Civ 7 is not a Civ type of game.

[Bobolove]

Just saw some gameplay footage from entire playthrough of antiquity age. They have gone so far away from original civ idea that this feels like some kinda clash of clans leveling game. Before I had some kinda hope I would be wrong, but from what Ive seen so far, this looks like a huge failure to me.

Somebody please give me some kinda hope this will turn out alright?

 

[ThERat]

Sadly, I agree with you. To me, civ started to part with the original idea with civ5 and it has gotten worse in that sense. This is not to say, they are bad games, they are simply not the original type of civ games.

 

[GoneFishingX]

What does that mean exactly? I mean starting in civ 3 each game was/has been a pretty big departure from the previous ones. What are the core ideas of a civ game?

 

[Graethyenne]

The series is predicated on a design philosophy of roughly 1/3 of each titled (after the first) being essentially brand new design. Given that Civ 7 is the sixth time it has gone through this process it shouldn't surprise anyone that is has grown in directions far away from it's roots. It's going to be a pretty individualized experience as to how many and which of these changes appeal to each of us.

However, comparing it to Clash of Clans seems....untethered from the actual design & gameplay.

Depending on which streams you watched and how dialed in you are on the underlying mechanics some degree of confusion makes a lot of sense. Since I have voraciously gobbled up every morsel of info that has become available it is pretty easy for me to contextualize what is being shown in the streams. Absent that context. and especially if it is one of the streams that for the sake of brevity was editing aggressively for the sake of time, it may have looked like a glorified slot machine or some other negative analogy.

Now if you are up to speed on all of those subtilties, understood exactly what you were looking at and it didn't appeal? Then this one may not be for you.

All that said, to your original question - no I don't think Civ 7 is going to be a failure of any kind. Will it appeal to the entirety of the existing civ fan base? No, especially not to the group who wrote it off 6 months ago and has opted not to update their priors. But it seems pretty clear that a portion of that fan base is very excited, and that some of the changes could grow the fan base in new directions.

 

[ombak]

I realize there are many different types of players, but to some, this kind of "complaint" merits a "always has been" meme kind of reaction. (EDIT: I just realized this response is to the same poster's other thread, that Civ is a city builder. I'll leave it here anyways, cause why have two threads if not to troll/spam/pollute.) Since Civ 1 what I most want in the game is to build more stuff on my way to winning. Exploration is fun, expansion is fun, extermination not so much for me. I want to see my palace grow in Civ 1 and I'm thrilled that more things are visually represented now.

As for the use of "Clash of Clans" it's another lazy, devoid of substance, almost slur-ish way of insulting what someone doesn't like. Like saying it's a mobile game.

 

[Lorizael]

Civ3 is really when things started to go downhill. Unique unit this, leader trait that--just give me different colors for each civ, goshdarnit.

 

[Glassmage]

civ1 is where it went downhill

 

[need my speed]

What does that mean exactly? I mean starting in civ 3 each game was/has been a pretty big departure from the previous ones. What are the core ideas of a civ game?

Civilization is (or, was) a 4X game.

Ever since (arguably Civilization IV*, but definitely) Civilization V, this has been gradually weakened. The highlight of this is Civilization V actively making it worse to expand your empire (three cities being the optimal amount, from memory), but look at the shrinking map sizes, one unit per tile (further making the map feel smaller, combined with necessarily increasing production costs further decreasing the feeling of having a massive empire with many things going on), districts (again, further making the map feel smaller), minimum amount of tiles between cities, and so on. Combined with the AI not even being able to fulfill the fourth X anymore ('eXterminate'). Civilization has become much more like a boardgame, much less like a Civilization game.

*As much as I love Civilization IV, it did decrease the maximum map size compared to Civilization III, increased the minimum amount of tiles between cities (from one to two), and also introduced city maintenance mechanisms (which is the best solution Civilization has ever seen to countering ICS - short-term loss, long-term profit - so I wouldn't count it as going against the spirit of a 4X-game, hence my use of 'arguably').

 

[Gorbles]

They have gone so far away from original civ idea that this feels like some kinda clash of clans leveling game.

I thought it was a city builder?

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Civilization is (or, was) a 4X game.

Ever since (arguably Civilization IV*, but definitely) Civilization V, this has been gradually weakened. The highlight of this is Civilization V actively making it worse to expand your empire (three cities being the optimal amount, from memory), but look at the shrinking map sizes, one unit per tile (further making the map feel smaller, combined with necessarily increasing production costs further decreasing the feeling of having a massive empire with many things going on), districts (again, further making the map feel smaller), minimum amount of tiles between cities, and so on. Combined with the AI not even being able to fulfill the fourth X anymore ('eXterminate'). Civilization has become much more like a boardgame, much less like a Civilization game.

