Civ 7 - why doesn't it look or feel like Civ?

[Bast]

Sorry I know I haven't played it but I've just been watching the playthroughs and I'm afraid it looks like it has gone down the path of too much change. And that is not good. I was intrigued by Humankind and Millennia but never got them because why would I bother, I have Civ - the game I've played since Civ II and probably the game that has still took so much of time. Civ VI was great because even though it looks new and pretty and mechanics are different at the end of the day you're still getting that settler out and plotting down a city and land and you're working that land to build an empire that lasted through the ages with your immortal ruler. There was a familiarity to it. My favorite Civ franchises are II, IV and VI because I believe those 3 kept to Civ familiarity and gameplay.

Why fix something that's not broken?

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Sorry I know I haven't played it but I've just been watching the playthroughs and I'm afraid it looks like it has gone down the path of too much change. And that is not good. I was intrigued by Humankind and Millennia but never got them because why would I bother, I have Civ - the game I've played since Civ II and probably the game that has still took so much of time. Civ VI was great because even though it looks new and pretty and mechanics are different at the end of the day you're still getting that settler out and plotting down a city and land and you're working that land to build an empire that lasted through the ages with your immortal ruler. There was a familiarity to it. My favorite Civ franchises are II, IV and VI because I believe those 3 kept to Civ familiarity and gameplay.

Why fix something that's not broken?

To me it looks a touched up version of Civ6. What is that you find so different?

 

[TheGrayFox]

Whoever at the Firaxis team decided to try "culture swapping gimmick" that is the complete antithesis to the series founding mantra of taking a civilization and standing the test of time needs to be fired. The fact that they doubled down on it and continued devolopment for years too after the complete failure of the gimmick in Humankind is astounding.

 

[Haig]

Two prominent civ-youtubers said it feels like civ. (Potato McWhiskey and Spliffing brit)

 

[moysturfurmer]

Two prominent civ-youtubers said it feels like civ. (Potato McWhiskey and Spliffing brit)

Yeah but I’ve got eyes man. The grid isn’t even right, why is it weird octagons instead of squares. Why is Cleopatra not in an old west-bonnet. Why can you freely rotate the camera instead of stick with a single isometric point of view. Why is it 4k and not 360p. This is a complete 180 from Civ as I know it (full disclaimer I have only played Civ 3)

 

[rocksinmypath]

What do you mean they're fixing something that's not broken? They added the age division/culture swap feature to solve literally some of the biggest problems that plagued Civ 6. Firaxis even told us during yesterday's presentation. As Carl said in the video, the previous paradigm made it very difficult for Firaxis to design civs whose abilities would stay relevant throughout the game. Look at France with Eleanor. Unless you get lucky, you're basically playing with a civ that has no ability until mid-game. Sweden is similar. There aren't many other examples as egregious as these two only because many of the other civs were deliberately designed to be anachronistic. Teddy Roosevelt, a modern-age leader for a modern-age civ, is one of the most overpowered leaders in the entire game on turn 1. There was no way for Firaxis to introduce as many Renaissance or later-era civs to Civ 6, have them actually behave like late-game civs, and make the game not boring.

Many classical and earlier-era civs had a similar problem. You're incredibly strong as Caesar when you're buying Legions with gold you get from conquering cities and barbarian camps and using those Legions to conquer more cities. But then what happens when those Legions are no longer strong enough, or if you're just bored of conquest? All you have that's relevant at that stage of the game is a half-priced Aqueduct. That's when you're ready to move on to a new chapter, which exactly what Civ 7's age division will allow you to do.

 

[Bast]

What do you mean they're fixing something that's not broken? They added the age division/culture swap feature to solve literally some of the biggest problems that plagued Civ 6. Firaxis even told us during yesterday's presentation. As Carl said in the video, the previous paradigm made it very difficult for Firaxis to design civs whose abilities would stay relevant throughout the game. Look at France with Eleanor. Unless you get lucky, you're basically playing with a civ that has no ability until mid-game. Sweden is similar. There aren't many other examples as egregious as these two only because many of the other civs were deliberately designed to be anachronistic. Teddy Roosevelt, a modern-age leader for a modern-age civ, is one of the most overpowered leaders in the entire game on turn 1. There was no way for Firaxis to introduce as many Renaissance or later-era civs to Civ 6, have them actually behave like late-game civs, and make the game not boring.

Many classical and earlier-era civs had a similar problem. You're incredibly strong as Caesar when you're buying Legions with gold you get from conquering cities and barbarian camps and using those Legions to conquer more cities. But then what happens when those Legions are no longer strong enough, or if you're just bored of conquest? All you have that's relevant at that stage of the game is a half-priced Aqueduct. That's when you're ready to move on to a new chapter, which exactly what Civ 7's age division will allow you to do.

The whole point of Civilization was about continuity. It was about taking a leader and a civilization from beginning of time to modern day victory. By breaking it up like this it fundamentally changes the soul of the game. The gameplay looks completely different and looks too much like other games. Why not stick to a winning formula?

 

[moysturfurmer]

The whole point of Civilization was about continuity. It was about taking a leader and a civilization from beginning of time to modern day victory. By breaking it up like this it fundamentally changes the soul of the game. The gameplay looks completely different and looks too much like other games. Why not stick to a winning formula?

