“One More Turn” but not “One More Game” - Revisiting my first impressions of Civilization 7

[CGPanama]

What map script are you using? Because I had the same issue until I switched to fractal which, at the cost of basically never seeing an inland cliff, has MUCH more interesting generation.
You likely will be able to reliably reach the island chain by setting out from the eastern/westernmost points, but reaching the distant lands is another matter entirely. In my previous game, it was africa-shaped and I had the misfortune of trying to cross twenty tiles of empty ocean.

I have tried all of them and honestly felt little difference between them. Even if I find myself on an archipelago units can cross the waters early enough that it is just another terrain type. I haven't been "lucky" enough to find a gap big enough to keep me from discovering the new world within a handful of turns as all of the other civs.

 

[CGPanama]

I agree very much with your points here. Just to add a few more thoughts:

• There's an important distinction between powerful and overpowered. Just because something is powerful, it's not necessarily overpowered. Like you say, the game needs to have powerful elements to give the player something to strive for. Obviously the challenge for developers (and one they haven't succeeded very well in avoiding in previous games) is avoiding snowballing so that the player who gets to the first powerful things get an advantage in reaching the next ones. I'm not sure all of the examples you list are necessarily overpowered (Petra, for instance, I would not rate overpowered, but also see below).
• There's also an important distinction between being situationally overpowered and universally overpowered. Obviously things that are universally overpowered must be avoided. Adam Smith and Big Ben* probably fell in this category (Forbidden City less so imo., but it was borderline case). On the other hand, I don't think things that are situationally overpowered are inherently bad - sure, if they are so overpowered that they guarantee you the win, yes, but things that are situationally very powerful is not a problem imo. Petra falls in that category imo.: Yes, it can be extremely powerful, but you need the very right circumstances for it to be so, and even then it was hardly game-breaking, and there was always the chance that someone else would grab it before you got to it.

Great points. Problems with early Civ5 and Civ6 often were the universally overpowered, which would get rebalanced over time. But erring on the side of everything being equally balanced feels like it has deadened the game.

Anyway, I think this thread ones again confirms to me that I did the right thing by not buying Civ7 (for now). On a sidenote, I just installed Civ5 Vox Populi the other night, and I haven't had so much fun playing a civ game in years. I ended staying up til 2 AM fridays night and 1 AM last night playing (and I never go to bed later than midnight), and I had completely forgotten how addictively fun Civ can be. I mean I have enjoyed Civ6 over the last years and played it regularly, but I did not realize how incredibly boring much of that game was compared to earlier installments.

Despite my complaints. I am happy that I did buy Civ7. As I said, each of my games played I have thoroughly enjoyed while playing. And I will come back to Civ7 again, especially as mods become integrated (I am too lazy to seek them out and manual install) and new patches and DLC are released. But will I reach the 4000+ hours that I logged in 4, 5, and 6? Dunno. This is the first time that I am actually considering reinstalling one of these games to get my Civ fix between Civ7 games. That is telling.

 

[UWHabs]

I understand some of those points. I think one of the aspects is that since every civ is focused on one era, everyone is unique. And since everyone is unique, it almost feels like nobody is. Like, if I'm fighting on my continent with 4 civs, and everyone has a unique infantry unit, sure, they might each have their situational bonuses, but if everyone is special it makes my special bonus feel like less.

And similarly for the terrain. Some of it is that I think the map can be really hard to read at times. The fact that I can barely tell Tundra vs Grassland apart, for example. Or that it's not like the old civ games where your game plays very differently if you're in a flat grassland area vs in a hilly plains area. And then compared to 6, for example, the fact that every city was specialized (overly specialized), whereas now it almost feels like the bonuses vary less. If starting in a Tropical zone you sort of had an incentive to really run down a science path, vs being in tundra knowing that production will be low, but that maybe you'll have lots of happiness. Or maybe desert zones you know that yields are going to be hard to come by, but when you have a wet zone, you can get some big farms going.

I think the game could probably use a little balance by ironically being less balanced. Like, some of the adjacency bonuses just don't seem to matter enough. Does it really matter if I have a +3 library vs a +4 library? One science there, plus half a science per specialist? It barely seems to have an impact all things considered. Sure, every point matters in the exploration when you chase those high yield tiles, but other than that, I feel it just doesn't come into play enough.

I do wonder if maybe the game could have a bit more balance where maybe the base yields are less, but the bonus yields are more. So like for specialists, maybe have them give +1/+1 by default rather than +2/+2, but have them give the yield of the full adjacency. Or even like if you had each specialist have a base yield of +1/+1, but then based on your government, that would apply a different bonus? So Classical Republic gives you +2 culture per specialist, Despotism gives you +2 science per specialist, and maybe Oligarchy gives you 1/2 maintenance on specialists? Or just give me more uneven bonuses - one of the governments can give you +1 culture on quarters per adjacent district, another gives +1 happiness, another gives +1 science?

