A little bit of meta concerning this very forum...

[stealth_nsk]

I disagree about 6 being the least revolutionary in impact, though I'd probably agree in intent, I don't think it was meant to be revolutionary but i think it was.

I think the districts and adjacency porn quite fundamentally changed the nature of how to play civ compared to previous entries, and introduced much more of a sense of min maxing in the game even to more casual fans, and that has impacted people's expectations of what civ. I don't think we would have so many people on board with age switching if we hadnt had civ 6, I think that's incentivised people play civ in a manner which prioritises optimisation over experiential gameplay.

Yeah, I wrote it a bit unclear. Civ6 wasn't perceived as revolutionary before we actually played it a bit and understood how much placement planning and policy juggling changed the game. So, before the game release the reaction was mostly neutral and positive.

 

[Black Gate]

Civ6 didn't seem to do all that much. Most people felt districts were an interesting change (so not a lot of arguing), builders weren't a huge difference, and you either liked or disliked the art style. Not really that many topics of discussion.

Civ7 is doing a lot. Civ switching. Ages. Crises. Significantly more complex civs. Leaders separate from civs. Commanders. Potential unique mechanics for each age. The age mechanic meaning the game launches with more civs than ever at a more granular detail than ever, so there's even more speculation about who gets it. The tying of wonders to civs increasing that speculation. Does the modern age end in 1969? (IMO, it doesn't) How will splitting districts and buildings change things? What about the changes to how cities expand?

More topics, especially more controversial ones, leads to more discussion. What did people even argue about before Civ6's release, whether or not the graphics were bad? There's only so much you can say about that before everyone's bored.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Civ6 didn't seem to do all that much. Most people felt districts were an interesting change (so not a lot of arguing), builders weren't a huge difference, and you either liked or disliked the art style. Not really that many topics of discussion.

Civ7 is doing a lot. Civ switching. Ages. Crises. Significantly more complex civs. Leaders separate from civs. Commanders. Potential unique mechanics for each age. The age mechanic meaning the game launches with more civs than ever at a more granular detail than ever, so there's even more speculation about who gets it. The tying of wonders to civs increasing that speculation. Does the modern age end in 1969? (IMO, it doesn't) How will splitting districts and buildings change things? What about the changes to how cities expand?

More topics, especially more controversial ones, leads to more discussion. What did people even argue about before Civ6's release, whether or not the graphics were bad? There's only so much you can say about that before everyone's bored.

The biggest topic for discussion was a leaked picture with all vanilla leaders and we were speculating whether there's Tamar of Georgia.

 

[Mudokon Pop]

The biggest topic for discussion was a leaked picture with all vanilla leaders and we were speculating whether there's Tamar of Georgia.

I really enjoyed the leader bingo thread. The speculation was fun. Speculation is the main reason I'm here right now.

Regarding other concerns raised - it may be an issue if Fireaxis gets more feedback from diehard fans on one site but the truth is that forums are much easier to search and follow discussions chronologically than other social media. Forums also tend to have longer posts. People who have gotten their favourite civs already have less to post about - those of us with wish-lists are more likely to post.

However I'd imagine that player data from steam/epic games is a major factor in decisions made.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I really enjoyed the leader bingo thread. The speculation was fun. Speculation is the main reason I'm here right now.

Regarding other concerns raised - it may be an issue if Fireaxis gets more feedback from diehard fans on one site but the truth is that forums are much easier to search and follow discussions chronologically than other social media. Forums also tend to have longer posts. People who have gotten their favourite civs already have less to post about - those of us with wish-lists are more likely to post.

However I'd imagine that player data from steam/epic games is a major factor in decisions made.

There also isn't that much to discuss. So far we haven't seen enough gameplay that initates discussions. We know enough about most of it, and what was revealed has already been discussed. Every week we get a very simple introduction to a leader and that's about it. There's not much to speculate on.

 

[Siptah]

There also isn't that much to discuss. So far we haven't seen enough gameplay that initates discussions. We know enough about most of it, and what was revealed has already been discussed. Every week we get a very simple introduction to a leader and that's about it. There's not much to speculate on.

