Civ7 is the most bizarre game in the franchise so far.

[Naokaukodem]

I don't know if Civ7 is just original, but it lets a bizarre impression to me. The more I learn about it, the more I feel repelled by it. First, this strange story of 3 eras with their negative policy cards and inability to explore totally. And now, from what I see, the mega cities with buildings and houses all over the place seem more than just advertising. And they are so ugly. I have nothing about a little bit of ugliness, like the roads/railroads everywhere, it's a mark of industrialization of man that has powers over nature. But there it is just the man spreading everywhere, hiding nature, as soon as your first city. Plantations look very awkward in the middle of all this. It's just like Civilization is transforming into Sim City. I like Sim City on Super Nintendo (for its amazing music), but Civ should be different, and it does not have amazing musics anymore.

It seems they are going in the total opposite direction of the idea in my signature. There is no grand scale anymore, it's just a mini-map with a couple of cities/towns or whatever. How could they pretend to name it Civilization ? There's no fresh air anymore, everything seems so cluttered and claustrophobic.

 

[Gorbles]

How could they pretend to name it Civilization ?

Boring answer: because they're Firaxis, developing the latest game in the Civilisation franchise.

You don't like what you've seen of VII? That's fine. But that doesn't make it not a Civilisation game.

 

[Naokaukodem]

But that doesn't make it not a Civilisation game.

I like the wind in my neck and Civilization VII doesn't provide it. If I was Sid Meier I would refuse to associate my name with this.

Moderator Action: Please do not personally attack/troll other users. Stick to discussing the topic.

 

[LastSword]

Well, the equation "civilization = no fresh air" seems about right.

However I agree that civ7 looks much better unsettled. Cities connecting into one mega-blob is repelling.
Cities' unstacking was the biggest aesthetic mistake of series. Not only it looks meh, it also shrinks the world.
However it was one of the best marketing changes. It is much easier to make a promotional video of world wonder that covers an entire plot, buildings have to be large.
The series evolution towards micro-scale was inevitable. Imagine playing something grandeur on console.

I am full of hope though. I liked everything about civ6 pre-release and the game turned out to be... civ6.
Therefore even if I can see some red flags waving, there is still hope that once I play it everything will click just right.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Therefore even if I can see some red flags waving, there is still hope that once I play it everything will click just right.

That was exactly my position a little while back !

 

[UWHabs]

2 Buildings per tile, even if you can build over some ancient ones, does seem a little limiting, and will lead to sprawl. I think it might have been better if they had like 2 buildings per tile ancient, 3 in medieval, and 4 in modern, for example, while getting rid of the distinctions. That causes a little more mess with theming, but could lead to some slightly cool stuff like having your Acropolis quarter but then you put a University on the tile in the later era because you have an open building spot on it. I guess they're somewhat mitigating that with the specialist slots, although I don't know if that's going to be enough.

But otherwise, I think it still has a lot of the flavour of old. Civ maps have always been cluttered with improvements, I think unstacking has finally given people a good view of what modern society is like with buildings and towns all over the place, without a lot of "unspoiled" places. And I definitely have liked that it gives a little more of a puzzle feel, having to plan out where you get the biggest bang for your buck.

 

[Arcaian]

How could they pretend to name it Civilization ?

I suspect that this is because it still is hewing closely to the core of Civ gameplay and design. I'm sure that if you asked 100 civ players what the core of the Civ is , you'd get 110 answers, but to me the fundamental parts of the franchise are:

• At the very most core, gameplay that spans the full length of time from the beginning of civilization to roughly the current day; the fact that the game spans basically the full length of existing civilizations is important to the identity of the game, both in terms of marketing/name recognition/etc but also in terms of differentiation from other 4x games
• You can play as a variety of different civilizations, which impacts how you play the game; this hasn't been there since day 1, but is an increasingly important part of the series, and absolutely would be required for most modern players of the series to feel like it's still civ, IMO
• You have iconic people from history representing the civs in the game; this is very important for making a game still feel Civ-like, I think, as so much of Civ involves interacting with these characters, their and their personality impacting the game
• The freedom to choose the direction your civ is taking; much of the feel of Civ is tied up in the way you shape your civ so that by the end of the game, you really feel like you've made your own customised place - you know the tiles, you know the cities and the wonders, and you understand how it all happened
• A substantial focus on progression through time; civ has always cared a great deal about tech trees, unit upgrades, and more - about trying to give you a sense of progression as you move through time.

All of those are still present in Civ 7, and in fact I think some are enhanced by civ 7's changes - I think the progress through time will be enhanced by the building over of old districts, and the mix-match of different civs construction in your cities. I see no reason why this game would not be called civilization, and I think the spread out cities is a particularly irrelevant reason to say it shouldn't be named that way - if we're picking a civ game that made it feel like your cities just melded into each other the most, I'd go for Civ 3 and its infinite city sprawl.

 

[pokiehl]

I absolutely love how the map and how cities look. The sprawl looks great and makes the word feel alive.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I don't know if Civ7 is just original, but it lets a bizarre impression to me. The more I learn about it, the more I feel repelled by it. First, this strange story of 3 eras with their negative policy cards and inability to explore totally. And now, from what I see, the mega cities with buildings and houses all over the place seem more than just advertising. And they are so ugly. I have nothing about a little bit of ugliness, like the roads/railroads everywhere, it's a mark of industrialization of man that has powers over nature. But there it is just the man spreading everywhere, hiding nature, as soon as your first city. Plantations look very awkward in the middle of all this. It's just like Civilization is transforming into Sim City. I like Sim City on Super Nintendo (for its amazing music), but Civ should be different, and it does not have amazing musics anymore.

