Goodbye Civ, and thanks for the memories

[Yzman]

Sorry this is wrong concerning my gameplay. I have shown screenshots and animations, that I play my Civ 3 games with 4 different rulers for each civ in each era during the same game. 4 different rulers during a game for a civ at least is better than only one ruler, but of course the lasting for an era in Civ 3 is even much too long for the life of an individual leader.

So you play a heavily modded game? What does that have to do with the actual games and how they have been since civ 3? I am not arguing about mods.

 

[Civinator]

So you play a heavily modded game? What does that have to do with the actual games and how they have been since civ 3? I am not arguing about mods.

It has to do with your wrong statement about my playing of civ games and by correcting your wrong statement about it.

Please remember, that as a reply to my post you wrote "You literally have ALWAYS played as an immortal leader in those games, but NOW you are claiming that is a bridge too far" what is completely wrong. If you should have forgotten this, please take a look at your post 78 of this thread.

I play the C3C mod CCM 3, that can be visited at CFC here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ccm3-epic-mod.690497/

Btw.: During the rough start of Civ 7 the download numbers of this mod of a more than 20 years old game have nearly trippled. It seems there are some more civers, who like to play a civ game without those immortal leaders.

 

[user746383]

The whole ‘if you don’t like and play the game just like me you’re trolling and killing the franchise and probably have mental or moral deficiencies’ thing is so exhausting. Isn’t it way more fun to learn about other people’s opinions and see things through their eyes even if they are wildly different from your own?

 

[Gorbles]

The whole ‘if you don’t like and play the game just like me you’re trolling and killing the franchise and probably have mental or moral deficiencies’ thing is so exhausting. Isn’t it way more fun to learn about other people’s opinions and see things through their eyes even if they are wildly different from your own?

I don't think that's a fair characterisation of any argument made. Maybe that's why its exhausting?

Like, this thread started as a goodbye thread. But what differentiates it now, from any one of the other "game bad" threads? It's the same posts, made by the same posters. Maybe that's why its exhausting, instead. I don't know.

 

[Yzman]

The whole ‘if you don’t like and play the game just like me you’re trolling and killing the franchise and probably have mental or moral deficiencies’ thing is so exhausting. Isn’t it way more fun to learn about other people’s opinions and see things through their eyes even if they are wildly different from your own?

That wasn't what was said. We have people saying the game is flawed because you play as the same leader....that is literally what civ 3 on has been. It is no different. The response to this? I play civ 3 modded so you are wrong.

That is completely missing the point and still doesn't answer...OK how is this game any different? This topic is about how civ 7 went away from the others....not about how it's different from civ 3 modded. It adds nothing to this conversation.

And yes, it is exhausting reading the same posters over and over again make criticisms of a game they claim they aren't playing.

I have no problem with criticisms if things in thr game but if they are still about basic game mechanics that haven't changed since release isn't it time to either talk about something else or move on from these discussions?

 

[Civinator]

Yzman, the only one who is here completely missing the point is you. You made a personal attack with a wrong statement about me in big letters and got the reply on it.

 

[Yzman]

Yzman, the only one who is here completely missing the point is you. You made a personal attack with a wrong statement about me in bold letters and got the reply on it.

My reply wasn't about you. The "you" is the general one, not you specifically. And you were responding to a post about immortal leaders that you were seemingly agreeing with.

It is a bit confusing that you were replying to a post about civ 7 and your defense that you don't like immortal leaders is based on you playing a mod of a game decades old? I'm sorry, hard to see how that is relevant. So yes, your complaint literally applies to civ 3 and on, where the one you were replying to is talking about civ 7 being different than civ 6 and prior.

You aren't even talking the same things. You literally say this will haunt civ 7, meaning you are clearing talking about it, but now you are referring to old modded civ 3. You are doing a strawman. I'm not going to argue with you in this further since you not sure how this is even a civ 7 discussion with you and I was mostly responding to who.you were responding to and you seemingly agreed with. You don't agree with them? Great convo over.

 

[Civinator]

It is a pity that it seems you are not able to see the most evident facts here. You answered with a quote to my post and therefore your post is targeted against me. Even if you say in your defense this would be a "general you", it is targeted against me, as I am a part of those general adressats.

