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

[Pedro P]

Too much railroading, can't take Romans and Aztecs to the space age, a complete lack of near future speculative tech that has been around since Civ 1.

Do enough people even play online to justify so much streamlining? Statistically it doesn't feel like they are the majority.

 

[tman2000]

I am having a lot of fun too, especially with more fixes coming.

I suppose that’s the contour of difference in our opinions. I don’t consider the patches and changes to fix all that much, and I certainly don’t feel like the game is meaningfully different/more fun because of them.

Happy for it to fall as opinion, but from my point of view I can’t relate to what you’re saying.

 

[Yzman]

I suppose that’s the contour of difference in our opinions. I don’t consider the patches and changes to fix all that much, and I certainly don’t feel like the game is meaningfully different/more fun because of them.

Happy for it to fall as opinion, but from my point of view I can’t relate to what you’re saying.

You said you weren't playing anymore, so confused. Were you still playing after patch?

But yes, it's a fun game. Just needs some tweaks to make it great. But so did 5 and 6, people just forget that. 5 was considered terrible here when it first came out.

 

[Kyriakos]

Possibly the only civ game which was immediately identified as a great improvement to the previous one, was civ2.
Civ3's terrain gfx at launch were... abysmal. But that was nothing compared to how awful civ4 looked - that game was mocked to no end in these forums, iirc at least for a year.

Doesn't mean that Civ7 will be later regarded as a good game - because Civ7's issues are not gfx-related at all, but on main mechanics like the civ-changing.
Afaik, mechanics-related troubles still linger (for Civ5 and onwards, the 1upt, for Civ6 and onwards the deck-building aspect).

 

[tman2000]

You said you weren't playing anymore, so confused. Were you still playing after patch?

But yes, it's a fun game. Just needs some tweaks to make it great. But so did 5 and 6, people just forget that. 5 was considered terrible here when it first came out.

I think these tweaks change very little and it needs major systems added.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Civ 1 was clearly designed as a video game from the start. During its first full year of development, it was even real-time (like SimCity and Railroad Tycoon), but Sid Meier wasn’t satisfied with the results, leading to the "valley of despair" he often mentions. The shift to turn-based gameplay came from Empire Deluxe (another video game), which was the main inspiration for Civ 1. The intent was to let players control the pace of the game, not to structure it around multiple players, especially since Civ was always thought primarily as a single-player experience.

The "board game feel" really began with the introduction of 1UPT (one unit per tile) in Civ5, which pushed players toward solving more boardgame-like tactical problems. That direction was further reinforced in Civ6 with the addition of policy cards, adjacencies, and districts. Tiles became increasingly important over time, which is quite distinctive as other historical video game flagships usually went in the other direction.

It's more complicated than that. Civ1 had many inspirations, including some boardgames, and Empire was mostly inspired by board games too.

Strategic games have long history of both mediums (computer and board) influencing one another. Board games are older, though, so many paths lead to them. For 1UpT in Civ5 the main inspiration was Panzer General video game, but it, in turn also had roots in classic board games.

 

[Marla_Singer]

It's more complicated than that. Civ1 had many inspirations, including some boardgames, and Empire was mostly inspired by board games too.

Strategic games have long history of both mediums (computer and board) influencing one another. Board games are older, though, so many paths lead to them. For 1UpT in Civ5 the main inspiration was Panzer General video game, but it, in turn also had roots in classic board games.

Extensive documentation shows that Sid Meier and Bruce Shelley, after collaborating on Railroad Tycoon (itself directly influenced by SimCity in its gameplay structure) were looking for a new project. Both Meier and Shelley told the same version that they played Empire Deluxe and considered ways to expand and improve upon it. While they indeed drew inspiration from multiple sources, Empire Deluxe served as the primary foundation. This connection becomes clear when comparing the two games directly.

Clarifying this point is important because a widespread narrative suggests that Civ1 was primarily an adaptation of the 1980 Civilisation board game. However, sources and interviews indicate that while Meier and Shelley were aware of the board game and used it in their benchmark, its mechanics differ significantly from those of Civ1. In fact, the core mechanics of Civ1 are much closer to those of Empire Deluxe.

