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

[sixty4half]

I find it quite interesting that when the topic is about how it feels to play a specific game, people that haven‘t played it chime in with their non-experience.

This is almost as rediculous of a reply as the guy who cites the slogan as a defining issue.

People watch/read reviews all the time on a wide variety of things and form opinions without trying them.

I've never sky dived, but I am of the opinion that it is not for me.

I've never seen The Crying Game and I never will, based on things people that have seen it said.

There are restaurants that people will flock to or avoid based on a single social media post.

Reviews and critics are a large part of our culture for a reason. Nobody in the world has the time to try everything in order to form an opinion on it. Society has created shortcuts for that.


That being said; Civ 7 definitely feels like a civ game to me. I've played them all. When I fire up a game and see that map and my cities and the resources and the tile improvements and I see my Yields and my opponents units on the other side of a border..... it just feels like Civ to me.

3 months in, I like Civ 7 more than I did 5 or 6. Civ switching seems more natural than starting a USA game from 4000b.c. or a Greece game past 600 a.d. to me.

 

[Yzman]

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

What? No it isn't. The leaders even stay the same the whole game. When I play I think about my relationship with Napoleon, I don't consider oh Maya was friendly with me, but now Normans are not. I doubt anyone else does either. The relationships from the previous era, aka with the leader...also remain fairly consistent. Sorry not buying this.

 

[j51]

Honestly 7 feels more like a civ game to me than 6. I’ve been playing since 1. 6 feels the least “civ-like” to me: a candy colored approximation of Civ with some goofy gimmicks thrown in (governors, the World Congress, forcibly themed districts, not to mention the optional NFP stuff). BUT here’s the thing: that’s just my opinion and I know that the vast majority of people on here, both civ 7 supporters and detractors, would disagree and say that civ 6 does feel like a real Civ game. It’s just my opinion is all. I still have a hard time articulating why 6 feels off to me, but it does. Civ 7 feels like both a correction and a bold invigoration to me. But again, that’s just my opinion. I’m only offering it to show how differently we all perceive what’s essential or good about this series.

 

[Sagax]

What? No it isn't. The leaders even stay the same the whole game. When I play I think about my relationship with Napoleon, I don't consider oh Maya was friendly with me, but now Normans are not. I doubt anyone else does either. The relationships from the previous era, aka with the leader...also remain fairly consistent. Sorry not buying this.

This again shows the divide in how players perceive themselves and opponents in this franchise. To many, they identified more with civilizations rather than leaders - the latter being just a figurehead/face to talk to, or more of a human representation of the civilization’s zeitgeist. In the past, this wasn’t worth much discussion, due to both civs and leaders being “immortal”, but Civ 7 breaks the mold by positioning leaders as the ever-lasting players, and civilizations as something that come and go throughout the game. It’s not surprising that some players are upset by this: while you never saw it as interacting with the Maya instead of Napoleon, this was exactly how it was perceived by others.

That being said, the “Civ feel” to me definitely comes more from the more fundamental turn to turn gameplay. To me, Civ 7 is still very much a Civ game, with all its questionable design and implementation choices.

 

[stealth_nsk]

This again shows the divide in how players perceive themselves and opponents in this franchise. To many, they identified more with civilizations rather than leaders - the latter being just a figurehead/face to talk to, or more of a human representation of the civilization’s zeitgeist. In the past, this wasn’t worth much discussion, due to both civs and leaders being “immortal”, but Civ 7 breaks the mold by positioning leaders as the ever-lasting players, and civilizations as something that come and go throughout the game. It’s not surprising that some players are upset by this: while you never saw it as interacting with the Maya instead of Napoleon, this was exactly how it was perceived by others.

That being said, the “Civ feel” to me definitely comes more from the more fundamental turn to turn gameplay. To me, Civ 7 is still very much a Civ game, with all its questionable design and implementation choices.

I found myself to be very flexible in this. For example, in Civ6 I used to play as Rome, but after second Roman leader was introduced, I found playing as Caesar or Trajan instead. And those leaders spanning across two civs were the worst as they forced me to identify as both civ and leaders... probably that's why I didn't like either of them. Anyway, it made me easy to accept leaders as something to identify with in Civ7.

P.S. The worst approach is in HK, of course. On one hand, they have immortal leaders and civ switching. On the other hand, their leaders are totally immemorable while civ names are used everywhere in interaction. This makes it hard to put any identity on yourself or opponents.

 

[aelf]

This is almost as rediculous of a reply as the guy who cites the slogan as a defining issue.

People watch/read reviews all the time on a wide variety of things and form opinions without trying them.

I've never sky dived, but I am of the opinion that it is not for me.

I've never seen The Crying Game and I never will, based on things people that have seen it said.

There are restaurants that people will flock to or avoid based on a single social media post.

Reviews and critics are a large part of our culture for a reason. Nobody in the world has the time to try everything in order to form an opinion on it. Society has created shortcuts for that.

Well, ackshually...

