Did you buy the game despite being skeptical, and if so, did you end up liking it?

[King of Prussia]

Im not sure where i fall in that poll tbh. I prefer the 1 civ from start to finish, and i prefer political leaders(not necessarily heads of state) over non ones for leaders in civ. I think great people are a better use for great artists, scientist, etc,. My opinion hasnt changed since release after trying these changes out.

With that said i am having a lot of fun despite Civ 7s many current issues. Most of which i think can be ironed out over time. The era system and decoupling of leaders and civs does mean we a higher chance of seeing civs we might not have ever seen. Same for leaders. Can/will i have some fun with someone like ada, even though they arent a political leader, yes. Assuming their bonuses are fun.

 

[ColPaladin]

I gave it thumbs down on Steam after my first playthrough. But after 3 patches and 2 mods, and 2 more playthroughs, I changed it to thumbs up.

 

[Buckets]

There's a vast gulf between the game I wanted and the game we got. And in that space is some disappointment but also some pleasant surprises. This is the way of it with every Civ release I've experienced. This time it leans more into the pleasant part and I'm growing even more appreciative with time.

 

[icon41gimp]

I think the game will work long term.

The UI is obviously atrociously poor and map generation is also weak. The building economy feels too simple and will be the weakest long term link for the game I think - hopefully they can add some depth rather than just the adjacency mechanic.

 

[Devilbound]

I’m not sure that’s actually a patch 3 change. It may just be random luck. I’m playing on Xbox so I’ve gotten no patches beyond the original day 1 patch. I had one game Online, Tiny, Viceroy and other than one war started in Antiquity by Xerxes, all the other leaders got along fabulously. Everyone seemed much more interested in making deals than making wars. Xerxes got isolated into a single city and that was that (he eventually made another two small overseas colonies, but never tried attacking again — although he was pretty pissed off at me the whole game).

Same “day one patch” and I’m currently in the middle of playing another game. I restarted as Napoleon (Emperor), French Empire, Standard Map, Standard Speed, but Modern Age only (I wanted to get more experience with Modern, as it was the age I felt I had the least handle on). I thought I had good relationships with everyone and (before any of us had any ideology) they all jumped me. For a while I still had good relationships with Machiavelli, but he eventually declared war on me too.

At this point, I’m at peace with everyone except for Hatshepsut, who refuses to make peace even if I offer her some overseas colonies. But their units are roaming all over the continent I share with several of them, and I assume it’s only a matter of time before they attack again.

Sure there is always that possibility. But, I have a little over 100 hrs on now and it did feel very different before patch 3. There were wars, but now there are more. And the big difference is the AI destroying other AI civs, something that happened maybe once before patch 3. After that it has happened in every game, and in all games apart from one it has happened more than once.

The AI also declares wars without any sense now I feel, in a set up they have no change to win. They did that before but it feels worse. There were supposed to be AI changes in patch 3 so there is that too.

I am just hoping they either make the AI a little less idiot rabid or better yet, re-introduce the aggression slider we had back in the day. It's not that I couldn't handle the fighting, but I like peace better - to develop my enlightened society leisurely. Grew out of world domination by civ 3. Now it is just tedious to wage war, and also too easy way to win. But that's just me.

As much as that I do hope they will either add a longer game length or lengthen the ages. I have yet to have a marathon to last over 1k turns. It actually feels impossible because of the age structure. Such a big cut compared to civ 6.

 

[Chefofrats]

I hated the concept of eras forcing me to change my civilization when it was revealed months ago. Still, over 30+ years there has never been a Civ game I did not like so I bought Civ VII despite my misgivings and... I'm actually loving it! I find myself playing game after game, enjoying each era and not minding the civ switches. Even the obvious lack of a fourth era doesn't put me off too much.

I was very pleasantly surprised by Civ VII and its concepts.

 

[acquij]

I was very skeptical of the bigger changes when they were first revealed. The more I saw of the actual gameplay in the weeks leading up to the launch the stronger I felt pulled towards this new installment of a game series I just love (played all Civ games since Civ 3 excessively). Now having played some 20 hours myself I really enjoy the bigger changes and am looking forward to learning this game inside and out.

