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

[Leyrann]

The discussion over here made me (and some others) wonder how much of the division between "didn't buy, not a fan" and "bought, liked it" was a result of people who don't like the changes not buying, and how much is a result of people being convinced after playing.

So, a poll. Did you like the changes the game brought ahead of time, or were you skeptical, and did you change your opinion after buying?

 

[stealth_nsk]

It's refreshing to see well designed poll. Seriously, thanks.

 

[99-percent-sure]

I'd say "neutral about the changes, but they're pretty good." I'm having a good time, but I don't think this game is done yet, so I'm not going to lean towards being critical about the things that need improvement. And I don't mind being a bit of a beta tester for a change.

Let's see how things look a couple of updates from now. No regrets buying it, though.

 

[Leyrann]

It's refreshing to see well designed poll. Seriously, thanks.

Thank you!

I blame being neurodivergent.

 

[ThichN]

I was skeptical / neutral about the changes and bought this game sort of on a whim, even after being thoroughly disenchanted with the Civ franchise after the last iteration. The game has pleasantly surprised me. And I am a picky 4x player.

As someone who is approaching this game as an old-timer, I don't understand the notion that "the game is not finished." I think finished vs unfinished is a non-starter / false binary in contemporary game culture. The game is 100% playable and my return-on-investment is already sound (almost $1/hr at this point). In fact, to me, this game is more playable and interesting at launch than Civ5 and Civ6.

Do I hope they'll add more Civs and features? Well, sure. But only because I love what we already have. (Well -- I hope they don't add tourism or rock bands. )

 

[Eramas]

I had mixed feelings about some of the new systems, especially changing civs each age, but I have to say I really like it now, your civ's bonuses are always relevant. I'm not a fan of the whole reset thing at the start of an age, and that probably won't change, unless they do something.

Still, I'm having a lot of fun.

 

[99-percent-sure]

As someone who is approaching this game as an old-timer, I don't understand the notion that "the game is not finished."

It's way too easy to win (or lose) the game early in the Modern Age because of relic collecting. I happen to like collecting relics, artifacts and great works, but this admittedly unintended dynamic of stacks of AI explorers sweeping onto relic sites is game-changing. Either you do the same thing and wind up winning the game before you've even built your first factory, or you're giving up that entire legacy path. That needs to be fixed before I can even evaluate how the Modern Age works.

Also, there are ageless buildings you can construct in the Modern Age, so it's pretty clear they plan to add a fourth age to the game.

 

[Leyrann]

It's way too easy to win (or lose) the game early in the Modern Age because of relic collecting. I happen to like collecting relics, artifacts and great works, but this admittedly unintended dynamic of stacks of AI explorers sweeping onto relic sites is game-changing. Either you do the same thing and wind up winning the game before you've even built your first factory, or you're giving up that entire legacy path. That needs to be fixed before I can even evaluate how the Modern Age works.

My strategy for this is (or at least, I'm planning on it for the first time in my current playthrough) to rush the relics so that I can be sure the AI won't be able to win a culture victory, and then just not build the World's Fair myself.

But yeah it absolutely needs changing.

 

[Siptah]

My strategy for this is (or at least, I'm planning on it for the first time in my current playthrough) to rush the relics so that I can be sure the AI won't be able to win a culture victory, and then just not build the World's Fair myself.

That's basically all my games so far, except two where I actually built/bought the world's fair. I wasn't aware that you can win the science victory in a different way.

 

[Gori the Grey]

It's refreshing to see well designed poll. Seriously, thanks.

Should have two options for "didn't by the game," though: I disliked the changes, so I didn't buy the game vs I liked/was neutral about the changes, but haven't yet purchased the game.

 

[Leyrann]

Should have two options for "didn't by the game," though: I disliked the changes, so I didn't buy the game vs I liked/was neutral about the changes, but haven't yet purchased the game.

I considered that but the reason for not buying the game isn't actually relevant to the question at hand, namely what the likelihood is that people change their mind after playing.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yeah, good point.

stealth nsk was right. After all of those "I hate the new design, and there's no way they can salvage it," "I hate the new design, but perhaps modders will be able to fix it," "I hate the new design, but maybe by the second expansion it will be fixed" polls from pre-release, yours is a breath of fresh air.

 

[Nikolai II]

It's refreshing to see well designed poll. Seriously, thanks.

I am perplexed. This doesn’t happen often.

 

[Devilbound]

Very disappointing but not as much as I feared. The major changes do not work really, ages are trash. And patch 3 was horrible in regards to how it changed the AI being rabid. Also new UI bugs with it etc. I am slowly turning from my somewhat on the positive side first impression to negative. Not cool.

I have played a couple of sessions after the most recent patch but after today's session I will not be playing until a new patch comes out. Not holding my breath it will be any good though but will of course give it a go.

Not sure why but I get this nagging sensation this iteration will not mature well. Maybe too many things too bad with it at launch.

 

[Krajzen]

I blame being neurodivergent.

Sadly it's probably some different factor, bc I am neurodivergent too and I tend to design terribly impractical overly specific polls

But that too seems on brand

 

[King Flevance]

I voted neutral but the changes are good. I was cautious of these changes and I did not like civ switching coming into civ. I still am not happy about it really, but I accept that the decision has been made. I had a lot of concerns about this design overall, but was willing to bite the bullet and jump in at launch this time around.

I am actually happy I did. I am still not big on the civ swapping and would have preferred 3 evolutions of the same empire. Ages need adjusted, and various other expected design shortcomings. But I am actually happy with the overall release. There is a really cool core design and the mechanics are fun. Plus, since a lot of this is new, there is a lot of room to expand this design into fun new territory. But there is also room to fudge it up. But as of right now, it has a solid core concept and I am pleased.

 

[pietro1990]

I liked the changes and the new game mechanic's but i hate the UI and the awfull diplomacy and AI Wich should be fixed.

 

[Leyrann]

I liked the changes and the new game mechanic's but i hate the UI and the awfull diplomacy and AI Wich should be fixed.

Friendly reminder that Civ VII AI would smoke Civ VI AI if given equal starting bonuses.

Civ VII Deity is quite comparable with Civ VI Deity in difficulty, maybe veeeeeery slightly easier, despite Civ VI Deity starting with three Settlers to just one Settler for Civ VII AI.

Also the diplomacy is already better than in any previous game if you ask me.

 

[pietro1990]

Friendly reminder that Civ VII AI would smoke Civ VI AI if given equal starting bonuses.

Civ VII Deity is quite comparable with Civ VI Deity in difficulty, maybe veeeeeery slightly easier, despite Civ VI Deity starting with three Settlers to just one Settler for Civ VII AI.

Also the diplomacy is already better than in any previous game if you ask me.

Civ 4 and civ 5 had the best dipolomacy..

In this game you sometimes have a Ai randomly denounce you or atack you withouth any reason.

Civ 6 had good diplomacy mechanic's but the leader agenda are way to wierd and always cause you to get denounced

 

[ydejin]

Very disappointing but not as much as I feared. The major changes do not work really, ages are trash. And patch 3 was horrible in regards to how it changed the AI being rabid. Also new UI bugs with it etc. I am slowly turning from my somewhat on the positive side first impression to negative. Not cool.

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.