I think there's an interesting small discussion to be had about this. On one level, it depends on what kind of content the person consumed to make that judgement. If, for example, someone simply watched a bunch of videos saying how Civilization has lost its soul or whatever and they decided, yeah, Civ 7 is not a Civ game, that opinion would be questionable. A person can import someone else's opinions wholesale and therefore remain personally ignorant of the topic.

On another level, there are different classes of opinions (or, more accurately, claims) about something. A subjective opinion pertaining to personal preference, for example, is different from a claim about the nature of the game. To illustrate with a more extreme example, there is deciding that Civ 7 is not a game I would enjoy and there is deciding that Civ 7 is not a game. More information or evidence is required to make the latter claim sound. And first hand experience of Civ 7 would constitute a primary source of information. So if someone hasn't tried Civ 7 and decides that Civ 7 is not a game, others would naturally be more sceptical of their claim than if they had at least tried it.

 

[Kyriakos]

As has been said many times already, a franchise can certainly survive even if it changes very significantly - as long as the audience is largely new and/or apathetic to the older games.
So Civ7 can do well, if most of the players are simply indifferent to how like or unlike it is to most of the previous Civs.

Besides, there is a market for those older civ titles, and we can't argue that they ever had made the choice to keep the games mostly the same. Even infinitesimal change will in the end lead to observable change, given many steps- and with civ there never was just infinitesimal change.

Fwiw, I do hope Civ7 does well in the end.

 

[sixty4half]

Well, ackshually...

I think there's an interesting small discussion to be had about this. On one level, it depends on what kind of content the person consumed to make that judgement. If, for example, someone simply watched a bunch of videos saying how Civilization has lost its soul or whatever and they decided, yeah, Civ 7 is not a Civ game, that opinion would be questionable. A person can import someone else's opinions wholesale and therefore remain personally ignorant of the topic.

On another level, there are different classes of opinions (or, more accurately, claims) about something. A subjective opinion pertaining to personal preference, for example, is different from a claim about the nature of the game. To illustrate with a more extreme example, there is deciding that Civ 7 is not a game I would enjoy and there is deciding that Civ 7 is not a game. More information or evidence is required to make the latter claim sound. And first hand experience of Civ 7 would constitute a primary source of information. So if someone hasn't tried Civ 7 and decides that Civ 7 is not a game, others would naturally be more sceptical of their claim than if they had at least tried it.

In your first example you are just projecting your thoughts on how other people come to their opinions. You have no idea what each individuals experience is and you've just made a one-scenario-fits-all idea in your head that makes it easier for you to ignore other people's opinions.

In your "other level" you make the mistake of saying someone could come to the opinion that civ 7 isn't a game. Opinions don't work that way. Civ 7 is a game and is defined as being one. Facts and opinions don't mix.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

While this is true, it's missing the topic of the OP and the point I raised. Being able to make a decision on liking based on 2nd hand experience is different (and we do it all the time) than discussing actual experiences and comparing these - which we usually don't. I've seen bungee jumping many times, and I know that I don't want to try it - despite people telling me how great it feels. I can try to imagine how it could feel to me, but I cannot really imagine the experience as a whole and compare this imagined experience with people that actually did it in a meaningful way in discussion. I can also imagine how something tastes when I read a recipe and see it, and decide on whether I'd like to try it. But I don't discuss the experience of eating it if I actually haven't had a bite or even smell.

The thread isn't about the experience though, so I don't really understand this criticism. How is it missing the point of the OP?

 

[aelf]

In your first example you are just projecting your thoughts on how other people come to their opinions. You have no idea what each individuals experience is and you've just made a one-scenario-fits-all idea in your head that makes it easier for you to ignore other people's opinions.

In your "other level" you make the mistake of saying someone could come to the opinion that civ 7 isn't a game. Opinions don't work that way. Civ 7 is a game and is defined as being one. Facts and opinions don't mix.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

You don't know how examples work?

Anyway, whether something is a game or not isn't a simple matter of fact, not unlike what makes a Civ game. But at any rate, we should drop this because judging from your response, this won't be a productive conversation.

 

[kaspergm]

For what it's worth, with me not having played the game myself, I will say that for all my criticism of the game, I do very much perceive it as a Civ game. I just think it's a badly designed Civ game based on some poor design ideas that kills immersion for me. But that does not mean I don't consider it a Civ game.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I've played a dozen hours on PS5 and it's like a Civ game, but an odd Civ game. Few happens without wars, the game is war-focused a lot it seems, whereas when I tried to do them my happiness (or was it influence ?) shrunk big time. By the way i had 8 cities out of 4, maybe that explains that. The "+300 happiness during next celebration" doesn't seem to work. I dislike how you can't see citizens assignations except during one growth, and that you can't change them except by replacing a rural assignation by a district. The old strategic citizens management is gone. The only interesting techs and dogmas are the ones that pluses your city cap limit, and maybe the new units. Most wonders suck. Religion sucks. Treasure fleets suck. Didn't go to modern era yet, but in exploration age I have hard time making "accomplishments". I don't even know how one is supposed to win a game, so what I should be supposed to tend to do. It's pure slump. It's a very bad game.

