Civ VII: the good, the bad, the ugly

[itix]

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?"

This makes me wonder if there were cuts to the development budget. I read on Reddit that Prussia has the most complete assets, but it could be just a false impression.

 

[CliffCo]

This makes me wonder if there were cuts to the development budget. I read on Reddit that Prussia has the most complete assets, but it could be just a false impression.

I doubt whether there were cuts to the budget, but I find I highly possible that the release was rushed to get the game out on schedule rather than delay it any further.

 

[misesfan]

I doubt whether there were cuts to the budget, but I find I highly possible that the release was rushed to get the game out on schedule rather than delay it any further.

Yep, the poor quality and design decisions definitely reeks of 'ship it out now, and fix it later.'

 

[MutilationWave]

Yep, the poor quality and design decisions definitely reeks of 'ship it out now, and fix it later.'

And they seem to follow a line I quote at work, there's nothing more permanent than a temporary fix. My coworker had to drive four hours to adjust one of our temporary fixes that we forgot to come back to in order to be code compliant.

Doing it with the temporary fix instead of correctly saved us a lot of time during the work, fixing it to be compliant took maybe five minutes, but it wasted his whole day essentially.

 

[protocol7]

“A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad” has been game industry wisdom since before I ever joined it. Before I even graduated high school, and I’m old.

 

[MutilationWave]

“A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad” has been game industry wisdom since before I ever joined it. Before I even graduated high school, and I’m old.

I wonder if 2k is really wishing they'd let Civ cook longer and put more resources towards it with the GTA delay.

Hmm. Now that I think about it maybe Civ wasn't allowed to be delayed because they surely already knew that GTA was going to be.

 

[CliffCo]

“A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad” has been game industry wisdom since before I ever joined it. Before I even graduated high school, and I’m old.

I disagree, rushed games can be fixed with patches and DLC, it's been the case with many games in the past. As long as the developers are taking notice and acting on feedback things get better with time.

 

[Niallism]

“A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad” has been game industry wisdom since before I ever joined it. Before I even graduated high school, and I’m old.

Yes, but unfortunately MBA types noticed that bad games still make money...

And when a game or other project is bad, that problem remains attached to the studio, who were actually working hard to make it good, and not the suit who moves on to another company to do the same thing.

 

[AD1730]

I disagree, rushed games can be fixed with patches and DLC, it's been the case with many games in the past. As long as the developers are taking notice and acting on feedback things get better with time.

Sure, but then you’re dealing with the self-imposed weight of poor initial reviews because you released an unfinished game. You also encourage people to not purchase your games at release, which cuts into your profit because 1) time value of money and 2) if you wait at release, it’s easier to just wait for a sale.

 

[Niallism]

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 . . .

I agree. I think the approach to history is interesting and a lot closer to some academic approaches than the lay audience think, and is influenced by groups like the Frankfurt School and post-colonial theory. There are so many 'facts that everyone knows' that are not true. Like that Celts were all red-haired people from the edges of Western Europe, rather than a group that lived all the way across Europe, to the borders of Asia. Or that Asia and Europe being separate is an ideology, with many other cultures calling this landmass 'Eurasia'.

I really like the age system (I disliked Humankind but not for that). It's exploring how civilizations change. In our world, Rome was a huge part of the history of Britain, which was a huge part of the USA. In another world - my current game - the US was founded by Africans. People keep thinking that's shocking, because the ethnicities/nations are different from history, but it's just because the geography and events are different. But the ethnicity has become so... real... that people can imagine a world where Caesar rules Rome for 6000 years more than if Vietnam changed to become peopled by black people.

It reminds me of Mark Fisher's wonderful Capitalist Realism, where he points out that it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. Totalising paradigms/ideologies just feel right, to the point where art/games that explore a different approach (even one that is evidence-based) are almost repugnant. More than shocking. Just insane, to many people's minds. Just as, to my mind, the image of Civ 4's Canada being prehistoric hunter-gatherers is also nuts.

Anyway, I'm still enjoying and playing the game, but its implementation is what's limiting that. Both the QA/bugs, which just annoy me in a simple 'consumer got lied to' way, and as you say, that there should be more influence over the Crises and there should be wider legacy paths, e.g. a choice of two per type.

They tried something innovative, and that needed a perfect release to support it. With this terrible release, the shock at the innovation has become mixed with the anger at the poor QA.

