Discussion On Why Civ 7 Doesn't Feel Like A "Civ" Game

[j51]

What could make modern better? Certainly more techs and less focus in victory conditions. What else?

 

[stealth_nsk]

What could make modern better? Certainly more techs and less focus in victory conditions. What else?

4th age will make modern better. Once modern will become regular age instead of victory race, it would feel much differently as you'll try to reach as many legacy points as possible while also improving your empire.

This would hang similar question about 4th age, though.

 

[Sagax]

4th age will make modern better. Once modern will become regular age instead of victory race, it would feel much differently as you'll try to reach as many legacy points as possible while also improving your empire.

Disagree on this one. I’m already going for max legacy points in Modern to level up leaders, and let me say that it in no way makes the age any better. It’s just prolonging the tedium in the stage where nothing is left to explore, and the underbaked nature of some legacy paths is more apparent and ever. In fact, I dare to say that if you manage to complete the Ideology path, then there is nothing the 4th age can throw at you that can pose any challenge. You’ve hit the critical mass of expansion, and no amount of rubberbanding can prevent you from running away. Unless it’s some kind of empire-shattering decolonization mechanic, but good luck implementing that in a way that will not piss off 4X players.

 

[itix]

I have read some remnants of the fourth era in Civ 7, and it has been speculated that it would be released only as a DLC, or they just ran out of time. But what if it was left out because they found it dull? Just guessing.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I have read some remnants of the fourth era in Civ 7, and it has been speculated that it would be released only as a DLC, or they just ran out of time. But what if it was left out because they found it dull? Just guessing.

There's no indication that it was ever made close to actual playtesting phase. IMHO, it's quite clear that it was left as a room for potential expansion.

 

[MutilationWave]

Disagree on this one. I’m already going for max legacy points in Modern to level up leaders, and let me say that it in no way makes the age any better. It’s just prolonging the tedium in the stage where nothing is left to explore, and the underbaked nature of some legacy paths is more apparent and ever. In fact, I dare to say that if you manage to complete the Ideology path, then there is nothing the 4th age can throw at you that can pose any challenge. You’ve hit the critical mass of expansion, and no amount of rubberbanding can prevent you from running away. Unless it’s some kind of empire-shattering decolonization mechanic, but good luck implementing that in a way that will not piss off 4X players.

I think it needs to be a short victory rush era. No legacy paths to bother with, just 4+ victory conditions that modern age can set you up well for. You can only take one true golden age card so make them powerful, so it will be difficult to get a win in a different path than the golden age you selected. If you didn't get a golden age you should have a very hard time winning.

I know I would care so much more about modern if I were building towards something. Right now I just force end turn to get all the legacy paths, then win the game I could have won 30 turns earlier.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think it needs to be a short victory rush era. No legacy paths to bother with, just 4+ victory conditions that modern age can set you up well for. You can only take one true golden age card so make them powerful, so it will be difficult to get a win in a different path than the golden age you selected. If you didn't get a golden age you should have a very hard time winning.

I know I would care so much more about modern if I were building towards something. Right now I just force end turn to get all the legacy paths, then win the game I could have won 30 turns earlier.

I would disagree with it being a short victory rush era.

I do agree that Modern Legacies (particularly Golden Age ones) should set you up strongly for a 4th Age win.

I think the 4th age needs to have Competitive Victories, one's where your advancement pushes someone else's back (not competitive Legacies necessarily, but competitive victories)

 

[marius_kaparius]

Something that bugs me about the changing Civs equals not a Civ game argument is that Rhye’s and fall was a mod for Civ IV and well received (from what I can tell), partially for being more realistic. How does leaning into that experience not make Civ 7 a Civ game anymore?

 

[Krikkit1]

Something that bugs me about the changing Civs equals not a Civ game argument is that Rhye’s and fall was a mod for Civ IV and well received (from what I can tell), partially for being more realistic. How does leaning into that experience not make Civ 7 a Civ game anymore?

I think part of it is the broader appeal of the Stone Age to Space age.

civ 7 lacks some of that feel because
1. you only barely get to the Space Age
2. The civ has a forced name change.

If you had the choice to keep (or change) your name (Roman) while adopting a new cultural set of uniques (Roman with Norman/Mongol/Hawaii characteristics) then that would help a large chunk... that way you could say your Empire survived that Crisis, but just entered the "Mongol period of the Roman Empire".. That could allow Maya/Rome/Aksum can into space.

 

[MutilationWave]

I think part of it is the broader appeal of the Stone Age to Space age.

civ 7 lacks some of that feel because
1. you only barely get to the Space Age
2. The civ has a forced name change.