In any event, I do still enjoy things. Definitely curious to see where the balance changes over time.

 

[GeneralZIft]

Powerful wonders made the game fun in more than one sense.
When you strive to build something that could change the game for you, and for example, it gets stolen by another player, that creates friction and drama between players. Which encourages war over wonders. If you manage to get the wonder then you get a really strong advantageous situation but might earn the ire of others.
You also have to invest a lot into building a wonder, and that has a strong risk-reward associated with it.

If they focus so much on flattening the game they'll slowly make it very bland and therefore less replayable

 

[CGPanama]

Powerful wonders made the game fun in more than one sense.
When you strive to build something that could change the game for you, and for example, it gets stolen by another player, that creates friction and drama between players. Which encourages war over wonders. If you manage to get the wonder then you get a really strong advantageous situation but might earn the ire of others.
You also have to invest a lot into building a wonder, and that has a strong risk-reward associated with it.

Very true, now that you mention it. There are times that I started a wonder build and couldn't tell you if it got sniped or finished building (The notifications are so bland and repetitive I don't even look at them). I just start up a new build when the prompt came up without a care in the world.

 

[Infixo]

@CGPanama It really pains me to read opinions like yours. It pains me because they are true and on spot. It pains to see that the game is designed and targets a totally different players, not old fans, not people looking for challenging and engaging gameplay, not looking for epic long stories that unfold before your eyes. Just a new generation, with a different focus and needs. All is left is a beautifully gorgeous mindless shallow clicker.

 

[aelf]

@CGPanama It really pains me to read opinions like yours. It pains me because they are true and on spot. It pains to see that the game is designed and targets a totally different players, not old fans, not people looking for challenging and engaging gameplay, not looking for epic long stories that unfold before your eyes. Just a new generation, with a different focus and needs. All is left is a beautifully gorgeous mindless shallow clicker.

Completely disagree with this take. This generational narrative is frankly nonsensical.

 

[AD1730]

I understand some of those points. I think one of the aspects is that since every civ is focused on one era, everyone is unique. And since everyone is unique, it almost feels like nobody is. Like, if I'm fighting on my continent with 4 civs, and everyone has a unique infantry unit, sure, they might each have their situational bonuses, but if everyone is special it makes my special bonus feel like less.

I think the game could probably use a little balance by ironically being less balanced. Like, some of the adjacency bonuses just don't seem to matter enough. Does it really matter if I have a +3 library vs a +4 library? One science there, plus half a science per specialist? It barely seems to have an impact all things considered. Sure, every point matters in the exploration when you chase those high yield tiles, but other than that, I feel it just doesn't come into play enough.

Firaxis sacrificed this game on the altar of balance. I hope it was worth it for them.

One of the core challenges of Civilization for decades has been navigating situations that your civ was fundamentally unsuited for and capitalizing on times when it has the advantage. Civ 7 effectively removes this core challenge from the game.

 

[GIO888]

The more I visit the forums and read threads like this, the more certain I am that not buying Civ VII til after the summer is a good plan.

 

[protocol7]

Makes sense, I regret buying the founders edition. I assumed they would treat the fans well but I guess not. It sort of feels like they are dumping half-baked DLC to burn through the pre-paid content so they can charge more again asap. I’m back to other games for a bit already, and will give it another shot if a expansion pack comes out most likely.

 

[Infixo]

Completely disagree with this take. This generational narrative is frankly nonsensical.

Funny you didn't question "beautifully gorgeous mindless shallow clicker" which is the actual point of my small comment.

 

[aelf]

Funny you didn't question "beautifully gorgeous mindless shallow clicker" which is the actual point of my small comment.

No, I do question it. But it's obviously your personal opinion, which I don't agree with. Trying to link it to some 'new generation' of players or whatever is objectively nonsensical, though.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I disagree with the distinction of older "sandbox" games and Civ7 having forced narrative. All games since Civ1 were structured around tech tree and victory conditions. The higher difficulty you set, the less freedom you had in your games from beginning to end.

And with time more elements to structure game experience were added. Civics appeared in SMAC and finally evolved into parallel tree in Civ6, age switch events were also added in one of Civ6 expansions. Civ7 just takes one step further.

I could tell from my experience what Civ7 actually does feel like a civ game, you just have two levels. You play quite traditional civ game within the age, but at the same time you play kind of metagame, preparing your civilization for future ages. That's really cool and interesting once you catch it.