 

[y10]

I'm really hoping this game turns around. There are a lot of really good improvements and mechanics in this game, but the problem (in my opinion) is that the core idea of ages is quite bad. I'm not even talking about the Civ Switching (that doesn't even bother me); I'm talking about the way the game undoes your progress. The buildings that you built becomes nerfed and your military get shrunk, unless you put a ton of production into exponentially expensive army commanders. The legacy paths also feel like they really take away the freedom of the game and really kill the replay value because you are always pursuing the same target goals.

I understand the problem they were trying to address; they were trying to solve the snowballing problem. The problem is that I'm not sure you can solve this problem in a strategy game. You either have to allow snowballing, or you have to devalue early game decisions. I think in this game, they kind of tried to split it down the middle and wound up pleasing no one.

I'm still holding out hope for a classic mode with one continuous age with no building or military resets. I think they are worried that people would criticize it as an upgraded Civ 6, but (at least personally), I would welcome this. Given the continued popularity of Civ 6, I don't think I'm the only one who would welcome this decision.

 

[protocol7]

To be honest I probably also wouldn’t mind civ switching much or at all if it wasn’t associated with the offscreen collapse of the old civ and loss of progress/reset. Though it’s hard to say for sure without being able to try it.

 

[evonannoredars]

I do agree it would be preferable if less stuff was lost between ages. I love changing civs, but the feeling of starting from scratch can be annoying (despite the reality that a decent amount is kept) - having to re-invent Merchants each era feels weird too. I think making the switch between eras less disruptive would probably improve some people's opinions on civ switching.

I'm hoping they eventually implement:
- Some system where commanders relocate to the nearest owned/neutral tile, fortified and with tents set up as if they've been chilling in the same spot during era transition
- A better unit redistribution mechanism, so there's more agency in what parts of your army persist
- Previous civ building styles persisting on outdated buildings! This is a big one that annoys me for how minor it is lol
- Retaining a number of merchants/trade routes

 

[Siptah]

I do agree it would be preferable if less stuff was lost between ages. I love changing civs, but the feeling of starting from scratch can be annoying (despite the reality that a decent amount is kept) - having to re-invent Merchants each era feels weird too. I think making the switch between eras less disruptive would probably improve some people's opinions on civ switching.

I'm hoping they eventually implement:
- Some system where commanders relocate to the nearest owned/neutral tile, fortified and with tents set up as if they've been chilling in the same spot during era transition
- A better unit redistribution mechanism, so there's more agency in what parts of your army persist
- Previous civ building styles persisting on outdated buildings! This is a big one that annoys me for how minor it is lol
- Retaining a number of merchants/trade routes

I‘d be fine with trade routes being cut and merchants lost. You need to reallocate resources at the beginning of each age anyway, and as new ones become available some old trade routes might have better alternatives (e.g., no more camels
To import, but newly appeared factory resources). As decrease of trade is also a historical reason and effect of declining statehood (i.e., what is „simulated“ with the „time“ between ages), I think this is also fine for the world‘s feel. That I need to research trade again, on the other hand, is not just tedious but rather stupid.

How about not using fixed numbers of units and commanders as decisive for what’s taken over and relocated, but the following:
- each unit within 3 tiles of a settlement or commander is moved to the commander or city center.
- all other units are lost
- all commanders (with their units packed) are moved to the nearest settlement
- if there is already a commander in that settlement, the commander and its units are moved to the (new) capital which can have multiple commanders on urban tiles

That way, defensive players keep their defense and offensive players have to be careful at age transition not to overextend their army. Additionally, it keeps the few turns grace period at the start of an age (which I personally rather like). You could also keep ships if they are near the harbor or near naval commanders.

 

[UWHabs]

I‘d be fine with trade routes being cut and merchants lost. You need to reallocate resources at the beginning of each age anyway, and as new ones become available some old trade routes might have better alternatives (e.g., no more camels
To import, but newly appeared factory resources). As decrease of trade is also a historical reason and effect of declining statehood (i.e., what is „simulated“ with the „time“ between ages), I think this is also fine for the world‘s feel. That I need to research trade again, on the other hand, is not just tedious but rather stupid.

How about not using fixed numbers of units and commanders as decisive for what’s taken over and relocated, but the following:
- each unit within 3 tiles of a settlement or commander is moved to the commander or city center.
- all other units are lost
- all commanders (with their units packed) are moved to the nearest settlement
- if there is already a commander in that settlement, the commander and its units are moved to the (new) capital which can have multiple commanders on urban tiles

That way, defensive players keep their defense and offensive players have to be careful at age transition not to overextend their army. Additionally, it keeps the few turns grace period at the start of an age (which I personally rather like). You could also keep ships if they are near the harbor or near naval commanders.