If you had the choice to keep (or change) your name (Roman) while adopting a new cultural set of uniques (Roman with Norman/Mongol/Hawaii characteristics) then that would help a large chunk... that way you could say your Empire survived that Crisis, but just entered the "Mongol period of the Roman Empire".. That could allow Maya/Rome/Aksum can into space.

As silly as this is, I think you might be right that it would help the stick-in-the-mud-can't-take-Rome-to-space people to chill and enjoy the game. Just a simple option to keep the name, change literally nothing else, and they might be satisfied.

 

[0urBall]

Something that bugs me about the changing Civs equals not a Civ game argument is that Rhye’s and fall was a mod for Civ IV and well received (from what I can tell), partially for being more realistic. How does leaning into that experience not make Civ 7 a Civ game anymore?

Rhye's also gave you the option to switch, but didn't make it mandatory. You could still stay as the Romans, for example, and take them to space

 

[sixty4half]

Something that bugs me about the changing Civs equals not a Civ game argument is that Rhye’s and fall was a mod for Civ IV and well received (from what I can tell), partially for being more realistic. How does leaning into that experience not make Civ 7 a Civ game anymore?

Because we live in a world of hot takes and outrageous headlines, often in all caps. So when one dislikes something one is socially pressured (j/k) into saying crazy things like Civ 7 isn't even a game, or This feature will kill the game or This doesn't even FEEL like Civ. It's a strategy to make more people pay attention to what you say.

 

[tman2000]

As silly as this is, I think you might be right that it would help the stick-in-the-mud-can't-take-Rome-to-space people to chill and enjoy the game. Just a simple option to keep the name, change literally nothing else, and they might be satisfied.

I’ve said, not totally satirically, that the tech tree should be massively simplified (unit tiers, some wonders). Instead, civics should draw like cards where all special buildings and civics are drawn and being a civ just means having first come first serve tradeoff access to your unique.

 

[Tanel]

4th age will make modern better. Once modern will become regular age instead of victory race, it would feel much differently as you'll try to reach as many legacy points as possible while also improving your empire.

This would hang similar question about 4th age, though.

The solution would be to not have a full separate 4th age but just add a victory phase at the end of age 3. This way you can play out the Modern age just like Antiquity and Exploration making full use of your civ pick.

 

[protocol7]

Maybe the last age should be score only, rather than race to first victory condition, if the race to get it over as quickly as possible is unfulfilling. For me it’s the same as old civs where you shift-enter a lot to the win (if you care, or just start over once you knew you’d win), which I actually didn’t personally mind much and also don’t mind here.

 

[ThunderLizard2]

Civ players weren't asking for an ages mechanic. It was shoved down their throats. It's a rip off of HumanKind and HK did a much better job with it.

 

[MutilationWave]

Civ players weren't asking for an ages mechanic. It was shoved down their throats. It's a rip off of HumanKind and HK did a much better job with it.

7 was in development before Humankind. I guarantee you they had ages in from the beginning. Like them or not, they did not rip off HK. It's simply a case of convergent evolution.

 

[Skojardu]

Something that bugs me about the changing Civs equals not a Civ game argument is that Rhye’s and fall was a mod for Civ IV and well received (from what I can tell), partially for being more realistic. How does leaning into that experience not make Civ 7 a Civ game anymore?

If in a perfect world, Ed Beach hired Rhye to lead 7, we would have received a different beast. First off, he wholeheartedly denounces "recentism." You would not have a 1,000 year lacuna from the end of Antiquity to Exploration.

Second, the way the mod works is that you can try to do a historically difficult thing to get a nation-specific victory, but if you fail, you can hang around and try to do a classic Civ victory like Space Race, Score, etc. When a new nation is forming anywhere (not just at your border), you can choose to withdraw from your old Civ and lead the new. The switching is a fresh-ish start and does not amount to reskinning your current game (like in Civ 7)

 

[aelf]

7 was in development before Humankind. I guarantee you they had ages in from the beginning. Like them or not, they did not rip off HK. It's simply a case of convergent evolution.

"Didn't Firaxis learn from Humankind's mistake???"

That narrative will probably never die.

 

[moondog385]

I feel like these discussion threads are fruitless. No side is going to convince the other that Civ 7 either “feels like” or “doesn’t feel like” Civ, whatever that means. It is Civ because the creators of Civilization said it is. Personally, I don’t see the moment to moment gameplay as significantly different from the previous entry.

There are game series that have changed entire genres before (think Final Fantasy going from turn-based to real-time combat or Paper Mario going from turn-based RPG to platformer) and the introduction of civ switching does not even scratch the surface of those kinds of changes. Civ 7 is Civ.