Civilization VII, one month later: The community and developers chime in

Executive Producer Dennis Shirk talks with Ars about the state of the game.

See full article...

 

[neural42]

As someone who's played and enjoyed all Civ games since the original, I'm greatly enjoying Civ VII. The ages concept is interesting, some of the previous micromanaging has been nicely fixed (still waiting for auto-explore though!), and the whole city and town concept is great. I don't really have any serious complaints about it. There are UI issues and some gameplay and unit aspects and functions that need better explaining, but I think it's my favorite version of Civ so far.

I know others don't have the same opinion I do, but I wanted to express my opinion as a random anonymous old Civ player.

 

[Mr.Mumbles]

I'm sorry, but supposedly fully launched games actually needing a development roadmap plan after said "1.0" sounds like the developers completely bungled the job. That's pretty much why I don't even look at the newest hotness anymore where big ticket items are concerned. There's just too much of that shit happening in the gaming sphere nowadays. In addition, any title requiring Denuvo are an automatic no-buy for me.

Lastly, just glancing at Steam's 'Most played' list is also pretty telling. Civ VI has about twice as many players, and Civ V is only shy a few thousand players below this newest iteration. When a new game has to compete this hard against previous franchise entries it doesn't exactly inspire a lot of confidence.

 

[Panama]

I got burned by Cities Skylines 2 and now I refuse to make any pre-release or day one purchases for games. I put them on my Steam wishlist and wait. Usually, by the time of the first Steam sale most of the issues have been worked out. I don’t understand why these games aren’t being released as Early Access games? There are lots of people willing to beta test for you if you let them. Is it a pride or profits thing or something else that I don’t see as a consumer?

 

[MtnGoatJoe]

As a very casual player who hasn't ventured much past the Antiquity age, I've been pleased with the game. It's not perfect, but I've enjoyed it.

 

[jasonmicron]

I just want to allow my scouts to automatically move again.

 

[Ubersoldat19]

They have said so.

But it's hard to imagine what we need larger Maps for with the current game design. The intention with settlements is clearly to ensure players don't have a lot of cities, and that they don't distribute their settlements across different far-away continents.

Gotta chime and and say that fighting city-sprawl has been a thing since Civ 3. That's not new at all, they are just much clearer about the cap and when penalties are starting to incur.

 

[dave_ruff]

I'm another old timer, started with Civ, actually took time off of work to play Civ II, and from what I'm reading I may give VII a skip. I actually skipped Civ V too, because I thought the changes were too radical, and yes, I just went back to enjoying my copies of III and IV. I liked VI well enough, though it sounds like the opinions of V & VI have flipped quite a bit over the years.

Anyway, I'll keep an eye out on the patches and the evolving player base's sentiments. One thing I'll strongly agree with many here is, never buy anything at launch. I do also bemoan being forced to go through Steam--whenever possible, I'll buy, and download the install files from GoG.

 

[hitscan85]

At this point, I just wait for the first or second major add on to fix and complete the game…

 

[Krazycalvin]

I thought the “Firaxis rule of thirds” was one third of the game is released at launch, one third of the game is added with the first expansion and the final third of the game comes at the last expansion.

That’s why I never play it til it gets complete…

 

[TwoKiloBalls]

Firaxis totally dropped the ball with this game. They didn't listen to the feedback about what fans wanted for Civ 7 and instead did their own thing.

And that is fine, but if you do that you better get it right and they didn't. The Age system is a complete mess, no one asked for it. No one wants to change Civs three times in a game. Who on earth thought that was a good idea!!? I have zero interest in my game resetting itself three times.

They were warned about it also. When the initial rumors abut this system leaked there were polls about it on the Civ forums which they frequent by the way. The polls were very much negative towards it. The entire point was to make a Civ that "stands the test of time" it's literally the tagline of the series.

Instead they went ahead and it just doesn't work, and I don't see how they can fix it since it is baked into the game itself.

 

[TwoKiloBalls]

Civ V had the same sort of initial reviews and now it's one of the most loved of the Civ series. Civ VI was similarly panned and turned it around over time. I wouldn't read too much into the initial release reviews, Firaxis seems to know that they're in this for the long haul and not a one and done sort of scenario.

Not true at all. Both 5 and 6 had significantly better user reviews one month after release.

