Morningcalm
Keeper of Records
To be fair AOE has a ton of nostalgia going for it, and the multiplayer hub for that game was always active. It's a faster-paced game anyhow.
Discussion On Why Civ 7 Doesn't Feel Like A "Civ" Game
- Thread starter tman2000
- Start date
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,873
... and there is to add that most Civ III players use the GOG version of Civ III Complete, as the steam version has a bug in its labels text, that plays havoc with the texts of all Civ III mods and scenarios, that are not created with the steam version - and this are nearly all Civ III mods and scenarios. There are also some players that are still using the Civ III CD versions on old pcs. So the number of Civ III players is significantly higher than the number shown at steam. I myself per example don´t have the steam version, so I am playing mostly Civ III games.
Lazy sweeper, what have I to trigger at steam to get such a graphical comparison as you posted here ? I want to have a closer look at the date of the Civ III peaks that can be seen in your screenshot.
Your'e very welcome, it's a site i use myself from time to time.CliffCo, thank you very much for the answer.
jplay51
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2014
- Messages
- 7
Saying this before I finish the thread so I can contribute:
I appreciate that this thread exists- the franchise has meant a lot to me! Loving something doesn’t mean you can’t critique it. We tend to stan corporations reactively- someone doesn’t like something or has ideas or critiques?
Na go somewhere else. There’s a prevailing ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ attitude that has set in very badly for games and media discussion. It’s helpful to talk about and hear people talk about why an experience is or isn’t rewarding.
Companies and their PR teams have promulgated this idea that criticizing something will affect sales, and regardless of their actual numbers you’re hurting them, and imperiling the future of the franchise by having thoughts. For firaxis this has dovetailed with clamping down/controlling mods- so that conversion mods and overhauls are a thing of the past. This is a symptom of what you could call ‘business thought.’
I’d argue that the soulless, generic feel+ lack of distinctive features you point out to begin the thread, that are conditioned and added to- are an inevitable result of the drive to simplify the game and make it easily portable to console and mobile, with as few changes as possible. 1UPT, and districts are both symptoms. The extreme simplicity in UI.
The gaming industry seems to be dominated by people who don’t care much about the product, and seek to reverse engineer success by aping competitors. This results in design convergence, loss of complexity and control.
I’ve played the franchise from a lot of different angles 3 through 7, and like many of you have left and returned many times. Tman+others crits are valid, and I appreciate constructive thinking on where they can take this spur of the franchise.
There are a few examples of companies that buck this trend and keep making what the player base asks for. I unironically wish firaxis could be more like paradox at this point and focus on expanding and improving systems, rather than throwing everything out every generation and adding back pieces via DLC. We seem to lose more with every generation.
You might improve sales in the medium term by doing what they’re doing, but ultimately you risk tanking the franchise by removing what the player base comes for. You can get so far on brand name alone for only so long before there’s only space for remasters. Running a gaming company with business-major thinking is a dead-end.
I appreciate that this thread exists- the franchise has meant a lot to me! Loving something doesn’t mean you can’t critique it. We tend to stan corporations reactively- someone doesn’t like something or has ideas or critiques?
Na go somewhere else. There’s a prevailing ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ attitude that has set in very badly for games and media discussion. It’s helpful to talk about and hear people talk about why an experience is or isn’t rewarding.
Companies and their PR teams have promulgated this idea that criticizing something will affect sales, and regardless of their actual numbers you’re hurting them, and imperiling the future of the franchise by having thoughts. For firaxis this has dovetailed with clamping down/controlling mods- so that conversion mods and overhauls are a thing of the past. This is a symptom of what you could call ‘business thought.’
I’d argue that the soulless, generic feel+ lack of distinctive features you point out to begin the thread, that are conditioned and added to- are an inevitable result of the drive to simplify the game and make it easily portable to console and mobile, with as few changes as possible. 1UPT, and districts are both symptoms. The extreme simplicity in UI.
The gaming industry seems to be dominated by people who don’t care much about the product, and seek to reverse engineer success by aping competitors. This results in design convergence, loss of complexity and control.
I’ve played the franchise from a lot of different angles 3 through 7, and like many of you have left and returned many times. Tman+others crits are valid, and I appreciate constructive thinking on where they can take this spur of the franchise.
There are a few examples of companies that buck this trend and keep making what the player base asks for. I unironically wish firaxis could be more like paradox at this point and focus on expanding and improving systems, rather than throwing everything out every generation and adding back pieces via DLC. We seem to lose more with every generation.
You might improve sales in the medium term by doing what they’re doing, but ultimately you risk tanking the franchise by removing what the player base comes for. You can get so far on brand name alone for only so long before there’s only space for remasters. Running a gaming company with business-major thinking is a dead-end.
aelf
Ashen One
So you're saying Civ 6 is dumbed down to be more like a console/mobile game? Alright, sure. Civ 6 is a bad Civ game too, then. The 'rot' didn't start with Civ 7, but with Civ 5
But when the criticism is complaining about wokeness (not in this thread), you know it's gone off the rails.
Moderator Action: Please do not go down the "wokeness" road in this thread.
Voidwalkin
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2024
- Messages
- 1,533
I'm sure to some, switching feels like watching an Alien movie only to have the Xenomorph swapped out for the monster from The Thing after the first half hour, which is later swapped out for the siren bird bug hawk monsters from A Quiet Place in the next.
