Civ 7 going backwards?

[_ViKinG_]

Firaxis doing much wrong when i read comments and looking at the game. I remember first time i saw Civilization revolution on xbox many years ago and i tried Civ for the first time. It was very limited and with the end date the game just was finished suddenly and got boring fast. Then i found out it was another game that was Civ V on pc and the game was much bigger with maps and no end date for the gameplay and you could do so much more with it. So basecally Civ Rev got me into the Civ world from a console to the bigger pc game. Now it looks like Civ 7 going for a Revolution 2 game to get people on consoles in on it so they shrunk the game and made it to why i moved from Rev to Civ V in the first place. Well its not working for me to get backwards with limitations so i have not bought Civ 7 and will never do it before we can have all civs on the map with much bigger maps, no end date and a good worldbuilder like it was i Civ V. Even the ages and technology is weird. Why are they doing the opposite now? Is that to much to ask for when the game gets smaller and smaller for pc i wonder.

Moderator Action: Please try and reformat your post to be more readable, not sure if English is your first language but please do reach out for help if required --NZ

 

[j51]

Ok thank you

 

[Steinernein]

Are you going backwards? Are you okay?

 

[_ViKinG_]

No if you like a mini game okey

 

[Leyrann]

I have never before read a properly punctuated paragraph that felt this much like it wasn't properly punctuated.

Anyway, not sure how the game is supposed to be smaller? You do know you can play multiple Ages in one game right?

 

[Cymsdale]

If every Civ came with a "Sandbox" option on the main menu where you just pick a civ and build cities forever on the biggest possible map while no one ever attacks you or settles in a mean way, I feel like that would solve 80% of the complaints that come up with every new Civ game.

 

[Leyrann]

If every Civ came with a "Sandbox" option on the main menu where you just pick a civ and build cities forever on the biggest possible map while no one ever attacks you or settles in a mean way, I feel like that would solve 80% of the complaints that come up with every new Civ game.

Very optimistic of you to assume people wouldn't just complain about something else.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Feels like a fully fledged Civ game to me, maybe you should try it.

 

[Cymsdale]

Very optimistic of you to assume people wouldn't just complain about something else.

I did leave 20%.

 

[_ViKinG_]

Feels like a fully fledged Civ game to me, maybe you should try it.

Maybe. I cant play on so small maps its not fun

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Maybe. I cant play on so small maps its not fun

I understand. They have confirmed that bigger maps are coming - but honestly, they may always feel a little small to you, if you do not like unstacked cities.

 

[_ViKinG_]

I will see. They did not even finish the worldbuilder in Civ 6 so i can make my earth map scenarios, so i have much doubt now for firaxis to make anything done complete. I still play Civ 5 that was released in 2010 so come on make it finished

 

[self biased]

Like every civ since Civ 3, it'll get better with time and releases. If you're looking for a worldbuilder, I'm sure there's something in the Steam Workshop that will do the job.

 

[_ViKinG_]

Of course it gets better but i want my own scenario. Mods and maps on workshop is good but i make my own stuff so i want a good worldbuilder. Why did they even make a worldbuilder in civ 6 if they cant complete it

 

[Bast]

Like every civ since Civ 3, it'll get better with time and releases. If you're looking for a worldbuilder, I'm sure there's something in the Steam Workshop that will do the job.

I don't remember the reviews being this bad when previous Civs came out though like with IV and VI. It's still only 51% on Steam. This version has pushed a lot into consoles and I think there are fundamental changes that needs to be talked about though. I question whether this game is more oriented for PC gamers like myself or it has moved on.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Firaxis doing much wrong when i read comments and looking at the game. I remember first time i saw Civilization revolution on xbox many years ago and i tried Civ for the first time. It was very limited and with the end date the game just was finished suddenly and got boring fast. Then i found out it was another game that was Civ V on pc and the game was much bigger with maps and no end date for the gameplay and you could do so much more with it. So basecally Civ Rev got me into the Civ world from a console to the bigger pc game. Now it looks like Civ 7 going for a Revolution 2 game to get people on consoles in on it so they shrunk the game and made it to why i moved from Rev to Civ V in the first place. Well its not working for me to get backwards with limitations so i have not bought Civ 7 and will never do it before we can have all civs on the map with much bigger maps, no end date and a good worldbuilder like it was i Civ V. Even the ages and technology is weird. Why are they doing the opposite now? Is that to much to ask for when the game gets smaller and smaller for pc i wonder.

