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

[queenpea]

.From a game mechanics perspective, beyond map generation (with less extreme possible starts in 7), I don't see how games in Civ 7 would be any more similar to each other than in Civ 6.

I don’t really understand how you can say this seriously when Civ 7 is broken up into three mini rounds with specific goals and rules layer out before you to follow in order to light up the scoreboard.

Yes, you can choose to ignore the legacy paths completely and just joke around but that is actively rebelling against how the game is telling you to play and results in bad/subpar outcomes.

For example, in Civ VI I would never just spam wonders because wonder = one point = good. I chose to build wonders when they were strategically relevant. Similarly, I wouldn’t colonize for the points or secure resources for treasure points.

In my view, like it or not, Civ VII had much more structure to it, particularly with a focus on scoring points, than past iterations.

 

[Leucarum]

I've got to say, the antiquity era (before the first switch happens) really does feel like a classical Civ game. It's only once you get to the end of the era that the game starts to reveal how it's going to change. Even as someone who has got a lot of hours in Civ 7 it's very easy to hit exploration and feel like you don't like the direction the game is about to go in - and then you just stop playing. If the whole game played like Antiquity does, we probably wouldn't be having these questions about how it feels... Even as someone who loves the game, unless eras become optional I can't see the game lasting.

 

[Skojardu]

One area I hoped they would innovate in civ7 was the AI.

I hoped the AI would give natural feeling responses. I even hoped I would be able to type my own replies instead of picking scripted responses. I wanted them to make an effort to make it feel as if I was interacting with an actual leader.

Obviously, improved AI did not happen. They went all out for... something else.

It seems they went all-in on map art and anthropological research

 

[queenpea]

It seems they went all-in on map art and anthropological research

I think there was a great deal of focus on the map but also warfare—both art direction (continuous fighting between units when not moving), unit design, and commanders/commander mechanics.

I’ve never been a huge military player in Civ, so perhaps this is one reason why this version doesn’t fully click with me.

 

[user746383]

I’ve largely been a military player, I wouldn’t say they really nailed that either. The way flanking works is kind of cool. Commanders are maybe nice in theory but are a huge source of clicking to do stuff, compared to something like stack movement pre-1upt. Unit design and balancing doesn’t seem particularly exceptional - infantry is kind of pointless, for example.

 

[queenpea]

I’ve largely been a military player, I wouldn’t say they really nailed that either. The way flanking works is kind of cool. Commanders are maybe nice in theory but are a huge source of clicking to do stuff, compared to something like stack movement pre-1upt. Unit design and balancing doesn’t seem particularly exceptional - infantry is kind of pointless, for example.

I didn’t claim they nailed it!

 

[Gori the Grey]

(continuous fighting between units when not moving)

For people who do like the game, is this one of the satisfactions? I remember some of their pre-release commentary being that they wanted to eliminate the "fish-slap" style of combat, but I haven't heard any player, post-release, say that their having done so is one of the satisfactions of the game.

 

[queenpea]

For people who do like the game, is this one of the satisfactions? I remember some of their pre-release commentary being that they wanted to eliminate the "fish-slap" style of combat, but I haven't heard any player, post-release, say that their having done so is one of the satisfactions of the game.

I think it looks and sounds nice. It increases environmental immersion, as do all of the nice sound effects and the map generally. The visual and auditory immersion, though, don’t or can’t offset the rest of the game and immersion-breaking mechanics.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I worried that it would just replace "fish slap" with "troops endlessly stabbing at one another with nothing consequential happening" (until the combat was resolved).

 

[queenpea]

I worried that it would just replace "fish slap" with "troops endlessly stabbing at one another with nothing consequential happening" (until the combat was resolved).

Are you playing the game? This is essentially what it is it’s an animation reflecting the current turn’s engagement. Nothing happens, it’s just an animation loop.

 

[aelf]

I don’t really understand how you can say this seriously when Civ 7 is broken up into three mini rounds with specific goals and rules layer out before you to follow in order to light up the scoreboard.

Yes, you can choose to ignore the legacy paths completely and just joke around but that is actively rebelling against how the game is telling you to play and results in bad/subpar outcomes.

