Civ VII: the good, the bad, the ugly

[Park Hyun]

I’ve been playing Civilization since CivIII. I finally got around to purchasing and trying out VII after some forays into Anno 1800, Farthest Frontier, Cities: Skylines and a few others. Civ has always been my main game.

Before I get to the bad, I really want to emphasize the good. There is some really good stuff here:
- the art is much better, the maps look glorious, and the leaders are far less cartoonish. The art theme is clear and elegant, and reminds me of Civ V, the best themed game so far.
- production is much better paced. I had a real Roman army running around the map, with multiple units, while still being able to build stuff. One of my gripes has always been the difficulty of building units (and the amount of time it takes), and this is very good.
- the combat is much improved, as well as the pathing. The commander system is a huge leap forward, and very welcome.
- I don't miss the workers, and city management as a whole is much improved. A long time ago, I wrote on this forum about how districts could have multiple buildings that could improve bonuses through pairing, and I wonder if that post had any influence on the new system. Anyways - I got my wish!
- the music is still wonderful.

Unfortunately, there is bad. There is some very bad.
- Firaxis says that it created the ages system because "history is built in layers" and therefore we change civilizations but keep leaders. I would love to get the devs in a room, because I really want to tell them: THAT IS NOT HOW HISTORY WORKS. It is very much the opposite: civilizations by definition go beyond a single human lifespan. This is bad history, and it's bad gameplay. Oh lord, if I could snap my fingers and magically switch the game to keeping a civilization and changing out leaders, I would do that without a second thought. This is bad history because Rome does not become Normandy, or Spain, and it certainly doesn't become Mongolia. China may have been conquered by Mongols, and later by Manchu, but THAT WAS ALREADY MODELED IN CIV. This is bad gameplay, because it's really hard to keep track of who's whom. It is also bad gameplay because it is so counter-intuitive that it makes it difficult to understand, on a fundamental level, how the game works.
- the UI is hot garbage. I have nothing to add to that.

The ugly:
- I appreciate that my style of play (incredibly long games over very large maps with many civilizations, taking me months of iterative gameplay to get through) is not the popular approach. Firaxis saw that most people don't finish games, and designed accordingly. I don't like it, but there is probably no way of modding around it. Im stuck with the opposite of the approach I wanted.

Long story short: Civ VII is not a bad game and has a lot going for it, but is not the game I, as a hardcore Civ gamer, wanted. I will probably keep playing, but only until the newest Anno comes around. The dev choices are the opposite of what I wanted, and although there are some very welcome improvements, the core shift to ages appears to be an unfixable problem.

 

[CliffCo]

I’ve been playing Civilization since CivIII. I finally got around to purchasing and trying out VII after some forays into Anno 1800, Farthest Frontier, Cities: Skylines and a few others. Civ has always been my main game.

Before I get to the bad, I really want to emphasize the good. There is some really good stuff here:
- the art is much better, the maps look glorious, and the leaders are far less cartoonish. The art theme is clear and elegant, and reminds me of Civ V, the best themed game so far.
- production is much better paced. I had a real Roman army running around the map, with multiple units, while still being able to build stuff. One of my gripes has always been the difficulty of building units (and the amount of time it takes), and this is very good.
- the combat is much improved, as well as the pathing. The commander system is a huge leap forward, and very welcome.
- I don't miss the workers, and city management as a whole is much improved. A long time ago, I wrote on this forum about how districts could have multiple buildings that could improve bonuses through pairing, and I wonder if that post had any influence on the new system. Anyways - I got my wish!
- the music is still wonderful.

