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

[Uberfrog]

Imagine playing Europa Universalis and arguing that it's ok Russia turned to Britain, because it keeps its core territory

Sure, but as long as the player was still in control I’d argue that’s still a superficial change

I understand that a lot of people were put off Civ 7 as soon as culture switching was announced, that’s fine. I’m not a huge fan of ahistorical progressions either.

I am more arguing against the assertion that the core gameplay loops have changed beyond recognition, which I just don’t agree with at all.

 

[Menocchio]

Imagine playing Europa Universalis and arguing that it's ok Russia turned to Britain, because it keeps its core territory

You're talking about Europa Universalis here—the game where people race to form Mughals as Muscovy and other such things.

 

[tman2000]

I had to spill it out fast because kids were pushing me

You are spot on with the deck builder. There is a bonus card to this, sometimes a malus card to that. With each civic, you unlock pick a new card from the pile. You get a new governor card, or maybe an envoy card. With each research, you unlock pick a new building card. In the beginning of each turn, you roll a dice and if unlucky, you get a flooding, massive eruption or a storm - lose/gain x yields. Or gain a great person - +1 movement to naval units, or gain 500 gold, or gain art card to your museum. Get a streak and you get a massive bonus. Another unlucky roll - I didn't gain enough era points and now I enter the dark age. Okay, lets play some policy cards again.

Actually this completely solves the balance issue because balance is necessarily thrown out the window. The idea of deck builders is to play over and over again with a kind of average level of deck performance but occasionally relishing serendipitous synergies. That one crazy round you talk about for years.

 

[vorlon_mi]

I guess I just don’t really agree that the only similarities are superficial.

The turn to turn gameplay is exactly the same as other civ games. You improve tiles, you build units, you explore the map, you fight. The 4 X’s are absolutely present. I don’t know where this deck building idea is coming from, but you’re right, that would make it a completely different game!

I think it’s actually the superficial stuff that people are finding problematic. The very idea of a reset between ages really puts a lot of people off, even if the actual reset is not that severe. You can still keep all your core territory. You can still keep the majority of your units. Buildings become obsolete to encourage you to build different things, but the cities are still recognisably the same. And yet we still see complaints of “hard resets” and “three separate mini games” which really don’t chime with my actual gameplay experience at all.

I agree with nearly all of this. Civ7 excels in making the eXploration aspect relevant through many more turns than any of the previous titles.
In Civ3 (my favorite, most hours played), I have explored most of the map by the end of the second era, maybe turn 150. While in Civ7, I am still uncovering fog of war with missionaries in Exploration and explorers in modern. Even the eXpoitation of resources varies from age to age and is more nuanced than Civ6's "gotta find sources of niter and oil", or Civ3's "gotta find at least one source of iron / rubber / oil and then guard it" Conquering a city in Civ7 tactically feels similar to Civ5/BERT/Civ6 -- bring in siege or ranged, pelt the city until the defenses are down, then send in a unit to conquer it. I was very frustrated with Civ5 cities that would one-shot my siege before they could even fire; both Civ6 and Civ7 gives some benefit to attacks from infantry units before the defenses are totally wiped out. In Civ3 and Civ4, unit battles were almost always to the death, which necessitated large stacks. The attacker was breaking down/depleting the *defenders* not the walls or fortified districts.

Both Civ3 and Civ4 allowed the player to sell buildings that were no longer needed; I didn't play enough Civ5 to know. Civ7 allows the player to overbuild and to make decisions about which buildings to overbuild. Yes, I don't have *complete* freedom to choose, but it's more of a factor than permanent buildings in Civ6 districts.

Both Civ4 and Civ6 have dynamic government systems. I liked both of these much, much more than Civ5's static social policies which could only be added to, never deselected. In Civ3, one had discrete government choices (like Civ2), but one of them was a clear optimum for most cases. [Check the Civ3 forums]. In that sense, the Civ7 "choose a government for this age" system has more in common with Civ3's "revolt once and stick with it."

