Have you bought Civilization VII?

[ProMeTheus112]

Which map script is this? Looks kind of my like recent fractal map. I also see you are a standard size map enjoyer like myself.

This was on shuffle. Next one I'm trying archipelago 0o Previous game I played fractal it was quite a bit different and played out different of course. Also previous game I tried small but yeah I prefer standard! Though I will probably try tiny at some point.

 

[Leyrann]

Which map script is this? Looks kind of my like recent fractal map. I also see you are a standard size map enjoyer like myself.

Looks like shuffle to me. Note the straight edges here and there. That's an artifact on shuffle maps because it uses different map generation scripts for different parts of the map, and those parts are just rectangles.

 

[Riker13]

Now I wasn't going to make a comment but I think I should say my piece.
As an old timer who has played since CIV 1 I have looked forward to the next version until now civ switching, ages, leaders who never lead a country and don't even get me started on not including England in the base game (are you kidding me Firaxis). So I waited to hear what people had said to see if my own personal fears were justified and I believe they were, so no I will not be getting CIV7 well not until its been DLC`ed to death and modded to death then I will get it in some Christmas sale many years from now if I am still alive by then
I am glad that for some of you, you are having a great time with it I guess the torch has been passed over to a new generation.

 

[Paideia]

Ended up not buying it. I am almost certainly going to at some point, but I've decided I can wait for significantly reduced sale.

The biggest factors for me were:

I really don't like the UI - both functionally and aesthetically
The balance seems way off to me
I don't like leaders being detached from civilizations
The victory conditions don't (from what I've seen in playthroughs) feel like they are quite right yet
The price and the pricing structure

 

[StargazingDog]

I really don't like the UI - both functionally and aesthetically

Leading up to launch, I couldn't believe that the city production screen just had icons for the units instead of artwork. It felt so lazy and cheap. Your comment made me realize that not once while playing have I thought anything negative about this. In fact, I think it was the right choice. The icons match the unit icons on the map. It's genius, really.

 

[Nikolai II]

I am glad that for some of you, you are having a great time with it I guess the torch has been passed over to a new generation.

I'm almost 40 and have played since Civ2. Loving the game. So we oldtimers don't all dislike it.

 

[Leyrann]

leaders who never lead a country

You mean like Gandhi? Or Jeanne d'Arc? Let alone Shezerezade, Amaterasu, and so on from Civ II.

And let's be real, Bismarck and Gajah Mada weren't the highest authority in their countries either. Wilhelmina was a ceremonial head of state during her entire reign, and frankly Civ VI overstated her importance. She was a symbol for freedom, sure, but it's not as if she achieved so much or anything. And I could keep going...

and don't even get me started on not including England in the base game (are you kidding me Firaxis)

I don't see the point here, I'm going to be honest. Why should any country have the right to be in every edition of the game? We ruled the seas before you ever did, and do you know how often we've been in the base game? Never. Not even once.

 

[99-percent-sure]

I'm almost 40 and have played since Civ2. Loving the game. So we oldtimers don't all dislike it.

I'm in the back half of my fifties. I own most versions of Civ (maybe not 2 and/or 3). As I type this, a 1999 Civilization: Call to Power CD by Activision is sitting on my lap. I even remember playing Populous on my friend's Amiga back in 1989, which to me felt like the first computer game I encountered that suggested the dynamics of Civ. So yeah, some of the old-timers may still be on board for what's cooking with Civ 7. I've spent over 110 hours on it already, and am realizing I'm not tempted to discontinue games and start over, which I often do in other Civ editions. That's probably a good thing.

 

[bitula]

I never though I would not buy a Sid Meier's Civilization game. But I didn't. I actually wanted to buy it even if I won't play it, just to support the developers. But as of yet I didn't, simply becasue this is NOT a Sid Meier's Civilization game. It is a 4X turn based strategy game involving civilizations, but not Civilization. And if just looking on it as at any 4X game, its not that interesting at all when compared to others. I did buy Humankind though, just to get the feeling of an alternative civ game, and it wasn't a pleasant experience.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I'm almost 40 and have played since Civ2. Loving the game. So we oldtimers don't all dislike it.

