Can You Go Back To Previous Civ Titles?

[TheGrayFox]

I went back to Civ 5 some time ago, and have played it a lot after abandoning Civ 6. Part of the picture though, is that I play pretty much exclusively with the Vox Populi modpack. I do like vanilla Civ 5 more than 6, but VP makes the difference much larger. It overhauls everything, adds a bunch of new content, and improves the AI by a lot. There's a learning curve, but it's absolutely worth it in my opinion.

VP is still the pinnacle of the series imo

 

[Marla_Singer]

I genuinely don't get it, and I'm trying!

I went back and played Civ 1 yesterday, because for me that is still the simplest and purest example of Civ. In what way is that game a sandbox? What are people doing in these games? What am I missing? Like, you build stuff. You scout. You meet neighbours. You either try to befriend or kill said neighbours. If you fancy it, you try to win. If not, you just carry on building stuff. Isn't VII the same?

I'm honestly trying to understand.

Alright here's my take on that one.

Emergent complexity vs. guided play
The game was initially based on pretty simple set of rules leading complexity to emerge organically. As your civilization was evolving, you were facing different situations leading you to new problems to solve, therefore every game felt different. Simple rules => different situational outcomes. When starting a new game, you had absolutely no idea how it would end. Over time, that philosophy was progressively replaced by a carrot and stick approach, with different kind of points to reach milestones and penalties for not playing the intended way. Rather than thinking by yourself what you should do next, the game tells it to you. And to balance that, replayability became more RPG-oriented, like what if I would be Portugal to develop over the seas and so on. It does offer different flavors, but in a more controlled way. It's not the same experience.

Limiting snowballing
The game's scope has also become more restrictive.It seems that the game became afraid of its own mechanism in trying to avoid "snowballing" in order to not overwhelm the player. The very purpose of the game is to start out of nothing and build a vast Empire out of it, therefore snowballing is basically the game concept but so be it. As a result everything was made to limit the number of cities which were made more tedious to grow, to limit the number of units which were made more tedious to move. To me that is part of the reason (together with a less threatening AI), why the final outcome is already known mid-game, explaining "late game boredom".

Visual overload and scale issues
Lastly, in trying to make the game more visual, less relying on abstractions, they decided to put everything on the map (which is actually a good idea). The problem is that was executed in keeping a single scale for everything. In mixing so many different elements all at the same scale by the map, it made it particularly messy. And as the number of tiles in the game hasn't increased, it all turned very clogged and difficult to read. There's no more hierarchy in information, it's been all flattened out. Also scales were drastically reduced in the process. Whereas you had the feeling to build the vast Roman Empire in older civs, you now have more the feeling to build the Principality of Liechtenstein.

Sorry that was a bit long, but as you can see, all this put together makes a totally different game in the end. I'm glad there are players enjoying it, but that's not my case. Now I don't ask for Civilization to become again what it used to be, it won't, but that explains why earlier games (up to Civ4) are more enjoyable to me.

 

[misesfan]

Visual overload and scale issues
Lastly, in trying to make the game more visual, less relying in abstractions, they decided to put everything on the map (which is a good thing). The problem is that was executed in keeping a single scale for everything. In mixing so many different elements all at the same scale by the map, it made it particularly messy. And as the number of tiles in the game hasn't increased, it all turned very clogged, making it even more cluttered. There's no more hierarchy in information, it's been all flattened out. Also scales were drastically reduced in the process. Whereas you had the feeling to build the vast Roman Empire in older civs, you now have more the feeling to build the Principality of Liechtenstein.

I agree with your post, but especially the quote above. The cities look like a homogenized 'goop' of buildings, which really detracts from the overall good visuals in the game.

 

[Fluffball]

The civ series for me tends to follow the rule that the odd numbers are good and generally quite revolutionary gameplay wise while the even numbers are usually bad, suffering a combination of both being overly simplified in many aspect while being too heavy on the micro in other aspects.

Civ 6 had prime examples of this where the attempt to ease the 1upt issues without reverting fully back to stack of doom meant combat was way too simple and I found myself conquering the world with 1 or 2 units which at the same time the religion micro nightmare was soul sucking.


Usually I play an even number for a while before getting bored of it and returning to the previous odd number. When a new odd number arrives I tend to move on properly and don't go back to any previous iteration. I have 10 times the hours played of civ 5 I have for civ 6.