Perhaps not professional reviews but no one cares what they think. They're all on the take.

 

[pixithacat]

for the US citisens, reality check, people outside of the US are no longer incllined to buy us products. the US stands alone in the world right now.

 

[TwoKiloBalls]

for the US citisens, reality check, people outside of the US are no longer incllined to buy us products. the US stands alone in the world right now.

Perhaps stop posting on a US website then?

 

[Deleted member 543677]

For what it is worth, Firaxis choice of leader feels a lot more progressive than the current US climate.

 

[torp]

For what it is worth, Firaxis choice of leader feels a lot more progressive than the current US climate.

Hmm there was this advertorial on eurogamer that was telling how Firaxis interviewed Innuits for the next DLC leader pack for Civ 7.

The best comment was that they could have hired an UI specialist for that money instead.

 

[wagaf]

Civ slowly changed over time from being a serious game where people spend a lot of time, to a quick and fun casual game.

I'm sure the reviewer actually enjoyed the game. That's OK, but that's not what I'm personally looking for in a game these days.

I played every Civ game so far, but after reading a few Steam comments I decided to skip this one. I instead turned to more interesting games for me, like Factorio, The Talos Principle etc.

But it's not just about Civ turning to a more casual game. The game is also now too much about the brand itself and the revenues it can generate, the DLCs etc.
Just like new Star Wars, one can see the corporate heads with power point slides behind every decision, instead of creative people having fun.

 

[niftykev]

I made that very request to Firaxis through their official feedback channel.

It won't fix the map size, the limited expansion options (where you really can't have that many cities), or the sandbox feeling. That will all take even more work.

Honestly: you can make less than half the cities than before. More than half of possible units are gone. Same with tech. Same with culture. Same with city-building options. Same with wonders.

It looks and sounds awesome. But I had expected significantly more content, and much better quality, for freaking 130 EUR. That's 141 dollars for a game. ANY game publisher asking for that kind of money should be damn sure the release was polished, aligned with the fan base, and had a good UI.

I did not buy a 20 dollar indie game. But that's what they delivered - except for the high quality graphics.

130 EUR? Oh, you got Deluxe edition + all the day one DLC? I was like it's $70! But I guess if I add on everything it would be $140. Yeah, I would be disappointed too.

Based on Samuel's original article, I did not pull the trigger on it. The ages really didn't sit well with me, and based on feedback from you and other players around the world, I am glad I went with my gut just based on the ages aspect. But with everything else you're mentioning now, yeah, this really still sounds like early access, not fully released.

edit: fixed a typo

 

[torp]

That's fair if you prefer that old style gameplay and this doesn't hit for you. I get it! I can think of a bunch of examples of other game franchises that lost me for similar reasons, like Final Fantasy 15 and 16 for going to action combat instead of a more traditional RPG battle system.

For me, that wasn't an issue for Civ7 in part because I can always go back and dive into my favorite, 4, as much as I want. It's infinitely replayable. So to me, it makes more sense to experiment with sequels than to be conservative, as I wrote in the review.

I just tried Civ 3 Complete, it doesn't start on Windows 10 (and Crossover for Mac says "will not install")
Maybe soon Linux will become the best retro windows game platform... or i have this old macbook white that should run 3, if i can get it on it somehow...

That said, the comment I was replying to suggested I was untrustworthy and even unethical because my review led them to buy the game and they were unhappy with what they got. I'm genuinely sorry they weren't happy with the review and the game. But if that was indeed because of those big changes like the new ages etc., I don't get how my review misled them. I described those changes in great detail, and I acknowledged they were a big departure and might be controversial.

I wouldn't call it misleading. After all, your review and one more made me stay away from the game completely. The facts are somewhere in there.

I could nitpick that the tone of the review (and preview) is suspiciously positive. Even compared to your usual writing style.

 

[Carewolf]

130 EUR? Oh, you got Deluxe edition + all the day one DLC? I was like it's $70! But I guess if I add on everything it would be $140. Yeah, I would be disappointed too.

Based on Samuel's original article, I did not pull the trigger on it. The ages really didn't sit well with me, and based on feedback from you and other players around the world, I am glad I went with my gut just based on the ages aspect. But with everything else you're mentioning now, yeah, this really still sounds like early access, not fully released.

edit: fixed a typo

Base price was 70€, 130€ was for the deluxe edition with pre release availability.

