Civ 7 is making all the right decisions

[Ambiorix]

I've bought Civ 1 shortly after it was released and have followed the franchise ever since. With every new version, I see the usual protests of players disliking the radical new changes to their beloved game. Now too, the 'resistance to change' voices are very loud on the message boards.
It's perfectly natural, and some will disconnect and stay with Civ 6 while others will embrace the new and go for Civ 7.
The intricate details of gameplay features can be debated endlessly, and some will be for and others against - still, I feel that Civ 7 is making all the right choices when you look away from the details and take in the big picture.
Making sure that people don't quit the game halfway through, when the game is often already won; expanding the definitions and interpretations of leaders/civilizations/empires; reducing micro-management in favour of the user experience - those are in line with the key values that make the Civ franchise so great.

I don't really care if the graphics are cartoonish or not; I feel this game is in good hands and am confident that the new mechanics will once again create a great game.

 

[Pedro P]

Everything looks good so far, the architecture is amazing, the map looks gorgeous, the systems are interesting, the civs are now more in-depth with so many bonuses. it looks like it will be fun, I am more hype for it than I was with the pre-release of 5 and 6.

Which is why I really, really hope they are smart about civ changing, that it doesn't create any regretable and chauvinistic implications.(In other words, I really don't want to play Incas and end as Brazil )

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

I agree with everything OP has said except that the graphics are cartoonish, outside of the leader models, the map/cities are absolutely stunning and one of my favorite parts of the presentation.

 

[Olle Wernersson]

In the grand scheme of things, I’m pleased to see that everything is moving in the right direction. However, the details matter a lot, and one detail I’m really hoping for is historical text that explains the reasoning behind the civilization switches. This would make it easier to imagine the switch as part of your empire's evolution, while also providing an opportunity to learn about history during gameplay.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Strong disagree but i'm glad you're excited

 

[ehecatzin]

The one thing Im not completely sold is the leader graphics, heck not even the new leader system, I want to see cool hisotrical figures in the game, not just rulers. But the graphics and animation of the leaders, don't quite convince me, however if a bit less detailed leaders is the price we pay for a system that allows for many more civs to make it in, I'll take it.

Because the city art and overall much deeper civ design they are pushing this time, I really like.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I've bought Civ 1 shortly after it was released and have followed the franchise ever since. With every new version, I see the usual protests of players disliking the radical new changes to their beloved game. Now too, the 'resistance to change' voices are very loud on the message boards.
It's perfectly natural, and some will disconnect and stay with Civ 6 while others will embrace the new and go for Civ 7.
The intricate details of gameplay features can be debated endlessly, and some will be for and others against - still, I feel that Civ 7 is making all the right choices when you look away from the details and take in the big picture.
Making sure that people don't quit the game halfway through, when the game is often already won; expanding the definitions and interpretations of leaders/civilizations/empires; reducing micro-management in favour of the user experience - those are in line with the key values that make the Civ franchise so great.

I don't really care if the graphics are cartoonish or not; I feel this game is in good hands and am confident that the new mechanics will once again create a great game.

Glad you enjoy the direction they are going with this, but I dont understand why you are degrading people who have a problem with some of these changes, as "resistance to change voices" (some of the Youtubers like to spin it that way, too, calling them a "radical minority"). I personally do embrace sensible changes and I certainly welcome some aspects of Civ 7 like the less micromanagent ideas. Still I fundamentally oppose the Civ switching Idea, because in my view, it destroys the simulation aspect of this game entirely. I don't think that makes me fundamental opponent to change or someone who is unwilling move on from previous Civ titles.

 

[Ambiorix]

Glad you enjoy the direction they are going with this, but I dont understand why you are degrading people who have a problem with some of these changes, as "resistance to change voices" (some of the Youtubers like to spin it that way, too, calling them a "radical minority"). I personally do embrace sensible changes and I certainly welcome some aspects of Civ 7 like the less micromanagent ideas. Still I fundamentally oppose the Civ switching Idea, because in my view, it destroys the simulation aspect of this game entirely. I don't think that makes me fundamental opponent to change or someone who is unwilling move on from previous Civ titles.

Didn't want to sound degrading. Just want to make the point that a lot of discussions are about topics where 50% of the people will love it and 50% will hate it. Whatever Firaxis decides on such topics, they will always get mixed reactions (e.g. square tiles vs hexagon tiles, diplomacy mechanics, etc.). The topics that *really* matter (imho), like reducing micromanagement and making the game fun till the end, are the real drivers to a successfull game.
I'm just one person though, and it's just one opinion.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I remember the Great Hex vs. Tile War of 2010.