I don't fully agree. The marketing train started with a bunch of 1h videos of people that played the game for 3h telling about the concepts and their experiences. That's much more than we ever had for as long as I can remember. Plus many of the concepts we know about have only been teased (e.g., unlocks) or shown in a proof-of-concept way, without actually being shown in the game and how it plays (e.g., crises, trade, diplomacy). This leaves us in a state where we know a lot about basic stuff but still have a lot to speculate about.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

The biggest topic for discussion was a leaked picture with all vanilla leaders and we were speculating whether there's Tamar of Georgia.

This. We knew they were unstacking the cities, but I don't recall people having strong opinions on how it would or wouldn't change the core gameplay. It wasn't viewed as a controversial change at the time. And somewhere along the way we learned that the fixed social policy tress were being replaced by flexible policy cards and I don't recall that being controversial at the time, either - it was once people saw how it played, but I believe the pre-release reaction was positive as it sounded "similar but better".

Mostly, people were focused on what civs would be in the game and who would their leader be? To a lesser degree, what would their uniques be. Even on that front, there's a lot more to speculate on in Civ 7 versus Civ 6. Now we speculate on leaders AND civs (and what wonder is associated with the civ) and we speculate on what civs are associated with / transition to which.

The only thing I remember being of heated discussion in the pre-release Civ 6 period was the artstyle, and there were only so many threads you could make and only so many opinions any one person could express on that topic. By contrast, there's a lot more room for discussion about Civ 7's heated topics, like civ-switching, crisis turns, and not having access to the whole map from the beginning of the game

 

[JNR13]

Not all engagement is concerns. A bunch of stuff is also just talking about what the game might or could be. Speculating about civs, deciphering revealed content, etc.

Maybe the art style disputes for VI tired people out and had them take a break from discussions overall because those were kinda pointless since style is a matter of taste and you just end up moving in circles. Now the core gameplay formula is seeing changes, so it can feel a lot more engaging and fun and also enlightening to actually take the time to read and write out thoughts on the changes.

Then there are some general trends contributing:
- civ fanbase has grown massively with Civ6 by extending the main series to more platforms and just gaming in general being a growing market
- we've been quite starved, never has the wait for the next civ game been this long; the long wait raised expectations and with that the hype and desire to engage in any way one can
- Firaxis has opened up and improved its community management massively, talking with their community and not just to them, driving up engagement

 

[Xandinho]

- we've been quite starved, never has the wait for the next civ game been this long; the long wait raised expectations and with that the hype and desire to engage in any way one can

Well, that’s quite true. Speculation about Civ7 dates back, if I remember correctly, to 2020. So, it’s possibly the most anticipated game in the franchise, and the excitement has been building for years. Furthermore, by introducing new mechanics that have sparked controversy, for better or for worse, Civ7 has become one of the most, if not the most, revolutionary games in the series. I'd say that Civ7, based on what we've seen so far, is the most distinct game in the franchise, which only amplifies the excitement that’s been brewing for years.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I think the answer is that VII's gameplay changes are far more contentious than VI's, which aside from its art style wasn't as controversial and polarizing ... and wasn't such a dramatic change from the formula that it warranted intense speculation about how its systems will actually work

 

[Nikolai II]

I imagine a large part of the activity is the great success of Civ6 sales wise. It's by far the most successful Civ game commercially. That means a lot of people care for the next iteration.

 

[Aeon221]

Again, no crap ? Every iteration changed from the previous one, even Civ6 that takes over many things of Civ5 to the point they are often compared plays way differently than this last. By that time users had no clue of what was awaiting them, and sadly it was for the lolesque. (PotatoMcWhiskey as an example) People wanna laugh, that's all.