Unfortunately, there is bad. There is some very bad.
- Firaxis says that it created the ages system because "history is built in layers" and therefore we change civilizations but keep leaders. I would love to get the devs in a room, because I really want to tell them: THAT IS NOT HOW HISTORY WORKS. It is very much the opposite: civilizations by definition go beyond a single human lifespan. This is bad history, and it's bad gameplay. Oh lord, if I could snap my fingers and magically switch the game to keeping a civilization and changing out leaders, I would do that without a second thought. This is bad history because Rome does not become Normandy, or Spain, and it certainly doesn't become Mongolia. China may have been conquered by Mongols, and later by Manchu, but THAT WAS ALREADY MODELED IN CIV. This is bad gameplay, because it's really hard to keep track of who's whom. It is also bad gameplay because it is so counter-intuitive that it makes it difficult to understand, on a fundamental level, how the game works.
- the UI is hot garbage. I have nothing to add to that.

The ugly:
- I appreciate that my style of play (incredibly long games over very large maps with many civilizations, taking me months of iterative gameplay to get through) is not the popular approach. Firaxis saw that most people don't finish games, and designed accordingly. I don't like it, but there is probably no way of modding around it. Im stuck with the opposite of the approach I wanted.

Long story short: Civ VII is not a bad game and has a lot going for it, but is not the game I, as a hardcore Civ gamer, wanted. I will probably keep playing, but only until the newest Anno comes around. The dev choices are the opposite of what I wanted, and although there are some very welcome improvements, the core shift to ages appears to be an unfixable problem.

I agree, i wish they hadn't introduced the ages. I pre purchased the game for $120 and after playing it for 150 hrs i found myself extremely disapointed. I didn't touch it for 2 months but this week i decided to try again. it's not the game i was hoping for but after spending that much money i hate to see it go to waste.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I’ve been playing Civilization since CivIII. I finally got around to purchasing and trying out VII after some forays into Anno 1800, Farthest Frontier, Cities: Skylines and a few others. Civ has always been my main game.

Before I get to the bad, I really want to emphasize the good. There is some really good stuff here:
- the art is much better, the maps look glorious, and the leaders are far less cartoonish. The art theme is clear and elegant, and reminds me of Civ V, the best themed game so far.
- production is much better paced. I had a real Roman army running around the map, with multiple units, while still being able to build stuff. One of my gripes has always been the difficulty of building units (and the amount of time it takes), and this is very good.
- the combat is much improved, as well as the pathing. The commander system is a huge leap forward, and very welcome.
- I don't miss the workers, and city management as a whole is much improved. A long time ago, I wrote on this forum about how districts could have multiple buildings that could improve bonuses through pairing, and I wonder if that post had any influence on the new system. Anyways - I got my wish!
- the music is still wonderful.

Unfortunately, there is bad. There is some very bad.
- Firaxis says that it created the ages system because "history is built in layers" and therefore we change civilizations but keep leaders. I would love to get the devs in a room, because I really want to tell them: THAT IS NOT HOW HISTORY WORKS. It is very much the opposite: civilizations by definition go beyond a single human lifespan. This is bad history, and it's bad gameplay. Oh lord, if I could snap my fingers and magically switch the game to keeping a civilization and changing out leaders, I would do that without a second thought. This is bad history because Rome does not become Normandy, or Spain, and it certainly doesn't become Mongolia. China may have been conquered by Mongols, and later by Manchu, but THAT WAS ALREADY MODELED IN CIV. This is bad gameplay, because it's really hard to keep track of who's whom. It is also bad gameplay because it is so counter-intuitive that it makes it difficult to understand, on a fundamental level, how the game works.
- the UI is hot garbage. I have nothing to add to that.

The ugly:
- I appreciate that my style of play (incredibly long games over very large maps with many civilizations, taking me months of iterative gameplay to get through) is not the popular approach. Firaxis saw that most people don't finish games, and designed accordingly. I don't like it, but there is probably no way of modding around it. Im stuck with the opposite of the approach I wanted.

Long story short: Civ VII is not a bad game and has a lot going for it, but is not the game I, as a hardcore Civ gamer, wanted. I will probably keep playing, but only until the newest Anno comes around. The dev choices are the opposite of what I wanted, and although there are some very welcome improvements, the core shift to ages appears to be an unfixable problem.

