For me, this is also a valid description of civ V and VI. Piling systems on top and next to each other rather than integrating them is one of my main gripes with civ even before these two though. In contrast, most board games I play have very well integrated mechanics and not much superfluous fluff or minigames.
Discussion On Why Civ 7 Doesn't Feel Like A "Civ" Game
- Thread starter tman2000
- Start date
I never felt National Parks worked very well (for reasons already stated - incredibly restrictive, came in very late when maps were already very well-developed). But I also don't see how Civ VII can't have more stuff. I will say the existing systems feel more fleshed out (at least in Antiquity), and that for VII to really take off, they need to make Exploration and especially Modern feel as good to play as the first Age.
For that, I don't think they need to tack on things like National Parks.
I hear this so often about how good antiquity is I’m starting to conclude it’s just cope. Antiquity plays the same way for me every time outside of whether my spawn resources are good or not, or whether I have a navigable river long enough to benefit whichever civ.
It gets more fun in later eras this is just offset by small maps filling up, terrible just awful repetitive, poorly conceived game systems. The cope with this game is getting unbearable for me.
No, Civ VII can’t have added systems. It’s too tightly designed. Adding sandbox dependent features like national park would break the legacy paths and the “balance”.
You’re describing the difference between a sandbox computer game and a tight board game.
Why not expect other opinions as just as valid as yours? It's perfectly fine to consider antiquity civ VII to be civ at its best. It's of course also fine to disagree with that, regardless of providing arguments or not. Calling it coping is... making your opinion less valid in the eyes of others because you can hardly be taken seriously?
I'm not. If you interpret that from what I wrote, that's on you.
As has already been said, please do consider that other players have different opinions, and that their opinions are at the very least as valid as yours
I don't quite understand the claims you're making here, they seem to be dependent on your interpretation of what happens in video games you like and board games (you like? don't like? unclear). Regardless:
Why would National Parks (for example) break Legacy paths?
Because they require faith to be created. Could you imagine buying or producing them? Clearly not. Hence, we need faith to include them. And having a faith yield would break the exploration cultural path, right?
If you can’t understand this, then your comments about what’s opinion and what’s objective analysis of a game are invalidated.
Again, your failure to understand the point here might explain why you find Civ VII - an unfinished, repetitive game - so fun and enticing.
Anyway, patch 1.20 prove Firaxis isn’t serious and doesn’t care at all how badly the botched this game so I’m bowing out.
I’ll be back I suppose for Civ 8
Thanks for letting us now. See you then!
sixty4half
I drink and I know things
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 669
Didn't you say you have never played the game and never will?!?
Normally a civ game would have scenarios and sandbox. But here the sandbox is broken into 3 scenarious. With some exaggeration of course, but this is the only reason it is not a civ game IMO and so wont feel like one if you are the sandbox type of player.
I can understand this stance, but then again, after quite a few games, it started to feel different to me. I stopped hunting legacy goals all the times, and just played my game. This works great in antiquity, and I would not call that a scenario (except maybe the fixed crisis, which needs much more variety to feel less scripted). Exploration still has a bit of a scenario feeling, even if I don't go that much for legacy paths, since the new world opens up. But then again, that also happened in previous games. The difference is just that here, it happens at the same time (more or less) for everybody, while previously, it was more varying. What feels most like a scenario is modern: you are kind of forced to go for a victory, and plan to reach a specific goal from the start of the age. But I often felt like this towards the end of a round as well in previous civ games: I more or less did freely what I wanted to do, but at some point, I needed to get my act together and go for a victory or leave the round. The exception is of course civ VI (for me), where cultural and religious victory required scenario-ish play from turn 1 or they became impossible/a drag.
I think you might be confusing them.
Do they . . . have to require Faith? Is there any real requirement for that to be a thing?
Why are they invalidated?
Moderator Action: Gentle reminder to treat each other with respect and not attack each other.
Yes, I mean this part. Otherwise I don't feel like the other scripted parts (like missions) would break down the sandbox, though maybe I am wrong. Civ6 technology boosts (heurekas) are also forced, but they don't interfere to much with sandbox, so that one still feels like a civ game.
After some games, I also treated heurekas (and later age score) similar to how I treat the legacy paths. Nice if I happen to get them on the way, but I won't go out of my way and build planes for an heureka if there is no other incentive or postpone a unique building to the next age to not waste points etc. I agree that crises are different, as you can't just ignore them as easily with the notion "eh, i won't play optimally, that's fine with me" but actually have to react.
I don't think you can make a case that they actually require faith. Just as with rock bands. To me, these two are great examples of "we want feature x to make y better and we have the z bucket that keeps getting filled up but is rather useless, so let's solve both problems in one go and discard any reasonable relationship requirements." Honestly, here the ages could have helped: drop all faith yields and mechanics the end game, and make natural parks normal multi-tile (but rotatable) improvements with a hefty per turn upkeep or something similar.
Lazy sweeper
Mooooo Cra Chirp Fssss Miaouw is a game of words
AOE has now more active players than both Civ V and Civ VII...
And incredibly, other than the Remaster edition, there also normal, older versions of AOE wit more than 20k active players...
For an Isometric game about the same Age of Civ III it is wild...
Attachments
Civ VII is a civ game by definition. And I'm glad it's a different civ game, not a remaster of previous iteration. Subjectively I can also relate to the feeling that it's unpolished and half-baked in some aspects.
To me, one more turn feeling is there. Immersion is there, though it requires mindshift from player to adapt to age transition and civ switching. Somehow I never had problem calling my ancient humans with clubs and slings "British people", but now I have actual British civ and can't comprehend they were Normans once.
What I really want is that developers continue to work on this game, fix outstanding issues, add more content and mechanics. This game has the potential to be a great entry, and if all goes well we'll surely treat it as such in a year or two. Or at the very latest, when Civ 8 comes out
To me, one more turn feeling is there. Immersion is there, though it requires mindshift from player to adapt to age transition and civ switching. Somehow I never had problem calling my ancient humans with clubs and slings "British people", but now I have actual British civ and can't comprehend they were Normans once.
What I really want is that developers continue to work on this game, fix outstanding issues, add more content and mechanics. This game has the potential to be a great entry, and if all goes well we'll surely treat it as such in a year or two. Or at the very latest, when Civ 8 comes out
Similar threads
