honestly though, I don't understand the call to remove civ switching, if someone really objects to it on such a visaral level they should just forget Civ 7 exists and go back to a previous version. I truly believe with enough Civ and leader options Civ switching would be amazing. I actually like it right now, but then I only ever pick logical, historic choices.

 

[Crashdummy]

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

Of course they should. They are losing to Civ 5, Civ 6, EU4, CK4, etc and not by small margins

More successful franchises have made the mistake of not reacting in time when things were going wrong

 

[Crashdummy]

Honestly though, I don't understand the call to remove civ switching, if someone really objects to it on such a visaral level they should just forget Civ 7 exists and go back to a previous version. I truly believe with enough Civ and leader options Civ switching would be amazing. I actually like it right now, but then I only ever pick logical, historic choices.

And thats the problem. 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. And no, i dont think we should foprget about Civ 7, i think we need to provide feedback so that Firaxis fix the ship that is sinking instead of just assume it sank already

 

[0urBall]

I truly believe with enough Civ and leader options Civ switching would be amazing

How much will that cost, all in, to the player once it gets to that stage?

 

[McSpank01]

And thats the problem. 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. And no, i dont think we should foprget about Civ 7, i think we need to provide feedback so that Firaxis fix the ship that is sinking instead of just assume it sank already

I think that’s a broad statement and largely untrue. I have no problem with civ switching when options are logical and largely historic , because I think it aligns far closer to how the world actually works than previous games.

That doesn’t mean I love civ switching in all scenarios, I don’t like some of the tenuous progressions you get forced into.

I just believe it’s possible to make it work, and I think it takes a level of closed mindedness to not even consider the possibilities of the concept

 

[Crashdummy]

I think that’s a broad statement and largely untrue. I have no problem with civ switching when options are logical and largely historic , because I think it aligns far closer to how the world actually works than previous games.

That doesn’t mean I love civ switching in all scenarios, I don’t like some of the tenuous progressions you get forced into.

I just believe it’s possible to make it work, and I think it takes a level of closed mindedness to not even consider the possibilities of the concept

Well, there seems to be a lot of close minded people in the Civ community then

I think it has more to do with that feature going against the very soul of the franchise, but maybe it just the community being close minded

 

[Leucarum]

Maybe the opposite for me, I've got a new found appreciation for all the things that Civ 6 did really well. I'm loving the complexity and the systems and the interaction with other civs and mostly I love the freedom and the sandboxy nature of it.
Personally I don't think Civ 7 have fixed any of the issues you have mentioned there, I find selecting new tiles less rewarding and more tedious than builders, I find infinite city spam has been replaced by infinite city sprawl and actually I don't think micromanagement has actually changed all that much, despite the addition of towns and commanders. Even if those things were fixed in Civ 7, they are really just Quality of Life improvements rather than the basis for the game itself.

Hmm... I can see builders being a personal preference. I don't mind the city sprawl other than it being not very easy to tell buildings apart. Micro is very much down though - with the caveat that in modern it very much isn't. Empires I think currently grow a little too large. These changes for me have made it tough to go back to Civ6, but god Civ switching in particular just feels awful.

 

[McSpank01]

These changes for me have made it tough to go back to Civ6, but god Civ switching in particular just feels awful.

Really, I feel a level of excitement when I switch civs. It's cool to see the new toys I get to play with and how I can subtly transition my empire into something new. I do like the concept. I know this to be the case because the point I drop out of games is not just after ending an age, but midway through an age.

That is because I think that the issue is not with Civ switching, but with ages, and way they create a broken gameplay flow.


Civ Switching to me is actually a highlight, if done right.

 

[Leucarum]

Really, I feel a level of excitement when I switch civs. It's cool to see the new toys I get to play with and how I can subtly transition my empire into something new. I do like the concept. I know this to be the case because the point I drop out of games is not just after ending an age, but midway through an age.

That is because I think that the issue is not with Civ switching, but with ages, and way they create a broken gameplay flow.


Civ Switching to me is actually a highlight, if done right.