TL;DR Yes, Civ7 feels like a civ game to me. Distinct from its predecessors, just as Civ3 is distinct from Civ6.

 

[Krikkit1]

Vegetated terrain in VII is sparse because making it as dense as it was in past games would make traversing the map incredibly difficult when movement is already more restricted compared to VI. Remember that "featured" tiles like vegetated, rough, wet all end movement by default—as opposed to VI, where they had a 2 movement point modifier.

Honestly that would probably be good, give some additional benefit to Scouts, Navigable Rivers, Water Travel, etc.
(should probably add something so that Urban Land Districts automatically get a Road so it doesn't affect developed areas)

 

[Kyriakos]

You're talking about Europa Universalis here—the game where people race to form Mughals as Muscovy and other such things.

You are literally one line of code away from preventing that, if you wish to.

 

[Evie]

Which the Europa Universalis dev very pointedly *did not write*.

They know very well nation-forming sheananigans is what sells for a *lot* of people.

(Also, these are the same devs who wrote an event allowing you to turn the Teutonic Order into a Steppe Horde, so, no, they didn't leave it out by mistake).

 

[pmarc]

I think we can explain this by saying that the design philosophy of Civ 7 was to make access to yields very tight. Jungle improvements provide science, and we can't have too much of that!

In something like Civ4 improvements on special resources are very strong, and it's almost always the right choice to open with a worker to improve them ASAP. In Civ6 the improvements were much weaker, even on resources, which encouraged harvesting a lot of them. Buildings in Civ6 were also fairly weak for their costs. Most of the bonuses came from policies and city-states. Civ7 has weak yields on tiles (although the effective yields are a bit larger since rural citizens don't eat from the food and stuff is generally cheaper to produce), but the buildings are stronger and there are generally more bonuses from various sources. The snowball happens in a more gradual / steady way just by researching and building stuff rather than having big power spikes from chopping/harvesting or adopting very specific policies.

 

[pmarc]

Many people claim Civ 7 doesn't feel like a "Civ" game. Is this just a poor reaction to change, or is there substance to the sentiment?

It's absolutely the Civ switching and age breaks, not any of the other stuff you mention. If they did the other changes to city building and improvements, commanders, diplomacy, and just kept it to one Civ through time, I doubt any significant group of players would say it feels less like a Civ game than Civ6 did.

 

[tman2000]

It's absolutely the Civ switching and age breaks, not any of the other stuff you mention. If they did the other changes to city building and improvements, commanders, diplomacy, and just kept it to one Civ through time, I doubt any significant group of players would say it feels less like a Civ game than Civ6 did.

But everything is designed around the breaks. The city state bonuses, the progression trees, the buildings, etc.

And without the major stuff to complain about, people would go bananas over the little stuff like improvements and even diplomacy only works in the short age cadence

 

[Yzman]

This definitely feels like a civ game. I don't even understand this, even after reading the topic.

 

[m_m_x]

For me the main reason it doesn’t feel like a Civilization game is the civ switching and the ages. Also, I’m not sure why, but it plays more like a turn-based version of Age of Empires than Civilization

 

[Yzman]

For me the main reason it doesn’t feel like a Civilization game is the civ switching and the ages. Also, I’m not sure why, but it plays more like a turn-based version of Age of Empires than Civilization

It literally has all the same basic mechanics. Like civ switching or don't,.but it doesn't change the gameplay substantially.

Think about it like this, you are saying civ switching makes it feel not like civ...so are you saying it doesn't feel like civ twice jn thr game? Surely playing Augustus as Rome when no switching has taken place feels like civ. So does it stop feeling like civ when you are now Augustus of Normandy? Why? What gameplay changed besides the bonuses?

And ages? Civ has always had ages, these are just.more disconnected. Is age of empires like that? I never played it but I doubt it. So what makes it feel like that game because of the ages? I feel like this logic quickly falls apart when put under any scrutiny and it juat boils down to I don't like these mechanics so I will say it doesn't feel like civ.

