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

[aelf]

2. rivers are now the center and not the edge of a tile.

Not the first Civ entry to have this.

3. Barbarians are now Crisis Only. no more nationless free roamers with small camps who never learn to build cities.

No different from Civ 6, really. IPs aren't cities, since you can't conquer them and can only disperse them like barb camps in previous entries.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Being able to bumble to a win isn't the same as being able to strategise towards a win. It's definitely a valid concern

 

[aelf]

People have always bumbled to a win in Civ games with low enough difficulty. Now that Deity is more difficult, the complaint that the game is too easy is being addressed.

And what strategising exists in Civ 6 that doesn't in Civ 7? It's not that different.

 

[Lebo44]

To me, the issue isn't that Civ 7 (or Civ 6) differs from earlier versions—it's that the changes has become massive. The 1UPT rule isn't even the biggest shift.

Picture Age of Empires (or any popular RTS) with these additions:

1. Separate civic tree with several different governments to unlock across ages
2. Half of the map to be revealed and playable only after the third Age
3. Building adjacency bonuses
4. No villagers gathering resources
5. Four new victory types, like religion or culture requiring collecting artifacts across the map
6. Switching civilizations every 20 minutes
7. Over 30 resources instead of just Stone, Gold, Food, and Wood
8. Stackable armies/navies led by Generals/Admirals with unique experience trees
9. 50 different civilizations with 20 customizable leaders
10. Minor civs that you can ally or annex spread around the map

Would it still feel like the same game? It might be amazing, sell very well, but the pace and flow would be completely different. Earlier Civs were much simpler games than the latest iterations and, hence, offered different experience.

 

[tman2000]

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

It's a qualitative thing. The presence of yields on everything means that those particular yields have to be very tightly balanced, meaning that buildings and so forth are rather nerfed. This is also why growth was nerfed, though they blinked on that feature.

Modern Age is when these yields really skyrocket and get to the point where I think it would match your description. However, they have to be tightly limited leading into Modern's second half.

 

[tman2000]

but the pace and flow would be completely different. Earlier Civs were much simpler games than the latest iterations and, hence, offered different experience.

I'm starting to think of it like Civ is a game about being alone against nature, surrounded by threats, and how through progress you slowly grow, expand, integrate.

 

[Skojardu]

TLDR Civ 7 may feel off because the age/civ transitions are mandatory and there is little player input other than trying to do everything before everything goes *poof* after a timer.

In the history simulator Greenland by Sierra Madre Games, you play as the Norse, Inuit, or Tunit tribes trying to survive the Little Ice Age.
At the beginning of the game, everyone is pagan and they get points by gaining relics hunting animals (and extirpating them from the board).
Players can CHOOSE to convert to Christianity, where their points from extirpated animals are voided and they are trying to collect ivory and iron.

Similarly, In Civ 7, "evolving" to the next Age/ changing the scoring rules should be the player's prerogative. During the dynasty change, crises should happen and they should be vulnerable (cf Spain after the Habsburgs) but it would introduce good depth to allow players to time when they metamorphose. It would be similar to the turn of anarchy per government change you incur in Civ 4. I think the 1,000 of years skipped between Antiquity and Exploration and the forced transition from Civ A to Civ B make Civ 7 feel aberrant.

 

[Lebo44]

I'm starting to think of it like Civ is a game about being alone against nature, surrounded by threats, and how through progress you slowly grow, expand, integrate.

Yes, I have the same feeling that earlier games had a more survivalist character. It was either me or them. You woke up in the middle of a jungle with one settler and had to act quickly to develop, or else others would get you sooner or later. By the game's end, you felt a thrill of achievement, rising from nothing to conquering space. You made it! You passed the test of time.

The most recent versions introduced a wealth of new features, shifting the focus from mere survival to strategically choosing your path to victory. You start with a single settler on a paradise-like beach, surrounded by coconuts, crabs, and vines, and your first thought is, "What’s my winning strategy? Perhaps I’ll become a religious leader or dive deep into culture to absorb neighboring villages." As you play, you’re constantly showered with rewards—great people bonuses, golden ages, eureka moments, extra resources, and treaure fleets—overwhelming the raw survival instinct with a cascade of opportunities and gigantic yields.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I don't agree with this idea that the game doesn't tell you how to win.

It's peculiarly turned out as a sentence and I want to assure that I do not complain about "the game doesn't tell you how to win" as in there should be a win button somewhere to speak fast. It is the goals that are completely hidden in Antiquity and Exploration age, I can still get 5 tiles with 40+ yields, and I'm sure this will help me to win, but I don't know how exactly. I can get X codex in Antiquity, I'm sure it will help me to win a science victory but I don't know how. See the difference ? Obviously that only counts for someone that never got in Modern era but I'm just feeling that this 10+ hours session is kinda a chore really. That's not engaging, motivating, pleasant in any way. Some people say that the best books/movies/games are the ones that hook you since the start, well I would say Civ7 is not like this. This might have been the case for Civ1 too, but at least you could move around workers and improve stuff, make roads and create new cities without constraint. You had something to do to be taken in this "one more turn" spiral, even if you didn't understand the meta game yet. There... it just feels too dry and you don't feel you have as much control as usual. Boring.