I'm the opposite. The civs I want to swap into are very low in number. Unless I see a fun game for Songhai, Inca, Hawai'i, Shawnee or Nepal I usually bounce at the start of an era. The age transitions always feel like I am having my toys taken away.

 

[Kev1916]

I think that’s a broad statement and largely untrue. I have no problem with civ switching when options are logical and largely historic , because I think it aligns far closer to how the world actually works than previous games.

That doesn’t mean I love civ switching in all scenarios, I don’t like some of the tenuous progressions you get forced into.

I just believe it’s possible to make it work, and I think it takes a level of closed mindedness to not even consider the possibilities of the concept

Therein lies the crux of the matter, "Civ" switching is never going to be logical and historic in any Civ game.

Putting aside the very idea was nonsense to start with History is not a cake, the idea that any sane person would cough out at $8 a pop for hundred's of Civs to be played on your switch console for 1/3 ( 1/4 ) of a game is a non starter .

Civ games will never be as deep or complex as say EU4, that was part of the special character of your game your choice

But yea Civ 7 should embrace switching, double down with a new meta , maybe bring out a game pass and maybe even bring out say Pokemon Civs to switch into

Start as Bulbasuar , play first mini game , then switch into say a water one , Squirtle , then for third or 4th generation Charzurd etc.

 

[McSpank01]

I'm the opposite. The civs I want to swap into are very low in number. Unless I see a fun game for Songhai, Inca, Hawai'i, Shawnee or Nepal I usually bounce at the start of an era.

Ok, but then there are some civs that you don't seem to mind swapping into? Therefore maybe the issue isn't Civ swapping but the limited choices on offer.

The age transitions always feel like I am having my toys taken away.

Yes that is a common complaint, however I would say that none of that has anything to do with Civ swapping. The feeling of loss is more to do with age transitions. The stuff from you lose from your previous civ is pretty minor actually, you keep most of it, but get more stuff in addition from your new civ.

 

[mackintosh]

I think people need to agree to disagree. I've said it before, I appreciate that many players like civ switching, and I'm genuinely happy they're enjoying this aspect of the game. However, adding more civs won't change a fundamental, visceral loathing I have for this mechanic. If I wanted a plausible alternative history game, I'd play CK3, EU4 or HoI (surprise, I do play them!). Civilization was always free of such constraints. Since 1991, I could take my plucky Poland from the dawn of time to Alpha Centauri. Can you imagine how amazing that was for a kid who just two years prior lived behind an Iron Curtain? To see his oppressed, impoverished people overcome all adversity and reach for the stars? And to want to relive that fun over and over across thousands of hours? Never in the past 35 years have I wanted to play as some other civ, let alone be forced to play as one. Don't underestimate how important and integral these mechanics may be to some seasoned veterans, though I don't proclaim to speak for anyone besides myself.

That said, I've already mentioned this before - it's ok for Firaxis to revolutionize things to reach new audiences, even if people like me are left behind. It's their IP and their right to pursue its development however they please. I've moved on to other games. Only posting here (again) to reiterate my perspective on this.

 

[aieeegrunt]

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.

To this day the top ten most popular mods of all time for Civ6 the majority are UI mods. Not new leaders, civs or mechanics. Fixing the UI.

If people have the opportunity to fix the UI, it is their top priority. Not, you know, getting the equivelant of free DLC material.

Unless there is some silent invisible majority of players on consoles that not even Chat GPT can find, it would be safe to say that this game is doing terrible relative to 6 and 5.

What could this be I wonder? What is it about 7 that is so different that they had to literally change the games slogan?

How many times must Occam’s Razor be swung?

 

[Leucarum]

Ok, but then there are some civs that you don't seem to mind swapping into? Therefore maybe the issue isn't Civ swapping but the limited choices on offer.

I had wondered that but I don't think it's the case. Songhai and Inca I like in part because they circumvent the most annoying elements of Exploration. If exploration gets fixed, will I still enjoy them as much? Beyond that all the civs I enjoy have terrain dependancies, I'd much prefer to be able to play them from the outset rather than have to warp how I play my game at the start so I can have a less painful exploration era. It's also made me realise how much I gravitated towards antiquity era civs in other games. In antiquity the only civs I don't enjoy are Han, Rome and Khmer...

