Civ VII Post-mortem: Crafting a redemption arc

[notNamed]

edit: just wanted to add that i think one thing where civ still excels is the historical research and detail that it has. no other game, even during civ 7’s franchise low point, does the level of research, cultural consultation, etc. that civ does. ara, for example, still has a blobby celts and india—what other historical 4x games have the chola, buganda, let alone more notable, yet still rare civs

If you're really gunning for historical accuracy, Civ is definitely not the game to go with.
In the current (cavemen to cosmos) 4X landscape, Humankind absolutely takes the cake on that front. It did make it one of the design goals with all the artists and the writing team being given full reign to research things in detail and correct any inaccuracies presented to them, down to miniscule details like the arrangement of fingers in a bow draw.
Same thing for non-mainstream civs for now (Olmecs, Garamantes, Swahili, Nigeria, Nasser Egypt, Nazca, Taino, Rapa Nui,...), though depending on how Civ 7 continues, it might regain the crown by the end of its lifecycle.

Civ is a completely different game in this regard. Where a game like Humankind could be likened to a museum, Civ is really more of a Disneyland.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

tbf, firaxis kinda did it with later dlc on 6–separating leaders and civs to a smaller extent with choices like eleanor of aquitaine, kublai khan; rise and fall ages correlating loosely to eras.

in their case, what they didn’t realize is the issue was never with the thematic existence of what they had in mind, but rather the implementation

Yes, but all that implementation was still in Civ 6, which was my point.
If they had made spin-off game like "Civ Mythology" and put those elements in there, along with most of the NFP modes into that game, instead of in Civ 6, that would have been comparable to what Pokémon is doing with their "Legend" series.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

If you're really gunning for historical accuracy, Civ is definitely not the game to go with.
In the current (cavemen to cosmos) 4X landscape, Humankind absolutely takes the cake on that front. It did make it one of the design goals with all the artists and the writing team being given full reign to research things in detail and correct any inaccuracies presented to them, down to miniscule details like the arrangement of fingers in a bow draw.
Same thing for non-mainstream civs for now (Olmecs, Garamantes, Swahili, Nigeria, Nasser Egypt, Nazca, Taino, Rapa Nui,...), though depending on how Civ 7 continues, it might regain the crown by the end of its lifecycle.

Civ is a completely different game in this regard. Where a game like Humankind could be likened to a museum, Civ is really more of a Disneyland.

to be clear i didn’t say it was historically accurate, i said it was well-researched—though i do see your point and (partially) agree. i think the fact that civ works with consultants from these cultures, hires academics to help get rare/extinct/indigenous voices to come to life is still something that humankind doesn’t live up to, even when civ struggles.

that being said, humankind does a very good job with details that civ doesn’t even attempt to include, so i will very much grant it that

 

[notNamed]

i think the fact that civ works with consultants from these cultures, hires academics to help get rare/extinct/indigenous voices to come to life is still something that humankind doesn’t live up to, even when civ struggles.

They did try with the Haudenosaunee but as they're European, they never got a response back. It was as easy as that.
Civ is obviously able to reach out to US native groups since they live in the US and can always drive over to get some cooperation going. Short of adding Bretons, a Parisian studio just isn't able to do that.

Similarly with the foreign voicelines. They asked for it, SEGA said there's no money for that and that was it.
I do think Civ has long lost its crown in this regard since the OG implementation in Civ 4 as the likes of AoE4, or dedicated projects like all the Mohawk in AssCreed, Yucatec in Tomb Raider go a step beyond that Civ never iterated much on, but at least in 4X space, it's still comfortably the only one where we can hear all those 3 lines of modern Vietnamese. But also Lingala.

 

[tman2000]

I don't think that's true in this case. I personally like the reduced micromanagement.

Civ 7's problems stem from railroading, steamrolling, and poor immersion...

Railroading feels worse because outside of the legacy paths there's very little to do, this is also why there's poor immersion. All of which is related to streamlining.

Not the streamlining which is overwhelmingly a good thing... And I'd argue in modern doesn't go far enough.

I do think they need city growth events to be less interruptive and really ought to have an automation feature as well.

 

[Krikkit1]

Railroading feels worse because outside of the legacy paths there's very little to do, this is also why there's poor immersion. All of which is related to streamlining.

I do think they need city growth events to be less interruptive and really ought to have an automation feature as well.

Having a "Growth Queue" might help. basically say what tiles you want to grow on (maybe include specialist placing if possible.)

 

[Leucarum]

Railroading feels worse because outside of the legacy paths there's very little to do, this is also why there's poor immersion. All of which is related to streamlining.

The legacy paths do railroad you... I don't think I'd put that down to steamrolling personally... I think it was more a misguided attempt to create distinct gameplay in each era.

I do think they need city growth events to be less interruptive and really ought to have an automation feature as well.

It's not just city growth! By modern you end up with too many units and build queues. I think the settlement limits should be scaled back... Empires grow a bit too large.

 

[tman2000]

It's not just city growth! By modern you end up with too many units and build queues. I think the settlement limits should be scaled back... Empires grow a bit too large.

Just subjective here, but I don't agree at all. It feels like you'd prefer a board game or at least small map size. Strategy games inherently have lots of units.

 

[Core Imposter]

How large do empires grow?

 

[Leucarum]

Just subjective here, but I don't agree at all. It feels like you'd prefer a board game or at least small map size. Strategy games inherently have lots of units.

