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

[nakzox]

For me it's the look more than anything else (I will admit that I have not played the game). The map looks too busy and there is so much crap on the screen and it looks hard to do distinguish tiles. The big thing for me though is the all-black fog of war on tiles yet to be explored. I thought Civ V handled this perfectly and I got used to it in Civ VI eventually, but I cannot do so in VII.

 

[MutilationWave]

For me it's the look more than anything else (I will admit that I have not played the game). The map looks too busy and there is so much crap on the screen and it looks hard to do distinguish tiles. The big thing for me though is the all-black fog of war on tiles yet to be explored. I thought Civ V handled this perfectly and I got used to it in Civ VI eventually, but I cannot do so in VII.

Once you play it you'll have much bigger complaints than the way the map and fog tiles look, I promise. Not to be too negative, I love the game. Bad AI is preventing it from being great.

 

[Haig]

It's so frustrating.
Many features of the game are great and it looks and sounds beautiful.

But for me the civ switch and leaders leading any civ, is such a critical damage that I cant see myself playing the game in current state.

Even if all nations would have a civ for each age, like India and China, it would still be wrong for me.

It is hard to describe, but I think I dont even need uniques for each era. Leader and civ abilities are the core, building a winged lancer or an u-boat is fun like a reward.

 

[kaspergm]

It's so frustrating.
Many features of the game are great and it looks and sounds beautiful.

But for me the civ switch and leaders leading any civ, is such a critical damage that I cant see myself playing the game in current state.

Even if all nations would have a civ for each age, like India and China, it would still be wrong for me.

It is hard to describe, but I think I dont even need uniques for each era. Leader and civ abilities are the core, building a winged lancer or an u-boat is fun like a reward.

I know it's not a new video, but I think this video has some excellent points on many of the things you address here - specifically about the last part and why it's not necessarily more fun to have each civ have uniques in all eras (I think it's in the part called 4x vs. RPG, from 18 minutes onwards).

 

[disjointaccount]

I find that the concept of "Does [series entry]/[game update] feel like [game]?" is a very nebulous and subjective thing pretty much wherever it comes up. Which is not to say those who think VII doesn't feel like Civ are wrong, just that what "feels like Civ" means is different for everyone. Minecraft has had players decrying new additions as not feeling like Minecraft for every update since it was in beta.

Objectively, Civ is whatever the developers put into a Civ game, so everything in VII is Civ. If a new game/feature/whatever feels like too much of a departure from what defined the series for you personally, then yeah, it's reasonable to say it doesn't feel like Civ for you. But "It doesn't feel like Civ" is a fairly vague statement that could mean something different to everyone who reads it. It's such a subjective thing because everyone conceptualises the core identity of the series differently in their own head that I don't think it's a very useful lens through which to frame objective critique of the game (which yes, does have objective flaws that need addressing).

 

[Duncan9999]

As someone who bought the Founders edition, played it for an hour and walked away with the "Its not Civ" feeling I sat down with it again at the weekend and now can't stop playing.

Yes, I still find the transitions jarring but found once I spent a couple of hours getting used to it (mainly by googling every mechanic etc) it all slotted into place. Where I do find it being "Civ" most is in the modern age as I am pretty much playing it as I would Civ 5 or 6.

 

[NowhereMan80]

18 pages for something that's REALLY not hard to figure out.

It may be Civilization, but it's sure as hell not "Sid Meier's Civilization".

 

[user746383]

It's the first civ I ever played with a "one less turn" feeling where I regret not having played something else during my limited gaming time. Hopefully they can spice it up in some way for players like me.

 

[UWHabs]

As someone who bought the Founders edition, played it for an hour and walked away with the "Its not Civ" feeling I sat down with it again at the weekend and now can't stop playing.

Yes, I still find the transitions jarring but found once I spent a couple of hours getting used to it (mainly by googling every mechanic etc) it all slotted into place. Where I do find it being "Civ" most is in the modern age as I am pretty much playing it as I would Civ 5 or 6.

The age transitions definitely need some work. Maybe just because I went Mughal in my game so all my yields get a penalty, but it's such a jarring gap. I went from all my cities being able to build anything they want in only a few turns, growing regularly, to my former capital listed as needing 22 turns to build a grocer. I think cutting back a little to scale to the new era makes sense, but that was definitely a demoralizing transition.

 

[Siptah]

The age transitions definitely need some work. Maybe just because I went Mughal in my game so all my yields get a penalty, but it's such a jarring gap. I went from all my cities being able to build anything they want in only a few turns, growing regularly, to my former capital listed as needing 22 turns to build a grocer. I think cutting back a little to scale to the new era makes sense, but that was definitely a demoralizing transition.

