Civ 7 going backwards?

[Canadian Bluebeer]

The largest map is called "standard" and it doesn't feel large at all.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

The largest map is called "standard" and it doesn't feel large at all.

That is because it is a standard map. So it is what we might call a medium size map. I am sure Firaxis will add a "Large" map size.

 

[Piranga]

The largest map is called "standard" and it doesn't feel large at all.

Especially because you are forced to play with a discoverable "new world" every single game. No huge pangae maps or huge fractal (not this bs fractal + new world one we were given) where the world feels truly randomized.

It feels more like Sid Meier's Colonization 2.

 

[bigjim1]

I agree with a lot of the OP's points. The maps are too small (I know bigger ones are promised, but I paid full price for a triple A game, not early access). The Civs don't feel distinctive enough, the wonders don't really make a difference (which was something I disliked about Civ VI), and the leaders all seem a bit similar. I think the crises ending ages are promising but (like much of the game) feel unfinished.

For example, when an era ends, instead of the independents disappearing and reappearing (often in the same spot), I would like to see some of the Civs collapse completely. In every version of Civilization I have always found the late game gets choked; the map is almost all claimed and it would take a lot of time and bloodshed to claim new territory. So unless you're really aggressive and/or have built a big tech lead, the game stagnated. Imagine if a whole civilization collapsed. Some of its cities become independent, some defect to other civs, some are just burned to the ground, creating empty space on the map. Access to new resources, rich troves of artefacts to dig up, etc., etc.

Despite a few good ideas (and gorgeous new graphics) Civ 7 does feel unfinished and rather too timid in its ambitions -- at least, that's how it feels to me.

 

[CaesarCS]

Too timid in its ambitions is a great way to put it. Hey Firaxis, make the end stage crisis a MAJOR crisis. Where by the end your Civ is falling apart and you are just hanging on waiting for the end of the age before your entire Civilization collapses. That would make the transition to a new Civ make sense. You know you can’t survive without major changes. At least give us the option to turn up the heat.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

'Regressions' you mean? At some aspects there is. but others are progressions.
Making 4X games like this is a big challenge at the designing stage.

 

[tman2000]

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

Checking out Civ 7 and reading commentary about it makes me think that Firaxis has done a lot of things wrong with this game. I still remember when I first tried Civ when I played Civilization revolution on the xbox many years ago. It felt like a very limited experience since the game ended abruptly at a specific final turn, which made it get boring really fast. Then I found out there was another Civ game on PC, Civ V. It had many more features and bigger maps, and no final turn, so there was so much more you could do with it. In summary, I got into Civ through Civ Revolution, but graduated from this console game to the richer world of the PC game. It's looking to me now that Civ 7 is like another civilization revolution, where in order to get console players to be able to use it, they limited the game and made into into the quality of game that compelled me to abandon Revolution and try out the main Civ franchise in the first place. This limited design feels like going backwards to me, and this style of limited console game never satisfied me before anyway. I would like to have all the civs on one map, much bigger maps, no final turn, and a worldbuilder like you could find with Civ 5. The age changes and tech trees seem especially weird. Why are the going the opposite direction from their former trend? Is it so much to ask for new iterations of games to include a broader scope? What does it mean for a game franchise to become more limited over time, even in the PC version?

 

[Leyrann]

The maps are quite literally smaller and have less civs on them

Mate, are we talking about the game being smaller and more streamlined, or the maps being smaller specifically? Moderator Action: *SNIP* - lymond

 

[TheGrayFox]

Mate, are we talking about the game being smaller and more streamlined, or the maps being smaller specifically? Moderator Action: *SNIP*

Moderator Action: *SNIP* - this is not necessary. (quote altered) -lymond the smaller map sizes, player counts and shorter ages are *gasp* part of the game

 

[Yzman]

I agree with a lot of the OP's points. The maps are too small (I know bigger ones are promised, but I paid full price for a triple A game, not early access). The Civs don't feel distinctive enough, the wonders don't really make a difference (which was something I disliked about Civ VI), and the leaders all seem a bit similar. I think the crises ending ages are promising but (like much of the game) feel unfinished.

For example, when an era ends, instead of the independents disappearing and reappearing (often in the same spot), I would like to see some of the Civs collapse completely. In every version of Civilization I have always found the late game gets choked; the map is almost all claimed and it would take a lot of time and bloodshed to claim new territory. So unless you're really aggressive and/or have built a big tech lead, the game stagnated. Imagine if a whole civilization collapsed. Some of its cities become independent, some defect to other civs, some are just burned to the ground, creating empty space on the map. Access to new resources, rich troves of artefacts to dig up, etc., etc.