For example, in Civ VI I would never just spam wonders because wonder = one point = good. I chose to build wonders when they were strategically relevant. Similarly, I wouldn’t colonize for the points or secure resources for treasure points.

In my view, like it or not, Civ VII had much more structure to it, particularly with a focus on scoring points, than past iterations.

I've done the Antiquity culture legacy path exactly once to unlock the achievement. I never spam wonders willy-nilly either, and I don't think I'm "joking around" by doing that. So I find your characterisation of what I would consider normal gameplay odd.

I also distinctly remember that Civ 6 has eras, which encourage bending over backwards sometimes to score era points if you want to get a Golden Age or avoid a Dark Age. It certainly felt like the game making me do it. How about when the game's advisor advises me to build certain districts (e.g. Holy Sites)? How about the whole concept of eurekas/inspirations?

The truth is Civ 6 also tells you how to play, and ignoring them can result in bad/subpar outcomes. So, again, I fail to see the big difference.

 

[queenpea]

I've done the Antiquity culture legacy path exactly once to unlock the achievement. I never spam wonders willy-nilly either, and I don't think I'm "joking around" by doing that. So I find your characterisation of what I would consider normal gameplay odd.

I also distinctly remember that Civ 6 has eras, which encourage bending over backwards sometimes to score era points if you want to get a Golden Age or avoid a Dark Age. It certainly felt like the game making me do it. How about when the game's advisor advises me to build certain districts (e.g. Holy Sites)? How about the whole concept of eurekas/inspirations?

The truth is Civ 6 also tells you how to play, and ignoring them can result in bad/subpar outcomes. So, again, I fail to see the big difference.

Comparing eras in 7 to 6 and claiming they are similar is, to me, missing the point almost completely.

Sure, dark eras and golden eras involve maintaining a score, but it’s not an overall victory score. And the dark/golden ages are EP content in any case.

On the antiquity cultural path legacy—the goal absolutely is to spam wonders. Preferably in a circular pattern to then spam adjacency points which carry you to an easy victory in the exploration science path.

 

[Leucarum]

I've done the Antiquity culture legacy path exactly once to unlock the achievement. I never spam wonders willy-nilly either, and I don't think I'm "joking around" by doing that. So I find your characterisation of what I would consider normal gameplay odd.

I also distinctly remember that Civ 6 has eras, which encourage bending over backwards sometimes to score era points if you want to get a Golden Age or avoid a Dark Age. It certainly felt like the game making me do it. How about when the game's advisor advises me to build certain districts (e.g. Holy Sites)? How about the whole concept of eurekas/inspirations?

The truth is Civ 6 also tells you how to play, and ignoring them can result in bad/subpar outcomes. So, again, I fail to see the big difference.

The goals for antiquity - build wonders, do science, conquer cities, get resources - are all things which have been in the civ franchise for so long that they feel second nature as what you'd do. Civ6 definitely had victory paths (culture & religion) which felt more like minigames, though at least culture had many roads all leading to rome so you could pick your minigame.

I would say culture & economic in exploration/modern feel very minigame-y and the incorporation of religion into millitary during exploration makes it feel minigamed. That's not too much more than in 6 but.. Antiquity feels completely in line with what you'd expect from a civ game so it can be jarring when you have to start playing differently afterwards, and you can't avoid legacy paths if they are in your chosen route to victory. I've stopped playing culture in Civ7... It's not fun. The variety of minigames in 6 really helped make culture not feel stale I am starting to think...

 

[aelf]

Comparing eras in 7 to 6 and claiming they are similar is, to me, missing the point almost completely.

Sure, dark eras and golden eras involve maintaining a score, but it’s not an overall victory score. And the dark/golden ages are EP content in any case.

On the antiquity cultural path legacy—the goal absolutely is to spam wonders. Preferably in a circular pattern to then spam adjacency points which carry you to an easy victory in the exploration science path.

What overall victory score? Unless you think you're likely to compete for a Time Victory, there's no need to score points on the Legacy Paths. If you're just gunning for an advantage, the Civ 6 era system also gave you an advantage for getting a Golden Age or avoiding a Dark Age. It's literally the same concept that just plays out differently.

And what I was saying is I almost never spam wonders so that means I almost always ignore the Antiquity cultural legacy path. And it's totally fine? In fact, it seems optimal to do that most of the time.