 

[Uberfrog]

To me, the issue isn't that Civ 7 (or Civ 6) differs from earlier versions—it's that the changes has become massive. The 1UPT rule isn't even the biggest shift.

Picture Age of Empires (or any popular RTS) with these additions:

1. Separate civic tree with several different governments to unlock across ages
2. Half of the map to be revealed and playable only after the third Age
3. Building adjacency bonuses
4. No villagers gathering resources
5. Four new victory types, like religion or culture requiring collecting artifacts across the map
6. Switching civilizations every 20 minutes
7. Over 30 resources instead of just Stone, Gold, Food, and Wood
8. Stackable armies/navies led by Generals/Admirals with unique experience trees
9. 50 different civilizations with 20 customizable leaders
10. Minor civs that you can ally or annex spread around the map

Would it still feel like the same game? It might be amazing, sell very well, but the pace and flow would be completely different. Earlier Civs were much simpler games than the latest iterations and, hence, offered different experience.

Age of Empires is a good example, I think, of a series that has retained its character despite some pretty big changes. I know you’re trying to be facetious, but, er… new victory types, minor civs, adjacency bonuses, selectable governors/governments each age and generals with experience are literally all features that have existed in AoE3 and 4.

 

[Siptah]

Age of Empires is a good example, I think, of a series that has retained its character despite some pretty big changes. I know you’re trying to be facetious, but, er… new victory types, minor civs, adjacency bonuses, selectable governors/governments each age and generals with experience are literally all features that have existed in AoE3 and 4.

You can add adjacency bonuses and automatically gathered resources to the list of features in AoE games that actually exist (at least for some civs). And doesn‘t AoE3 allow civ switching of some sort through revolutions?

 

[Uberfrog]

You can add adjacency bonuses and automatically gathered resources to the list of features in AoE games that actually exist (at least for some civs). And doesn‘t AoE3 allow civ switching of some sort through revolutions?

Yeah, you’re quite right!

 

[chazzycat]

Honestly Firaxis could take some inspiration from Microsoft here and re-release the older civ games with updated graphics. AoE 2 definitive edition is amazing.

 

[Lebo44]

Age of Empires is a good example, I think, of a series that has retained its character despite some pretty big changes. I know you’re trying to be facetious, but, er… new victory types, minor civs, adjacency bonuses, selectable governors/governments each age and generals with experience are literally all features that have existed in AoE3 and 4.

Yeah, and AOE2 being still more popular than AOE3 and AOE4 combined... Similar case to Civ.

 

[Shirotora Kenshin]

Had my 3rd game of Civ7 and for the first time i actually had a little bit of fun - but i‘ll keep it short: Civ7 and me, we‘ll not become friends, definitely not.

The game does a bit feel like Civ to me, but changes are massive, and those changes push Civ into a direction i don‘t like. Civ-switching, Confucius can lead Rome and BS like that. You know, i even used the Civ-specific Wonders mod in Civ6, where it was not possible that Japan could build the Pyramids etc.
Only Egypt could build Pyramids there, only Greece could build the Oracle there, it was perfect. Now Catherine from Russia leads Rome etc. too much for me.

I think while Civ never was a history simulation, it should keep certain aspects of history.

Eheheh, it‘s actually so obvious that those changes can‘t work for me, that i‘m surprised i had to give 7 a chance…

Back to the topic: It feels a bit like Civ, but then not enough anymore, for me to stay with 7.

Fxs, please do the unthinkable, and remove these changes, as this would be the only way to save Civ7. I‘m sure, this will not happen.

Now i continue to enjoy Old World, and hope there will be a Civ8, and i mean a much better Civ 8 than Civ7 was / is.

Cheers all.

 

[Uberfrog]

Yeah, and AOE2 being still more popular than AOE3 and AOE4 combined... Similar case to Civ.

Not really. AoE 2 DE is obviously the most popular, but it’s still being actively developed. But my point isn’t that people don’t prefer older games, it’s that all the games are Age of Empires games.

 

[stealth_nsk]

AoE2 DE is much more than just graphics update. It has a lot of new content and a lot of UI improvements. For RTS games, UI is critical, as you need to operate quickly. I could totally imagine players accustomed to modern games being unable to play older ones without such improvements. Those things don't apply to turn-based games, at least not in the same scale.

 

[Sync]

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

It was unstated because it was not intended. I have no desire to class my opinion as superior to anyone else’s.

All video game companies aim towards the younger audience, they are the future. I’ve been trying to surmise why I haven’t liked any civ since 4 and this is the best that I’ve come up with. There’s no reason for anyone to be affronted by my musings.

 

[Nikolai II]

I have played Civ since the 90s and love playing 7 fwiw. Not all old timers are rejecting the game.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I have played Civ since the 90s and love playing 7 fwiw. Not all old timers are rejecting the game.

Me too, I've played since the beginning and I think VII is the best version since IV.