Hm. I think shrinking map size is a valid criticism of the decision to unstack cities and units, but I don't see how this leads to your conclusion that Civ is no longer Civ or no longer a 4x game. It is still a historically themed turn-based strategy game, in which you explore a randomised map, exploit tiles for yields, expand your empire, and compete with other Civs to win, often through the liberal use of extermination. None of that has changed.

 

[moysturfurmer]

Hm. I think shrinking map size is a valid criticism of the decision to unstack cities and units, but I don't see how this leads to your conclusion that Civ is no longer Civ or no longer a 4x game. It is still a historically themed turn-based strategy game, in which you explore a randomised map, exploit tiles for yields, expand your empire, and compete with other Civs to win, often through the liberal use of extermination. None of that has changed.

I thought 4X stood for XXXXtra big

 

[UWHabs]

Hm. I think shrinking map size is a valid criticism of the decision to unstack cities and units, but I don't see how this leads to your conclusion that Civ is no longer Civ or no longer a 4x game. It is still a historically themed turn-based strategy game, in which you explore a randomised map, exploit tiles for yields, expand your empire, and compete with other Civs to win, often through the liberal use of extermination. None of that has changed.

The game has shifted a little, even since civ 4, and then even moreso since 6, to have more of a city-builder aspect, trying to optimize your actual cities. In civ 3 and before, it more or less didn't matter where you placed your cities, you just tiled the grid with them. Since then, city placement and city builds actually matter, since you can't necessarily put everything in every city.

But yeah, I watched some of the previews, and it still has a lot of civ feel to me. It always shifts, and ebbs and flows. I think it does probably feel like a bigger break from the past vs any previous iteration. But there's enough there that if you put it side by side with either civ 5 or civ 6, you can pick out elements of each that made it through to the new version.

 

[Ellye]

I do am generally dissatisfied with Civ7 (and never enjoyed Civ6), but this particular complaint seems like shouting at clouds for me.

It doesn't need to be a city-spam-fest for it to be a 4X game. Infinity city spamming is boring, having to make proper decisions and planning about your expansion is way more interesting.

 

[uppi]

From what I have seen, the gameplay feels closer to previous versions of civ than all of Humankind, Ara, Millenia or Old world do.

 

[Wabnosa]

I disagree, completely.

 

[Siptah]

From what I have seen, the gameplay feels closer to previous versions of civ than all of Humankind, Ara, Millenia or Old world do.

Yeah, very much this. It' definitely has "civ" written all over it and does not even slightly feel like one of the other games - despite civ switching, ages with different mechanics, IPs, etc.

It's actually something that puzzles me a bit: I enjoyed HK and Millenia, but I always wondered why they don't feel like civ games at all. I mean, civ CTP certainly did. HK felt much more like a typical Amplitude game (which I consider a good thing) than civ, just with a different and sadly - in their interpretation - more boring setting than the others. Millennia feels like... I don't actually know... a strange mixture of past and future?

 

[trev1972]

I understand where you are coming from but it does have a lot of elements of civ as described.
I am as disappointed as the OP, but i definitely feel like an old man shouting at clouds now

We either accept the way civ is moving and try to enjoy it, or find something else to play

 

[Kev1916]

Civ 4 was the best and Civ was at it's height - the immersion and joy with buiding and expanding YOUR empire was awesome .This was doubly and then some made so by the number of high quality of Mods from fantasy to Sci- fi .
The golden age of Civ was here IMHO

Since then each Civ has IMHO went away from your game to a relentless cash grab, and a reduction is size
Civ 6 was only good after years of fixing and tweaking AND dlc's .. and then it was only worthwhile in Multilplayer as the AI was criminally Bad - I enjoyed over a 1000 hours playing MP .

Now "civ" 7 has no hot seat , limited MP and again a down scale on Modding, forced narratives, a "switch" to focusing of immortal leaders a meta, civ switching and a mishmash of idea's from other games
Add in a insidious monisation, another round of scaling everything back

It's all fluff with a mobile UI on a giant scale

 

[Kev1916]

I understand where you are coming from but it does have a lot of elements of civ as described.
I am as disappointed as the OP, but i definitely feel like an old man shouting at clouds now

We either accept the way civ is moving and try to enjoy it, or find something else to play

+1 or wait several years dont buy into the con and see if any improvements can be made by the "beta" tester's and modder's

Plus Civ switching will defo be removed at some point

 

[chaosprophet]

Civilization is (or, was) a 4X game.

Ever since (arguably Civilization IV*, but definitely) Civilization V, this has been gradually weakened. The highlight of this is Civilization V actively making it worse to expand your empire (three cities being the optimal amount, from memory)

I don't see how having some kind of limitation to spawning cities goes against 4x. especially when pretty much any 4x released nowadays have that in some form as developers noticed that otherwise, spawning as much cities as you can always end up being the only optimal way to play. Different games did it in different ways and some limited too much like Civ 5, but the limitation itself isn't bad nor against the 4c, imo.