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

[bbbt]

I'm sort of mixed.

I was skeptical. Bought the game after release. Enjoyed more than I expected. Then 4 games later, I've gotten bored of it sooner than expected.

I was skeptical about different things than most: events, which I never like it games. They have been fine, but I would still disable if I could. And the mass of buildings/civs/etc giving everything a sort of "sameness" (the same issue I had with humankind), which has sort of played out.

I was actually excited for the Ages - and have been underwhelmed. I expected more difference. It's basically been repeating the same thing for three eras - restablishing trade routes, building the same buildings with different names and higher yields, etc. The excitement comes from the legacy/victory conditions "mini games" that you rush for. It's diminishing returns: love the ancient era, still some excitement in the exploration era. Completely bored by the modern era. Can't imagine wanting a fourth era if it's more of the same with different victories.

But I do like a lot of the core changes they've made - the new diplomacy system, the building system, the town/city system, the resource system.

I'd love patches/DLC/game modes that more fundamentally change game mechanics in later eras. I'm not super optimistic though given 6, where the DLC mostly just added more stuff on top.

Edit: I will say, I do hope they roll out 'single age' games as promised, as I think I'd be excited for that.

 

[Siptah]

I'd love patches/DLC/game modes that more fundamentally change game mechanics in later eras. I'm not super optimistic though given 6, where the DLC mostly just added more stuff on top.

I hope that the mixed reviews might actually make a difference this time: they are a good reason to fix the base instead of just piling a heap of unrelated things on top. In my (surely biased) memory, the situation was a bit similar with civ V: it was clear that it needed fix, and the expansions delivered. On the other hand, VI was good on release (balance aside), which allowed to focus more on shiny content instead of polish and fixing.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I hope that the mixed reviews might actually make a difference this time: they are a good reason to fix the base instead of just piling a heap of unrelated things on top. In my (surely biased) memory, the situation was a bit similar with civ V: it was clear that it needed fix, and the expansions delivered. On the other hand, VI was good on release (balance aside), which allowed to focus more on shiny content instead of polish and fixing.

I don't think it works like this. As I understand, the majority of negative reviews come from UI disappointment, which is likely to be fixed with patches.

I don't know how expansions will go, but I'm optimistic about atomic age one, because we'll not get two expansions bloating the game with barely connected game mechanics as we had in Civ6.

 

[mbbcam]

Wearing my hat as a psychologist (yes, I do have qualifications in the discipline) it strikes me that whether or not people like the game depends on an interplay between the way the game is, and personal psychological factors. Up till now, I haven't found anything in Civ 7 that meshes or connects with my personal psychological characteristics -- there is no hook, for me. I realise that could change, because I might find hooks if I get to know the game better. But at the moment I don't feel motivated to put time and effort into getting a better feel for the game. I'll be interested to hear what @Acken has to say as things progress. His videos on Civ 5 were amazing.

 

[Leucarum]

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.

It's almost the opposite of humankind in that regard. Humankind got the fundamentals (combat, infinite quarter spam, number of civ switches, neolithic start) all wrong. It had flashes of genius too, but the core issues were unrepairable.

Civ7's issues are UI, pacing, a little bit of balance and AI, low diversity of civs... I know which set of problems I'd rather have if I was a dev.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

Skeptical. Had linux support from day 1. bought it.


I was right.

It ain't ready.

 

[civlateintothenights]

I don't think it works like this. As I understand, the majority of negative reviews come from UI disappointment, which is likely to be fixed with patches.

I don't know how expansions will go, but I'm optimistic about atomic age one, because we'll not get two expansions bloating the game with barely connected game mechanics as we had in Civ6.

The UI is almost universally listed as one of the reasons for a negative review, but some combination of era resets, horrible AI, mini games, changing civs, price, and no future era are usually in the mix as well.

 

[Casualty of war]

Haven't bought it, and am strongly considering not buying it until the first package sale if then. Right now it feels like spending money on frustration, inadequacy and terrible game design. I don't want to encourage or even tolerate that.

And I have played a preposterous amount of Civ. If Firaxis lost me, they should be real concerned.

 

[Siptah]

Haven't bought it, and am strongly considering not buying it until the first package sale if then. Right now it feels like spending money on frustration, inadequacy and terrible game design. I don't want to encourage or even tolerate that.

And I have played a preposterous amount of Civ. If Firaxis lost me, they should be real concerned.

Nah, you’d still be spending the money on fun. There‘s a ton of fun to be had, which even most people that consider the game to be overall negative agree on. So, you‘re getting fun for your money, but it comes with frustration if you‘re the kind of person who gets frustrated playing games or frustrated by details and bugs.

 

[Leyrann]

Right now it feels like spending money on frustration, inadequacy and terrible game design.

The purpose of this thread's poll is to explore whether this expectation is actually correct, and I'd say that it seems like even people who go into it expecting terrible game design and frustration still tend to end up enjoying the game, based on the one hundred something votes so far.

 

[bigjim1]

As @bbbt says (above) "It's diminishing returns" that often turn people off; just redoing things you've done before.

I like the shift from the Ancient to the Exploration age; first time you can cross oceans, settle/conquer overseas, etc., but there aren't (yet) enough new things in each age to make them feel unique.

