Can You Go Back To Previous Civ Titles?

[Siptah]

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.

Yes, of course. You can absolutely make an opinion for yourself indirectly. I just wanted to point out that the experience of playing and the experience of watching don‘t have much in common. And arguing for months without every trying isn‘t a good base for a discussion and especially not a judgement. I’ve been put off by things in the past that weren‘t obvious to me before I played/had first hand experience, and there were other things that I was concerned about that turned out to be negligible - in gaming as well as in more fundamental aspects of life. Participation changes perception in a very fundamental way.

 

[ThERat]

If I were Firaxis, I would say the same, buy my overpriced beta game, only then you can really judge

How about a demo then, previous civ iterations had those iirc

 

[CoconutTank]

No not really. At best I might go back to Civ 6 and play Babylon.

 

[bbbt]

No, I don't think I've ever gone back once a new Civ is out. And honestly I'm usually not playing Civ that much by the time the new version is out. Like I've barely played 6 in the last year or two (despite having 1500+ hours in the game)

7 certainly gets enough right for me to be satisfying on the Civ front, even I'm a bit underwhelmed by parts of it I was excited for.

 

[VGT]

So... leaving aside the term sandbox, what are you doing in earlier Civs that you can't do in 7? What am I missing? It seems a common criticism and I just can't wrap my little brain around it.

I might try to describe my usual way of playing that I assume (since I don't own the game) is not possible now

- map type: pangea (60%), continets (30%), other (10%)
- map size: standard (I think below 50%), bigger (the rest)
- speed: standard or epic (divided equally), sometimes dipping into marathon

And then I don't have any specific goal in mind. But what usually happens is I just try to color the map by efficient play in all the other aspects of game. Even when I'm close to some victory (usually science) I will just stop pursuing it one step before finish line and continue my coloring of the map. For that reason I recall I had to turn off religious victory, because while conquering it could happen unexpectedly.

And with that framework I don't think it would be possible to have fun in civ7.

Pangea map is most of my plays, forced idea of old and new world and exploration era just breaks it. I want to be able to meet as all nations as quick as possible with early exploration and then look how everything unfolds. Then if I'm playing on continents map, I want to decide, if and when I will put my color on second continent. Maybe not at all, maybe I want to beeline it, or maybe do it at specific time, for example nuke it out of existence. That part maybe is possible to some degree, because I keep hearing, that you can ignore exploration era forcing you to explore, but I assume you can't beeline it in first era. That part for me is the strongest argument to call civ7 heavily narrated instead of sandbox.

Map size is obvious. And besides size itself secondary benefit is a lot more nations on the map. They will bring them back, but I'm worried that they are not here yet not only because of Switch limitations but also because of balancing issues. I'm almost willing to bet, that first patch introducing it will show that bigger map sizes are completely broken for some combination of other game settings like marathon speed was at release.

Then epic speed - I like continuous uninterrupted playthroughs that can take in total 20+ hours. And here what I'm getting is 3 minigames below 200 turns vaguely related (because I don't like the idea of taking from me some part of empire I built, resetting my ongoing wars) to each other.

I recall from your posts that you mentioned often to not finish games in previous civ and current one solved it for you. In my case it's completely opposite. Not finish my games was never a problem to solve. In attachment there is an example of epic speed large map finished with total conquest where I think I have 100+ cities. I assume it took a lot of hours and was possible to win by any other condition a lot quicker. But I decided to have fun in this game in a different way and I was allowed to.

 

[bigjim1]

Yes. I never grew to like Civ 6. So, I regularly go back to Civ 4 and Civ 5.

Me too (well, to 5. I tried 4 last year and really couldn't handle the way it looked). I tried 6 several times but never really liked it.

 

[Fluffball]

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?

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)?

While they could certainly do with some map creation improvements...which are meant to be planned...really the predictability of the base maps are no real different to other iterations.

As maps throughout the series have always been so predictable I usually use modded map.scripts. The predictability of the maps just seems more obvious at is it so blocky.

