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

[BackseatTyrant]

Ultimately, I think there is just a massive dissonance between what FXS has intended the game series to be, and what the average civ player sees the series as. The players view Civilization 1-6 first and foremost as nation-building games, to the point where some game critics have called the series "an ode to nationalism", whereas the developers treated them more as role-playing games.

In other words, you never played as France or India or America. You have always played as Napoleon and Gandhi and Lincoln.

Personally, the reason I haven't bothered with Civ7 (yet) is because, besides not having a machine that can actually run the game, FXS has deliberately chosen to not only ignore one of my main complaints with the franchise as a whole, but in fact doubled down on it hard. Namely, the myth that history has already ended and that it will not matter in humanity's future.

 

[Civinator]

The players view Civilization 1-6 first and foremost as nation-building games.

In other words, you never played as France or India or America. You have always played as Napoleon and Gandhi and Lincoln.

I never played as one of these leaders and did not want to identify with a mostly bloody mass-murderer - and with the CCM mods in Civ 3 I always had at least 4 era-specific leaders for a civ in the game.

BackseatTyrant, in my eyes this is a very good analysis of a big part of the problems for many civers with Civ 7. So Civ 7 offers some leaders that are no mass-murderers, this is no solution of this conflict.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

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.

The intro video has units made of sand that just ...return to sand?
It gives the impression that nothing lasts forever...
but the final straw for me was when the Horse rider inherited a sword and then 'traded' that in...
That felt to me like Luke and Rye when Luke thrown off a cliff the lightsaber moment...

I truly don't have other words to better explain my feelings right there...
It's like... forget your traditions... the past... everything...
I'd better stop here... I've been asking for actual Crusaders units and NOT deck cards since the ages and what we got?
MORE deck cards...

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I think we can explain this by saying that the design philosophy of Civ 7 was to make access to yields very tight.

I think that's the exact opposite of the game's philosophy, yields and adjacencies are through the roof!

Firaxis's excuse is they don't want us to know the full system because then we'd just play around it

I totally agree with Firaxis here, it's probably a vain hope on CFC but I would prefer people just to play the game rather than optimise the fun out of it

 

[Lazy sweeper]

in Civ III everyone cold build the temple of Zeus or the Crusader shrine -thing-

That formula provided unique units to everyone.
Civ V gave unique units by suzerain of city states. Broken but still nice.

That initial wonder-unique units spawn x 5 turns instead was magic to me.
It should have been expanded with MORE unique wonders for each civ as an example.


Romans could build the temple of Jupiter and get the OP Legionaires, otherwise scrappy Legionaires.
Persia some Zoroasthrian fire shrine and get the OP Immortal guards, otherwise standard Immortals...
Moghuls a Ganesh elephant temple and get OP War Elephant... and so on...

Unique units were a godsent for un-balanced mayhem!

 

[Lazy sweeper]

The players view Civilization 1-6 first and foremost as nation-building games, to the point where some game critics have called the series "an ode to nationalism", whereas the developers treated them more as role-playing games.

Nation-building???

The only thing that ever mattered has always been conquer, mighty battles of epic proportions, scrambling to find and secure the most remote places and resources, guarding them to death...

The focus in Civ III was on the PEOPLE. Never was the Nation. The Roman People, The Mongol People etc. Not even the Leader. Just the people.
The Nation was introduced as a concept in the Industrial Age with the transition from Empires to "Nations".
The Roman People Republic. The Senate of the Roman People.

Nations-Nationalism was a choice, always has been.
A mostly inevitable choice by modern Age, that's why probably some game critics called it an ode to nationalism... and the fact you could
choose Stalin as a Leader for Russia... but that is just a drop in the Ocean compared to what the early game offered...
Workers-city populations also could rebel and join resistance militias, that was introduced in (II) IV, and continued in V.
Slaves also revolted in Antiquity-Classical age and it had nothing to do with the concept of "nations".

Now, in VII, if the last Age transition was portrayed something like the French-American revolution, and transition from Empires, kingdoms to
Nations... that would be historically accurate in a way... but is it the case?

devs treated them as Role-playing games is NOW true, but not before.
Devs treated it like a Simulation game perhaps.
One that reflected the History of the world, with zero role-playing.
Except you could name a victorious Elite unit by your liking, and rename your cities.
We had no business-scope outside raw struggle for exploration, building roads, securing routes, and kill whoever stepped on our toes...

 

[Lazy sweeper]

What I really want is land outposts that can exploit tiles and produce wagons that can turn into treasure fleets.

Are you trying to say exploration, roads and trades building, and guarding securing distant resources is under-represented in C7?

I remember in V there was mods about workers that could secure resources outside your borders, but had maintaining costs of absurd proportions.
Maybe something similar can be done in 7?

 

[lymond]

Moderator Action: Attacking each other will stop now. Argue the points but do not attack/insult other members. If this continues, thread bans and/or thread closure will be forthcoming.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Your complaints seem more about you being new to the game and less about the actual game.

