just remember they siad this about civ 6

[vthemighty]

and then said this about civ 5 i wasnt around for civ 5

[The Doctor]

Originally posted by vthemighty:

and then said this about civ 5 i wasnt around for civ 5

You're right. The community backlash to Civ V was far worse than the backlash to Civ VI as well. I'd say the backlash we've seen to Civ 7 is the worst we've seen so far though. you're correct that there's nothing really new about it but rather about the proportionality of it

Even if you really love Civ 7, most of us will admit that some of it IS earned - the new ages and culture shifting are so revolutionary as to guarantee such an outcome and the new price and the expensive DLC at launch is all fuel for the bonfires. Speaking generally, and also for myself, Gamers are not the most 'progressive' of audiences, prefering their sequels to retain as much of the previous version(s) DNA as possible while adding a few, new, innovative features to keep the gameplay fresh. The more radical the changes, the more severe the backlash from existing fans.

I would caution anyone of drawing the conclusion from Civ V and VI's HUGE popularity and success that we will see the same with Civ 7. I do think there's much that's different nowadays so as to make such patterns irrelevant. The last Civ base game was released back in October 2016 and if you consider all that has happened in the intervening years, gamers have become polarised to a similar extent as they have been polarised in other matters.

[Mountain Man]

Civ IV also got it's share of hate in the early days. A classic example of, "It's different, so it sucks."

[skunkno1]

Revolutionary is the wrong word. Humankind already did this, albeit differently. As badly as their version was received in hindsight I'd say they did it better than Civ7 did. The fact that there's a comparison to be made means it wasn't revolutionary though.

[The Doctor]

Originally posted by skunkno1:

Revolutionary is the wrong word. Humankind already did this, albeit differently. As badly as their version was received in hindsight I'd say they did it better than Civ7 did. The fact that there's a comparison to be made means it wasn't revolutionary though.

We can dispute my use of the adjective 'revolutionary' to describe the scale of the change if you want but you're kind of missing the point. But what the heck? Why not?

'Revolutionary' doesn't mean 'new' or 'original' but rather it is used to describe a drastic change to an existing system - changing from a Monarchy to a Republic for example (not a new concept at all but new for the folks who experience the transition.)

Humankind had culture shifting for sure but it didn't have Civ VII's ages system which, together with all the other changes that accompany this new system justify the term 'revolutionary' to me. Regardless of whether Humankind did it first, the culture shifting is absolutely new to the Civ franchise which further justifies my use of revolutionary. 1UPT and hexes were hardly new to games when Civ V introduced them to the franchise and that was similarly revolutionary for many folks.

Was the culture shifting done better in Humankind? I disagree with that. In Humankind, you could retain your existing culture to get a bonus to Fame earned during the new 'era' to compensate for the loss of the uniques and game-long legacy bonuses you got. But otherwise, you could pick ANY culture that the AI (or another player) hadn't already chosen without any restirctions or conditions being met so sometimes, you'd miss out on a good pick and have to settle for something else.

I prefer Civ VII's system as it is 'more logical' than Humankind's and I get to choose which culture I want before the AI does. Of course, because this is a Steam discussion board, it is necessary to state the obvious that that doesn't mean I think it is logical at all, but merely more so than Humankind's. But I can understand why some folks would think Humankind has the better system. It's an opinion.

[Rhapsody]

"Revolutionary" is an appropriate term when applied within the Civ-scape IMO. There's been a lot of torches and pitchforks pointed in all kinds of directions.

[SpitfireMkVIII]

The thing about 5 and 6 is: Regardless of how it put off the Civ veterans at the time, they were still able to attract a new core audiences. Civ has always been about being "accessible" to new players, meaning it's incredibly easy to pick up and play for beginning strategists.

