Civilization VII finally lets you build a civ that stands the test of time
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Messing with the core formula of Civ was a bad idea. There's a reason why the series has been around for 30 years!
Upvote
80
(95
/
-15)
Sounds like its finally time to pick it up! Appreciate the devs being willing to try new things, but also being willing to work with the community and make it what everyone wants
Upvote
38
(46
/
-8)
"The intent behind it was to allow the game’s designers to solve some longtime problems with how traditional Civ games could lag or have balance problems at specific stages."
Which is hilarious in that it entirely exposes how little they understand about what people like about these games.
Which is hilarious in that it entirely exposes how little they understand about what people like about these games.
Upvote
85
(96
/
-11)
Well that, and there are so many other gameplay mechanics that can fix late game slog without having to put the whole game on rails and destroying the fun of the sandbox.
For instance, five years before Civ7 was released, Soren Johnson (Civ 4 lead guy) released his game Old World with some really brilliant solutions to longstanding problems in Civ. Stuff like a globally shared movement pool, more dynamic city building and specialization options, great economic and resource exchange model, more tactical battles, excellent (and huge) map generation, and a relatively quick denoument once you've basically won, among others. None of this dumbed the game down, it just made it play faster and better.
Civ 5 and 6 were really great and increased lifetime unit sales of the franchise by more than an order of magnitude. People liked it. So I thought all Firaxis had to do for Civ 7 was keep the same formula and loan a few good ideas from Old World and it would have been a home run.
Upvote
65
(67
/
-2)
Agreed, Old World had so many nice features like that. The shared move/action pool is something we're going to see a lot of moving forward. I thought it might be fun if they just took one idea and kept going, like you build the ship to mars or another star, and then you play there, instead of ending the game.
I still think civ4 is peak civ, and I've played a lot of 5 and 6. Part of the business model now is just to milk players for money every few months with a feature that was left out from the previous game.
My first question on seeing this article was "did they make it cheaper"? Because I know a lot of people who felt doubly let down by the fact that it sucked at launch and that it was so expensive.
Upvote
27
(30
/
-3)
I'm excited to download it again and try it out tonight. Playing at launch was rough.
Upvote
9
(11
/
-2)
I mean, in the actual dawn of the series those problems didn't exist because the only difference between civs was their icon color and the what leader you saw in diplomacy.
Upvote
39
(39
/
0)
I actually didn't mind Civ switching. It made sense to me. The problem I had was how everything else changed in the new era. I just didn't want to deal with learning a whole new thing.
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
Sad that it was mentioned that HumanKind (2021) introduced this concept or switching your civ/faction during different Eras. It also extended and improved various aspects of the Civ-building genre.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
Endless Legend by the same developer also gave us multi-tile growing cities before Civ added districts. There's a lot of innovation in the genre outside of Civ (Old World was also mentioned).
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
Frankly, I left Civ (after being a fan since the first one) for Old World and never looked back. When I was finally tempted by this latest iteration, I saw the “you must play a new civ every era” and thought someone must’ve made a marketing mistake (“They must’ve forgotten the “you have the option to” bit.”).
Ever since Sid left the routine decision-making loop, I’ve noticed regular “What were they thinking?!” mistakes. This at least sounds (hopefully) positive and they might be back on track (finally).
Ever since Sid left the routine decision-making loop, I’ve noticed regular “What were they thinking?!” mistakes. This at least sounds (hopefully) positive and they might be back on track (finally).
Upvote
10
(14
/
-4)
Looking at the Steamdb data, Civ VII is usually between half and a third of the players of Civ VI. It hasn't been above Civ V in players since like 3 months after launch. It's hard to look at just how much of the fanbase outright rejected the game and call it a success.
This update sure won't hurt, but the Age system itself is the core problem with how many game-warping side effects it has. That's probably unfixable, even if they've addressed the UI, the forced Civ switching, and a lot of the other issues in what was frankly a shockingly poor release for a franchise this old.
The game isn't going to disappear or anything, but I think it's pretty clear that mistakes were made.
(Useless fact: All three of those Civ games combined still have a lower 24 hour peak player count than Geometry Dash does. That comparison doesn't mean anything given the totally different genres and price points, but I do find it pretty neat how big Geometry Dash is.)
Attachments
Upvote
30
(30
/
0)
Definitely a fan of Old World and excited about what has been coming out in Endless Legend 2! EL2 does need to cook for a while longer before being let out of Early Access.
Civ 7 ... started at launch and still haven't been able to bring myself to finish the final age. It just all felt like such a chore. I'm hoping the improvements that have come since that have injected some new life to the game but since I didn't have a problem with the idea of civ switching I am still rather doubtful. It just felt bereft of the fun that came with switching civs in Humankind! May give Civ 7 a try again this weekend.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
I like the core game but they've devolved into the same sort of scam that Paradox uses now. I'll pay $50 for the game if that's the whole game. I will not pay $50 for the base game and then an extra $200 for all the tiny little DLC that should have been part of the base game. I might pay an extra $20 or something if you bundle up every DLC that currently exists and give me every DLC that ever will exist for free on top of that as part of the bundle but otherwise forget it.
