Goodbye Civ, and thanks for the memories

[Park Hyun]

I’ve been such a long-time and hardcore player, it felt wrong to stop playing Civ without leaving a note for the devs. They worked really hard on Civ VII and obviously wanted it to be a hit. It’s not, for me at least. I didn’t make it through one game.

Everybody had their lists of things they want improved, or want added, or wish was different, and we don’t all get our own bespoke Civ game (unless we’re Sukritract, I suppose). To be very clear, what I’m trying to do here is give personal feedback, and not make any demands or throw any fits. If you like Civ VII, that’s awesome. Me? Unfortunately, I hate it.

I hate Civ switching. It’s bizarre. I tried to explain this in another thread and got shouted down (“Spain IS a successor to Rome,” they said; funny, I thought Rome was a successor to Rome). I hate the emphasis on leaders. I hate the start-over at each age.

Maybe I’m too niche of a Civ player. My go-to game was massive Earth true-start location on Epic pacing, ideally with an AI teammate who would make side deals when I’m at war (I found that doing two-player teams solved the problem of never-ending wars). I had some truly astounding games on V and VII using this setup. This is probably a very unusual way to play Civ, and the devs need to go where the most players are. Where they went with VII essentially makes this setup impossible.

Maybe I’ve moved on as a gamer. Like a lot of Civ players, I’m old. I work a job where I can keep a game going on the side - do a move here, tweak a thing there - and go back to emailing. Farthest Frontier is a lot of fun. Anno 1800 was fantastic. Cities: Skylines engrossed me. Good old-fashioned chess is nice, too. But I think I’m going to set aside Civ this point.

Firaxis, you were a good friend. You listened to fans and made (usually) smart changes. You have to survive as a business, and you have to try new things. The new thing here, sadly, is just not for me. Take care.

 

[Civinator]

Maybe I’m too niche of a Civ player.

No, you are not. May be the other players who are loving every feature in Civ 7 are the real niche players ?

Edit: But the question stays, why are you saying good bye to Civ and are not playing any longer an older game of the Civ series, that you like ?

 

[user746383]

Take care! I've more or less done the same, people get really mad if you don't love the game. Paradox games are really fun and scratch the same "one more turn" itch for me, and I also enjoy the community quite a lot. It's neither toxically positive nor negative, people are encouraged to debate what's wrong and how to fix it and the devs even participate in those discussions. It has been a breath of fresh air participating while playing the new Stellaris expansion, and it hasn't really made me want to fire up civ7 at all.

 

[Siptah]

I know hot this feels. I‘ve been at this point where I thought I’d leave beloved franchises behind for good. For example, with civ 6, with settlers 5, Caesar 4, and when Anno decided to be set in the future.

The good news is that it may not be permanent! For myself, I got back into civ with 7 and into Anno with 1800. Maybe you will be just as lucky with civ 8? And yeah, in the meantime, there‘s more great games than time anyway ;-)

 

[sixty4half]

Take care! I've more or less done the same, people get really mad if you don't love the game.

It's not that we are mad that you dont love the game. I could care less what games you like to play.

The extreme reactions come when day-in and day-out we see suggestion after suggestion to remove the features we are enjoying. Im all for advocating for a "Classic Mode" and I believe it should and will eventually be in the game. Just as those that think these features are bad and that their voice should be heard, there are those of us that like the features and feel our voices, if not heard, will end up losing features we enjoy.

No, you are not. May be the other players who are loving every feature in Civ 7 are the real niche players ?

I've played every Civ since the first and both Colonization games.... I dont think that's the definition of a niche player. I would hesitate to describe anyone that comes to a fan service website like civfanatics a niche player.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Understand completely.

With a little over 400 hours in Civ VII, I am finding it very hard to keep any interest in it. By comparison, I had over 7000 hours in Civ VI and 4000 hours in Civ V.

Civ VII seems to me to have carried over many of the same mistakes in unit lists and designations and combat and Civ characteristics from Civ VI while removing many of the player decisions that could keep the game interesting past a few plays.

Luckily, as others have noted, there are alternatives readily available or on the way later this year: Anno 1800 is a fantastic game, and has a new massive Mod just released for it (as big as most 'professional' DLCs!), Anno 117 (the 'Roman' Anno) is due out later this year, along with Farthest Frontier: semi-historical trade, economic, city-builders enough to keep us busy, I think.

 

[user746383]

The extreme reactions come when day-in and day-out we see suggestion after suggestion to remove the features we are enjoying.

I (personally) enjoy hearing all kinds of different opinions and really only get annoyed when one side or the other tries to shut the people who they disagree with up through ridicule, claims they are ruining everything by having the wrong opinions, reality distortion fields, etc. Debate is fun, histrionics less so.