It seems they are going in the total opposite direction of the idea in my signature. There is no grand scale anymore, it's just a mini-map with a couple of cities/towns or whatever. How could they pretend to name it Civilization ? There's no fresh air anymore, everything seems so cluttered and claustrophobic.

I agree with you, the more I learn about it, the more I feel repelled by it. Forced narratives during the Exploration Age, lots of Micro Management, the comeback of Policy Cards and Agendas, lots of my favorite maps like TSL no longer available (at least when the game releases) and last but not least, the whole Civ Switching stuff. Seems like a total different game to me, not much left of what reminds me to the Civilization I used to love and play for more than 30 years!

 

[Elhoim]

I absolutely love how the map and how cities look. The sprawl looks great and makes the word feel alive.

Yeah, it's nice, the main thing I dislike is keeping the 3 tile distance which makes the game too crowded. I've been playing with 4 in Civ VI and feels so much better with more visual space between cities. I know that you can settle further than 3, but the AI places them almost always there as it's better for gameplay (adjacency, loyalty, regional effects, etc).

BUT! I know that 4 distance can bring issues with smaller maps, and towns in a way work great for alleviating some of the crowded feel (by making the settlements between two cities towns).

 

[SupremacyKing2]

lots of Micro Management

This criticism puzzles me. Civ7 literally eliminates most of the micro in previous civ games. No more builder/worker micro. No more micro of needing specific strategic resources for units. No more 1upt micro. No more diplomatic trade deals micro.

 

[Krikkit1]

One thing that may help avoiding too much mega blob.

Cities may be megablobs... but since civ7 introduced towns and cities will often be stacking massive amounts of population in them to work efficiently, a good portion of your territory should be open air... fields of farms around the towns to support the small mega blob cities.

Also it doesn't seem like there are more than about 20 buildings (10 tiles) or so by the modern age(since most earlier ones get overwritten)... which means only about 1/2 of a big cities tiles (18) would be developed.


I do agree about some of the micromanagement, but it is micromanagement that
Civ6 introduced with unpacking the city.
or
Civ5 introduced with 1upt
Overall Civ 7 is reducing the micromanagement (with population shuffle and workers being eliminated, and diplomacy being made into a game system instead of a bunch of this for that trade deals)

 

[moondog385]

I think your complaint is kind of odd to be honest. No fresh air, cluttered, and claustrophobic, and man spreading at the expense of nature sounds exactly like “civilization” to me, even if I disagree with your negative characterization of it as it applies to Civ 7.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Maybe I've just missed it, but I don't see the borders between civs in most of the "first look" videos. My cities will have a bunch of buildings in their districts and so will my neighbors. Lots of grey stone with flashes of color... but where are the borders? How do I know where my territory ends and my neighbor/enemy begins?

Is this an option to toggle on/off? I've grown used to seeing the border in every Civ game since Civ3, so that's what I expect. If Civ7 doesn't show the borders, that will seem bizarre (to me).

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I'm certainly in the camp that likes the unstacked cities and love the look of them in VII, all that urban sprawl looks great to me. However, I do accept the criticism that this shrinks the world and would love it if they increased map sizes a bit.

 

[Sagax]

Maybe I've just missed it, but I don't see the borders between civs in most of the "first look" videos. My cities will have a bunch of buildings in their districts and so will my neighbors. Lots of grey stone with flashes of color... but where are the borders? How do I know where my territory ends and my neighbor/enemy begins?

Is this an option to toggle on/off? I've grown used to seeing the border in every Civ game since Civ3, so that's what I expect. If Civ7 doesn't show the borders, that will seem bizarre (to me).

The borders are definitely still there, check out their livestreams instead of First Looks. Their absence in FLs could be due to a toggle/view option (I’d certainly welcome that).

 

[Gori the Grey]

They're two-colored now!

 

[Disgustipated]

inability to explore totally

To be fair, it was always a bit ridiculous how far out your units could go in previous entries of the games. And yes, in older times, men could take what they needed from local farms to sustain themselves, but I still don't think it's realistic for a unit from a civilization to circumnavigate the world in ancient times. And especially with ships being able to go so far. Yes they could chop down lumber in nearby lands to repair their boats, but what of the men? Eventually disease would reduce their numbers to the point they can't go on.

I do agree with points above about the megablob cities. I would rather there be 3 buildings per district, but we'll see how it shakes out.

My other concern in this game is I have a feeling the increased graphics will lead to reduced map size so the game is playable on all systems. I'm expecting there won't be a huge map this game. Which will further make the world look urbanized and nothing but cities. When in reality most of the world is still rural. So far we've seen nothing but small maps with reduced numbers of cities/settlements. I agree with the above points that this entry does seem to be focused on smaller civilizations more akin to Civ 5. The settlement limit reinforces this idea. Yes you can exceed it, but at the cost of losing out on celebrations due to lack of happiness? Is that realistic to do?

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Art is subjective so it's logical some percentage of people will think it's ugly. When I see AI generated art I want it thrown back into the pit of hell from whence it came.

Civ6 were map sizes limitations too. Play some 4D chess and wait to buy until you know they can be modded out?

 

[Glassmage]

Come on we all know the real reason why they scale down this game is to make console gameplay possible.... They are abandoning PC crowd.