I suspect this may ring true for civ 7 also as I am generally liking civ 7, even with it obviously not being fully finished.

 

[Fluffball]

Give you a specific example. Always war games, easily doable in Civ3 and Civ4 (though not easy to win). Try that in Civ7, always war means you need to declare war the moment you meet other players. The happiness penalties for declaring war immediately, on top of razing cities or conquering too many would be crippling. Add to that, the arbitrary era switch...ok, forget it, no need to even try

Playing C3C either with CCM2 mod, mostly always war. Tried Civ5, didn't like it much, played Civ6 more but mainly MP. Won't touch Civ7 until its in the offer bin and spruced up with DLCs etc, if ever

You said, you don't understand why we think Civ7 is more restrictive and I gave you an example. The absence of a government without war weariness or manageable war weariness makes always war either totally impossible of no fun at all (I don't play always war to deal with war weariness issues, I play it cos I am a warmonger at heart). The city limit mechanism combined with steep penalties for razing cities and it's a no go.
What does this mean? Yes, one less option in civ7.

The highlighted part probably explains why your making no sense. If you haven't played the game and possibly never will, why are you bothered?

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Alright here's my take on that one.

Emergent complexity vs. guided play
The game was initially based on pretty simple set of rules leading complexity to emerge organically. As your civilization was evolving, you were facing different situations leading you to new problems to solve, therefore every game felt different. Simple rules => different situational outcomes. When starting a new game, you had absolutely no idea how it would end. Over time, that philosophy was progressively replaced by a carrot and stick approach, with different kind of points to reach milestones and penalties for not playing the intended way. Rather than thinking by yourself what you should do next, the game tells it to you. And to balance that, replayability became more RPG-oriented, like what if I would be Portugal to develop over the seas or whatever. It does offer different flavors, but in a more controlled way. It's not the same experience.

Limiting snowballing
The game's scope has also become more restrictive.It seems that the game became afraid of its own mechanism in trying to avoid "snowballing" in order to not overwhelm the player. The very purpose of the game is to start out of nothing and build a vast Empire out of it, therefore snowballing is basically the game concept. As a result everything was made to limit the number of cities which were made more tedious to grow, to limit the number of units which were made more tedious to move, and so on. To me that is all the reason why the final outcome is already known mid-game, therefore explaining "late game boredom" (together with a less threatening AI).

Visual overload and scale issues
Lastly, in trying to make the game more visual, less relying in abstractions, they decided to put everything on the map (which is actually a good idea). The problem is that was executed in keeping a single scale for everything. In mixing so many different elements all at the same scale by the map, it made it particularly messy. And as the number of tiles in the game hasn't increased, it all turned very clogged and difficult to read. There's no more hierarchy in information, it's been all flattened out. Also scales were drastically reduced in the process. Whereas you had the feeling to build the vast Roman Empire in older civs, you now have more the feeling to build the Principality of Liechtenstein.

Sorry that was a bit long, but as you can see, all this put together makes a totally different game in the end. I'm glad there are players enjoying it, but that's not my case. Now I don't ask for Civilization to become again what it used to be, it won't, but that explains why earlier games (up to Civ4) are more enjoyable to me.

Thank you, I appreciate you taking the time. Good points all round, although I do still believe there is strong emergent gameplay in later Civ games too. I would posit that one of the biggest changes to the Civ formula over the years has been the introduction of unique things for each Civ, and Civ 7 has really doubled down on this.

 

[99-percent-sure]

I've been able to shift between Civ IV (mainly BtS, but sometimes vanilla) and Civ VI (usually Gathering Storm with some mods) regularly, even after well over 1,000 hours playing each of those. I tried going back to Civ I just for nostalgia, but it felt too primitive to keep me engaged.

I suspect I'll exclusively play Civ VII for a while, and then it'll become part of the rotation. Maybe I'll give Civ V another crack at some point too, though I only picked it up a few months ago on the cheap, and it didn't really hold my attention.

 

[TheGrayFox]

The highlighted part probably explains why your making no sense. If you haven't played the game and possibly never will, why are you bothered?

His post made perfect sense to me and I don't even agree with his opinions but to answer your question, we bother because we're fans of the series and actually want the latest sequel to be good and appeal to us as fans

 

[Fluffball]

His post made perfect sense to me and I don't even agree with his opinions but to answer your question, we bother because we're fans of the series and actually want the latest sequel to be good and appeal to us as fans

There is caring about the franchise and wanting it to be good and then there is pre judging it, making claims about gameplay and dissing it without even playing it.