At that early stage, board games did often serve as points of reference, but the prevailing goal was to explore the new possibilities offered by the emerging video game media, not to emulate the board game experience. Available documentation provides no indication suggesting that Civ1 was ever intended to recreate the feel of a board game.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Extensive documentation shows that Sid Meier and Bruce Shelley, after collaborating on Railroad Tycoon (itself directly influenced by SimCity in its gameplay structure) were looking for a new project. Both Meier and Shelley told the same version that they played Empire Deluxe and considered ways to expand and improve upon it. While they indeed drew inspiration from multiple sources, Empire Deluxe served as the primary foundation. This connection becomes clear when comparing the two games directly.

Clarifying this point is important because a widespread narrative suggests that Civilization was primarily an adaptation of the 1980 Civilisation board game. However, sources and interviews indicate that while Meier and Shelley were aware of the board game and likely included it in their benchmark, its mechanics differ significantly from those of Civ1. In fact, the core mechanics of Civ1 are much closer to those of Empire Deluxe.

At that early stage in video game history, board games did often serve as points of reference, but the prevailing goal was to explore the unique possibilities offered by the emerging video game industry, not to emulate the board game experience. Available documentation provides no indication suggesting that Civ1 was ever intended to recreate the feel of a board game.

I don't disagree with it, I'm speaking about bits that lie beyond:

1. While Civ1 didn't try to recreate feeling of the board game, it tried to recreate a lot from Empire Deluxe, which were trying to recreate board game feel (and quite successfully, I played it in it's time). So, by extension, Civ1 carried the same feel too.

2. Civ5 also didn't try to recreate board games. It drew inspiration from games like Panzer General, as Jon Shafer told in interviews. So, it's the same indirect copying of board games as with Civ1 (as PG clearly was influenced by boardgames).

 

[0urBall]

Surely the only criteria about whether CivVII feels like a "Civ" game is whether you get that "just one more turn" feel? This was one of the main factors in Civ's early successes and what set it apart from other games, that desire to keep playing one more turn, until you look around and realise it's 3/4am and should really be in bed If some players get that feeling, then good for them, but it looks to me like the age transition has put in a "block" on that desire and has given too many players a natural stopping point to a game they then just don't go back too. And I don't see how that can be fixed without doing something about making the age transition a bit more fluid/drawn out in some way

 

[Marla_Singer]

I don't disagree with it, I'm speaking about bits that lie beyond:

1. While Civ1 didn't try to recreate feeling of the board game, it tried to recreate a lot from Empire Deluxe, which were trying to recreate board game feel (and quite successfully, I played it in it's time). So, by extension, Civ1 carried the same feel too.

2. Civ5 also didn't try to recreate board games. It drew inspiration from games like Panzer General, as Jon Shafer told in interviews. So, it's the same indirect copying of board games as with Civ1 (as PG clearly was influenced by boardgames).

I agree on that. Jon Shafer certainly didn't want to recreate a board game. As a matter of fact, he was very frustrated during the development by the limited number of tiles separating cities in Civilization making things quickly clogged. He wanted to explore solutions to solve that. From what I understood, it's more Ed Beach who took back the project after Shafer was sidelined, who decided to embrace that limitation as a new gameplay feature. And it all makes sense considering that Ed Beach was a board game designer, and certainly still is in many ways when you look at where he brought the franchise afterwards.

Just to make it really clear, it's not properly "1UPT" in itself which feels like a board game feature. Panzer General is a good example of a 1UPT that doesn't feel that way. It's more the tactical sliding puzzle that you need to solve in order to position your units in attack or defence that feels that way.

 

[itix]

Uhm, Civ 1 never felt a board game unlike dumbed down Civ 6. Policy cards, policy card governments, great person cards etc

 

[MutilationWave]

I agree on that. Jon Shafer certainly didn't want to recreate a board game. As a matter of fact, he was very frustrated during the development by the limited number of tiles separating cities in Civilization making things quickly clogged. He wanted to explore solutions to solve that. From what I understood, it's more Ed Beach who took back the project after Shafer was sidelined, who decided to embrace that limitation as a new gameplay feature. And it all makes sense considering that Ed Beach was a board game designer, and certainly still is in many ways when you look at where he brought the franchise afterwards.

Just to make it really clear, it's not properly "1UPT" in itself which feels like a board game feature. Panzer General is a good example of a 1UPT that doesn't feel that way. It's more the tactical sliding puzzle that you need to solve in order to position your units in attack or defence that feels that way.