I understand the on-going frustration with the game, that up-ends so many things that people thought were 'standard' in Civ. I've been playing since Civ II, including all the Near Civ versions like Test of Time, Revolution, Colonization, and SMAC, and would simply point out that under the 'Civ Umbrella' there has been room for a lot of variation.

As to the history in the game, or 'how history works', I'm a published (military) historian with an advanced degree in history, and I'm not entirely certain I know 'how history works' - there are far too many variables demonstrated by historical events to make such a bold statement.

Fort instance, some civilizations (at least, in game terms) did not last much past a single human lifespan. The American Confederacy (frequently mentioned as an 'Alternative Civ' in the game) lasted less than 5 years. Alexander the Great founded over a dozen cities - the classic definition, by the way, of Civilization - and his Empire outlasted his death by - months. And what followed was a distinctly Hybrid civilization combining Classical Greek and Middle Eastern elements of culture, science, technology, and political structure, which is called Hellenistic to define it from everything Greek or Mesopotamian that came before. For a later example, Hitler's "1000 Year Reich" lasted 13 years. It had a lot of very distinctive elements that separate it from anything previously or subsequently German, but lasting longer than a single human lifespan wasn't one of them.

Which is not to argue that Immortal Leaders was ever my favorite part of the game. On the other hand, having a distinctive human face in front of you makes it very easy to keep track of Civs in the game, and psychologically it is easier for humans to keep track of human faces than any other symbol: no other 'icon' will work quite as well. Given that Civ VII has deviated dramatically from the traditional Political/Military Leaders used before, it is obvious that they are emphasizing the Symbolism of the Leader rather than any historical accuracy: neither Ada Lovelace nor Ibn Battuta, among others, ever had any political leadership or significance historically, but they make fine symbols for whatever Civ they are leading in the game.

Which, again, is not to say that a known political leader of a known and associated Civ wouldn't be better, but, as I have posted before on these Forums, there is NO known human civilization that has lasted 6000 years, despite modern nationalistic fantasies to the contrary. IF something has to change in the game, the Civilization is definitely in the running for the subject of change.

I think the Civ changes could have been better done in the game, but in a game those changes have to combine, at least, Playability and Gamer Agency - that is, the gamer has to have some definite input into what, how and when the changes take place, and how emphatic those changes are. I don't think the gamer has that in the game at the moment, and that and the stiflingly rigid Legacy Paths to individual Age and Game victories mean that (for me, at least) the game is rapidly becoming Boring after only a few months of play.

Without dramatic changes to the game, I'm afraid for me it's Anno 1800 New Horizons Mod or Farthest Frontier, here I come . . .

 

[aelf]

- Firaxis says that it created the ages system because "history is built in layers" and therefore we change civilizations but keep leaders. I would love to get the devs in a room, because I really want to tell them: THAT IS NOT HOW HISTORY WORKS. It is very much the opposite: civilizations by definition go beyond a single human lifespan. This is bad history, and it's bad gameplay. Oh lord, if I could snap my fingers and magically switch the game to keeping a civilization and changing out leaders, I would do that without a second thought. This is bad history because Rome does not become Normandy, or Spain, and it certainly doesn't become Mongolia. China may have been conquered by Mongols, and later by Manchu, but THAT WAS ALREADY MODELED IN CIV. This is bad gameplay, because it's really hard to keep track of who's whom. It is also bad gameplay because it is so counter-intuitive that it makes it difficult to understand, on a fundamental level, how the game works.

What do you mean? Roman Hispania did end up becoming Spain, with some transitional 'states' in between.

If accurate (real-world) historical progression matters more than gameplay to you, surely this problem would be solved by having enough civs to be able to choose the accurate historical paths.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

What do you mean? Roman Hispania did end up becoming Spain, with some transitional 'states' in between.

If accurate (real-world) historical progression matters more than gameplay to you, surely this problem would be solved by having enough civs to be able to choose the accurate historical paths.

Here's a thought . . .

Instead of trying to develop potentially dozens of new Civs to provide 'accurate' progressions, why not an in-game mechanic that develops the traits of your next Civ based on what you are playing in the previous Age and what develops from that.