But even 70€ is overpriced for a buggy Humankind clone.

 

[haileris]

This reads like some sort of paid advert.

Great if you like it, happy for you but the steam reviews continue to be pretty mixed to say the least.
Even the positive ones say it unfinished, but that doesn't stop the DLC drops does it.
Add in Denovo and major changes to the core game that people didn't really want and its a disaster for a jewel of the gaming industry - a 4x that makes big money.

First time I've rejected a Civ game (refunded)

 

[mludd]

So, I did know about the stronger emphasis on ages but as I'm not one of those obsessive types who sit around waiting impatiently for new games I didn't know much more than this.

Foolishly I assumed they wouldn't break the basic concept of what Civ games are, which is to say something like "Turn-based strategy game in which you pick a civilization and take on the role of its (seemingly immortal) leader, guiding it through the ages and trying to achieve one of the potential victory conditions".

Obviously there's more to it, but that's always been at the core of Civ. It's an open-ended strategy game where the player picks their strategy, chooses backup strategies and so on.

This latest game broke this for me. Except for a couple of games I've refunded because they straight up wouldn't run on Linux (despite having an official Linux version) this is the first Steam game I've requested a refund for.

It just didn't feel like a Civ game to me.

I could have tolerated all the usual launch-day issues that needed patching but the basic concept of the game has clearly changed. It just felt too linear.

What I was hoping for from Civ VII was better AI (not "harder" but "makes more reasonable decisions"), more developed diplomacy, general improvements and of course some big-picture innovations while still keeping the core concept in place.

This just doesn't feel like it and I'm unlikely to return to the game unless at some point they release some kind of "age-less" DLC.

 

[TheCunningIligus]

Well, consider, this could be Cloud Imperium Games, which promised a roadmap to making a roadmap.

It could be worse.

Truly a concept of a plan...

 

[jdguggs10]

After the fabulous reception the iPad version of civ6 received, I’m stunned they didn’t build on that for 7. I get that legacy PC is core, but the civ iPad experience is the most natural environment for that style of gaming, it’s just incredible to experience. Sigh

 

[formerprodigy]

Honestly, starting with 4 all civ games have shipped with some kind of major issues. Generally the base game is in good shape after like 6 months but the game isn’t fully complete until the expansion comes out. Couple years later.

This is going to take a lot longer than 6 months. I hope they get there.

I've been playing quite a bit, and the Modern Age is obviously a place holder and the 1.1 changes to the Culture Victory are a band-aid on a self-inflicted wound.

It's been obvious from the start that there's going to be a fourth Age, and the Modern Age is basically unfinished because it was never meant to be the end. It's also likely why the franchise whose tagline is "just one more turn" shipped a game where it abruptly (almost arbitrarily) ends.

The negativity aside, I'm enjoying it. But the mini-game to get mementos and such seems a bit off. The AI is not appreciably better than the 2016 era Civ VI AI. It's rather depressing that it's been seven or so years since Open AI was had a trained data set playing a passable stripped down version of Dota 2 that actually changed the way the pros played the mid-lane. Civ VIIs NPC AI is clearly just iteration on the same programmed algorithms we've seen before. There was a great opportunity to do some in-house training to optimize elements of decision making.

I've been thinking about that long compatibility list, and I wonder how much making the game playable and multi-platform capable on the Nintendo Switch is hamstringing advancements in programming and capabilities. If they intend to support the 2017 Nintendo Switch in Civ VII until 2030 or whenever Civ VIII comes out, I think they're going to make the game suffer for the vast majority of users.

Concurrent play on Steam shows Civ VI still well ahead of Civ VII which isn't getting that much more players than Civ V at this point.

Firaxis isn't going to abandon the Switch support, and I suspect their publisher 2K is going to keep pressing them for the steady revenue of very regular paid DLC drops. Which in turn will make QoL improvements harder to implement quickly as every new DLC will introduce more bugs - which we're seeing with people unlocking Great Britain, yet not being able to select it. They still haven't gotten settlements properly connecting to each other.