 

[m_m_x]

It literally has all the same basic mechanics. Like civ switching or don't,.but it doesn't change the gameplay substantially.

Think about it like this, you are saying civ switching makes it feel not like civ...so are you saying it doesn't feel like civ twice jn thr game? Surely playing Augustus as Rome when no switching has taken place feels like civ. So does it stop feeling like civ when you are now Augustus of Normandy? Why? What gameplay changed besides the bonuses?

And ages? Civ has always had ages, these are just.more disconnected. Is age of empires like that? I never played it but I doubt it. So what makes it feel like that game because of the ages? I feel like this logic quickly falls apart when put under any scrutiny and it juat boils down to I don't like these mechanics so I will say it doesn't feel like civ.

It’s like watching a movie where the main characters change every 30 minutes, yes the plot stays the same, but the emotional connection breaks - Civ switching and ages feel like that- it’s not the mechanics, it’s how they disrupt the sense of continuity and identity

 

[Niallism]

For me, Civ 4 was the last game that felt like a civ game to me. I bought 5 and 6 on release and quickly stopped playing both within weeks. I decided not to buy 7.

Maybe like me, you’re just too old now. You may no longer be the target market. I’ve learned that this isn’t a productive question to ask, as there’s no answer that will really satisfy you. Ignore any snarky replies that you may get and focus on playing the games that you enjoy.

I'm 55 and have been playing Civ since the original. I like Civ 7 a lot (while hating the unfinished state at release). I like it much more than I did 5 or 6 before expansions.

The unstated power play of the narrative that older, i.e. real, fans don't like 7 is unhelpful.

There's a lot going on in this division, including that shoddy release. If 7 had released in its current state, perhaps some people might have given the changes more of a chance.

Politics matters too, as well as ideology and view of history. Civ 7 directly challenges the ideology of the nation-state - that the political/legal entity of the state should be the same as the cultural entity that is a nation (or ethnicity, for a more modern word).

Even experience matters - my life, my family, my home nation, are very international and multicultural, so my 'Civ' being the same is much more palatable to me.

And taste - I'm a boardgamer as well as videogamer, and am too indecisive for sandbox games, so I like the focus on victory types rather than more numinous goals like painting the map my colour. I can't enjoy the sprawl of Paradox 'grand strategy'.

Of course there are some normative aspects to the things I've mentioned, but it isn't a simple issue of correct vs incorrect. If you like a sandbox, or if you like the maxed-out sprawling games on Marathon speed, Civ 7 will not be good for you.

 

[GeorgeF]

This thread should be a poll. It certainly feels like a Civ game to me, and I am really happy with the game as is, and am looking forward to it improving in the upcoming months. I have played all the Civ titles as they have come out, and each time it ends up that I like the newest one best. Although my favorite scenario to play will always be Civ III and building all the wonders as single city Louis in real start location world map.

 

[Civinator]

The fact, that Firaxis/2K had the need to change the convincing slogan of the Civ series for Civ 7 from "Build an empire to stand the test of time" to the wishy-washy slogan "Build something you believe in", should be signal enough, that in Civ 7 there is something fundamental different, compared to all former versions of the Civ series.

 

[GeorgeF]

Meh, slogans change, I don't see that your conclusion follows from that.

 

[Tanel]

It’s like watching a movie where the main characters change every 30 minutes, yes the plot stays the same, but the emotional connection breaks - Civ switching and ages feel like that- it’s not the mechanics, it’s how they disrupt the sense of continuity and identity

The main characters in real history did change so that part is more accurate for me. The game still feels like a civ game through and through. Aside from the civ switching and age transitions everything else feels very similar. Anybody who thinks otherwise has a way too narrow and restrictive view on what a Civ game is and that is just unrealistic expectation for a game series with 7 mainline entries.

 

[Civinator]

Meh, slogans change, I don't see that your conclusion follows from that.

If you don´t see that there is a reason to the need of Firaxis/2K for changing a convincing slogan in playing Civ 1-6 to the wishy-washy slogan for playing Civ 7, this is of course o.k.