To take Spain as an instance:

In Antiquity you are playing Rome.

In the Crisis Period, half your settlements break away, become City States, or are overrun and destroyed by IPs
Another IP (let's call them Visigoths, shall we?) provides an army complete with a Leader as a result of some fast work with Influence and Gold, which defends your remaining settlements.

The result is at the beginning of Exploration you get a choice of Suebic or Visigothic Spain, which keeps a number of the old Roman traits but adds some new ones.

OR

Half your settlements break away in the Crisis for similar reasons but this time the 'roving IP' is Kairouan and the new Civ is Al-Andalus, with strong cultural and scientific bonuses but really bad diplomatic relationships with all the other Civs coming out of the old Roman state in Antiquity.

You would have a chance to pick the exact elements you 'inherit' from Rome and the IPs and that go into your new Civ, so you aren't chained to a potentially unrealistic historical path that makes no sense in your game. On the other hand, you would have only a slight chance of turning into, say, Mongols or Incas unless you chose to include Ahistorical Choices in your game set-up.

Civs composed of an amalgam of other Civ elements might be much easier to develop, especially if you are also given the chance to choose the Unit and City Graphics your Civ adopts in the new Age, based on geographically-appropriate rather than Civ-specific types (except for Uniques, of course, which almost have to be identified by a specific in-game graphic of some kind)

Point is, by allowing gamers to 'build' a new Civ based on what's happening in-game, a far better set of Progression Paths can be obtained without proliferating potential Civs indefinitely. 'Pre-Packaged' Civs complete with speciific graphic elements and all the 'bells and whistles' can still be provided, but even their elements could still be part of a 'mix and match' depending on how you survive the previous Age.

 

[Krikkit1]

Here's a thought . . .

Instead of trying to develop potentially dozens of new Civs to provide 'accurate' progressions, why not an in-game mechanic that develops the traits of your next Civ based on what you are playing in the previous Age and what develops from that.

To take Spain as an instance:

In Antiquity you are playing Rome.

In the Crisis Period, half your settlements break away, become City States, or are overrun and destroyed by IPs
Another IP (let's call them Visigoths, shall we?) provides an army complete with a Leader as a result of some fast work with Influence and Gold, which defends your remaining settlements.

The result is at the beginning of Exploration you get a choice of Suebic or Visigothic Spain, which keeps a number of the old Roman traits but adds some new ones.

OR

Half your settlements break away in the Crisis for similar reasons but this time the 'roving IP' is Kairouan and the new Civ is Al-Andalus, with strong cultural and scientific bonuses but really bad diplomatic relationships with all the other Civs coming out of the old Roman state in Antiquity.

You would have a chance to pick the exact elements you 'inherit' from Rome and the IPs and that go into your new Civ, so you aren't chained to a potentially unrealistic historical path that makes no sense in your game. On the other hand, you would have only a slight chance of turning into, say, Mongols or Incas unless you chose to include Ahistorical Choices in your game set-up.

Civs composed of an amalgam of other Civ elements might be much easier to develop, especially if you are also given the chance to choose the Unit and City Graphics your Civ adopts in the new Age, based on geographically-appropriate rather than Civ-specific types (except for Uniques, of course, which almost have to be identified by a specific in-game graphic of some kind)

Point is, by allowing gamers to 'build' a new Civ based on what's happening in-game, a far better set of Progression Paths can be obtained without proliferating potential Civs indefinitely. 'Pre-Packaged' Civs complete with speciific graphic elements and all the 'bells and whistles' can still be provided, but even their elements could still be part of a 'mix and match' depending on how you survive the previous Age.

You do get to mix and Match… your Roman UB and UQ continue to function, you can choose which of the Roman Traditions you use.

Also you unlock civ based on your gameplay…your Romans may integrate tribes of nomadic horsemen into their society if they develop a strong cavalry tradition from good breeds of warhorses…or they may expand their roads and engineering skills to handle a more mountainous terrain than real world Rome dealt with.