As a history professor, I'd like to see some attempt to model the impact of modernity a bit more realistically. To vastly oversimplify for a moment, in industrial societies: public opinion matters more (you can't always tell people what to do); ordinary people want luxuries and consumer goods - not just food (different demands need to be met); industries may be increasingly independent of government control (may prioritize what is profitable over what the government wants); and, religion often becomes less influential (may reduce happiness and undermine common moral standards, leading to increased crime), etc., etc. I could see all of these being turned into interesting game mechanics that would make the ages feel distinctive.

 

[Leyrann]

The Modern Age definitely needs some improvements.

 

[Melkus]

Yes, Antiquity is close to greatness and a possible final form of Exploration is already visible (maybe move the relic stuff to a religion victory, integrate religion better and let us be a patron of the arts collecting paintings and music for culture, reduce the reliance on overseas expansion a bit), but Modernity does feel narratively unsatisfying.

And even if it had more interesting mechanics, they would be overshadowed by the rush to the finish line. It's not really that they delivered 3 out of 4 ages, but rather 2.5 out of 4. (Not complaining, just stating the obvious)
And getting post-modernity right may be the most daunting task of course. Really am a bit out of ideas how it might work on these already cramped maps.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Yes, Antiquity is close to greatness and a possible final form of Exploration is already visible (maybe move the relic stuff to a religion victory, integrate religion better and let us be a patron of the arts collecting paintings and music for culture, reduce the reliance on overseas expansion a bit), but Modernity does feel narratively unsatisfying.

And even if it had more interesting mechanics, they would be overshadowed by the rush to the finish line. It's not really that they delivered 3 out of 4 ages, but rather 2.5 out of 4. (Not complaining, just stating the obvious)
And getting post-modernity right may be the most daunting task of course. Really am a bit out of ideas how it might work on these already cramped maps.

That's pretty much my take on it. Antiquity is great, only things missing for me are bigger and more varied maps + more civs to choose from. Mechanically it's excellent. Exploration is almost there but feels a bit too dependent on distant lands, culture and religion need fleshing out a bit. Modern is just a bit meh right now; they need to do a lot more to evoke that feeling of modernity and progress, it needs a much bigger shake up.

 

[Casualty of war]

Nah, you’d still be spending the money on fun. There‘s a ton of fun to be had, which even most people that consider the game to be overall negative agree on. So, you‘re getting fun for your money, but it comes with frustration if you‘re the kind of person who gets frustrated playing games or frustrated by details and bugs.

Oh look, the exact reason I stopped posting here in the past and now will again. I commented on my experience, "Nah," and a bunch of whinging about why my frustration with the product isn't justified. As self-appointed emissaries go, you're not great.

It's a push poll from a skewed sample audience, and there are nearly as many people who spent zero dollars as responded that they did and thought the game was good. If the Civ devs aren't concerned, they should find new careers.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Oh look, the exact reason I stopped posting here in the past and now will again. I commented on my experience, "Nah," and a bunch of whinging about why my frustration with the product isn't justified. As self-appointed emissaries go, you're not great.

It's a push poll from a skewed sample audience, and there are nearly as many people who spent zero dollars as responded that they did and thought the game was good. If the Civ devs aren't concerned, they should find new careers.

1. According to this poll, there are 74 voters who bought the game and thought it's good, that's 59% and only 38 (33%) those who didn't buy the game. Of those who did buy the game, 84% in this poll liked it.
2. People who didn't buy the game have different reasons. That's outside of this particular poll, but based on the forum, a lot of people are concerned about price and wait for discounts coming to eventually buy the game.
3. You can't make changes without losing some part of fanbase. I'm pretty sure Firaxis is aware of it.
4. I don't think Siptah wrote anything about your frustration not justified. Actually he acknowledges what there are things for some people to be frustrated.

Overall, I think the game is far from perfect and constructive criticism totally makes sense. It just doesn't need to be personal towards anyone.

 

[Siptah]

Oh look, the exact reason I stopped posting here in the past and now will again. I commented on my experience, "Nah," and a bunch of whinging about why my frustration with the product isn't justified. As self-appointed emissaries go, you're not great.

It's a push poll from a skewed sample audience, and there are nearly as many people who spent zero dollars as responded that they did and thought the game was good. If the Civ devs aren't concerned, they should find new careers.

While watching someone else play or reading about a game is good to make up your mind whether you would like it or not, I would say that as an experience it has not much to do with actually playing. Except if the game is mainly about experiencing a story. But as soon as decisions and flow (which requires around optimal challenge level, and the challenge while watching is usually too low, except if you watch someone who plays badly and never explains anything) are concerned, we are talking about very different things. Also, you commented rather about a hypothetical experience than one you actually made. Maybe impression or opinion would have been better words?

 

[Leyrann]

I commented on my experience

I quote:

Haven't bought it

What experience, exactly?

A major reason for creating this thread (and I can know, as I made it) is to try and get some better information on how well the quite-common sentiment of "I think the game sucks" among people who haven't bought it actually lines up with people actually disliking it. That's also why the poll specifically asks what people thought of the changes before going into the game, and what they think of them now. So far, even those who outright disliked the changes have in majority voted that they ended up liking them after getting to experience them for themselves.

 

[CaesarCS]

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. )

Or GDRs. They were silly but fun in Civ V. By Civ VI they were a tired joke. I downloaded a mod to get rid of both GDRs and rock bands.

 

[CaesarCS]

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.

Same boat. Been playing since Civ I, and bought it based on that, despite being skeptical. I’m loving this game. It’s the most fun I’ve had from a Civ on release day since Civ III.