Civ games have always had too much micro in the late game. It's the #1 reason I stop playing. 7 improves it a lot - modern sucks for more reasons than that - but it's still too high IMO.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Civ games have always had too much micro in the late game. It's the #1 reason I stop playing. 7 improves it a lot - modern sucks for more reasons than that - but it's still too high IMO.

the flip side of this is that civ has never had *that much* macro—things like events, broad economic management, etc. have never been core gameplay features. the main gameplay loop of civ is actually pretty simple—build city, develop resources, build units/buildings/other win condition using resources, progress towards win condition using built things

because the game has never featured that much macro-management (think a more built out supply chain, more strategically-intensive war), that decision forces more micro-management to become part of the game to build out the core gameplay loop

other games supplement a light gameplay loop with lots of micromanagement (think paradox grand strategy games where the core gameplay loop is practically nonexistent or mind numbingly simple, but the micromanagement is extensive and occupies your energy) or design (think management games with planning side loops, like tropico or city-state)

because civ doesn’t suit either of those alternatives, and micromanagement actively harms its loop, it feels especially micromanagey. the obvious solution is fleshing out the core gameplay loop, either in expansion or civ 8, but that’s easier said than done.

 

[Leucarum]

the flip side of this is that civ has never had *that much* macro—things like events, broad economic management, etc. have never been core gameplay features. the main gameplay loop of civ is actually pretty simple—build city, develop resources, build units/buildings/other win condition using resources, progress towards win condition using built things

because the game has never featured that much macro-management (think a more built out supply chain, more strategically-intensive war), that decision forces more micro-management to become part of the game to build out the core gameplay loop

other games supplement a light gameplay loop with lots of micromanagement (think paradox grand strategy games where the core gameplay loop is practically nonexistent or mind numbingly simple, but the micromanagement is extensive and occupies your energy) or design (think management games with planning side loops, like tropico or city-state)

because civ doesn’t suit either of those alternatives, and micromanagement actively harms its loop, it feels especially micromanagey. the obvious solution is fleshing out the core gameplay loop, either in expansion or civ 8, but that’s easier said than done.

Or more things like commanders where you can pool the micro into one unit...

 

[Core Imposter]

Or more things like commanders where you can pool the micro into one unit...

My preferences seem 100% opposed to yours. Interesting.

I would guess you would not find yourself halfway through the tech tree, in your first war, on turn 640 of a Civ game either.

 

[Leucarum]

My preferences seem 100% opposed to yours. Interesting.

I would guess you would not find yourself halfway through the tech tree, in your first war, on turn 640 of a Civ game either.

I'm not sure I follow the connotation?

 

[tman2000]

Civ games have always had too much micro in the late game. It's the #1 reason I stop playing. 7 improves it a lot - modern sucks for more reasons than that - but it's still too high IMO.

Oh I agree, I just think it's the constant zooming in and out to pick city growth tiles.

 

[sonicmyst]

They tried out leader switching first, but to them it didn't work and was less immersive in their opinions because it seems like Firaxis liked to identify with leaders, rather than civs.
As someone who likes to identify as the civ, and not the leader, I think I might have much preferred that. I wonder how many more people would have preferred leader switching to civ switching?

Not to mention I think leader switching means more cost to do than civs because of animation and voice acting. Unless they make them static leaderheads?

 

[Pistol90]

More and more I starting to think that Civ7 is not fixable.

If you fix and remove everything what needs to be fixed/remove .... you end up with nothing.

Leader/Civ separation - REMOVE
Ages - FIX OR REMOVE
Civ change - REMOVE
Narative events - REMOVE
Legacy paths - REMOVE
Crisis - FIX OR REMOVE
Districts/Buildings - FIX
Cities/Tows - FIX
Diplomacy - FIX


Then you have things which were in base Civ6 and Civ7 removes them, lets list just some of them:

Nice looking map
Good UI
Religion (in Civ7 it so basic, you can remove it)
Easy to look screen (cartoony graphics, but you at least can see where things are)
Terrain (in Civ7 everything is the same basicly)
Map types (in Civ7 only one, and that is by game design-stupid distant lands and treasure fleets)
etc etc

You have 2 good thing in Civ7 ... navigable rivers and army commanders ... but those two are potential mods for Civ6 for good modder (mayba navigable rivers not, but how knows)

Game is broken on fundamental level, they release new DLC today and I who bought founder edition will probably wont even try it ... why waste time on this game, with Civ6+mods arroung

 

[Leucarum]

Oh I agree, I just think it's the constant zooming in and out to pick city growth tiles.

Automation is probably a good thing for those who want it so I wouldn't be opposed to "auto-grow my settlement" feature if that'a something you'd value. The range of automation options is something I'm looking forward to in EU5 TBH...

 

[Leucarum]

Leader/Civ separation - REMOVE

I think this is a really awesome feature. Gives us civs with no attested leaders. Leaders who never led a civ. Bravo Firaxis for this one. I think it would have been enough novelty by itself without the rest.

Ages - FIX OR REMOVE
Civ change - REMOVE
Legacy paths - REMOVE
Crisis - FIX OR REMOVE

The ages and associated features as implemented in Civ7 I think are too difficult a landing for Firaxis to pull off. They got very ambitious, but bit off far more than they can chew. I do think if the scale of what they were trying isn't heavily toned back they're not going to pull it off. Better that they get something playable than something fancy.

Narative events - REMOVE
Districts/Buildings - FIX
Cities/Tows - FIX
Diplomacy - FIX

I love all these, sorry... That said. I agree the game has fundamental flaws. The age system I don't think can be salvaged in its current framework. So we're left with Antiquity as the only fun part of the game, and that doesn't have staying power. I haven't fired up 7 in weeks, and R2R isn't exactly tempting me.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Not to mention I think leader switching means more cost to do than civs because of animation and voice acting. Unless they make them static leaderheads?

Maybe. Though to me it feels like these leaders have less animations and voiced lines compared to Civ 6, so it could be more doable.