 

[AriochIV]

I had some troubling questions about how these new systems work, but after watching Ursa Ryan's 2 hour explanation video, most of them have been answered and I feel a lot more optimistic about the game and its direction.

Firaxis really have been very ambitious with this iteration and it seems like they've made a lot of interesting choices. It remains to be seen how well they will work in practice, but I'm looking forward to it. Regardless, I give them credit for having the courage and confidence to take some of these departures from previous iterations.

 

[Vandlys]

Glad you enjoy the direction they are going with this, but I dont understand why you are degrading people who have a problem with some of these changes, as "resistance to change voices" (some of the Youtubers like to spin it that way, too, calling them a "radical minority"). I personally do embrace sensible changes and I certainly welcome some aspects of Civ 7 like the less micromanagent ideas. Still I fundamentally oppose the Civ switching Idea, because in my view, it destroys the simulation aspect of this game entirely. I don't think that makes me fundamental opponent to change or someone who is unwilling move on from previous Civ titles.

I have heard this argument so often, but I still see the logics behind it.

In real life, civilizations/cultures/peoples didn't stay the same, they developed over time with influxes of new peoples, new cultures melting into existing ones, languages merging and influencing grammar and pronunciation.

In Civ VII we have an immortal leader, but so did we in Civ VI. To me, Hatshepsut leading Songhai is no weirder than Roosevelt commanding slingers in 4000 CE, or the Inca building a space port. Both are completely against any 'simulation', yet people have this odd (in my opinion) perspective that VII will detract more from a simulation than previous parts.

To me, the decision to make you choose a different civ per age (I'm still not convinced that you have to because I think you can still play a civilization the whole game) in Civ VII adds to the simulation aspect, but I will withhold my final judgement until I'm playing it.

If I had to try to explain myself more, I'd say that the immortal leader feels like a link between me as a gamer leading the game, and the persona in the game. The civilizations changing feels like a more direct representation of what happens in all other Civ games through cultural development behind the scenes (cities changing into modern cities, museums being built, etc.), but was never made visible in gameplay terms.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Making sure that people don't quit the game halfway through

But the flip-side to this, it seems to me, is that one wants to feel one's choices have an ongoing contribution to victory.

So if, at the civ-shifting moment, everything basically gets re-set and all civs are starting over from scratch, that doesn't reward the play you did in the first third of the game. And if that's not the way that the civ-shifting moment works, then civ-shifting too is just part of your overall strategy for the game; you plan to maximize it; it sustains or increases your lead over the other civs; and so it makes quitting no less likely (because the main source of quitting is feeling like you've got the game in the bag and not wanting to just play out turn after turn).

The effects of civ-shifting have to be one or the other. If they're the first, you feel like the lead you've worked to build got erased. If they're the second, you are no less likely to quit.

 

[Professor Phobo]

That's a good point but I think they might be attempting to hit the sweet spot in the middle of those two elements;

You keep a bunch of "legacy" benefits from how well you did in the prior age, and they're meaningful enough to be worth going for and give you a headstart in the next age, but are not so powerful that the next age is a foregone conclusion. And likewise, the age reset is harsh enough that you're back to having to work for survival and prosperity, but not so harsh it makes all the work you did in age 1 worthless.

Will they actually be able to hit that perfect median? No, no they will not, but maybe they can get close enough for it to be an improvement in game flow overall from its predecessors.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I have heard this argument so often, but I still see the logics behind it.

In real life, civilizations/cultures/peoples didn't stay the same, they developed over time with influxes of new peoples, new cultures melting into existing ones, languages merging and influencing grammar and pronunciation.

In Civ VII we have an immortal leader, but so did we in Civ VI. To me, Hatshepsut leading Songhai is no weirder than Roosevelt commanding slingers in 4000 CE, or the Inca building a space port. Both are completely against any 'simulation', yet people have this odd (in my opinion) perspective that VII will detract more from a simulation than previous parts.

To me, the decision to make you choose a different civ per age (I'm still not convinced that you have to because I think you can still play a civilization the whole game) in Civ VII adds to the simulation aspect, but I will withhold my final judgement until I'm playing it.

