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.

They could definitely do things that would improve the immersion for most players, but it’s not inherently any less historically sensible than it has ever been.

 

[Park Hyun]

The civ-switching doesn't make sense to me and seems like a real bad idea for the following reasons:

1. I was playing Rome (Italy). Now my civilization must be either French or Spanish. My capitol is still Rome, though (i.e. in Italy). Suddenly all my buildings look different. But oddly enough, Benjamin Franklin still represents me. I don't get this. This is profoundly weird. Here are some real civilizations with very long, relatively stable cultural continuities: Egypt, China, Korea, Japan, Mexico, Mali, India, Russia, England, Arabia, Polynesia, Thailand/Laos/Cambodia, Ethiopia. They've all had their ups and downs, break aparts, lost wars and cultural change. Hell, the Roman Empire lasted until the 15th century!

2. The challenge was to build a civ that "stands the test of time." Civ VII flat out refuses to let me do that.

3. The "history is layers" idea was already a thing in Civ. Cities could rebel or be conquered. Religions from other places could take over. Ideologies would change. Building styles would update with time.

4. Who am I competing against? If it's the leader, and not the civ, that's not a civ game. It's Ben Franklin vs Machiavelli, not Rome vs Venice (he was actually Florentine, I think). It's just... not Civ.

There were ways Firaxis could have modeled this! They could have had geographic-based civs that upgraded with ages (Rome becomes Venice becomes Italy). They could have allowed for civ-spawning or switching via break-ups (England becomes USA). They could have allowed for leader-switching.

 

[Siptah]

The civ-switching doesn't make sense to me and seems like a real bad idea for the following reasons:

1. I was playing Rome (Italy). Now my civilization must be either French or Spanish. My capitol is still Rome, though (i.e. in Italy). Suddenly all my buildings look different. But oddly enough, Benjamin Franklin still represents me. I don't get this. This is profoundly weird. Here are some real civilizations with very long, relatively stable cultural continuities: Egypt, China, Korea, Japan, Mexico, Mali, India, Russia, England, Arabia, Polynesia, Thailand/Laos/Cambodia, Ethiopia. They've all had their ups and downs, break aparts, lost wars and cultural change. Hell, the Roman Empire lasted until the 15th century!

Rome really isn't Italy and Italy isn't Rome. And almost all of the civs you list have enormous dents in their cultural continuity or not much at all if we look at 4000 BCE to today. In contrast, Rome to Franks or Spanish has a lot of cultural continuity - and at least partly the same people.

But I get your sentiment: when the inhabitants of the city of Rome (and many of their neighbors in Italy) hellenized from the 4th century BCE and for the most part lost the traditional roman/italian ways, religions and stories (while they had been under greek cultural pressure from the south since centuries), they did not change the capital (at first) or the "civ". Not even when the incorporated Greece proper. But centuries later, when the captial(s) (Milan, Trier, Thessaloniki, Constantinople, Ravenna, Antiochia) eventually moved away (while a lot of the wealth and grandness, as well as the emperors were elsewhere anyway). But they still called it Rome. Even when Rome (and most of Italy) itself was no longer part of the Empire, they called it Rome. But what does the state of 1400 have in common with the one of 500 BCE? Or even the one of 300 BCE with the one 200 CE? Not much really. It's the name and associated claim to glory that remained. People, language, society, political system, culture, religion, etc. all changed.

2. The challenge was to build a civ that "stands the test of time." Civ VII flat out refuses to let me do that.

That's a common misremembering, but the tag line was always "build an empire that stands the test of time."
Edit: Huh, apparently, that tagline was used as well at some points in official and unofficial ways.
Yet, it's much more of an empire builder than a civ builder imho, because it never really modeled society or culture.

3. The "history is layers" idea was already a thing in Civ. Cities could rebel or be conquered. Religions from other places could take over. Ideologies would change. Building styles would update with time.

Agreed. Which is why I think the added emphasis isn't out of place.

4. Who am I competing against? If it's the leader, and not the civ, that's not a civ game. It's Ben Franklin vs Machiavelli, not Rome vs Venice (he was actually Florentine, I think). It's just... not Civ.

I think since at least civ V, FXS focused on leader vs. leader much more than about civ vs. civ. The trend grew stronger with VI in my perception. But as polls in these forums show, ymmv.

There were ways Firaxis could have modeled this! They could have had geographic-based civs that upgraded with ages (Rome becomes Venice becomes Italy).

I agree that geography-based civ paths are the easiest to comprehend, especially for people that don't know much about history. Yet, something like Shawnee -> America or Mongols -> Russia has as much cultural and ethnical sense to it as Egypt -> Mongols or Chola -> Mughals and less than Abbasids -> Mughals or Rome -> Spain. Instead, FXS went with a very open unlock rule: very wide geographic areas, cultural continuities, neighbors, etc all count. I think the added choice is really good tbh. Also, I don't see why Rome -> Venice -> Italy is better than Rome -> Spain -> Mexico, for example. The first is connected by a very narrow geographical area (all were partly on the Apennine peninsula, although many other places are of utmost importance for Rome and Venice), while the second is the historical path that encompasses cultural continuity. As far as peoples go, both seem to be of similar continuity.