 

[tman2000]

I've played a dozen hours on PS5 and it's like a Civ game, but an odd Civ game. Few happens without wars, the game is war-focused a lot it seems, whereas when I tried to do them my happiness (or was it influence ?) shrunk big time. By the way i had 8 cities out of 4, maybe that explains that. The "+300 happiness during next celebration" doesn't seem to work. I dislike how you can't see citizens assignations except during one growth, and that you can't change them except by replacing a rural assignation by a district. The old strategic citizens management is gone. The only interesting techs and dogmas are the ones that pluses your city cap limit, and maybe the new units. Most wonders suck. Religion sucks. Treasure fleets suck. Didn't go to modern era yet, but in exploration age I have hard time making "accomplishments". I don't even know how one is supposed to win a game, so what I should be supposed to tend to do. It's pure slump. It's a very bad game.

There really is a lot of suck in the game. It's like I said, they stripped away most features other than superficial chicken bones which they kept in for some reason.

I'm serious that this exact same game, Civ 7, just needs to go ahead and streamline more, and instead become a deck builder where building custom decks of unique policies, buildings, units and so forth is where the gameplay variation comes from.

This game is that streamlined that me saying this is totally reasonable. The game plays as if it's what I just described you're just pre-dealt a couple hands out of a limited deck. Religion, for instance, is so weak and pointless, it's clearly suited as the foundation of a system that's interesting by having RNG cards that boost or twist it in weird ways.

 

[Yzman]

I've played a dozen hours on PS5 and it's like a Civ game, but an odd Civ game. Few happens without wars, the game is war-focused a lot it seems, whereas when I tried to do them my happiness (or was it influence ?) shrunk big time. By the way i had 8 cities out of 4, maybe that explains that. The "+300 happiness during next celebration" doesn't seem to work. I dislike how you can't see citizens assignations except during one growth, and that you can't change them except by replacing a rural assignation by a district. The old strategic citizens management is gone. The only interesting techs and dogmas are the ones that pluses your city cap limit, and maybe the new units. Most wonders suck. Religion sucks. Treasure fleets suck. Didn't go to modern era yet, but in exploration age I have hard time making "accomplishments". I don't even know how one is supposed to win a game, so what I should be supposed to tend to do. It's pure slump. It's a very bad game.

Your complaints seem more about you being new to the game and less about the actual game. You cant figure out what to do? This games gives you milestones and tells you what to do to achieve them. This is way more than the previous games. And you haven't even done a modern era yet and are saying you don't know how to win?

I'm starting to get annoyed with this constant badmouthing of the game with imo no basis. These aren't even useful discussions, just badmouthing.

 

[Yzman]

There really is a lot of suck in the game. It's like I said, they stripped away most features other than superficial chicken bones which they kept in for some reason.

I'm serious that this exact same game, Civ 7, just needs to go ahead and streamline more, and instead become a deck builder where building custom decks of unique policies, buildings, units and so forth is where the gameplay variation comes from.

This game is that streamlined that me saying this is totally reasonable. The game plays as if it's what I just described you're just pre-dealt a couple hands out of a limited deck. Religion, for instance, is so weak and pointless, it's clearly suited as the foundation of a system that's interesting by having RNG cards that boost or twist it in weird ways.

Every post of yours is hating on the game. Are you still playing?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Alls I'm saying is that Super Mario III isn't a real Mario Bros. game. What's this raccoon junk?

 

[sixty4half]

Resident Evil 3 is when the Resident Evil franchise really became RESIDENT EVIL. Everything before that was just set up for the real deal.

 

[pmarc]

Every post of yours is hating on the game. Are you still playing?

I don't think tman played Civ6 either...

One major change in Civ 7 that would restore the feel of Civ would be if you could place improvements anywhere within city radius not just adjacent to already built districts. The pacing, the tactile cadence of engaging near and far as needed with exploitable map resources helped create a sense of slowly encroaching on nature while symbiotically being interwoven with it for all civ games until 7.​

​

It's funny because ever since they switched to hexes (so Civ5 onwards), borders grow only one tile at a time from the first ring, based on the city culture, but you don't get to pick which tile (unless you pay to unlock a tile faster in Civ6). Here they grow one tile at a time but at least the player can be more strategic about it.

 

[sixty4half]

Being pedantic but; your borders can grow up to 3 tiles at a time in civ 7.

 

[tman2000]

Every post of yours is hating on the game. Are you still playing?

No I never even played Nepal.

I saw someone made a mod that lets you keep playing your civ in all ages, but I’m less interested in that than one that smushes the ages together which I want to play out of curiosity.

There’s a cool distant lands mod that I want to try as well, but I’m less enthused until religion is improved. Maybe I’ll make an improved religion mod. Let’s see: steep escalating costs for missionaries, pumped up religion bonuses. Could work. What I really want is land outposts that can exploit tiles and produce wagons that can turn into treasure fleets.

But I am essentially done with Civ 7. The changes it needs to save it within its concept are more radical that what Firaxis has any intention of fixing. I’ll pay attention to expansion news but I’m going to slowly withdraw from the game.

And don’t say I don’t care. I made an entire mod for exploration England.