The whole point of Civilization is “what if India built the Pyramids.” And we have retained that. Sure we have to call it Maurya for a few hours, but the soul is retained.

And you can tell I’m right because I’m stating it as fact, not opinion,

 

[rocksinmypath]

Why not stick to a winning formula?

Presumably because they couldn't find a solution to the problems they're trying to solve while sticking to said formula. It was very clear to me from yesterday's presentation that Firaxis has been paying a lot of attention to what the community has to say. I've seen a lot of ideas on this forum about how to solve those problems, and I've had some ideas myself and shared them here. I'm sure folks at Firaxis have reviewed many of those ideas and concluded they had to move away from that old paradigm.

 

[Gedemon]

The whole point of Civilization was about continuity. It was about taking a leader and a civilization from beginning of time to modern day victory. By breaking it up like this it fundamentally changes the soul of the game. The gameplay looks completely different and looks too much like other games. Why not stick to a winning formula?

Unless you lose what you build up in previous ages or the map is reset, you'll still have continuity.

 

[BrotherInJah]

Yeah but I’ve got eyes man. The grid isn’t even right, why is it weird octagons instead of squares. Why is Cleopatra not in an old west-bonnet. Why can you freely rotate the camera instead of stick with a single isometric point of view. Why is it 4k and not 360p. This is a complete 180 from Civ as I know it (full disclaimer I have only played Civ 3)

You almost got me.. but octagons?

 

[BrotherInJah]

Presumably because they couldn't find a solution to the problems they're trying to solve while sticking to said formula. It was very clear to me from yesterday's presentation that Firaxis has been paying a lot of attention to what the community has to say. I've seen a lot of ideas on this forum about how to solve those problems, and I've had some ideas myself and shared them here. I'm sure folks at Firaxis have reviewed many of those ideas and concluded they had to move away from that old paradigm.

Swapping leaders was one of my ideas.. and most likely many many others too..

 

[Lord Yanaek]

The same age-dependent abilities could have been implemented without changing the name of the civ. Keep the system, allow us to select new special abilities but don't change the name. If they had been paying attention to the community they would have seen that such a radical change would divide it and throw away many old-time fans of the series, in a genre that struggles to draw new players in!

 

[Thormodr]

Two prominent civ-youtubers said it feels like civ. (Potato McWhiskey and Spliffing brit)

They won't bite the hand that feeds them. Take what they say with a mountain of salt.

I enjoyed Marbozir's take. He didn't pull any punches. Probably why we wasn't invited to come play it.

 

[BrotherInJah]

The same age-dependent abilities could have been implemented without changing the name of the civ. Keep the system, allow us to select new special abilities but don't change the name. If they had been paying attention to the community they would have seen that such a radical change would divide it and throw away many old-time fans of the series, in a genre that struggles to draw new players in!

You're blinded by your own pov. IV 3M copies, V 8M. VI 11M.. they are struggling for sure. And guess what.. most of those players aren't here, we are minority.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

Why fix something that isn't broken?

Firaxis shared their design philosophy in the gameplay reveal video...1/3 the same, 1/3 new and 1/3 reworked.

And I'd answer your question with another question, why make a new iteration if you're not going to try something new?

 

[BrotherInJah]

The same age-dependent abilities could have been implemented without changing the name of the civ. Keep the system, allow us to select new special abilities but don't change the name. If they had been paying attention to the community they would have seen that such a radical change would divide it and throw away many old-time fans of the series, in a genre that struggles to draw new players in!

But the would mean they have to do it for all civs.. so instead of 30 civ you will get 5. 5 is not appealing, isn't it? More civs, more variety, more copies sold.

 

[Bast]

Firaxis shared their design philosophy in the gameplay reveal video...1/3 the same, 1/3 new and 1/3 reworked.

And I'd answer your question with another question, why make a new iteration if you're not going to try something new?

You can have new things like Economic victories. I don't care what they change, like they can get rid of corporations or religions. But to fundamentally change things like playing a leader/civ throughout the game or an expanding settler and working land model is to strip away what makes this game unique. Now I don't think Civ VII will be a unique game anymore because Humankind is a similar game.

 

[Magnússon]

You can have new things like Economic victories. I don't care what they change, like they can get rid of corporations or religions. But to fundamentally change things like playing a leader/civ throughout the game or an expanding settler and working land model is to strip away what makes this game unique. Now I don't think Civ VII will be a unique game anymore because Humankind is a similar game.

Playing a specific faction throughout the game, settling new areas, or working land for resources are what all 4x games do. That is not unique to civ. Civ was the first to frame the entirety of human civilization as a gameplay concept, but it is not the only one.

I think you're being a bit dramatic. It's a risky move, sure, but this is a discussion that pops up every time the franchise tries something new. This might be the largest departure so far, but I'm optimistic it will be all right. If not, then live and learn and they'll try something else.

 

[playshogi]

I don't want to play civ 6.5. I haven't played civ6 in 3 years, so I am very happy that they have made all these changes. I haven't found a change that I did not like so far. I like the reduction of micromanagement and "starting over" in each new age. The only way to make the modern age playable is to "start over" like a new game with new game mechanics. I'm glad they went in that direction. The long wait between versions appears to be time well spent. It will be like getting 3 games in one, at least I hope so.