If I had to try to explain myself more, I'd say that the immortal leader feels like a link between me as a gamer leading the game, and the persona in the game. The civilizations changing feels like a more direct representation of what happens in all other Civ games through cultural development behind the scenes (cities changing into modern cities, museums being built, etc.), but was never made visible in gameplay terms.

Agree to disagree, Roosevelt commanding 4000 BC is certainly a stretch, but Augustus ruling Mongolia because he has found 3 horses in a previous era, is total different ballpark of non historical nonsense.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

I'm getting the impression that your success in each age does contribute to the overall success of the game. It's just that achieving victory is pursued in a fashion that's completely different than any previous version of Civ

 

[AriochIV]

I'm getting the impression that your success in each age does contribute to the overall success of the game. It's just that achieving victory is pursued in a fashion that's completely different than any previous version of Civ

I think it's true that Ages are deliberately serving as a rubber band mechanic to equalize players at the transitions, but how much this rules gameplay remains to be seen. In part it depends on how impactful the bonuses the Age leaders get from researching the extra Mastery techs & civics and the bonus "future" techs and civics, and how much the Age losers receive catch-up bonuses.

I think the devs are aware of the danger of making the early Ages irrelevant, so hopefully they will be keeping a close eye on this.

 

[Gori the Grey]

That's a good point but I think they might be attempting to hit the sweet spot in the middle of those two elements;

You keep a bunch of "legacy" benefits from how well you did in the prior age, and they're meaningful enough to be worth going for and give you a headstart in the next age, but are not so powerful that the next age is a foregone conclusion. And likewise, the age reset is harsh enough that you're back to having to work for survival and prosperity, but not so harsh it makes all the work you did in age 1 worthless.

Will they actually be able to hit that perfect median? No, no they will not, but maybe they can get close enough for it to be an improvement in game flow overall from its predecessors.

Well, if they manage to hit that sweet spot, good for them!

Again, I think it's going to have to tend in one direction or another. You've been pulling ahead all through antiquity, and now suddenly all of your opponents are brought up even with you (that negates all of your work) or you the player can game the system to get the maximal advantage out of the civ-shifting moment, and so it doesn't do anything to mitigate late-game boredom.

 

[Professor Phobo]

Well, if they manage to hit that sweet spot, good for them!

Again, I think it's going to have to tend in one direction or another. You've been pulling ahead all through antiquity, and now suddenly all of your opponents are brought up even with you (that negates all of your work) or you the player can game the system to get the maximal advantage out of the civ-shifting moment, and so it doesn't do anything to mitigate late-game boredom.

I suspect it will mitigate those issues but not eliminate them. But that's true of every civ game, and sometimes there are just unavoidable drawbacks to certain kinds of games. Strategy games with per-turn advantage and accumulation have snowballing, that's just how it is.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Well, if they manage to hit that sweet spot, good for them!

Again, I think it's going to have to tend in one direction or another. You've been pulling ahead all through antiquity, and now suddenly all of your opponents are brought up even with you (that negates all of your work) or you the player can game the system to get the maximal advantage out of the civ-shifting moment, and so it doesn't do anything to mitigate late-game boredom.

It's one of the many interesting parts of the whole system that we don't yet understand, it will be interesting to see what they do.

I'm very unclear about the victory paths, for example. Might there be a situation where, even though a new Age equalises everyone, your victory progress is maintained in some sense. So you might "win" the first Age, struggle in the second, but still potentially get over the line first in the Modern Age based on the strength of your opening Age?

 

[Kev1916]

I've bought Civ 1 shortly after it was released and have followed the franchise ever since. With every new version, I see the usual protests of players disliking the radical new changes to their beloved game. Now too, the 'resistance to change' voices are very loud on the message boards.
It's perfectly natural, and some will disconnect and stay with Civ 6 while others will embrace the new and go for Civ 7.
The intricate details of gameplay features can be debated endlessly, and some will be for and others against - still, I feel that Civ 7 is making all the right choices when you look away from the details and take in the big picture.
Making sure that people don't quit the game halfway through, when the game is often already won; expanding the definitions and interpretations of leaders/civilizations/empires; reducing micro-management in favour of the user experience - those are in line with the key values that make the Civ franchise so great.

I don't really care if the graphics are cartoonish or not; I feel this game is in good hands and am confident that the new mechanics will once again create a great game.

Good point's but sadly the con is "people don't quit the game halfway through" is you now have a hard reset from each age , puff you start a new game with a different civ and all other "civ's" start from the same point ..
And reducing mirco-management is all good on your Switch