 

[sixty4half]

I (personally) enjoy hearing all kinds of different opinions and really only get annoyed when one side or the other tries to shut the people who they disagree with up through ridicule, claims they are ruining everything by having the wrong opinions, reality distortion fields, etc. Debate is fun, histrionics less so.

But how much is there to debate when one side wants everything that makes Civ 7 unique removed?

What are we left with? A poor religious system. A bad system of growing out the city when overbuilding is removed (would my city even have room for Universities and Museums by the time i get to them?). Limited choices once leaders are locked to a civ. Limited choices when civs are locked into historical progression.

I just don't see how changing the game to the old system works with everything that is intertwined with the Ages system.

 

[user746383]

Maybe debate is the wrong word for it, I just enjoy hearing how different people enjoy the game and what their opinions are on ways to have fun.

 

[KayAU]

Sometimes a game is just not for you, and that's completely fair. I eventually gave up on 6 and went back to 5 with Vox Populi. Right now, I am mostly playing Ara: History Untold, which is the one I am currently most excited about. But I haven't "left" the Civ series, not yet anyway. I am waiting for a better deal on 7, and hope to buy it when the game is more fairly priced, and more fully developed. I try to keep an open mind about the design changes.I think it is generally good to try something different, although it remains to be seen if I will like the changes or not.

 

[Vandlys]

Maybe I’m too niche of a Civ player. My go-to game was massive Earth true-start location on Epic pacing, ideally with an AI teammate who would make side deals when I’m at war (I found that doing two-player teams solved the problem of never-ending wars).

No, you are not. May be the other players who are loving every feature in Civ 7 are the real niche players ?

Sorry, I don't want to argue against any opinion you made because it's all valid, but the thing about the niche player... Yes, absolutely you are. And I think the decisive statement by @Civinator that you are not is ludicrous.

You said you play on Massive Earth TSL, which MUST be a mod, right? The chance that the average player installs Massive Earth TSL mods and plays in that way is just too small.

That said, it sounds like a good setup. I understand your frustration if you are looking for such a thing in Civ VII, and I get why people don't like the Civ switching. Personally, I see Roosevelt wearing a suit in 4000 BCE as a bit weird, and his immortality as well, and even weirder cultures not at all changing in 6000 years... But what's important to me doesn't have to be to you, and what irks me doesn't have to irk you.

As for Rome being the successor to Rome, I guess you could argue that indeed. Does that automatically mean that Spain then isn't a successor? I think the term Civilization still is vague, borders definitions are flexible, languages and cultures are ever-changing, so I see this "successor" as a completely arbitrary way of thinking any way. We choose to see "successors" and "logical consequences" but it's just a fact that we are all influenced to some extent by previous "cultures" and "civilisations".

I guess in the end it all boils down to that it doesn't feel right to you, and that's fine. You said so too, and I hope you can find a game that scratches your Massive TSL earth itch : ) I do want to side with @Civinator on their question why you would set aside Civ totally. Maybe Civ VIII returns to something you like better, or you can still get enjoyment out of VI (I've swung back to IV, V, BE, and VI every once in a while, enjoying them for their differences.)
Otherwise, I hope for your sake that the market opens up more to some great competition. Regardless of what happens, I wish you happy hunting!

 

[bluesboy67]

I’ve been such a long-time and hardcore player, it felt wrong to stop playing Civ without leaving a note for the devs. They worked really hard on Civ VII and obviously wanted it to be a hit. It’s not, for me at least. I didn’t make it through one game.

Everybody had their lists of things they want improved, or want added, or wish was different, and we don’t all get our own bespoke Civ game (unless we’re Sukritract, I suppose). To be very clear, what I’m trying to do here is give personal feedback, and not make any demands or throw any fits. If you like Civ VII, that’s awesome. Me? Unfortunately, I hate it.

I hate Civ switching. It’s bizarre. I tried to explain this in another thread and got shouted down (“Spain IS a successor to Rome,” they said; funny, I thought Rome was a successor to Rome). I hate the emphasis on leaders. I hate the start-over at each age.

Maybe I’m too niche of a Civ player. My go-to game was massive Earth true-start location on Epic pacing, ideally with an AI teammate who would make side deals when I’m at war (I found that doing two-player teams solved the problem of never-ending wars). I had some truly astounding games on V and VII using this setup. This is probably a very unusual way to play Civ, and the devs need to go where the most players are. Where they went with VII essentially makes this setup impossible.

Maybe I’ve moved on as a gamer. Like a lot of Civ players, I’m old. I work a job where I can keep a game going on the side - do a move here, tweak a thing there - and go back to emailing. Farthest Frontier is a lot of fun. Anno 1800 was fantastic. Cities: Skylines engrossed me. Good old-fashioned chess is nice, too. But I think I’m going to set aside Civ this point.

Firaxis, you were a good friend. You listened to fans and made (usually) smart changes. You have to survive as a business, and you have to try new things. The new thing here, sadly, is just not for me. Take care.