That's the same thing. If in more than 10 hours of playing I still feel like a weird animal in front of my TV, then there's something wrong.

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.

But what are the ultimate goals ? At least in previous Civs there was a win conditions screen that was clearly saying what to do.

And you haven't even done a modern era yet and are saying you don't know how to win?

That's the idea yes...

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.

Well if you can't make up for an interesting discussion from I say you better not write an answer. Personally I have no clue how a discussion engages, or I forgot it long ago, but there will always be different bell rings for the same thing. It's not because you love the game that everyone should also, or should shut up. The basis for my "badmouthing" is my player experience, like for example the game seems heavily focused on wars, as without them the game is not interesting IMO. And also I'm hitting the explo era crises and only brought 4 treasure fleets on what ? 20 ? 30 ? That's underwhelming and very disappointing. On what basis those spawn ? Can you build them (seems not) ? How many coastal cities should I possess in the distant lands to achieve the ultimate goal ? And as I am browsing those forums, I see there is a lot of questions like this unanswered. The game is out for more than 2 months and the community is still learning things that should be obvious.

 

[Yzman]

That's the same thing. If in more than 10 hours of playing I still feel like a weird animal in front of my TV, then there's something wrong.

But what are the ultimate goals ? At least in previous Civs there was a win conditions screen that was clearly saying what to do.

That's the idea yes...

Well if you can't make up for an interesting discussion from I say you better not write an answer. Personally I have no clue how a discussion engages, or I forgot it long ago, but there will always be different bell rings for the same thing. It's not because you love the game that everyone should also, or should shut up. The basis for my "badmouthing" is my player experience, like for example the game seems heavily focused on wars, as without them the game is not interesting IMO. And also I'm hitting the explo era crises and only brought 4 treasure fleets on what ? 20 ? 30 ? That's underwhelming and very disappointing. On what basis those spawn ? Can you build them (seems not) ? How many coastal cities should I possess in the distant lands to achieve the ultimate goal ? And as I am browsing those forums, I see there is a lot of questions like this unanswered. The game is out for more than 2 months and the community is still learning things that should be obvious.

My point was you say you don't know how to win the game...but you win the game in modern era. It will tell you exactly how to win any of 4 different goals. So it seems premature to be saying the game doesn't tell you how to win...when you haven't gotten to the era where you are supposed to win yet?

I promise you, play modern era for 1 turn and you will know exactly the win requirements. It will even provide a roadmap with goals along the way.

 

[Naokaukodem]

And my point is that you do not know how to play before modern era, which is slightly embarrassing. But well, fair enough, I'm hitting the explo era crises anyway, I'll see it by myself, thanks for the insight.

 

[Yzman]

And my point is that you do not know how to play before modern era, which is slightly embarrassing. But well, fair enough, I'm hitting the explo era crises anyway, I'll see it by myself, thanks for the insight.

I strongly disagree. The game gives you the same...4 objectives each era that will set you up for success in the future eras. This is more than any civ game has done in the past.

For example, you are focusing on science? Great, do the science paths and get those golden ages. They help you with science in the next age. Maybe you are doing military...great! Get those legacy paths and have more troops and other benefits that will help you win the next era with that method!

Are you playing with the legacy paths turned on so you can see objectives? I don't see how otherwise you wouldn't see what to do each era. Just wondering if maybe you didn't do the tutorial and didn't know you check the boxes of what you are interested in achieving and it kinda guides you the whole way each era.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Well there's no to agree or disagree here, the 4 objectives do not say you how to win any victory, whereas in previous Civs the goals were there turn 1.

 

[Yzman]

Well there's no to agree or disagree here, the 4 objectives do not say you how to win any victory, whereas in previous Civs the goals were there turn 1.

They are objectives to "win" the era that will help you in future eras. In the modern era, where you win the game, they tell you how to win.

None of the previous are required, they just help.

Maybe we play very different types of games, but I struggle to think of any game that tells me right at the beginning "this is how you win!"

Normally you play through the game and complete objectives as they are presented to you, no?

 

[Naokaukodem]

Maybe we play very different types of games, but I struggle to think of any game that tells me right at the beginning "this is how you win!"

In Super Mario Bros. the goal is clear : arriving at the very right of the levels, until the last one. And it has been like that since then with many other games. (in Street Fighter you win fights until the last one)

 

[Yzman]

In Super Mario Bros. the goal is clear : arriving at the very right of the levels, until the last one. And it has been like that since then with many other games. (in Street Fighter you win fights until the last one)

Yes and this game has clear objectives for each era as well. It literally gets down to "build a siege weapon" etc.

We will have to agree to disagree. This game almost painstakingly tells you how to proceed. Compare that to many other games and this game appears to practically guide you through the whole thing.

Complete objectives as the game gives them to you. I am not sure what else it can do. I am not sure how "Build operation ivy" being told to you in ancient era helps you complete the game. Hint: it doesn't.