What hurts the replayability, though, is not age transition or any other core mechanics. The problem is in "balanced" maps designed for multiplayer, which are much more predictable than it's fun for a civ game. But that's the problem which developers acknowledge and plan to fix really soon by adding more random default maps, so I wouldn't say it's a reason for concerns.

 

[Shirotora Kenshin]

It pains to see that the game is designed and targets a totally different players, not old fans, not people looking for challenging and engaging gameplay, not looking for epic long stories that unfold before your eyes.

This. This is my impression as well. And i could imagine that this indeed has something to do with different generations. But not only that. I believe the devs changed so much in Civ7 only for the sake of change. Not for the better. So much what i loved in Civ games isn‘t there anymore, as it seems to me.

But we‘ll see, i still try to watch when friends playing Civ7, and maybe, if Denuvo will maybe being removed in a few months (but i doubt that), then i would like to give the new game another chance… only because i love Civ actually.

So even when a lot of us are just darn disappointed in Civ7, just don‘t let us give Civ up yet. Maybe it‘s too early for that… let‘s believe in Firaxis, that the disappointing things will change for better… otherwise i don‘t know what to do with Civ in the future… aside from saying goodbye.

 

[aelf]

Maybe it's the so-called old gamers that are unable to deal with change whatsoever.

I don't think that's true, by the way, because clearly a lot of old civ fans are enjoying this iteration enough. But you can see how lame this sort of stereotyping is. Unless maybe you're too old to see it.

 

[CGPanama]

Makes sense, I regret buying the founders edition. I assumed they would treat the fans well but I guess not. It sort of feels like they are dumping half-baked DLC to burn through the pre-paid content so they can charge more again asap. I’m back to other games for a bit already, and will give it another shot if a expansion pack comes out most likely.

I am not sure I agree. I think, even with its faults, Civilization 7 is a game designed to play a certain way. I don't think it is half-baked, nor that DLC is a bad thing. Just that the game works great for a play through and maybe even as a good multi-player experience (not my area), but it does not meet a re-playability standard that I expected. I purchased the founders edition and do not regret it. I already have gotten my money's worth and expect to build on that over time.

 

[protocol7]

Possibly, but on the other hand it being unfinished seems to largely be a consensus opinion at this point. In any case I’m open to them “finishing baking” and trying it again at some point in the future.

 

[CGPanama]

Maybe it's the so-called old gamers that are unable to deal with change whatsoever.

I don't think that's true, by the way, because clearly a lot of old civ fans are enjoying this iteration enough. But you can see how lame this sort of stereotyping is. Unless maybe you're too old to see it.

I don't agree that it is a generational thing (and I have seen a lot of generations -- I played 7 Cities of Gold and Art of War in the 80's). The game itself has so many elements that work for me and I think are ideally suited for a 4x game. As someone who has played Humankind, Ara, Old World, Endless and many adjacent strategy games, Civilization 7 still beats out all of them. (I don't think I even finished a single game of some of them).

I will say it again, Civilization 7 is a fun game. I enjoyed every play through as an "old-timer" and think it is a good game. I just want to have that same feeling on the 6th game as the 1st.

Edit Note: I wanted to add that I am not criticizing aelf, but agreeing with them. Didn't want it to come out that way if it did.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It pains to see that the game is designed and targets a totally different players, not old fans.

And i could imagine that this indeed has something to do with different generations.

Bringing the topic of generations doesn't make sense, especially on this forum, full of people playing Civilization games since Civ1 in early 90s and still enjoying Civ7.

If you don't like the game, that's totally fine, it just has nothing to do with your age or the game being dumbed down. It's just what you in particular don't enjoy it.

 

[ThichN]

Old gamer here, long-time fan of the franchise. Hopelessly addicted to Civ7. For me it very much is "one more game." I thought at first I'd get tired after trying all of the leaders (I haven't yet), but I've already played the same leader with a different Civ lineup. It would've been downright impossible for Firaxis to please everyone. I, for one, am so pleased to see them take risks and change the formula. If they had released Civ6 with updated graphics, you know folks would've been screaming "cash grab" just as they are now.

I think Civ7 gives a lot of chances for players to pause and shift while maintaining the sandbox. I could see in the future a "narrative event intensity" setting. I think I'm in the minority in that I want more of these and for them to really pack a punch (shameless fan of Old World here). Civ7 has a lot to savor, and I think it rewards gamers for doing so.

I agree with some of the map gen comments, though. Fractal is the superior map in my opinion. I've had really fun games. The latest as Carthage had a fantastic Mediterranean-ish sea that enabled me to exert my naval power. But I still want settings for elevation, age of the world, water levels, etc.