I feel your pain and in the same boat, went back to playing Civ V.

 

[KayAU]

I feel your pain and in the same boat, went back to playing Civ V.

As a fellow Civ 5 player, I'm curious, are you playing vanilla, or with a modpack like Vox Populi? I think VP vastly improves the Civ 5 experience.

 

[sixty4half]

Not the guy you asked, but... I play V with VP. Installed it a few years ago because I didnt like 6 so I've been playing V for what seems like half my Civ history.

 

[queenpea]

Personally, I see Roosevelt wearing a suit in 4000 BCE as a bit weird, and his immortality as well…

Not trying to boil your post down to half the sentence that I’ve quoted, but this argument has been used all over these forums, and I still find it strange. Leaders are still immortal in Civ VII. This part of the weird hasn’t gone away or been addressed. And they still wear a costume tied to their historical era. This doesn’t change either.

(Side note: I have long advocated for a return of the era-evolving and forever hilarious leader costumes from Civ III)

 

[Civinator]

Side note: I have long advocated for a return of the era-evolving and forever hilarious leader costumes from Civ III

Now the next step is really easy: Instead of showing the same imortal leader in different costumes in different eras, take images/animations of different leaders of that civ in their fitting costumes in each era.

Of course for that procedure you have to define what you understand under a civ.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

But how much is there to debate when one side wants everything that makes Civ 7 unique removed?

What are we left with? A poor religious system. A bad system of growing out the city when overbuilding is removed (would my city even have room for Universities and Museums by the time i get to them?). Limited choices once leaders are locked to a civ. Limited choices when civs are locked into historical progression.

I just don't see how changing the game to the old system works with everything that is intertwined with the Ages system.

I don’t think I’ve heard anyone demand the removal of commanders, navigable rivers, independent peoples changes, influence currency… hardcore AI welfare resets (Ages) and some who don’t like civilization swapping are hardly the only things keeping the game unique from 6.

 

[Patine]

I’ve been such a long-time and hardcore player, it felt wrong to stop playing Civ without leaving a note for the devs. They worked really hard on Civ VII and obviously wanted it to be a hit. It’s not, for me at least. I didn’t make it through one game.

Everybody had their lists of things they want improved, or want added, or wish was different, and we don’t all get our own bespoke Civ game (unless we’re Sukritract, I suppose). To be very clear, what I’m trying to do here is give personal feedback, and not make any demands or throw any fits. If you like Civ VII, that’s awesome. Me? Unfortunately, I hate it.

I hate Civ switching. It’s bizarre. I tried to explain this in another thread and got shouted down (“Spain IS a successor to Rome,” they said; funny, I thought Rome was a successor to Rome). I hate the emphasis on leaders. I hate the start-over at each age.

Maybe I’m too niche of a Civ player. My go-to game was massive Earth true-start location on Epic pacing, ideally with an AI teammate who would make side deals when I’m at war (I found that doing two-player teams solved the problem of never-ending wars). I had some truly astounding games on V and VII using this setup. This is probably a very unusual way to play Civ, and the devs need to go where the most players are. Where they went with VII essentially makes this setup impossible.

Maybe I’ve moved on as a gamer. Like a lot of Civ players, I’m old. I work a job where I can keep a game going on the side - do a move here, tweak a thing there - and go back to emailing. Farthest Frontier is a lot of fun. Anno 1800 was fantastic. Cities: Skylines engrossed me. Good old-fashioned chess is nice, too. But I think I’m going to set aside Civ this point.

Firaxis, you were a good friend. You listened to fans and made (usually) smart changes. You have to survive as a business, and you have to try new things. The new thing here, sadly, is just not for me. Take care.

Despite all disappointment in so many areas with Civ7 (I won't make a rant), and my unwillingness to play it seriously, I would not, myself, consider leaving Civ, as a whole series, over it. I've just returned to Civ2, in earnest, and may, even revisit Civ3. "Throwing out the baby with the bath water," because of not liking the latest iteration of long series with pedigree when past iterations still scratch the itch, makes little sense to me, personally, at least.

 

[Xur]

(Side note: I have long advocated for a return of the era-evolving and forever hilarious leader costumes from Civ III)

Yea, there's a lot of low hanging fruits that everyone (I think) would welcome back with open arms. I've also wanted throne room or palace back for years. Bring it back in a bit more involved manner like era-evolving leaders. Let us meet leaders in their thronerooms or in front of the palace - bring it into the game. Put it on a tile that we can loot or whatever. There's so many good ideas from earlier civ games, that they could drop the ⅓ "new" and just go ⅓ "civ1-2", ⅓ "civ3-4" and ⅓ "civ5-6".

 

[Razpor]

agreed,the civ changing and eras system just doesn't feel like a civ game to me. No continuity and roleplaying.Maybe in civ 8 they ll go back who knows,but thats too far for me,so thats it for me too.