Despite a few good ideas (and gorgeous new graphics) Civ 7 does feel unfinished and rather too timid in its ambitions -- at least, that's how it feels to me.

I would love if the dark age was reimagined where if you got a certain dark age it could cause different types of collapse for your civ.

 

[Taefin]

I think the loyalty crises are pretty debilitating, if playing above settlement limit, and when caught banking on one of the easy crises. I went from a surprise war -6 that tanked my economy in exploration, got to 4 above limit, and then hit by the crisis.

 

[ThunderLizard2]

I agree with a lot of the OP's points....

Despite a few good ideas (and gorgeous new graphics) Civ 7 does feel unfinished and rather too timid in its ambitions -- at least, that's how it feels to me.

I agree with OP as well. Firaxis had almost 9 years to work on Civ VII and the result is a colossal failure.

 

[bigjim1]

I agree with OP as well. Firaxis had almost 9 years to work on Civ VII and the result is a colossal failure.

I wouldn't go quite that far, but it's a disappointing early access prototype that we shouldn't have to pay £70 for!!

 

[Siptah]

I would have prefered to post this in the "70k players" thread but I was banned from that one
They started to crunch numbers, you see. But I will settle for this thread because it fits. And if it fits, I sits.

This is a look at the forum's participation, comparing General Discussions and Stategy and Tips section from Civ III to Civ VII.

Civ III forums :
General discussions : 460k messages ; Strat & Tips : 112k messages ; ratio : 24%
S&T : 8k threads, 112k messages ; ratio : 14 messages / post

Civ IV forums :
General discussions : 755k messages ; Strat & Tips : 530k messages ; ratio : 70%
S&T : 22,8k threads, 538k messages ; ratio : 24 messages / post

Civ V forums :
General discussions : 653k messages ; Strat & Tips : 147k messages ; ratio : 22%
S&T : 7,7k threads, 147k messages ; ratio : 20 messages / post

Civ VI forums :
General discussions : 424k messages ; Strat & Tips : 22k messages ; ratio : 5%
S&T : 1,5k threads, 22k messages ; ratio : 14 messages / post

Civ VII forums :
General discussions : 260k mesages ; Strat & Tips : 508 messages ; ratio : 0,2%
S&T : 48 threads, 508 messages ; ratio : 10 messages / post

Now, numbers are to be taken with care Is it too much to notice a trend, as if Civilization were "going backwards" ?
I will leave it up to your interpretation.

As a good measure, the Creation & Customization forums always do well

I knew online forums have become an outdated and mostly irrelevant medium in the past years, but these numbers really are devastating for CFC. I would curious to see the roadmap for salvaging these forums.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I knew online forums have become an outdated and mostly irrelevant medium in the past years, but these numbers really are devastating for CFC. I would curious to see the roadmap for salvaging these forums.

I don't see how those numbers are devastating. Civ7 general discussions got in half a year (since the announcement) more than half of that Civ6 had in 9 years.

Yes, strategy and tips is quite empty, but it's a section which usually only starts filling some time after release, so give it some time, we're less than 2 months since release yet.

 

[Siptah]

I don't see how those numbers are devastating. Civ7 general discussions got in half a year (since the announcement) more than half of that Civ6 had in 9 years.

Yes, strategy and tips is quite empty, but it's a section which usually only starts filling some time after release, so give it some time, we're less than 2 months since release yet.

Sorry if it wasn't apparent, but my post above wasn't meant seriously.

Edit: to be clear though, the numbers of Civ 7's general discussion include 190k old posts (Ideas & Suggestions, Welcome New Members).

Edit 2: that also means that @BornInCantaloup's numbers are off. Civ 7 sits around a whopping 0.7% ratio.

 

[Thormodr]

Internet forums may end up going the way of the buggywhip factory, yeah.

 

[King Flevance]

Internet forums may end up going the way of the buggywhip factory, yeah.

Not if we keep logging in.

Darn these kids and their discords!

 

[reddishrecue]

Discord was meant for gaming, but it was used for many other things as well.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I don't think they are going backward, but they yet have to figure out how to make hexes work with a spherical map... C4 is the closest we got to have a full spherical world, but since Civ moved away from square tiles, it is now much more difficult to make it happen... but it is possible!
Also worldbuilder in C6 is very buggy, and underdeveloped, but compared to HK worldbuilder it's a miracle we have it works without need an actual debugger...

C7 is still wandering between new world map generation limitation restraints, so it will take a long time till we'll see a worldbuilder ...