I don't think it's an age issue, it's more that the game has changed in nature. Is it better or worse? Well, that depends on what you’re looking for. You think it’s better, and that’s fair. Personally, I don’t feel the same, but I don't think that's because I'm out of touch. I still enjoy plenty of recent games. If it were a generational problem, I’d probably reject the whole modern gaming industry, but that’s not the case.

Civilization isn't the only franchise to evolve in a way that divides its fans. Take Zelda for example. It started as an adventure game, but over time, it became more and more linear untill it reached a point, with Skyward Sword, where there was hardly any overworld to explore. Skyward Sword was a good game, but it was no longer an adventure game. Instead of dismissing those who missed the old formula, Nintendo looked back at the original NES Legend of Zelda to understand what might have been lost along the way. And it resulted in the wildly successful open-world Breath of the Wild.

It goes to show that sometimes, looking back can also be a good way to move forward.

 

[Siptah]

I don't think it's an age issue, it's more that the game has changed in nature. Is it better or worse? Well, that depends on what you’re looking for. You think it’s better, and that’s fair. Personally, I don’t feel the same, but I don't think that's because I'm out of touch. I still enjoy plenty of recent games. If it were a generational problem, I’d probably reject the whole modern gaming industry, but that’s not the case.

Civilization isn't the only franchise to evolve in a way that divides its fans. Take Zelda for example. It started as an adventure game, but over time, it became more and more linear untill it reached a point, with Skyward Sword, where there was hardly any overworld to explore. Skyward Sword was a good game, but it was no longer an adventure game. Instead of dismissing those who missed the old formula, Nintendo looked back at the original NES Legend of Zelda to understand what might have been lost along the way. And it resulted in the wildly successful open-world Breath of the Wild.

It goes to show that sometimes, looking back can also be a good way to move forward.

I agree, but I don't think civ 7 is just a linear continuation of civ 6. 7 is clearly its own thing and in this way a step forward from all other civ games, not just 6. It includes many mechanics from 6, but also 5, 4, and BE that weren't in 6, i.e. the devs looked back into the older games and considered bringing back popular things from back in the day (e.g., the importance of specialists, narrative events, global happiness, attribute trees that are basically 5's social policies, influence currency for diplomacy).

 

[99-percent-sure]

Civilization isn't the only franchise to evolve in a way that divides its fans. Take Zelda for example. It started as an adventure game, but over time, it became more and more linear untill it reached a point, with Skyward Sword, where there was hardly any overworld to explore. Skyward Sword was a good game, but it was no longer an adventure game. Instead of dismissing those who missed the old formula, Nintendo looked back at the original NES Legend of Zelda to understand what might have been lost along the way. And it resulted in the wildly successful open-world Breath of the Wild.

I think this is a good point, and it begs the question, is it even possible to try something new without alienating some portion of the game's "base." I wouldn't say right now that I'd want Firaxis to retain the new age, new civ, new legacy paths approach for Civ VIII or other future editions of the game, but given that we're on Civ VII and that there are at least a few playable Civ games (IV, V, VI) still readily available to buy and binge, along with tons of mods and expansions, I think it's fine that they tried something different with this version, and I'm looking forward to both improvements and expansions, as well as mods, that emerge for Civ VII.

I also think Firaxis should pursue the idea I've seen floated of a remastered version of Civ IV with updated graphics and better AI, and maybe some new content that adds some new tweaks to make it interesting. But that can't be the only thing they do. A lot of great content for gamers can result from looking back to see what's been given up as a consequence of the road that's been taken, and then stepping back and going along a different path next time. I think experimenting with different flavors of Civ is a better approach than getting stuck, and continually releasing basically the same game with new skins.

 

[Lord Shadow]

I find it very interesting how the vast majority of the anti-Civ7 crowd here haven't actually played it, and how the majority of those who did buy and play it, liked it.

Perhaps a poll which makes the distinction between "Bought it, liked it" and "Bought it, disliked it" would be more enlightening.

 

[Menocchio]

I think this is a good point, and it begs the question, is it even possible to try something new without alienating some portion of the game's "base." I wouldn't say right now that I'd want Firaxis to retain the new age, new civ, new legacy paths approach for Civ VIII or other future editions of the game, but given that we're on Civ VII and that there are at least a few playable Civ games (IV, V, VI) still readily available to buy and binge, along with tons of mods and expansions, I think it's fine that they tried something different with this version, and I'm looking forward to both improvements and expansions, as well as mods, that emerge for Civ VII.