Upvote
12
(20
/
-8)
The major problem was calling this Civ 7.
If they want to experiment with different features, they should have called this "Civilization: Ages of Conquest" or something like that. Market it as a spinoff. See how people like the features, and keep the main branch of Civilization the same. This helps for two reasons. 1: If it's popular, you can implement some features into the mainline. Especially if some people say "I wish this were in the mainline games". That's how you gather valuable feedback, without alienating your core audience. 2: If it isn't popular, you don't risk alienating your core fanbase. The downside is of course, you got 2 games to keep updated, but the upsides is that you aren't risking the whole brand identity for something new.
If they want to experiment with different features, they should have called this "Civilization: Ages of Conquest" or something like that. Market it as a spinoff. See how people like the features, and keep the main branch of Civilization the same. This helps for two reasons. 1: If it's popular, you can implement some features into the mainline. Especially if some people say "I wish this were in the mainline games". That's how you gather valuable feedback, without alienating your core audience. 2: If it isn't popular, you don't risk alienating your core fanbase. The downside is of course, you got 2 games to keep updated, but the upsides is that you aren't risking the whole brand identity for something new.
Upvote
27
(33
/
-6)
It's been a bit since Civ 5, but I'll give 7 a try soon, it sounds like you can play a single civ over an entire game now, at least.
My favorite Civ game isn't even technically in the series, it's SMAC. I'm still waiting for another future-themed Civ-type game that's better than the game that Sid Meier didn't even work on... which is 25 years old now.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
I was about to fire off my keyboard about how it seems like all grand strategy games of note (Civ, Stellaris, Europa Universalis, Victoria) are all owned by the same ghouls. But nope--they're just run by people who all seem to have gone to the same business school.
Upvote
-11
(2
/
-13)
I played about 40 maybe 50 hrs around launch and what sent me packing wasn't the Civ/Leader changes it was the Crisis/Catastrophes - the idea i could play a whole age and in the last or 2nd to last turn have my (as example) Library destroyed with all its great works - thus costing me the Legacy, and the "win" for the age, with 0 chance to 'recover' before scoring and progression. The idea of RNG that can fully ruin your progress at the last step with no control, recovery, response, or foresight was just game ruining for me.
I've never gone back, no idea if its even been adjusted or fixed, I read these articles out of curiosity, but i have zero interested in even downloading it and booting it to try anymore. There are just "too many good games" out there now days, that i see no reason to return to something that burned once already.
I've never gone back, no idea if its even been adjusted or fixed, I read these articles out of curiosity, but i have zero interested in even downloading it and booting it to try anymore. There are just "too many good games" out there now days, that i see no reason to return to something that burned once already.
Upvote
31
(33
/
-2)
This a smoke screen. And anytime someone from Firaxis or Take Two brings it up they should be questioned on it. The reason for the change was to make it quicker and cheaper to add more Civs and leaders to sell as DLC.
Take-Two was expecting to make that Paradox, Stellaris money.
Last edited:
Upvote
-2
(10
/
-12)
Every new Civ game faces the same backlash.
Civ5 introduced the "one unit per tile". It was baaaaaaad. They made it work in the following patches, like allowing civilian units to share a tile with a military unit. And balance, balance patches.
Civ6 introduced the districts. It was baaaaaaad. They made it work in the following patches.
...
New Civ games always face huge backlash "because they changed something". I think it's normal, and part of the process. I was waiting for the first major patch/dlc to try it myself, as the Civ games usually requires this to make them enjoyable.
All this has happened before, and it will all happen again. So say we all.
I'm old.
Upvote
37
(40
/
-3)
I am in my late 40s and first played Civ 2 on my 486sx/2 after purchasing it from my local Babbage's.
I've played every one of them since then, for thousands of hours, and Civ 7 was the only one that I walked away from, primarily because of the age-switching. It was so jarring, so weird, and so against my own deeply held beliefs of what makes Civilization games fun and one of my most loved series.
I'll be trying it over the long holiday weekend.
I've played every one of them since then, for thousands of hours, and Civ 7 was the only one that I walked away from, primarily because of the age-switching. It was so jarring, so weird, and so against my own deeply held beliefs of what makes Civilization games fun and one of my most loved series.
I'll be trying it over the long holiday weekend.
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)
I have also played all of them, including Alpha Aentauri and beyond Earth. It usually takes at least a year to get things as good as it gets. So far civ 7 have been a disappointment, but I will give it a new try.
I wonder how it works with my non-competitive sandcastle playstyle? I usually play on a pretty low difficulty and try to make a good happy world with lot of nice buildings. Childish, of course, but it makes me smile. If I want to kill things I play other games.
I wonder how it works with my non-competitive sandcastle playstyle? I usually play on a pretty low difficulty and try to make a good happy world with lot of nice buildings. Childish, of course, but it makes me smile. If I want to kill things I play other games.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
Given the better alternatives, I've abandoned Civ, only picking up 5-6-7 when they hit very low prices, just to see the gameplay. Had to abandon the Paradox lines as well, with their crappy nickle and dime DLC that often doesn't work well to boot.