I think having a hard cut in, for example, trade routes might make sense if they drastically changed the trade mechanism each era. Like maybe in the ancient era, it's handled like it is now, where you can trade and get a copy of the resource. But then in the exploration era and modern era, there's different mechanisms, maybe creating new copies of resources that you can plant, or just some completely alternate way to handle it. I think that would be much more logical in having a "break" in merchants and having to re-learn the new capabilities.

Similarly, I do think it's a little weird that just because you go through the break, a garden or a library suddenly forgets how to work. I kind of feel like I would rather things retain their yields, but the game should just have each new era with like a big jump in values. So instead of treating everything in like a 1:2:3 ratio, maybe buildings and yields should be like 1:4:9 ratios. So if a library is 2 science base + 1 per adjacent resource, but maybe Observatories should have a base of like 6 or 8 science, and 2 per adjacent resource, and a modern schoolhouse is like 12 or 15 science base. Then even if the old building doesn't obsolete fully, you still probably want to replace the old ones, but they don't just become a net negative in the transition.

 

[Krikkit1]

I‘d be fine with trade routes being cut and merchants lost. You need to reallocate resources at the beginning of each age anyway, and as new ones become available some old trade routes might have better alternatives (e.g., no more camels
To import, but newly appeared factory resources). As decrease of trade is also a historical reason and effect of declining statehood (i.e., what is „simulated“ with the „time“ between ages), I think this is also fine for the world‘s feel. That I need to research trade again, on the other hand, is not just tedious but rather stupid.

How about not using fixed numbers of units and commanders as decisive for what’s taken over and relocated, but the following:
- each unit within 3 tiles of a settlement or commander is moved to the commander or city center.
- all other units are lost
- all commanders (with their units packed) are moved to the nearest settlement
- if there is already a commander in that settlement, the commander and its units are moved to the (new) capital which can have multiple commanders on urban tiles

That way, defensive players keep their defense and offensive players have to be careful at age transition not to overextend their army. Additionally, it keeps the few turns grace period at the start of an age (which I personally rather like). You could also keep ships if they are near the harbor or near naval commanders.

I think some might be better if lost earlier... ie
if at stage X of the Crisis you started
Losing trade routes
having increasing penalties (CS+maintenance) for units in enemy territory/outside of friendly territory
etc.
perhaps some Level 1 buildings could lose their adjacency in stage 3 of the Crisis

That way the age transition is "smoothed"

What I'd like to see with units is similar to what is done with buildings. units from the previous era become "Ceremonial"..
No benefit from commanders
No exp given
5 CS below the "standard Level 0" of the age
You get X free upgrades of Ceremonial units (only in your borders)... otherwise they can't be upgraded only "retired"

 

[evonannoredars]

I think some might be better if lost earlier... ie
if at stage X of the Crisis you started
Losing trade routes

This specifically would be pretty bad for the antiquity economic legacy path

 

[Krikkit1]

This specifically would be pretty bad for the antiquity economic legacy path

Well if the unit ones would also be bad for the military path....
Perhaps if Trade routes started draining influence... ie they aren't cut off... but Crisis Stage 2 they drain 1 influence/turn each and crisis stage 3 they drain 3 influence/turn each
Harder to establish new ones and it would "explain" why they collapsed

perhaps that might work for buildings as well
Crisis stage 1: "Tier 1" buildings gold maintenance cost+1
Crisis stage 2: "Tier 2" buildings gold maintenance cost+1
Crisis stage 3: "Tier 1" buildings happiness maintenance cost+1

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

This specifically would be pretty bad for the antiquity economic legacy path

The answer, if you don't mind my chiming in, is to provide alternatives to the current One Size For Everyone Legacy Paths.

For example, an Antiquity Economic Path that requires either multiple Resources by trade (which is not at all a bad model for economic prosperity) or perhaps a Gold/Settlement minimum total for each Legacy milestone that might or might not require many trade routes to accomplish - as in, you might also reach it by not spending any Gold no matter how tempted, but you'd be seriously gambling.

I confess my biggest (among a long list) complaint with the game now is the rigid and linear Legacy Paths for each and every Legacy in every Age, which makes the game increasingly Boring the longer I play each Age. Providing alternatives also allows a potential 'opening up' of the Crisis Period consequences and actions and even, possibly, a more nuanced set of Game Victory conditions.