I think it's just the fate of the franchise that some people will be alienated by something or other in the latest entry. I still have several friends for whom VI was a series-ruiner—and so they stick with V. Even some of those continue to grumble about how the UPT and hex grid changes were unnecessary and against the spirit of the game. So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

 

[Quintillus]

The challenge for a video game company is that, unless you are a really big company, you generally only have one new game at a time, and if you want it to move forward and provide something fresh, you can't do that and also appeal to the fans who wanted the same game as the previous iteration, but improved in various ways. Firaxis has tried to walk that rope over the years by variants of "1/3 new, 1/3 improved, 1/3 the same", but that "1/3 new" has introduced various controversial changes, such as 1 UPT.

A cereal company can make a plain flavor, a chocolate flavor, a yoghurt flavor, and a crunchberry flavor, and satisfy people looking for different experiences. An auto company can make a pickup, a sedan, an SUV, and a station wagon and similarly satisfy different audiences, although new auto companies have to start with just one and hope it is successful enough they can expand. If an auto company started off making pickups and then switched to only making sedans, they wouldn't be able to satisfy all their existing customers who might be in the market for an upgrade. Firaxis can't make both Civ VII with new mechanics and Civ IV.5 at the same time and satisfy both those who want an evolved Civ IV and those who want something new and fresh.

I'm one of those, "I really liked the crunchberries of previous iterations, and the chocolate flavor wound up being okay too, but now they have a yoghurt flavor? I was really hoping for another berry-themed variant" people. The focus on civ-switching was something I thought 4X games had got out of their system with Humankind, probably my least-liked strategy game of the past decade, and the remainder of the game just wasn't enough to cancel that out, especially with the generally poorly-regarded UI, another area where I was hoping for outright improvement over VI.

I still thought about buying it near release to get into the mod scene and maybe make some useful cool front-page articles to help CFC compete with Fandom, and maybe I still will do that this spring, but after taking a week away from the site near release and realizing I wasn't excited at all, I couldn't justify making Civ VII my highest-purchase-price game ever.

 

[99-percent-sure]

Even some of those continue to grumble about how the UPT and hex grid changes were unnecessary and against the spirit of the game.

It took me over a year to buy Civ VI (on sale, of course) after testing it, coming from Civ IV. I thought the demo seemed clunky, and it sat on my desktop for about a year before I gave it another chance and decided it was worth giving VI a shot. I figured I'd warm up to it. Wound up playing over 1500 hours of it to date.

 

[Siptah]

I find it very interesting how the vast majority of the anti-Civ7 crowd here haven't actually played it, and how the majority of those who did buy and play it, liked it.

Eh, this is to be expected. People that don't like the basic concepts of the game won't buy the game, and people that like the basic concepts would likely buy it.

 

[coolhandluke11]

caved in after a week and bought it. it wasnt worth 70 euro. i can see this being a year on year 50 euro expansion with different challenges.
Im already bored looking at the same faces after a third playthrough.

 

[Leyrann]

I never though I would not buy a Sid Meier's Civilization game. But I didn't. I actually wanted to buy it even if I won't play it, just to support the developers. But as of yet I didn't, simply becasue this is NOT a Sid Meier's Civilization game. It is a 4X turn based strategy game involving civilizations, but not Civilization. And if just looking on it as at any 4X game, its not that interesting at all when compared to others. I did buy Humankind though, just to get the feeling of an alternative civ game, and it wasn't a pleasant experience.

This game is more similar to previous editions of Civilization than Humankind is.

Im already bored looking at the same faces after a third playthrough.

Friendly reminder that this game has more unique leaders at launch than Civ VI did.

And I think also more than Civ V did, but I'm not sure on that as I didn't get (back) into the Civ series until several years after it's release.

 

[Lord Shadow]

Eh, this is to be expected. People that don't like the basic concepts of the game won't buy the game, and people that like the basic concepts would likely buy it.

The most basic, fundamental, widespread concept is still Civilization.

I think some people are just overly concerned about a few choice trees, convinced by the experience of others, and miss the forest around them.