When I get the urge nowadays, I start up an Age of Wonders campaign, or replay Alpha Centauri. Though perhaps I should try this Old World thaing.
When I get the urge nowadays, I start up an Age of Wonders campaign, or replay Alpha Centauri. Though perhaps I should try this Old World thaing.
Upvote
1
(4
/
-3)
I'm a casual (who's spent hundreds of hours total on the previous iterations of the series, but still), and I've only played Civ VII because it's included in Apple Arcade. That being said, FWIW, I didn't hate the ages system. I appreciate how it allows for some twists in gameplay, while also limiting some mechanics to smaller parts of the game (for example, religion).
I'm clearly different from most hardcore Civ players in that I'm not too fond of sandbox games, though. So I welcome the clearer objectives at different stages, having a "stage boss" in the form of crisis, and being able to just play an age and feel like I did finish a short run of Civ.
Just my casual thoughts, though.
I'm clearly different from most hardcore Civ players in that I'm not too fond of sandbox games, though. So I welcome the clearer objectives at different stages, having a "stage boss" in the form of crisis, and being able to just play an age and feel like I did finish a short run of Civ.
Just my casual thoughts, though.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
I'm holding out for Crystal Civ, myself.
... Though given how many hours I have in V, maybe they already made it.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
I don't know if it's the same backlash, but every new Civ game launches with a slew of problems and takes years to fix it seems.
- Civ V's 1UPT AI was dumb as bricks at launch, made up for it with wild production bonuses, and could get so many units that it would literally get stuck because there was to way to move them without collisons. IIRC it also basically didn't understand the naval side of the game at all at launch and an island map would really mess it up (though they fixed that pretty fast). IIRC it took some time for it supplant IV in the community, and of course with these games some people just never leave the old one.
- Civ VI didn't have a launch quite that brutal but it was missing things like Diplomatic Victory and had a bunch of technical problems, IIRC. It took it a year and a half (and its first expansion) to finally overtake V in daily player count on Steam.
- Civ VII launched with a mess of a UI, which was a problem regardless of views on the gameplay changes themselves. Map selection and generation was also really poor, which is kind of a bread and butter thing for this genre. It's pulling the seemingly usual pattern of launching in a state worse than the several year old game people already have.
Maybe they can repeat the feat again of an expansion that redeems it and finally supplants the previous game, I don't know. But it seems like they keep launching them in a state where they need another 18 months before they're not just a downgrade over the game people already have.
(I'm less confident about them doing it this time because the age system change is itself really unpopular and changing that would be a massive overhaul rather than an expansion. That's probably going to be a "fix it in Civ VIII" thing.)
Upvote
15
(16
/
-1)
You may find the age reset jarring then since a bunch of that stuff is going to get reset twice during the game. It's no longer one long campaign, it's 3 shorter ages with a soft reset transition in between them. Until this patch during that you also had to pick a new civ.
IIRC most of your cities actually downgrade to towns, though that may have also changed in a patch. I don't know.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
That seems an odd justification, if meant that way. Isn't it more or less true of anyone lacking experience in any prior environment, gaming or otherwise? How can I be objectively critical of something if I have no experience with it?
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
I've been a player since Civ 3. Civ 3, 5, and 6 clicked for me.
Right now, Pokopia has my attention, and I'm not sure when I'll download and try Test of Time. Could be tonight, could be 3-6 months out. We'll see. I'm hoping 7 draws me in with this one when I try it.
Right now, Pokopia has my attention, and I'm not sure when I'll download and try Test of Time. Could be tonight, could be 3-6 months out. We'll see. I'm hoping 7 draws me in with this one when I try it.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
MilanKraft
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
I do believe this will be enough for me to take the plunge. Destiny awaits, suh!
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
I've been playing since the original Civilization. I liked the sense of building it had.
Every generation of designers has felt the need to make it more like a boardgame/optimization puzzle. I miss the old feeling.
For me the original sin was when they stopped prompting you to name cities when you founded them. It was clear the designers wanted to make a different game. And step by step until Civ7
Every generation of designers has felt the need to make it more like a boardgame/optimization puzzle. I miss the old feeling.
For me the original sin was when they stopped prompting you to name cities when you founded them. It was clear the designers wanted to make a different game. And step by step until Civ7
Upvote
4
(6
/
-2)
Ah, good, time to actually fire it up again. I dont mind the concept of the civ switches… for a different game (or, as now, an optional game mode). When I play civ I want it to, by default, feel like civ
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
With phrasing like that, I'm surprised this article isn't coming out in December!
Upvote
-1
(1
/
-2)
This.
But the real point is, upthread, they could have figured out all the feedback they did changing Civ 7 without naming it Civ 7 and irreparably damaging the brand.
I continue to stand by the exceedingly harsh point that Civilization 7 is actively harming distribution storefronts by taking up storefront screen real-estate that could be held by better strategy games by smaller studios, and improving the brand reputation by simply no longer being for sale.
Upvote
-5
(2
/
-7)