Aren’t the resource changes and lack of slots at the beginning of modern one of the key factors for that (aside from obsolete buildings)? I wish this would be less harsh and you keep an extra slot per settlement in modern. They could require more points for the economic victory in return.

 

[ferenginar]

I have played 340 hours so far and broadly speaking I am enjoying the game, however there are aspects that I am not happy with. All opinion, you may disagree.
1) Crises - utter disaster, I turn them off every game, bit off a pain that they won't stay turned off though.
2) Civilization swapping, and odd leader / civ combinations. All very odd, doesn't make any sense to change from the traditional leader civ combo that stood the test of time. Now we have build something you believe in, but we're going to whip the rug from under your feet twice during the game.
3) Age transition, back to a level playing field. It doesn't matter if you units were level 1, 2, or 3, they will all be level one at the start of the next age. Any lead you bult up will be gone, why bother upgrading units any more than necessary.
4) Graphics overkill, once you cities are developed they take up the map, good luck spotting and railroads once the stations are built.
5) Ally at war, "do you want to be my ally" yes for free, but no is going to cost you, so say yes. Next turn your ally is at war, do you want to support them. No, you don't want to go to war, therefore no longer an ally. Repeat ad infinitum.
6) Religion, just as annoying as before. I don't mind the basics of choosing a religion, and some bonuses that it can provide, but the annoying stream of AI missionaries, constantly converting you cites, leaves the exploration age as little more than a building missionaries age.
7) Feels like there should be 7, so I will finish with, the AI doesn't know when to give up. Current game to leaders keep attacking me, so far this has cost the 7 cities, 2 captured, 5 relinquished in peace deals, in three separate 2 against 1 wars, and still in the exploration age. This highlights the need to see the map, to find out where the city they are offering actually lies, and whether you want it or not, and which other city to ask for instead.

 

[UWHabs]

I actually like the ally system in 7. Before allying with anyone, I make sure to check their relations with other leaders, just to see if they might force me into a war I don't want. Especially once you get those attribute bonuses for being in alliances, there's some good benefits, that really make me consider some cost-benefit to joining in those wars.

I do think civs are way too willing to give up good cities in peace deals. It seems like once they're willing to give up anything, you can get like a fully developed former capital back in peace. I mean, sure, give away those fringe cities on the edge of their empires. But nobody should give up one of their core 2-3 cities for peace. A civ should rather just be run over completely before giving up those top cities.

 

[MutilationWave]

You can complete the legacy path for culture in exploration quickly and then just never bother with religion again. It's what I do every game now. In fact during the happiness crisis it can be to your advantage to have your cities following a different religion, so you don't even have to bother converting them.

Sure there are some good policy bonuses for having your cities following your religion but they're at the end of the age, not worth it to me.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Civ7 Religion is clearly different from previous games. I would argue that the franchise has used several versions of "religion" as a game mechanic.
Civ3 had religion buildings (Temple, Cathedral) but no actual faith yield or active spread. Those buildings were really culture buildings.
Civ4 had discrete religions that could be founded by the first civ to research a certain tech. Religions spread both actively (thru missionaries) and passively (pressure from nearby cities). No religion had a direct benefit / belief, though your diplomatic relationships were heaviliy influenced by which religion you chose to adopt and/or spread.
Civ5 and Civ6 allowed indivdual religions and beliefs, with buffs or perks. The multi-religious approach (or even no religion) from Civ4 was abandoned for a king-of-the-pulpit, competitive game mechanic. Civ6 even defined a Religion VC.

Both Civ5 and Civ6 changed how religion worked between vanilla (launch) and the final state of the game. In all three of Civ4/Civ5/Civ6, the religion mechanic is relevant for the whole game. I expect the mechanics and VC to change as Civ7 matures.

 

[Duncan9999]

The age transitions definitely need some work. Maybe just because I went Mughal in my game so all my yields get a penalty, but it's such a jarring gap. I went from all my cities being able to build anything they want in only a few turns, growing regularly, to my former capital listed as needing 22 turns to build a grocer. I think cutting back a little to scale to the new era makes sense, but that was definitely a demoralizing transition.

Agree, especially when you're in the middle of something like conquering and it just resets.

Am finding if I play longer modes it feels a bit better in that I'm not racing the clock so much and can play my way.

 

[McSpank01]

One thing that occurred to me as I failed to motivate myself to get through an exploration age AGAIN, was that one of the main things I loved about previous games was the sense of freedom and potential within each game I played. There were rules for sure, but the game was kind of a sandbox, the scope was large.

I never knew how a game would go after the first turn. Anything could really happen and no two games were identical. That is why I kept coming back.
I could take a tiny settler and create an enormous empire, and that empire could be constructed in any number of ways, it would be unique and I was given freedom to be creative with how I did that and how I wanted to shape my civilisation.