No offense but this post is very poorly formatted, riddled with typos, poorly worded and hard to understand. But Civ7 is nothing like Revolutions. Civ7 has many deep and complex gameplay mechanics that Revolutions lacked. Civ7 also has gorgeous, detailed graphics while Revolutions had very cartoony, simple graphics. Just because civ7 is also released on consoles does not make it Revolutions 2. They are not going backwards. On the contrary, they are pushing civ forwards with new mechanics like Ages, crises, "civ-switching", army commanders that can stack and unstack units, resources with unique bonuses that buff cities, the ability to trade resources with trade routes and slot resources in different cities, new diplomacy, legacy paths, leader attribute trees, and much more... You may not like the new gameplay mechanics in civ7 but they are an attempt to move the franchise forward by addressing long standing issues like snowballing and late game boredom.

 

[_ViKinG_]

I don't remember the reviews being this bad when previous Civs came out though like with IV and VI. It's still only 51% on Steam. This version has pushed a lot into consoles and I think there are fundamental changes that needs to be talked about though. I question whether this game is more oriented for PC gamers like myself or it has mov

Yea its a question for pc gamers now. Thats why i have a pc to get the best games.

 

[_ViKinG_]

No offense but this post is very poorly formatted, riddled with typos, poorly worded and hard to understand. But Civ7 is nothing like Revolutions. Civ7 has many deep and complex gameplay mechanics that Revolutions lacked. Civ7 also has gorgeous, detailed graphics while Revolutions had very cartoony, simple graphics. Just because civ7 is also released on consoles does not make it Revolutions 2. They are not going backwards. On the contrary, they are pushing civ forwards with new mechanics like Ages, crises, "civ-switching", army commanders that can stack and unstack units, resources with unique bonuses that buff cities, the ability to trade resources with trade routes and slot resources in different cities, new diplomacy, legacy paths, leader attribute trees, and much more... You may not like the new gameplay mechanics in civ7 but they are an attempt to move the franchise forward by addressing long standing issues like snowballing and late game boredom.

Yea that could be. No but it feels that way when they make it smaller. 8 civs on a mini map is still not fun. I like many mechanics they have made but its so small. I like to play late game so they need to make it good

 

[Evie]

I don't remember the reviews being this bad when previous Civs came out though like with IV and VI. It's still only 51% on Steam. This version has pushed a lot into consoles and I think there are fundamental changes that needs to be talked about though. I question whether this game is more oriented for PC gamers like myself or it has moved on.

There's no doubt that problems with the game (the UI is a chief culprit) are part of those bad reviews, and well deserved.

But there's three things that also deserve mention here.

The first is that Steam mass review are a relatively new phenomenon - only about one-tenth of all reviews of Civ VI came during its first year, and Civ V received more reviews in the last three months than in its first year of release. There is a massive spike in Civ VI reviews starting around 2020.

Second, it's worth noting that while it was better reviewed than Civ VII's 51%, Civ VI reviews after about the first year (at least in English) were around the high 60s positive - Mixed reviews, a far cry from its current 86%. So, there is precedent for rating improving significantly after release in Civ's case.

Third, Civ III was *very* controversial among Civ fans at release, and I have no doubt that if Steam reviews had existed at the time, its ratings would have reflected that.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

8 civs on a mini map is still not fun. I like many mechanics they have made but its so small.

The map is not small. It is not a "minimap". You should try playing on a larger map.