The stuff from you lose from your previous civ is pretty minor actually

Honestly I'd much rather be able to continue building a giant field of Hawelti or fill all my new cities with Mayan temples...

 

[Gorbles]

To this day the top ten most popular mods of all time for Civ6 the majority are UI mods. Not new leaders, civs or mechanics. Fixing the UI.

If people have the opportunity to fix the UI, it is their top priority. Not, you know, getting the equivelant of free DLC material.

By that measure, Civ IV being popular for its full conversion mods means the base game isn't as laudable as it is. That it's broken, even.

This is faulty logic. The existence of mods exists to fill user preference when the game itself doesn't do it. I dislike every single UI mod in VI, despite VI being one of my favourite entries in the franchise.

The existence of mods doesn't mean that the game was received poorly. That's multiple hoops you're jumping through. Why? Presumably because you use however many mods to make VI playable for you. I see the logic. It's still faulty. You're still wrong when you attempt to say that V and VI had as flawed a UI as VII did on release.

What could this be I wonder? What is it about 7 that is so different that they had to literally change the games slogan?

As Gori pointed out earlier, the slogan has changed already in the past. Why is it a problem now? It feels like you're conflating different issues because of your own issues with the game.

I understand them, even though I disagree (strongly). I get why folks interact with the franchise like you do. You're not wrong for having your own preferences. But you keep ignoring data that doesn't match those preferences.

How many times must Occam’s Razor be swung?

Occam's Razor isn't a proof of anything. If you're into games design, you should learn to not rely on it quite so much.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

By that measure, Civ IV being popular for its full conversion mods means the base game isn't as laudable as it is. That it's broken, even.

This is faulty logic. The existence of mods exists to fill user preference when the gam

No the faulty logic here would be you implying that Civ IV wouldn’t be popular and wasn’t a commercial and critical success even without factoring in its conversion mods (spoilers: most players don’t play with mods)

I agree with you otherwise that V and VI had better UIs than VII and the existence of mods isn’t a sign of poor reception though

 

[aieeegrunt]

By that measure, Civ IV being popular for its full conversion mods means the base game isn't as laudable as it is. That it's broken, even.

This is faulty logic. The existence of mods exists to fill user preference when the game itself doesn't do it. I dislike every single UI mod in VI, despite VI being one of my favourite entries in the franchise.

The existence of mods doesn't mean that the game was received poorly. That's multiple hoops you're jumping through. Why? Presumably because you use however many mods to make VI playable for you. I see the logic. It's still faulty. You're still wrong when you attempt to say that V and VI had as flawed a UI as VII did on release.

As Gori pointed out earlier, the slogan has changed already in the past. Why is it a problem now? It feels like you're conflating different issues because of your own issues with the game.

I understand them, even though I disagree (strongly). I get why folks interact with the franchise like you do. You're not wrong for having your own preferences. But you keep ignoring data that doesn't match those preferences.

Occam's Razor isn't a proof of anything. If you're into games design, you should learn to not rely on it quite so much.

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

Bad UI has been an issue with this game for at least three launches.

Civ7’s performance in sales and player retention is uniquely terrible, this has been demonstrated over and over.

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

WHAT COULD IT BE I WONDER.

Maybe, just maybe, it’s the thing that makes the game play so differently the core identity of the game is completely different. Maybe it’s the thing that constantly comes up in reviews, feedback, this forum, this very poll in this very topic?

 

[Crashdummy]

The vast majority of people dont play with mods. Mods do not make a Civ game successful or unsuccessful

 

[Leucarum]

You're not wrong for having your own preferences. But you keep ignoring data that doesn't match those preferences

Maybe, just maybe, it’s the thing that makes the game play so differently the core identity of the game is completely different. Maybe it’s the thing that constantly comes up in reviews, feedback, this forum, this very poll in this very topic

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.