The sliding puzzle aspect has been greatly improved by commanders. If you're only using them as Buff Buses, you're missing out. You can use them to hold units out of the way so there's not so much sliding, and that's just the beginning of the tactics they can enable. For me commanders (and shifting experience to them) are the best thing about 7.

 

[Menocchio]

Surely the only criteria about whether CivVII feels like a "Civ" game is whether you get that "just one more turn" feel? This was one of the main factors in Civ's early successes and what set it apart from other games, that desire to keep playing one more turn, until you look around and realise it's 3/4am and should really be in bed If some players get that feeling, then good for them, but it looks to me like the age transition has put in a "block" on that desire and has given too many players a natural stopping point to a game they then just don't go back too. And I don't see how that can be fixed without doing something about making the age transition a bit more fluid/drawn out in some way

For me, Civ VII in its sneaky way makes this even more a phenomenon: I find myself going "ahh, I'm close enough to finishing Exploration, I might as well keep going..." And so on.

 

[MutilationWave]

For me, Civ VII in its sneaky way makes this even more a phenomenon: I find myself going "ahh, I'm close enough to finishing Exploration, I might as well keep going..." And so on.

I was never finishing games in 6, now I finish every one. Modern sucks but you can win so fast it hardly matters. In 6 I would get about halfway through a deity game and know I had already won, so I'd just start a new game since antiquity is my favorite part.

 

[99-percent-sure]

I was never finishing games in 6, now I finish every one. Modern sucks but you can win so fast it hardly matters. In 6 I would get about halfway through a deity game and know I had already won, so I'd just start a new game since antiquity is my favorite part.

I started playing a Civ VI game a few weeks ago, and that same thing happened. It was fun for a while, but now that I know things are set up well enough that I will win, and it's just a matter of time (probably 100-150 more turns, but who knows for sure), I can't get motivated to finish. Meanwhile, I've started and finished a few Civ VII games since then. The benchmarks are specific enough that you know exactly how much progress you're making most of the time, which keeps you chugging along.

 

[Lebo44]

I was never finishing games in 6, now I finish every one. Modern sucks but you can win so fast it hardly matters. In 6 I would get about halfway through a deity game and know I had already won, so I'd just start a new game since antiquity is my favorite part.

In Civilization VI, players can start a new game in any era and play only for limited number of turns. There are so many options for manipulating the game duration and time span. For some reason it is rarely used.

Surprisingly, when Civilization VII forces this feature on a player, players embrace it and love the game!

 

[MutilationWave]

In Civilization VI, players can start a new game in any era and play only for limited number of turns. There are so many options for manipulating the game duration and time span. For some reason it is rarely used.

Surprisingly, when Civilization VII forces this feature on a player, players embrace it and love the game!

I just love antiquity. I also don't want to jump in where an AI has made the early decisions. So I have no desire for advanced starts

What in particular do you mean about 7 forcing the feature?

 

[Lebo44]

What in particular do you mean about 7 forcing the feature?

Players often criticized Civilization series for being too boring in the late game or being resolved too quickly. The game offered many options to tweak game durations like advaced starts, game speed, turn limit or victory conditions. I got an impression that these options were not popular, even tough, in my opinion, they helped solved these problems.

Civ 7 seems to artificialy divide the game into 3 chunks to keep player attention for full game or to make AI competitive across all ages and So instead one long game players play three shorter ones. Something they could play in previous iterations if only they adjusted game parameters.

 

[MutilationWave]

Players often criticized Civilization series for being too boring in the late game or being resolved too quickly. The game offered many options to tweak game durations like advaced starts, game speed, turn limit or victory conditions. I got an impression that these options were not popular, even tough, in my opinion, they helped solved these problems.

Civ 7 seems to artificialy divide the game into 3 chunks to keep player attention for full game or to make AI competitive across all ages and So instead one long game players play three shorter ones. Something they could play in previous iterations if only they adjusted game parameters.

I understand now, thanks for explaining.

 

[Tanel]

I was never finishing games in 6, now I finish every one. Modern sucks but you can win so fast it hardly matters. In 6 I would get about halfway through a deity game and know I had already won, so I'd just start a new game since antiquity is my favorite part.

Yea Modern isn't great currently but it is quite short so I've finished all my games that I didn't restart right at the beginning. I've finished more games in Civ 7 than in the previous Civ games so they did something right at least.