I've never gotten that impression from 7. Its mechanics are not simple, nor well explained. Much of that boils down to the lackluster UI and the game's bare-minimum, pop-up style tutorial. Not to mention, it's just how game synergizes in general. What exactly am I supposed to build? How important are these legacies? What's the difference between a town and a city, and how does that play into the end game? Why am I switching factions all of a sudden? And why does that reset everything I was doing prior to?

Like, sure I could Google all this information... but in Civ games of old, I never had to. The games explained it to you. I don't want to go as far as to call this "bad game design", but its definitely muddled. It's like they were trying to experiment by making a Civ RPG, but panicked at the last minute. Suffice it to say, it's not drawing in any new crowds - leaving just the old crowds rightfully scratching their heads.

[Rhapsody]

Originally posted by SpitfireMkVIII:

The thing about 5 and 6 is: Regardless of how it put off the Civ veterans at the time, they were still able to attract a new core audiences. Civ has always been about being "accessible" to new players, meaning it's incredibly easy to pick up and play for beginning strategists.

I've never gotten that impression from 7. Its mechanics are not simple, nor well explained. Much of that boils down to the lackluster UI and the game's bare-minimum, pop-up style tutorial. Not to mention, it's just how game synergizes in general. What exactly am I supposed to build? How important are these legacies? What's the difference between a town and a city, and how does that play into the end game? Why am I switching factions all of a sudden? And why does that reset everything I was doing prior to?

Like, sure I could Google all this information... but in Civ games of old, I never had to. The games explained it to you. I don't want to go as far as to call this "bad game design", but its definitely muddled. It's like they were trying to experiment by making a Civ RPG, but panicked at the last minute. Suffice it to say, it's not drawing in any new crowds - leaving just the old crowds rightfully scratching their heads.

In all honestly, they never did explain of that. You'd read it from the manual or civilopedia, or had it explained by a friend. I've used a combination of all that to help my friends and family, who are not civ or even game addicts, play and enjoy each game just fine. But that's not to say that the civilopedia especially and age transition interface in multiplayer isn't a trainwreck. Detailed reports on yields, resources and such things, on the other hand... those are not conductive to learning the basics at all. They are not even required to play the game. The map tooltip especially, in its current incarnation, is humongous and there really is such a thing as too much information and noise. Fortunately VII improves upon that in several other areas compared to VI especially, like having slightly more granular display of resources, units and other icons on the map. Basic accessibility is not a problem in Civ VII, but presentation of many items which civ veterans are used to can be.

[jariel]

I dont remember exactly was it 2 or 3 but at those times they had these thick manuals like in paper :) that you read, and they had that awesome like folded super big tech tree :) dam i would pay money for that one. But yes it is true that game mechanics are plenty and complicated and civilopedia sucks with book worth of non usefull info and the game mechanics needs to be learned by playing hundreds of hours or watching videos from you tube or where ever and that is not optimal, at all.

[SpitfireMkVIII]

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

In all honestly, they never did explain of that. You'd read it from the manual or civilopedia, or had it explained by a friend. I've used a combination to help my friends and family, who are not civ or even game addicts, play and enjoy the game just fine. But that's not to say that the civilopedia especially and age transition interface in multiplayer isn't a trainwreck. Detailed reports on yields, resources and such things, on the other hand... those are not conductive to learning the basics at all. They are not even required to play the game. The map tooltip especially, in its current incarnation, is humongous and there really is such a thing as too much information and noise. Fortunately VII improves upon that in several other areas compared to VI especially, like having slightly more granular display of resources, units and other icons on the map. Basic accessibility is not a problem in Civ VII, but presentation of many items which civ veterans are used to can be.

Presentation is is part of a game's accessibility. A developer can use more than just text to explain a game's mechanics. Things like color cues, pattern recognition, highlighting key menu options, and small in-game awards go a long way towards teaching people how to play your game. Knowing the kind of game you're making, and anticipating what the 'average player' might try on their own, is key to good game design - and has been going all the way back to the NES/SNES days. In my opinion, if you have to rely on a text pop-up every 5 seconds to explain what your game is about, then you've already failed as a game designer.