Considering the desert that has become Civ6 General Discussion (Ideas and Suggestions is more frequented, that says it all !), I doubt users are focused on the present. However, it's still 3-4 months before release, and they seem totally disinterested with Civ6. I mean, "Civfanatics" at least. People that come here seem more interested in new brand products like Iphones 16 Pro and expect something - anything - ``new`` that will fill up their lack of imagination. (mods, it's my opinion, can I emit it ? thank you) So it may be well a reflect of our society of consumption. In their defense, it's been a while no new Civ has been released, unexpectedly. So maybe a lot of people coming here have that in mind, what makes Civ7 more special than usual. 2c

I didn't really like Civ6 so I still don't want to discuss it.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Thx all for your kind answers, where I haven't been too kind for this forum audience myself. I won't comment on the likes though.

I don't fully agree. The marketing train started with a bunch of 1h videos of people that played the game for 3h telling about the concepts and their experiences. That's much more than we ever had for as long as I can remember. Plus many of the concepts we know about have only been teased (e.g., unlocks) or shown in a proof-of-concept way, without actually being shown in the game and how it plays (e.g., crises, trade, diplomacy). This leaves us in a state where we know a lot about basic stuff but still have a lot to speculate about.

Problem is I don't see a lot of topics talking about what you mention. There might be room for speculation, but again, what for ? (beside leaders/civs blablabla) We know what we know, and we don't know what we don't know. Nobody has a clue of how such a game will play. Maybe not even developers, even if I might be wrong (one example from Civ1 comes in mind : the "all AIs declare war past a point if you are dominant", which was abandoned with patches or Civ2, because psychologically it was a core mess for the player, even if I don't think it couldn't be something now again, at least for best players - but they probably wouldn't care too much ? Well except for trade and economy I suppose). For example, what we call the "meta", it is to say a layer of understanding that encompasses the globality of the mechanics in order to achieve victory (possibly easy), seems to me a thing of gamers rather than developers. An example of this is the Civ3 ICS, for those who remind : the devs explicitly said that they didn't want the game to be played like that (for reasons they probably considered as "exploits"), and made sure it wasn't reproducible in other iterations. (no more "city self destruction" in Civ4 (?), + minimum distance between cities in Civ5 and Civ6)

So what to speculate on ? What will be the exploits, if there is any ? In what ways to achieve an amazing "yield porn", if it can be done ? Nobody can even speculate on this based on what we know. We'll be able to only after a while the game released, because the devs obviously don't want to say too much to not spoil us. I think I've done this error with Civ6, I watched youtube videos before actually playing, maybe ? It is to say that I wasn't quite interested by it, because the graphics were poor in my opinion. With 7, it's quite different, I enjoy graphics, I feel they are a step in the right direction. (I wonder how it can run on the Nintendo Switch 1 though, maybe it is just art style after all) I will not do the same error twice. A good chunk of the enjoyment I have from games in general is being able to crack them myself. If I need to look at a solution, it generally means I will rate them bad. As of now, I still really wonder how some players can beat Civ6 Deity EVERYTIME, while I did it only once or twice. Maybe I was in a good mood, clear mind and all. Or I was simply lucky. (considering the rate fail/win, it's totally believable) Anyway i didn't find good receipes on the internet, and to be frank, i didn't look too much. (lack of interest to be helped and reproduce the things - well, not totally, it's just that I fail most of the time to understand it within a "standard" game, for example I fail to see how work ethics can be so good when surrounded by open terrain...)

I guess what I mention is just post-release stuff. And, judging by the number of posts here, it might be overcrowded at first. Obviously, there will be the "Civ7 is actually a terrible game" threads and all the controversy, and its opposite, like with Civ6. All that to say that unlocks, crises, trade, diplomacy haven't been that much discussed because it's still within the realm of devs. As to 1 hour videos, who wants to inflict that on oneself ? I don't even understand oral english ! I saw some guys in front of each others saying things i didn't understand, with no screen-helper most of the time. Nah, I definitely abandoned the idea of watching those.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Also in the mix is that the featured new game mechanic is already a mechanic in other games, like Humankind, so people who don't like it in that game are vociferous about not wanting it in Civ, others think Firaxis will do a better job with it, etc.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Not only is Civ 6 popular, Civ 5 (and earlier) versions are still popular.