[Yet, I somehow find both Rome into Venice of all possibilities and Venice as unifying Italian culture quite funny, but I may be too focused on details of Italian history and the cultural and political differences between Venice and the rest of the peninsula.]

They could have allowed for civ-spawning or switching via break-ups (England becomes USA).

I still hope that we'll see this in an expansion to shake up the modern era.

 

[protocol7]

That's a common misremembering, but the tag line was always "build an empire that stands the test of time." It's also more of an empire builder than a civ builder imho, because it never really modeled society or culture.

Misremembering in what sense? This is from a 1997 MacWorld magazine.

 

[protocol7]

Or Civ4, at the start of every game:

There’s many examples of course but I must be misunderstanding what you are saying is being misremembered?

 

[Siptah]

Or Civ4, at the start of every game:

View attachment 730958

There’s many examples of course but I must be misunderstanding what you are saying is being misremembered?

Thanks for the heads up. I didn't remember these. Just the original tagline from the civ 1 box that said Empire. I'll edit the post above.

 

[itix]

Lets add Civ 1 to the mix:

It mentions a great leader and the great leader is you.

 

[protocol7]

Yeah, there’s many many examples.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

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.

While I agree overall the graphics look fabulous I actually think the art, especially the art attached to the UI and UI style is very, very ugly. It looks terribly dated especially when compared to the beautiful modern graphics we get from leaders/landscapes. At best I’d call it “sanitized”, at worst I’d consider it to be early technical alpha level mock ups.

Ages and the loading screen and subsequent reset are what really kill the game for me. I think MANY of the games issues stem from the age system, including the game not feeling like it has much replay ability due to the small number of cultures per age. You quickly tire of facing the same cultures over and over, even with different leaders at the head.

For me, the “narrative” events also don’t seem to be very immersive and rarely build on each other. They feel more like random pop ups that disrupt my gameplay for random bonuses.

I’ve gotten over Civ swapping

I think navigable rivers and commanders are excellent additions to the game.

I was so disappointed in the game I actually refunded my founder’s edition, however, a friend convinced me to buy the base edition. I haven’t touched it still in a few weeks. I’ve gone back to playing Civ 6 with mods and also MP sessions.

 

[protocol7]

I really miss the inclusion and progression of real world art and music. Now the great scientific and cultural works of humanity are just generic tokens. I would do the cultural victory in civ6 just to read the prose and poetry, hear the music, and see the art. In civ4 I loved the way the background music evolved through the ages.

 

[itix]

I feel there were too many changes with too few resources:

The civ switching causes "too few civs" issue: in the base game you have less civs to start with than in Civ 1. This also mean you see the same civs in every game.

Distant lands: i have not played the game but it seems it is always slightly unbalanced in a way or another. Including map gen restrictions.

Crisis system: looks interesting but i feel it could be more.

Ages system: I get the point, but seems it was not fully well thought. Seems almost everyone loves antiquity, but later eras have various issues. Their playtesting group just doesnt play game like casual "optimizer" who is playing to win/earn points/achievements.

And UI, everyone said it was unfinished. Overlooked or not enough time?

 

[MutilationWave]

I really miss the inclusion and progression of real world art and music. Now the great scientific and cultural works of humanity are just generic tokens. I would do the cultural victory in civ6 just to read the prose and poetry, hear the music, and see the art. In civ4 I loved the way the background music evolved through the ages.

Even though the music is great, it's far too repetitive in 7. Sometimes I mute it and put on the civ 6 soundtrack.

 

[MutilationWave]

And UI, everyone said it was unfinished. Overlooked or not enough time?

Not enough time or possibly having programmers make UI instead of designers. As others have said, much of it looks like placeholder crap.

It's hard for me to remember because it has largely become invisible since I've memorized everything, but my very first reaction to it was "ugh, seriously?"

 

[Siptah]

Even though the music is great, it's far too repetitive in 7. Sometimes I mute it and put on the civ 6 soundtrack.

I think they meant the great works of music and art, not the game soundtrack. I always considered the great works a great thing to include in a game about human history, but absolutely hated the ear cancer quality music and early digital photo mini replicas of artworks that are supposed to represent humanity’s great artistic achievements. But tastes differ.

 

[MutilationWave]

I think they meant the great works of music and art, not the game soundtrack. I always considered the great works a great thing to include in a game about human history, but absolutely hated the ear cancer quality music and early digital photo mini replicas of artworks that are supposed to represent humanity’s great artistic achievements. But tastes differ.

They mentioned the background music evolving through the ages, that's what I was responding to.