I don't feel any of that in this new game.

Instead, each game feels very much like the last, and the one before that and the one before that. There is very little difference between any game I play, none of the civilisations feel like they play in a unique way, instead it's just a buff here or there. There is no advantage to crafting your civ in any one direction, making it specialise, I can just make a general civ that is a bit faceless and it will be just as good and I can win all the legacy points with ease.

The game also seems to go out of it's way to reduce the amount of possibilities in the game. Crisis Mode and Transitions just narrow the scope of what can possibly happen in your games. Each age transition feels exactly the same as the last time you played one. If I transition to the exploration age, I know I suddenly have to make a crude choice about whether to go naval or not immediately, or go religion. All the possibilities decisions and freedom I might have made in the mid game of Civ 6 are pretty much gone, as I'm just laying out the same exact moves each time (research a new tech, decide which towns are cities, send a naval unit off in a direct to go explore.. etc etc). I can't describe how tedious this is.

I feel like the devs have spent so much time focused on how to fix supposed weaknesses in previous Civ games, and have completely missed why a lot of people play the game in the first place. I also suspect they wanted to encourage more multiplayer, which is more do-able in short ages (seriously, does anyone actually do a non antiquity start!? what is the point?)

The other point is that the victory conditions / legacy points are another area where you are being railroaded down very narrow paths as you play. Rather than play in a way that you think aligns to your overall strategy and the civ you are creating, you need to hit a series of predetermined milestones. Another reason why each game feels the same. It feels so bad when I force myself to build another wonder, just to get some culture points. That doesn't feel natural.

So yeah, I think the game just feels like it's on rails so much, with so little scope to just play around and be creative, that I get the sentiment that it's not a civ game.

 

[Yzman]

I think it feels plenty like a Civ game, it just isn't good. Never really understood this obsession with declaring that X thing is not actually X thing because you dislike it. This is a Civ game, it has all the things that make it a Civ game, but simply isn't a well-made Civ game.

I agree. It's similar to someone saying a band has sold out and isn't true to themselves anymore. They are still them, you just don't like their new stuff and that is okay.

 

[aelf]

One thing that occurred to me as I failed to motivate myself to get through an exploration age AGAIN, was that one of the main things I loved about previous games was the sense of freedom and potential within each game I played. There were rules for sure, but the game was kind of a sandbox, the scope was large.

I never knew how a game would go after the first turn. Anything could really happen and no two games were identical. That is why I kept coming back.
I could take a tiny settler and create an enormous empire, and that empire could be constructed in any number of ways, it would be unique and I was given freedom to be creative with how I did that and how I wanted to shape my civilisation.

I don't feel any of that in this new game.

I find no difference between Civ 6 and Civ 7 in this regard, at least on Immortal and Deity. I did the same few things in every Civ 6 game too unless I had no interest in winning or at least in trying to win before a certain (high) number of turns, which also applies in Civ 7.

From a game mechanics perspective, beyond map generation (with less extreme possible starts in 7), I don't see how games in Civ 7 would be any more similar to each other than in Civ 6. Maybe there's something to be said about the age transitions making games feel more similar because a civ can't fall behind too much since each age transition brings everyone up to the same tech and civic level. But without that, the extra variation you get is how much further ahead or behind other civs you are by certain points in each game, which doesn't sound like it's a very fun differentiation to me.

 

[McSpank01]

I find no difference between Civ 6 and Civ 7 in this regard, at least on Immortal and Deity. I did the same few things in every Civ 6 game too unless I had no interest in winning or at least in trying to win before a certain (high) number of turns, which also applies in Civ 7.

From a game mechanics perspective, beyond map generation (with less extreme possible starts in 7), I don't see how games in Civ 7 would be any more similar to each other than in Civ 6. Maybe there's something to be said about the age transitions making games feel more similar because a civ can't fall behind too much since each age transition brings everyone up to the same tech and civic level. But without that, the extra variation you get is how much further ahead or behind other civs you are by certain points in each game, which doesn't sound like it's a very fun differentiation to me.

Well yes, that is probably one of the main reasons why I never play on Immortal or Deity. I've no doubt the game can feel overly familiar if the goal is the min/max and optimise your gameplay in order to outcheese the AI's advantages. That has never really appealed to me however.

 

[trev1972]

One area I hoped they would innovate in civ7 was the AI.

I hoped the AI would give natural feeling responses. I even hoped I would be able to type my own replies instead of picking scripted responses. I wanted them to make an effort to make it feel as if I was interacting with an actual leader.

Obviously, improved AI did not happen. They went all out for... something else.