There's a 51 page thread on not buying the game. The fact that thread has not become a swamp is a tribute to the quality commenters on this site.

 

[King Flevance]

At this point I would certainly count Civ 7 as the largest shift in the gameplay than ever.

The structure of the main game is now being split into 3 separate acts. Each era with their own civs, their own isolated tech trees, their own new mechanics, and even a bigger map. This is more than "just Civ switching" this is a completely new formula for the game model as a whole. It is not just 1 mechanic. It is a complete game redesign that every unit, building, and all must be balanced and design around. The thread with people comparing the 1UPT got me thinking about this and this thread kind of lead me to this thought process. I think it is very apparent that Civ 7 is the largest deviation from all previous entries in the series.

I also do think that it does somewhat have to do with Firaxis following Humankind's gimmick despite Humankind's poor reception with the turn based empire fanbase. Humankind made a "Civ-like" game but it's claim to fame was a civ switch mechanic on era change. Now Civ is making a "Humankind-like" game and that is a puzzling endeavor to undertake. Not many people liked it in its first iteration, why try to replicate it? It is not an easy peel trying to spot where Humankind got it wrong. Many gamers swear off the mechanic as a whole. To follow them down that rabbit hole seems absurd to some no doubt.

 

[ggalindo001]

I have a different view -- and I think it is pent up "demand" for the next release.

The time between releases of over Civ games has been generally 5 years, with Civ 6 being 6 from Civ 5. Now it has been 9 years -- and nobody sure we would even see a Civ 7.

Civ 1 -- 1991
Civ 2 -- 1996 (boy I remember this one -- not knowing about it until seeing it in a Best Buy, not buying it on sight, then waiting a few weeks for new copies to arrive)
Civ 3 -- 2001
Civ 4 -- 2005
Civ 5 -- 2010
Civ 6 -- 2016
Civ 7 -- 2025 (9 years)

This, on top of all of the changes, and it isn't hard to understand why there is so much "discussion" IMO.

 

[Zaarin]

I also do think that it does somewhat have to do with Firaxis following Humankind's gimmick despite Humankind's poor reception with the turn based empire fanbase. Humankind made a "Civ-like" game but it's claim to fame was a civ switch mechanic on era change. Now Civ is making a "Humankind-like" game and that is a puzzling endeavor to undertake. Not many people liked it in its first iteration, why try to replicate it? It is not an easy peel trying to spot where Humankind got it wrong. Many gamers swear off the mechanic as a whole. To follow them down that rabbit hole seems absurd to some no doubt.

I really don't get why so many people insist the devs are lying when they say they came up with the mechanic independently, especially since Firaxis' approach really doesn't resemble Amplitude's except at the most basic level. Is it really that hard to believe two teams working in the same space would have broadly similar ideas?

 

[Voidwalkin]

I really don't get why so many people insist the devs are lying when they say they came up with the mechanic independently, especially since Firaxis' approach really doesn't resemble Amplitude's except at the most basic level. Is it really that hard to believe two teams working in the same space would have broadly similar ideas

I doubt many know that they've stated it didn't. It's simply presumed they're copying the idea because that seems more plausible than they coincidentally moving in that direction before they were aware of HKs move.

It's easy to miss those sorta things if you're not paying really close attention. I only knew it because I read it in an unrelated thread briefly going OT. I don't watch the streams or videos, because it takes too long(pivot to video bleh).

I once speculated whether the devs knew their civ selections would cause extensive debates. Turns out their lead historian had already implied they did in a video, similarly.

 

[Krikkit1]

I really don't get why so many people insist the devs are lying when they say they came up with the mechanic independently, especially since Firaxis' approach really doesn't resemble Amplitude's except at the most basic level. Is it really that hard to believe two teams working in the same space would have broadly similar ideas?

Also there has been discussion of something like that for a long time on the forums (usually as ways to make Modern Rome / Ancient America make sense as Italy/ AngloSaxon)