 

[Auraiz]

I'm worried about the monetisation, dlc policy, moddability, denuvo.

 

[Leyrann]

I'm worried about the monetisation, dlc policy, moddability, denuvo.

Moddability is fine as far as I can tell, seems to be on the same level as previous games. Perhaps even better considering the degree of AI improvements I'm already seeing versus what I saw with Civ VI.

Denuvo is scary if it's Denuvo Anti-Cheat, but Civ only has Denuvo Anti-Tamper, which as I understand isn't even a separate program, just something that modifies the .exe so it can't (easily?) be cracked.

 

[criZp]

Did not buy. Actually the biggest reason would be the leader pool, they just don't appeal to me at all. Even if they fixed all the bugs and and made the price of the game more reasonable I'm still not sure I'd care due to the leaders.

 

[mbbcam]

I don't really fit any of the options in the poll. I was somewhat doubtful about the game but bought it anyway. After having played it for 40 hours I've gone back to playing Civ 5, which I find much more enjoyable. I guess I just like shooting things and don't enjoy building things all that much. I doubt that Civ 7 is going to move away from the building and diplomacy that seems to be the main focus at the moment. So I doubt that my enthusiasm for the game will increase much.

 

[Leyrann]

I don't really fit any of the options in the poll. I was somewhat doubtful about the game but bought it anyway. After having played it for 40 hours I've gone back to playing Civ 5, which I find much more enjoyable. I guess I just like shooting things and don't enjoy building things all that much. I doubt that Civ 7 is going to move away from the building and diplomacy that seems to be the main focus at the moment. So I doubt that my enthusiasm for the game will increase much.

Then wouldn't you be "neutral about the game, didn't like the changes"?

 

[mbbcam]

Then wouldn't you be "neutral about the game, didn't like the changes"?

Maybe, but I'm not sure what is meant by "the changes" -- changes from what? If you mean the difference between Civ 5 and Civ 7, then I'm not a fan. I've played Civ 5 for thousands of hours. By contrast, I only played Civ 6 for about 130 hours because I didn't like it, and I haven't touched it since 2016. When I look at Civ 6 and Civ 7 I see more similarities than differences. It is certainly not "the changes" from Civ 6 to Civ 7 that are putting me off.

 

[bigjim1]

I had mixed feelings after reading reviews, but decided to give it a try and I'm (mostly) glad that I did. I share a lot of the feelings others have shared (especially that the game feels a bit too stripped down and over-simplified), but I like the changing civilizations, love the new graphics (although I hope that in a future update zooming in will show a few more animations of your people at work). I have only finished a couple of games, and I hope there will be a fourth era fairly soon (it's all over a bit too quickly for my taste). Diplomacy is still a joke (I just had Harriet Tubman with one city to my 4, and a lag in technology, attack me for no reason at all...); don't seem to be enough options to declare joint wars/embargoes, etc. (but perhaps I still haven't found them?). Can't get my head around religion yet (but it feels a bit pointless at present). As to comparisons with other versions; I've played them all, back to version 1 for DOS (I even played the old Avalon Hill boardgame). I think Civ V is still my favourite, but perhaps I just know it so well that it seems intuitive (the interface for VII is still a mess, but improvements have been promised; I use several mods with Civ V). Civ VI was by far my least favourite -- hated the cartoon leaders and the overall graphic style, but I just found it incredibly slow and over-complicated. So, if you loved VI best, you might prefer to wait for at least a couple of DLCs and several significant patches before jumping into VII. But for now, I'm pretty happy.

 

[Leyrann]

Maybe, but I'm not sure what is meant by "the changes" -- changes from what? If you mean the difference between Civ 5 and Civ 7, then I'm not a fan. I've played Civ 5 for thousands of hours. By contrast, I only played Civ 6 for about 130 hours because I didn't like it, and I haven't touched it since 2016. When I look at Civ 6 and Civ 7 I see more similarities than differences. It is certainly not "the changes" from Civ 6 to Civ 7 that are putting me off.

Multiple ages system, decoupling leaders from civilizations, looser requirements for who can become a leader, et cetera.