When reading the 'issues' the poster had they seemed unrecognizable to actual gameplay experience and this is obviously because the poster hasn't actually played the game.

 

[TheGrayFox]

There is caring about the franchise and wanting it to be good and then there is pre judging it, making claims about gameplay and dissing it without even playing it.
When reading the 'issues' the poster had they seemed unrecognizable to actual gameplay experience and this is obviously because the poster hasn't actually played the game.

There is no difference. You think you have waste $70 dollars just to know you're not interested in the changes made to a very established formula especially in a day and age where you can vicariously experience games through streamers and youtubers?

His post made perfect sense especially from the context of a self-declared war monger, he doesn't like the devs taking control from how his game will play out from him. Do really you think someone has to buy the game to tell you they don't like how Ages are designed? or that they don't like how they took away map customization in favor of making every single game a glorified Terra script?

 

[DannyMustardpants]

Sort of, I play Current Civ and Civ 1. Don't go back to the others.

 

[sixty4half]

I couldn't stand 6 so I would frequently go back to 5. I'm sure that I will play a few games of 5 during 7's lifetime. Probably to play some games w/o Ages and to play some of those amazing map types they had. This game leaves me wanting some different map types and sizes. (It doesn't hurt that my newer comp can handle the Huge maps while my older one couldn't, which leaves some "new" content to explore in 5)

 

[Patine]

The civ series for me tends to follow the rule that the odd numbers are good and generally quite revolutionary gameplay wise while the even numbers are usually bad, suffering a combination of both being overly simplified in many aspect while being too heavy on the micro in other aspects.

I'm afraid I must disagree sharply with this, as my absolute favourite iteration is an even-numbered one. And, I like the ability and option to micromanage, and dislike, strongly, strategy games that artificially limit that ability, or player hew and cry for such aspects to be limited.

 

[ThERat]

There is caring about the franchise and wanting it to be good and then there is pre judging it, making claims about gameplay and dissing it without even playing it.

When reading the 'issues' the poster had they seemed unrecognizable to actual gameplay experience and this is obviously because the poster hasn't actually played the game.

Watching videos about the game play and reading stories here and on other forums, watching Sullla's hilarious Civ7 play, one can form an opinion. As it is, people who played the game also have the most diverse opinions about the game. It's not as if those who played Civ7 are the enlightened people who know it all.

Now, tell me what part of my comments about the comparison of Civ3 and Civ7 were not accurate? Was my observation about happiness penalties for being a warmonger in Civ7 incorrect? Was my observation of the map being the same every single game due to the second age mechanism incorrect ( I am talking about 2 rectangular landmasses separated by a mini ocean)?

 

[marius_kaparius]

Sometimes I click on the icon of the older games in Steam, see a screenshot and then promptly click away. It’s either the current Civ or something else for me.

 

[Auraiz]

There is no difference. You think you have waste $70 dollars just to know you're not interested in the changes made to a very established formula especially in a day and age where you can vicariously experience games through streamers and youtubers?

His post made perfect sense especially from the context of a self-declared war monger, he doesn't like the devs taking control from how his game will play out from him. Do really you think someone has to buy the game to tell you they don't like how Ages are designed? or that they don't like how they took away map customization in favor of making every single game a glorified Terra script?

A long TLDR: You have to play Civ7 to know if you like Civ7. Trust no ones review or opinion but your own. No one really truly understands why anyone else likes a Civ game anyway. Neither do you. It's the biggest niche mass market strategy game enjoyed by millions of casuals and non casuals but also a small fish in the big pond of billlions of gamers that play games. Wait out denuvo, or wait out the price, but you can't really judge it until you play it.

The thing about Civ is that with the interaction of the mechanics and how the game plays, most players don't understand why they *actually* like or dislike a certain civ game over another and don't have the proper vocabulary to even describe it. Watching gameplay isnt enough, unless you have a god tier level understanding of game design and the self awareness to apply it you really just have to play to know.

I have 10k+ hours in Civ4 and 6k+ in Civ5. I think 4 is a superior single player experience due to the ai and mods. I hated 5 at first, but if you want a tight, balanced, and competitive multiplayer Civ it's just the best and it grew on me. With VP the single player in 5 is also in a good spot now.