For the record, I only ever delved into the Civilopedia/YouTube library once I understood the basics and wanted to take my game to the proverbial next level. Sid Meyer and Firaxis were once champions of the "easy to learn, difficult to master" game design competency - and I don't see that at all in 7. But, you know, that's just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

[Rhapsody]

Originally posted by SpitfireMkVIII:

In my opinion, if you have to rely on a text pop-up every 5 seconds to explain what your game is about, then you've already failed as a game designer.

I guess Civ has always been failing then, since the only change they've done in this aspect is to move the tutorial explanation from the thick physical manuals into the game.

[Grandmaster of Pwn]

yes there was always backlash, but i dont think on THIS scale. however im cautiously optimistic, that they'll fix it in the coming months

[SpitfireMkVIII]

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

I guess Civ has always been failing then, since the only change they've done in this aspect is to move the tutorial explanation from the thick physical manuals into the game. :LaughingOwlcat:

You know that's not true, given how you'd just said:

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

...But that's not to say that the civilopedia especially and age transition interface in multiplayer isn't a trainwreck. Detailed reports on yields, resources and such things, on the other hand... those are not conductive to learning the basics at all. They are not even required to play the game. The map tooltip especially, in its current incarnation, is humongous and there really is such a thing as too much information and noise.

So, in my mind, that means that:

a) You are ignoring the fundamental principle that you can, in fact, teach a someone how to play a game without the use of text (be them in a manual or pop-up).

b) You believe that Civ7's poor 'Presentation' has no little to no impact on teaching new players how to play the game, in spite of a) being true.

Insultingly irreverent owl emoji aside... I never claimed that Civ, in any iteration, should be held up as the sole paragon of "good game design" (that honor falls to Mega Man X for SNES). That said, I feel Civ6 did more to explain its core mechanics to the "new player" without a reliance on game-halting pop-ups at the introduction of every new mechanic.

[Rhapsody]

Originally posted by SpitfireMkVIII:

a) You are ignoring the fundamental principle that you can, in fact, teach a someone how to play a game without the use of text (be them in a manual or pop-up).

I mean, I did say I've done that – by teaching other players myself, without having them read through manuals and suffer through basic tutorial pop-ups. As such, it would be kinda hard to ignore, even if it wasn't something I do on a relatively regular basis.

Complex information does have to come from somewhere, writing and reading is pretty useful for communicating that.

Originally posted by SpitfireMkVIII:

b) You believe that Civ7's poor 'Presentation' has no little to no impact on teaching new players how to play the game, in spite of a) being true.

You need to go back and read again what I said. You missed an important key word.

[SpitfireMkVIII]

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

I mean, I did say I've done that – by teaching other players myself, without having them read through manuals and suffer through basic tutorial pop-ups. As such, it would be kinda hard to ignore, even if it wasn't something I do on a relatively regular basis.

Complex information does have to come from somewhere, writing and reading is pretty useful for communicating that.

I'm talking about the game itself teaching you how to play it - without the use of plain text or tutorial sections. Watch this video by Egoraptor and he breaks down (in a fairly entertaining way) a couple core principles of game design; including how to inform your player of its core mechanics with the need for informational pop-ups.

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

You need to go back and read again what I said. You missed an important key word.

No, you need to go back and read again what I wrote, specifically subsection a). I can only assume from your muddled response that you were, up until this very moment, completely unaware that good game designers inform players on how to play their games without needing to add tutorial sections, or ultra-thick manuals. Either way, I'm glad to have helped pull back the curtain for you.

Now leave me the alone, and quit chasing me down from thread to thread.

[magnumaniac]

What exactly did they say about Civ 6 - a game that never, in its entire existence, had an aggregate review score of less than 74% positive?

The cope here, for an absolute disaster of a game, is next level.