Or, to put it differently, the old timers have tried to play Soul Caliber as Cervantes, only to be forced to play as Mitsurugi after 3 rounds. It's not gonna work for some people, and for every 1 who hates it, I'm beginning to suspect there are 2 made disinterested enough by the change to quit playing without fanfare, not upset, just made bored.
It's a Civ game but it's different enough that it really shouldn't be downplayed how substantial the differences are. It's got the name on it, but the core emotional connection a player has to their civ is altered fundamentally by switching. The reset diminishes gameplay continuity. The community may be discovering continuity was a more integral and fundamental part of what makes a civ game a civ game, and maybe this horse is missing a leg?
Or, to put it differently, the old timers have tried to play Soul Caliber as Cervantes, only to be forced to play as Mitsurugi after 3 rounds. It's not gonna work for some people, and for every 1 who hates it, I'm beginning to suspect there are 2 made disinterested enough by the change to quit playing without fanfare, not upset, just made bored.
It's a Civ game but it's different enough that it really shouldn't be downplayed how substantial the differences are. It's got the name on it, but the core emotional connection a player has to their civ is altered fundamentally by switching. The reset diminishes gameplay continuity. The community may be discovering continuity was a more integral and fundamental part of what makes a civ game a civ game, and maybe this horse is missing a leg?
Voidwalkin
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2024
- Messages
- 1,533
Yeah, that's true.
Moving to 1UPT diminished the strategy of it. The importance of building of an economic powerhouse and wisely expressing its might via alliances and good targeting was greatly diminished. It was so easy to dominate the tactical level post 1UPT that the who, when, and how's of fighting became almost irrelevant. Simply fight, and with minimal practice, ye shall conquer.
You can sorta see focus shift with the increased discussion around uniques, unique bonuses, unique religious boosts, stacking national parks, these weird, obscure mechanics that don't really add much in the core arena of civ VS civ combat or plausible economic development. Post 4, that became the de facto direction and selling points because core gameplay wasn't really providing.
5 was a step away. 6 was another step away. Novelty hunting didn't really bite them until 7, though, where they appear to have made so many steps off of the shining city on a hill that they've sorta ended up back down in the dark woods.
I prefer 1UPT to doomstacks, but I also don't accept that those are the only two options. Sure, commanders help, but it's still 1UPT. Surely there is more of a middle ground that reins in the worst excesses of the doomstack while also generating the tactical gameplay of 1UPT.
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,873
Yes and to be more precise, in my eyes it started with parts in Civ 4, but other parts of Civ 4 in my eyes were very good and many of those good parts of Civ 4 were suited to be integrated into Civ 3 (C3C) without bigger problems. Civ 5 and Civ 6 have nothing I want to integrate into Civ 3.
Civ 7 at least has the navigable rivers, that I would like to integrate into Civ 3 (so at present I see no possibility how this could be achieved for random maps in Civ 3), but this positive feature compared to 1UPT, districts, less movement options by hex tiles, unit promotion trees in the epic game (all cummulated features of past civ games that I am not liking) and now combined with the current handling of civs and leaders in Civ 7 - this, at least at present, crossed for me the border, not to buy Civ 7 (as the first game of the Civ series).
Core Imposter
Felon
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,349
Are there any mechanics or features in Civ 7 that were present in Civ 4?
Basically, if you think of Civ 1-4 as Civ then Civ 7 simply isn't Civ.
Basically, if you think of Civ 1-4 as Civ then Civ 7 simply isn't Civ.
All the basic features are the same.
Core Imposter
Felon
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,349
That's simply not true.
If you think 1-4 are the *only* civ games, maybe. If you consider 5 or 6 to be civ games, there aren't many reasons why 7 shouldn't be. Especially if you consider 6 (which I know many players don't). 7 is not *that* different. On turn to turn basis, the biggest difference is the yield inflation per tile. For me, it's also much closer to civ 4 than to Humankind, for example (which I consider a rather different game). But I can understand that people that consider 1-4 to be core, and the rest just experiments, are alienated by 7. It's clearly built on 6 (while taking many ideas from 5), and not on 4 or 3 or 2. Hence, if 5 or 6 are already a stretch for someone's understanding what a civ game is, 7 is clearly too far away.
aelf
Ashen One
1UPT is a board game mechanic. Real PC strategy gamers prefer more strategic stacks.
Core Imposter
Felon
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,349
Similar features in Civ 4 and Civ 7: Both games had maps. Check. Both games had cities. Check. Both games had civilizations. Check. Both games had leaders. Check. Both games had units. Check.
On a certain intellectual level the games have similar basic features.
On a certain intellectual level the games have similar basic features.
drewisfat
King
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2011
- Messages
- 992
Don't give them any ideas.
"People complained about micromanaging units, so we got rid of units" has the same energy as "People complained about rarely finishing the game, so now you can finish each game three times."
How about both have the same base gameplay loop?Similar features in Civ 4 and Civ 7: Both games had maps. Check. Both games had cities. Check. Both games had civilizations. Check. Both games had leaders. Check. Both games had units. Check.
On a certain intellectual level the games have similar basic features.
Regarding that, I’d say that 1-UPT and unstacking cities have changed the turn to turn (and also long-term) gameplay loop much more than switching civs or mix and match leaders.
But hey, those also weren‘t in civ 4 and were not introduced in civ 7. Seems almost like a games franchise is actually slowly evolving over decades in some form. Who could have known?
Last edited:
Similar threads