Civ 6 bounced off me everytime from launch and at each major expansion, another 50 hours thrown at the thing to see if I could pull out the fun. Never could find a niche for it. Threw another 100 hours into 6 trying to find the right mod set up, seeing if I could find a fun TSL earth map experience and never really did. Modding support never really came through to my understanding.

While playing Civ6 I realise it's a very polished and excellent game I just dont find it *replayable* fun, and I think that's what makes Civ, Civ for me. For example Endless Legend is one of the best 4x I've ever played. But I could never play more than 200 or so hours of it... it's just not *replayable* fun like Civ. You go through the factions enjoy the narratives play a few extra games and then you're done. Dip your toe in MP, realise is silly unbalanced, have your fun. Balancing EL perfectly for MP would kill its charm, it's great for what it is, and in no world is a game I put 200 hours into and enjoy thoroughly a bad game or a bad experience. It's just not a forever game.

So yes Civ 6 is a great game it's very streamlined and all the mechanics work well together, very polished. I got my 300 hours out of it. But as a Civ game for me, it's also not wrong to say, my god Civ6 sucks. On so many levels. It's not a forever game.

Districts suck. Adjacencies suck. The ai sucks- exploit it. TSL earth sucks- ruined by cities the size of continents and loyalty. But loyalty is also good, because its balance. Religion sucks- just ignore it. Or exploit religion, its extremely powerful. But you can also just ignore it. Governors suck. Policy cards suck. Eureka and inspirations suck. Everything comes down to ignore it, and play worse players than you/lower the ai to compensate for it, or min/max unfun systems because you have to.

It's a bunch of boardgame-like, and deckbuilder-like systems and they just suck the fun out of any replayability.

All this ranting just to say, I *should* dislike Civ7 for the same reason I dislike Civ6. On the surface a lot of the things I'm not in love with are present, and on its face, ages *should* be something I hate. But Civ7 is great for some reason, replayable fun in a way Civ6 isn't, and the most I've enjoyed a modern vanilla Civ on launch since Civ2. And that's factoring in, somehow, without hyperbole, THE MOST INCOMPETENTLY FRUSTRATING UNFINSIHED UI/UX EVER

 

[Noble Zarkon]

You have to play Civ7 to know if you like Civ7. Trust no ones review or opinion but your own. No one really truly understands why anyone else likes a Civ game anyway. Neither do you.

100% agree, from the announcement, the reveals and the dev videos I was convinced I would hate it but I've played over 100 hours and am loving it despite its quirks.

 

[TheGrayFox]

A long TLDR: You have to play Civ7 to know if you like Civ7. Trust no ones review or opinion but your own. No one really truly understands why anyone else likes a Civ game anyway. Neither do you. It's the biggest niche mass market strategy game enjoyed by millions of casuals and non casuals but also a small fish in the big pond of billlions of gamers that play games. Wait out denuvo, or wait out the price, but you can't really judge it until you play it.

No you don't. You can absolutely judge a game without playing it. If I know what I like in a Civilization series, why do I need to play a game that changes those things to know I won't like it? especially if again you can vicariously experience the game through others.

 

[Siptah]

No you don't. You can absolutely judge a game without playing it. If I know what I like in a Civilization series, why do I need to play a game that changes those things to know I won't like it? especially if again you can vicariously experience the game through others.

I have to disagree there. You can form an opinion based on watching someone else play it, and decide that it isn’t for you. But you cannot judge the game itself if you haven’t experienced playing yourself. Of course, you can claim that by judging you meant experiencing how it feels to look at it instead of actually playing, but I don‘t think that is expedient. But yeah, some people also prefer watching sports to doing sports, so maybe I‘m just weird that I think performing an act plays any role in modern life, when just looking at the world from the second row is sufficient for most.

 

[Patine]

I have to disagree there. You can form an opinion based on watching someone else play it, and decide that it isn’t for you. But you cannot judge the game itself if you haven’t experienced playing yourself. Of course, you can claim that by judging you meant experiencing how it feels to look at it instead of actually playing, but I don‘t think that is expedient. But yeah, some people also prefer to watch sports to doing sports, so maybe I‘m just weird that I think performing an act plays any role in modern life.

Though, what I agree with TheGrayFox in saying is that if enough features that are obviously offputting or undesirable to what you want in a game are announced and previews, it's fair to declare them a collective deal-breaker.