I'm not sure how you're failing to grasp what I'm saying or the obvious point here.

 

[queenpea]

What overall victory score? Unless you think you're likely to compete for a Time Victory, there's no need to score points on the Legacy Paths. If you're just gunning for an advantage, the Civ 6 era system also gave you an advantage for getting a Golden Age or avoiding a Dark Age. It's literally the same concept.

And what I was saying is I almost never spam wonders so that means I almost always ignore the Antiquity cultural legacy path. And it's totally fine? In fact, it seems optimal to do that most of the time.

I'm not sure how you're failing to grasp what I'm saying or the obvious point here.

I’m not failing to grasp anything here. I’m just in complete disagreement with you when you assess and compare VI and VII.

In VII, you are pushed in every way possible to light up a scoreboard on a chosen victory path. Scoring points pushes the age forward. If you don’t score points, your opponents will — this pushes the age forward and means you have less time to achieve your goals or pursue your strategy.

Spamming wonders in VII is absolutely a thing as many can be built many under ten turns. Grab a wonder. Deny your opponent points. Push the age forward. Score points. The number of times I’ve built a crap wonder for the points is…innumerable.

Golden ages/dark ages again are EP content and were not structural to VI. They have—in no sense—the same impact of ages as VII. Are there similarities between VI and VII? Yes…they were built by many of the same developers.

 

[aelf]

I’m not failing to grasp anything here. I’m just in complete disagreement with you when you assess and compare VI and VII.

In VII, you are pushed in every way possible to light up a scoreboard on a chosen victory path. Scoring points pushes the age forward. If you don’t score points, your opponents will — this pushes the age forward and means you have less time to achieve your goals or pursue your strategy.

Your argument is incoherent. If you score points, you also push the age forward, therefore shortening the time you have to achieve your goals. If your goals are simply to score points, then that's a choice that you made. You can win quite easily without scoring some points. I regularly score only 1 point for the Antiquity cultural legacy path, and it does little to impede the rest of my game.

You seem hellbent on scoring points that aren't necessary. Your previous argument was that not completing Legacy Paths (before Modern, presumably) results in bad/subpar outcomes. This is demonstrably not as big a problem as you seem to think, even on higher difficulties (maybe more so on higher difficulties because sometimes you just can't complete some of them). And, guess what, getting a Dark Age or failing to get certain Golden Age bonuses like Monumentality in Civ 6 also results in bad/subpar outcomes.

Spamming wonders in VII is absolutely a thing as many can be built under ten turns. Grab a wonder. Deny your opponent points. Push the age forward. Score points. The number of times I’ve built a crap wonder for the points is…innumerable.

On Immortal/Deity, there's almost no way you can deny the AI getting some wonders. You'd have to push hard to get 7 built and probably have to pick certain civs/leaders for that. And it's not going to make much of a difference, considering the opportunity cost. And if your aim is to deny the AI wonders just so that it can't score points, well, that's a very suboptimal way of playing the game, and it's entirely down to your own choice to do so.

 

[queenpea]

We are just going to agree to disagree here. I also play on immortal/deity, and we are just having very different experiences with the game. Happy civing!

 

[aelf]

So whether Civ 7 railroads the game more than Civ 6 is a matter of perception? Well, you don't say.

 

[queenpea]

I didn’t say that, but you are taking a more adversarial approach than what I really would hope for, and I no longer feel motivated to engage on a sunny Sunday afternoon. I hope you have a great day (or evening)!

 

[Gori the Grey]

Are you playing the game? This is essentially what it is it’s an animation reflecting the current turn’s engagement. Nothing happens, it’s just an animation loop.

I am not playing the game. That's why I asked the question of people who are. What I was trying to get a feel for is whether an "animation loop" makes combat more satisfying than a "fish slap."

For me, both feel like unrealistic representations of troop combat. Combat doesn't happen by one troop running up to another and fish slapping it. But combat also doesn't happen by two troops standing there repeatedly stabbing at one another with no effect. So when it was announced, I thought to myself "I get why you're trying to eliminate 'fish slap' but you're replacing it with something that also won't feel satisfying." But I can't know that last point (how it feels) except by asking people who are playing the game.