Basically, all the big talking points for Civ VII.

don't seem to be enough options to declare joint wars/embargoes, etc. (but perhaps I still haven't found them?).

Joint wars happen if someone in an alliance declares war. You can either join in or break the alliance, and I don't think I've seen the AI pick the break alliance option yet.

Embargoes can be found as sanctions in the diplomacy screen.

So, if you loved VI best, you might prefer to wait for at least a couple of DLCs and several significant patches before jumping into VII.

I liked Civ VI best but I think Civ VII will become even better, if it isn't already.

 

[Kerosene31]

I was very hesitant to buy. I listened to others during the early access period and still wasn't sure. I eventually took the plunge and surprisingly, I enjoy the game even more than I thought.

Long story short, I get why they made the changes they did. I also totally get why it isn't for everyone. It is definitely strange to see Ben Franklin leading the Greeks, or various other combos.

Age switching - I'm the kind of player who notoriously doesn't finish Civ games. When they say they did the age thing for players, I'm that guy. Again, I like it, but I totally get why some don't. A soft reset kind of keeps me interested and stops someone from steamrolling. I never once asked for these changes, but the way I play it just kind of works. I would never want to tell the more serious players how to enjoy the game at all.

Leaders - Change is always jarring, and this change is definitely that. Ultimately, I'm interested to see where this goes. I haven't had a ton of time to play due to work and personal life stuff, but any free time I get I'm back checking it out. I was worried that this was going to be a "dumbed down" Civ, but pretty quickly I see that there is depth back there. Definitely different. I would never sit here and tell people that the changes were not huge ones and of course they are going to be controvertial.

There's going to be people who stick with 6, 5 and maybe even 4, just like always. I remember when Civ 5 launched and all the fuss it caused.

I am a fan of history (do a lot of reading) and a fan of Civ, but I don't need those two things to be the same. I'm always the guy playing as Ghandi nuking everyone just for the fun of it. You want some history, there's countless great books out there. History is important, but I don't think it is important in video games. I want my video games to be fun, not accurate.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I nearly cried at the announcement because I was so distraught at the direction they were taking the game I love in, didn't engage much with content before launch but did pre-order the Founders Edition which has now cost me less than £1 an hour!

It's got lots of rough edges but the concept does work and I'm enjoying it enormously.

Long story short, I get why they made the changes they did. I also totally get why it isn't for everyone

100% agree.

 

[Warspite3]

I bought the game weeks ago and been playing it daily. It is different than the other games in the series but i find it refreshing and it is addicting as any of the other games. So im having a good time playing Civ 7.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

The results so far are pleasing to me. It's a very small sample, and I imagine you'd get a different view on somewhere like Steam (rather than a dedicated Civ VII forum, which is bound to skew more positive), but if you remove those with a positive bias (i.e. top option in the poll), and those who haven't bought/played the game, 70% of respondents like the changes.

Before anyone willfully misinterprets me, which seems to be happening a lot lately, I am not saying that I think this is representative of all Civ VII players, that therefore the game is objectively good, that Firaxis were right to make these changes, and that if you don't like them you are wrong or change averse or somehow a terrible person.

I'm simply saying that because I like what they're trying to do, it pleases me to see people enjoying the game, especially those who were initially neutral or sceptical. In my opinion, the most exciting thing is that there is so much unrealised potential here. The core game feels fundamentally good to me, but it's held back by bugs, UI, lack of content, incomplete mechanics, iffy AI, etc.

 

[Leyrann]

The core game feels fundamentally good to me, but it's held back by bugs, UI, lack of content, incomplete mechanics, iffy AI, etc.

This is the most major thing I took away from the game even after just a few days. There's rough edges here and there, but the fundamentals of the game are extremely solid, and that's a good sign for future development. You can fix bugs, limited content or a bad UI, but you can't fix the fundamental underpinnings of the game no matter what you do. This is why (in my opinion) Civ V is still a terrible game, despite several years of post-launch support. The fundamentals didn't work, and no paint job you put over it can ever fix that. Civ VII is, if anything, the complete opposite. All it needs is that paint job.