I'm enjoying the game, but I've already found a few UI mods that help me understand what the game itself won't tell me about. I did see that Firaxis has apparently hired Sukritact, so that's promising.

I can definitely see myself stop playing a while after the new game smell wears off. At least until the first really major expansion. Like Civ VIs Rise & Fall or Gathering Storm. They need to address the glaring issues with the UI, not to mention all the game play bugs. They need to go ahead and get the Future Age added. At this point, I'm not sure if they can really address the snowball problem that this game, and the age ending crisis was supposed to address. I just played Ada Lovelace and started the Modern Age with more than twice as many settlements and four times the science and culture as the closest AI Civ. The only times I've really enjoyed the Modern Age have when I've done a Modern Age start where the AIs and I are all starting from the same point. The lead I built up in Antiquity and surged further ahead in Exploration, makes the Modern Age almost pointless.

 

[LapSapLo]

A non-starter of a Civ until soft resets can be modded out and Denuvo is gone.

But by that stage, why play it over something else other than sheer nostalgia?

 

[Hyoubu]

I have noticed improvements coming in frequently in the 40+ hours I put in so far, but I had to take a soft pause for the one more turn addition. My own review on steam was more or less the same on the ages being so sudden and short they take you away from the game. Then the mechanics of how nukes are unlocked feels more ceremonial than a fun “wrap it up” gameplay change to the game.

I anticipate they will have an “ageless” mode next year with their first major DLC (equivalent to civ 6 gathering storm).

 

[Surgeon]

My stance on not buying the game is the incredible price combined with known torrent of DLC. To put the cherry on top, not even releasing a fit UI. The whole thing smells of a least effort, no love, money grab.

 

[Voldenuit]

Steamdb had Civ VI at 162k max concurrent players, and 39.3k 24-hr max.
Civ VII had 84k max concurrent players and 21k 24-hr max.

VI also had a rough launch and a long road to acceptance, but fundamentally, it was a lot closer to V (and Classic Civ) than VII was.

On top of the Denuvo, the price ($140 for base game and expansions), the 2k account requirement, UI issues, and the drastic changes to the mechanics, I feel that Firaxis has burned a lot of goodwill from the Civ community.

Even if they manage to hammer the game back into shape, I think a lot of the people they alienated will never come back. Positive reception on the subreddit is self-selecting, people who are unhappy won't engage, or if they do, will get downvoted as they are against the consensus. So I think the Steam reviews and player counts are the more objective measure of how well it is being received; you have to have bought the game (or been gifted a key) to leave a review. 49% positive reviews means 51% negative*. Did nobody play test or focus test the game back in Alpha?

* Granted, Monster Hunter Wilds only has a 62% positive rating, yet has 8M total sales and 1.3M concurrent players on Steam, but most of that is due to the performance issues of the PC port, and hopefully an easier fix than fundamental game design. People love the game, they just aren't happy with the state of the PC port.

 

[wutanggg]

They were really clear about the major changes that were coming - particularly with the Ages. Yes, the UI sucks and I wish I hadn't picked it up on launch, but to say they didn't trail that this would be a major departure isn't really fair on the devs at all.

I don't know why you're being downvoted for this. The three Agee system made up a significant potion of the pre release communications.
The whole industry has no incentive to change anyhow, so many people still pre order and buy day one.

 

[Gillian Seed]

It's great that you're having a good time with the game. I won't take that away from you.

But I am personally extremely dissatisfied with this release - for which I paid a ridiculous high price because I trusted the company would deliver a Civilization game.

I hate the whole "ages" approach. I played thousands of hours in the franchise starting with Civ I on the Amiga 500. This is not a good Civ game. It robs me of agency, ownership and engagement.

I started playing Civ on my Amiga 500 too, thousands of hours, and a fair bit of Colonization. I'd not made the switch to Windows/PC when Civ II came out so that passed me by, but I've bought and played every Civ since.

I like V and VI, but the way the "ages" were described in a couple of reviews put me off buying VII. I'll wait for it in a sale.

 

[taymorf]

Remake CIV IV in 64 bit and all other CIV games are beaten

 

[torp]

On top of the Denuvo, the price ($140 for base game and expansions), the 2k account requirement,

WHAT? What 2k account requirement?

Good fucking bye Firaxis.