And unfortunately you are also twisting some other facts here. The hint on CCM 3 followed after your attack, not before it, and it is a needed proof that your statement is wrong, and not a defense.

 

[user746383]

I don't think that's a fair characterisation of any argument made. Maybe that's why its exhausting?

Like, this thread started as a goodbye thread. But what differentiates it now, from any one of the other "game bad" threads? It's the same posts, made by the same posters. Maybe that's why its exhausting, instead. I don't know.

It was a general complaint, not specifically saying you or any one particular person said all those things simultaneously. Here it was just the claim the person they disagreed with had a mental block if I recall, maybe one of the others too, but we’ve had discussions and even dedicated threads for some of the rest as well.

But sure, to be clear - of course people can find different things exhausting, or like or dislike things other people feel the opposite about, and everyone has a right to their own opinions and to share them. It's interesting, it's fun. You can learn things by seeing things through other people's eyes. It could be fun to have threads about what people like or even positivity-only threads - that would probably do way more to create a general positive vibe than showing up in threads where people are saying goodbye and discussing why or why they might not leave, for example, to personally insult people. At least in my opinion.

 

[Yzman]

It is a pity that it seems you are not able to see the most evident facts here. You answered with a quote to my post and therefore your post is targeted against me. Even if you say in your defense this would be a "general you", it is targeted against me, as I am a part of those general adressats.

And unfortunately you are also twisting some other facts here. The hint on CCM 3 followed after your attack, not before it, and it is a needed proof that your statement is wrong, and not a defense.

This continues to be a strawman. You are saying my statement is wrong, but what statement is that exactly? I already told you that the you does not mean you as you note. My statement about the games is correct. They have been like that since civ 3. Nothing you said changed my statement or made it false. This complaint that you replied to or must be endorsing even though you have derailed the original point and made it about you was specifically about immortal leaders. You have said nothing on that subject since then and instead have gone on about this strawman that has nothing to do with the original statement. Not everything is about you. I assure you, I don't care about what you play and my statement in no way implied as much.

I assume you made this same complaint on civ 4 and on as well. So good for you.

 

[Civinator]

I'm not going to argue with you in this further

You broke your promise very quickly, but unfortunately you are still not able to recognize the reality. Of course your statement, as you have written it in post 78, is wrong and this is proofed. With every additional post you are writing here to lead others up the garden path, you make the situation for you even worse. So I tried to avoid in my former replies to your wrong statement to post about the, in Civ 7 super dominating immortal leaders making civilizations in a game that is called Civilization a marginal phenomenon, it was you who posted about the immortal leaders in nearly every of your replies, making even the blindest readers of this thread clear, that there could be a problem, how Civ 7 is treating this situation.

I have bought all versions of the Civ series up to Civ 7. Civ 7 is the first version I have not bought yet (and please note the yet, as I see a good chance that Civ 7 could be rescued).

And please stop your additional wrong personal assumptions against me. Every version of Civ 1 - 6 (including Civ 3) had features that could be improved in my eyes, but Civ 7 in its combination of handling the now super dominant immortal leaders and at the same time reducing civs to a marginal phenomenon, here at present Civ 7 in my eyes is playing in a different (negative) league compared to the former versions of the Civilization series. This problem is evident by the reports and even the advertising of Firaxis themselves. This is no subtile game mechanism that can only be cleared when playing Civ 7 yourself. One must not bite in every stone to realize that a stone can not be eaten.

 

[user746383]

I feel like the lesson here is to not quote reply someone and address them directly as “you” if you don’t mean to reply to them and address them specifically.

 

[Gorbles]

I feel like the lesson here is to not quote reply someone and address them directly as “you” if you don’t mean to reply to them and address them specifically.

I feel like a similar lesson could be learned here then?

It was a general complaint, not specifically saying you or any one particular person said all those things simultaneously.

If nobody said the thing, don't make a quote that sounds like its describing actual opinions posted. If that's the level of semantics we're at, everyone needs to take more care, imo.