I will even say that the common complain I read is that this game doesn't give you enough freedom, it tells you what to do too much. You are definitely the first person I have read here that thinks you aren't being told what to do enough.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Yes and this game has clear objectives for each era as well. It literally gets down to "build a siege weapon" etc.

We will have to agree to disagree. This game almost painstakingly tells you how to proceed. Compare that to many other games and this game appears to practically guide you through the whole thing.

Complete objectives as the game gives them to you. I am not sure what else it can do. I am not sure how "Build operation ivy" being told to you in ancient era helps you complete the game. Hint: it doesn't.

I will even say that the common complain I read is that this game doesn't give you enough freedom, it tells you what to do too much. You are definitely the first person I have read here that thinks you aren't being told what to do enough.

I don't think you're being quite fair here. Lots of people are indeed saying "this is more on the rails and guided than previous civs", feeling constrained and less sandboxey.

That can be true at the same time as feeling like the game doesn't give you enough information about what you're aiming for so that you can strategise

Both complaints as I read them are effectively "my actions don't have meaning because I don't have enough choice or information to make an informed choice - I'm just clicking buttons".

 

[tman2000]

Yes and this game has clear objectives for each era as well. It literally gets down to "build a siege weapon" etc.

It seems your are objectively right, but I wonder if the original complaint, benign related to game feel, is difficult to express.

In Civ VI I can start in the Stone Age and see that I’ll need “tourism” to win a cultural victory. What help is that?

However, there is a sense of teleological progress, where everything is building to one grand end. From the discovery of the wheel, the compass to Shakespeare and the siege cannon.

Civ VII does feel like repeat online mini matches with narrow repetitive objectives. I don’t think there is no sense of progress and growth and I personally think the concept of civ switching and evolution is an expression of growth. Still.

It makes sense why civ and age switching is seen as destructive of the game feel of this slow, grand historical teleology that really was an essential feel of the franchise going back even to 1.

I think Civ VII could have kept that feel if ages didn’t just end and restart but instead there was an ebb and flow to crisis, age transition was seemless, and civ switching was optional even if somewhat necessary to keep up with abilities and yields. There’s a lot more they could have done with crisis like a revolution that might split your empire (Britain and America).

Anyway, the reason 7 didn’t implement a stronger age and crisis system is that it’s design for that snappy balanced competitive play, not for grand empire building. And, IMO something about the development process was flawed and under resourced.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Why?
First and foremost. many classic attributes unique to Civ games are gone, while other features are simply copied from competitor
1. Intermission civ switching. and this is mandatory. This one comes from Humankind (and many are basic carbon copy, such as Mexicans and Siamese)
2. VERY similiar maps with rivers are now the center and not the edge of a tile.
3. Barbarians are now Crisis Only. no more nationless free roamers with small camps who never learn to build cities. Everyone can be freind with no matter how aggressive they are. This features not only an extension of Tribe systems in Civ6 (later patches). But also loaned from Humankind.
4. Certain units previously not available in previous Civ games as generic choice existed in Humankind, also ported here (Cog and Carrack, for example, while carrack was previously Portuguese UU (replacing a generic caravel. in Humankind, Carrack is a generic warship and unlocked with naval guns technology), ).

 

[Yzman]

It seems your are objectively right, but I wonder if the original complaint, benign related to game feel, is difficult to express.

In Civ VI I can start in the Stone Age and see that I’ll need “tourism” to win a cultural victory. What help is that?

However, there is a sense of teleological progress, where everything is building to one grand end. From the discovery of the wheel, the compass to Shakespeare and the siege cannon.

Civ VII does feel like repeat online mini matches with narrow repetitive objectives. I don’t think there is no sense of progress and growth and I personally think the concept of civ switching and evolution is an expression of growth. Still.

It makes sense why civ and age switching is seen as destructive of the game feel of this slow, grand historical teleology that really was an essential feel of the franchise going back even to 1.

I think Civ VII could have kept that feel if ages didn’t just end and restart but instead there was an ebb and flow to crisis, age transition was seemless, and civ switching was optional even if somewhat necessary to keep up with abilities and yields. There’s a lot more they could have done with crisis like a revolution that might split your empire (Britain and America).

Anyway, the reason 7 didn’t implement a stronger age and crisis system is that it’s design for that snappy balanced competitive play, not for grand empire building. And, IMO something about the development process was flawed and under resourced.

I would agree that the ages ended and presumely resetting "progress" doesn't feel quite right. I brought up in another topic how I thought this could be remedied with smoother transitions (or no transition at all) and civs having opportunity but not required to switch to another civ. This seems like something for a future game or expansion.

I also agree that the game doesn't provide enough key information at parts. I don't agree with this idea that the game doesn't tell you how to win. If anything, people bumble about and still win. I don't think not knowing how to win when the game clearly acts like 3 different games and gives you goals in each era is a valid concern. There are many concerns, this doesn't seem like one to me.