And since this wasn't mentioned in any of the reviews/previews here, I'm going to join the choir asking if it was a paid advert...

 

[Deleted member 543677]

WHAT? What 2k account requirement?

Good fucking bye Firaxis.

And since this wasn't mentioned in any of the reviews/previews here, I'm going to join the choir asking if it was a paid advert...

The 2K account requirement is for multiplayer (and getting napoleon variants)

 

[torp]

The 2K account requirement is for multiplayer (and getting napoleon variants)

Shows how much goodwill Firaxis/2K have left that I believed it

Hmm I wonder why the person I replied to didn't notice that. Is the UI deceptively trying to goad you into making a 2K account?

 

[Deleted member 543677]

Shows how much goodwill Firaxis/2K have left that I believed it

Hmm I wonder why the person I replied to didn't notice that. Is the UI deceptively trying to goad you into making a 2K account?

I didn’t pay attention to all the nagging because I created an account to get the two Napoleons immediately.

However, 2K definitely deserves having a negative a priori.

I wonder if there would be any viability for a COOP game studio or publisher. (I stead of evil big capitalistic corporations), or more generally a model where gamers would find and have a say in the company, and those supporters would then benefit if the game succeeds.

Given how gamers are, however, I feel this is a recipe of failure through developer harassment and burn out.

 

[torp]

I didn’t pay attention to all the nagging because I created an account to get the two Napoleons immediately.

However, 2K definitely deserves having a negative a priori.

I wonder if there would be any viability for a COOP game studio or publisher. (I stead of evil big capitalistic corporations), or more generally a model where gamers would find and have a say in the company, and those supporters would then benefit if the game succeeds.

One lovely roguelite i played, Dead Cells, is done by a French "worker's cooperative". I'll definitely buy their next title, whenever it shows up and if they survive... not because it's a cooperative but because I loved their game.

Given how gamers are, however, I feel this is a recipe of failure through developer harassment and burn out.

If you take into account the input of all the "gamers" you'll have to quit the industry due to the harrasment part...

[ Incidentally I stopped playing competitive multiplayer games online around the time of Starcraft 2 because I was tired of getting called a "stupid noob", usually when I won. ]

...or at best you won't get anything done due to all the conflicting opinions.

Look at how betrayed we traditional Civ players are feeling now. 2K did a big poo poo for 3 reasons:

• unfinished game at launch
• core gameplay "streamlining" in a long running game franchise that changes the game to something different
• cash grab

But how would we feel about a company that commits only one or two of the above sins?

 

[Nalyd]

I’m enjoying it. I played a lot of Civ VI and my first part of a game with VII felt like something was missing, but a lot of what’s missing is the micromanagement of builders and such in early game. The opponent military AI got perceptibly better in the first patch, which hit in the middle of that first game, and enough other things were fixed I am optimistic they’ll iron out the issues.

Some fun observations:

ages ending is indeed too abrupt, but it saved me from losing a couple cities in a war gone bad at the end of exploration

Settling too close by another leader is a sure way to get me to start building units and degrading our relationship

Combat is much more fun than VI despite being an evolution of the same paradigm

Late game turns when there are a lot of units on the board are soooooooo much faster than in VI, which also improves the combat experience, more of the time is now in-turn managing my units rather than waiting up to 10 minutes for the AIs to move one unit at a time.

Wait there are cultural ways to win?

And yes fix the overbuilding UI so I don’t need to do deep research to figure out whether this building will be a net win. But that is the kind of thing that is clearly on the patch list.

 

[Abulia]

I've no horse in this race (I'm currently playing Old World for my Civ fix), but it seems to me that in this day and age of $70 USD asking price, paid EA -- essentially a paid "beta" -- and a more defined DLC roadmap than shipping working features, that we, as consumers should be demanding more from developers, not penning apology articles like this.

We get it. Game development is hard. That's why we're paying you to deliver a finished product. If you can't do that, delay the release, don't ship some half-assed software, and certainly don't come at us with your litany of excuses as to how you messed up. You control everything in this loop, so it's entirely your fault.

 

[historic_sqrt_66]

The 2K account requirement is for multiplayer (and getting napoleon variants)

So what? Steam already exists

 

[torp]

So what? Steam already exists

So you want to force gog customers to make a steam account to play in multiplayer?