Of course, it'd be better if we didn't have to and placed a bit more value and trust in what each other are saying, but that's often an unreasonable standard I find

I tried to ask what the point of the current tangent was, but didn't seem to get an answer. The thread was about someone saying goodbye to Civ 7. What's it about now, that's constructively different than the player count thread, or the "how to make mechanics good" thread?

Where should we go from here?

I've seen positive threads before. I recognise many of the critical-of-Civ 7 posters, from this and other threads, in many of them. We can't really demand a tone for the thread. We've just got to navigate them the best we can, in good faith.

 

[Gori the Grey]

What's it about now, that's constructively different than the player count thread, or the "how to make mechanics good" thread?

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I'm active in the other two, but it was this thread that provided me the opportunity/pushed me to articulate why the historical-unrealism-in-civ-switching is different from (and for me more severe than) the historical-unrealism-of-immortal-leaders or the historical-unrealism-of-Rome-building-the-pyramids.

And that could conceivably matter (could conceivably be constructive), if the devs are reading these threads, because, as I said, in designing the game they may have said to themselves "what's one more unrealism in a game that has always been unrealistic?" may have been surprised and puzzled by the level of dissatisfaction that this new form of unrealism has elicited, and may be wondering how to draw back people who love the franchise but dislike this particular game.

I mean . . . I myself don't need more purpose for any thread than just discussion itself. But if a special constructive purpose is thought to be necessary, I've found this one uniquely fruitful among the various game's-broke threads.

 

[Gorbles]

Oh, it has prior value no doubt. I didn't mean to sell that short. Just trying to gently nudge towards calmer waters.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Understand completely.

With a little over 400 hours in Civ VII, I am finding it very hard to keep any interest in it. By comarison, 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.

Maybe this is the end of the franchise. with Sid Meier himself did live to witness it. a very franchise he created.
Should I return to Civ6 and 'Finish what i've begun'?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Maybe this is the end of the franchise. with Sid Meier himself did live to witness it. a very franchise he created.
Should I return to Civ6 and 'Finish what i've begun'?

Given the number of people still playing or returning to play every Civ game from Civ III to Civ VI and variations in addition to the 'current' players still struggling with Civ VII to various degrees, there is no "End of the Franchise" in sight.

There may be an end to the current franchise producers in the form of disbanding current design teams or companies, but that is not the same thing. Any game system that has been around for over 30 years and a mass of changes in version, mechanics, form and format is not going to suddenly fold its digital tent and disappear.

I suspect there may be some extreme changes to the franchise's latest version in store, but I am equally sure there will be a Civ VIII of some kind - what kind, on the other hand, I am not even going to try to predict.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ Or even if Sid Meier is still running things. but not the same ol Firaxis it is today maybe? But AFAIK it is a subsidiary to 2K (which also runs Mafia series, also my favorite)

 

[user746383]

I feel like a similar lesson could be learned here then?

If nobody said the thing, don't make a quote that sounds like its describing actual opinions posted. If that's the level of semantics we're at, everyone needs to take more care, imo.

Of course, it'd be better if we didn't have to and placed a bit more value and trust in what each other are saying, but that's often an unreasonable standard I find

I tried to ask what the point of the current tangent was, but didn't seem to get an answer. The thread was about someone saying goodbye to Civ 7. What's it about now, that's constructively different than the player count thread, or the "how to make mechanics good" thread?

Where should we go from here?

I've seen positive threads before. I recognise many of the critical-of-Civ 7 posters, from this and other threads, in many of them. We can't really demand a tone for the thread. We've just got to navigate them the best we can, in good faith.

Sure, if you prefer you can focus on the mental block part and the other specific things said in this thread, and I’ll be extra careful not to talk about things happening in other threads any more. I didn’t realise that was a rule until now. If you need a link for example to the dedicated thread where someone said that haters are going to kill the franchise let me know.

 

[Gorbles]

Sure, if you prefer you can focus on the mental block part and the other specific things said in this thread, and I’ll be extra careful not to talk about things happening in other threads any more. I didn’t realise that was a rule until now.

I wasn't trying to focus on anything. I thought my reply was pretty expansive!

You do you. I have no ability, nor any desire, to enforce any rules. Cheers.