For the warmonger penalties in particular I find this version much more free than previous iterations where you wither got crippling unhappiness which could only be negated by stopping the war for a period and then restarting or like civ 6 where it was extremely easy to game the mechanic that you could war endlessly.

Then there is the fact that in previous games that as soon as you entered a war (often just to defend yourself) you were essentially hated as a warmonger for the rest of the game and there was no use ever making any kind of friends as you would just be backstabbing by a friend for being a warmonger and hated even more.

With influence in particular you can now go to war and either use influence to negate war weariness or repair relationships afterwards which is a massive improvement on the ability to defend yourself in particular.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

And then I don't have any specific goal in mind. But what usually happens is I just try to color the map by efficient play in all the other aspects of game. Even when I'm close to some victory (usually science) I will just stop pursuing it one step before finish line and continue my coloring of the map. For that reason I recall I had to turn off religious victory, because while conquering it could happen unexpectedly

I think Civ 7 will work for you just fine, you can ignore the legacy paths (you're not forced to follow them and can choose whether or not to track progress) and can't accidentally trigger a victory condition (as they each need a specific world wonder then a related project).

 

[VGT]

I think Civ 7 will work for you just fine, you can ignore the legacy paths (you're not forced to follow them and can choose whether or not to track progress) and can't accidentally trigger a victory condition (as they each need a specific world wonder then a related project).

But I can't look at my requirements in isolation. The way I look at it:
- no pangea map: I'm down to 40% of what I want
- no bigger maps: down from 40% to 20% (will be solved hopefully)
- continuous play: down to 0%. This one feature of era switching and all it provides is completely breaking immersion and continuity for me. I would be willing to try it, but not by paying $70 plus overpriced DLC's for something I won't be able to return if I don't like it. I'm just hoping for free weekend somewhere down the road to try to win back lost fans of series.

PS. Sorry for starting to hijack yet another thread for civ7 complaining as this is completely unrelated to thread topic.

 

[sonicmyst]

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.

I felt the same. I was skeptical when they first reveal about the Ages system but somehow it clicks for me when I played it.

 

[ThERat]

As maps throughout the series have always been so predictable I usually use modded map.scripts. The predictability of the maps just seems more obvious at is it so blocky.

i think, you have not played Civ3 enough. It can throw incredibly diverse maps at you.

 

[VGT]

To give also a bit more useful contribution to the topic: I'm a 4, 5, 6 player and a liked them all. But if I would put them in line, 4 was the best for me, then 6, and then 5 at the end. In 5 I didn't like how tall play was new focus. Going from 4 this change was really noticeable. 6 made this limitation a bit relaxed so it landed better for me. While 5 was never started again by me after 6 release, I'm coming back to 4 from time to time. Especially with BUG mod where I like to be overwhelmed with all the statistics I can use to optimize my play.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

But I can't look at my requirements in isolation. The way I look at it:
- no pangea map: I'm down to 40% of what I want
- no bigger maps: down from 40% to 20% (will be solved hopefully)
- continuous play: down to 0%. This one feature of era switching and all it provides is completely breaking immersion and continuity for me

PS. Sorry for starting to hijack yet another thread for civ7 complaining as this is completely unrelated to thread topic.

I think this is absolutely all fair and valid criticism. What you describe in above post is indeed not possible in Civ 7, currently. My point of contention is the common shorthand that "Civ 7 is less of a sandbox". I feel that criticism is vague and ultimately unhelpful, and when you push people to explain it, they come back with much more precise and constructive criticisms: in your case, the maps aren't big enough, the map types aren't diverse enough, and having 100 cities may not be possible, given the happiness mechanic and settlement limits. Absolutely fair comments!

I don't mention the "continuous play" part because for me this comes down to the purely subjective topic of immersion.

 

[TheGrayFox]

i think, you have not played Civ3 enough. It can throw incredibly diverse maps at you.

Yeah there is no comparison between the “predictability” of base map scrips in past Civ titles which could contain maps from continents, to Pangea to highland plains.. all customizable down to even the sea levels to what we’ve gotten with VII where every single game is a terra variant