Have you made peace with Civ 7?

[Head_North]

Hi,

I´m starting to more and more like this game and I think it really can become a great civilization entry.

But I would like to know if you out there who really disliked it at launch but likes it now. What made you change your mind? Was it some patch that fixed glaring issues? Was it just that you had to become accustomed to the new mechanics? Did you go back to earlier entrys I thought "no, civ 7 is better"?

To me, I think it just was about getting accustomed. In the beginning I didnt like the mixing between leader and civ. But now I reallyt dont mind, and I think it increases the replayability. I also think that the transition between ages is nicer now. At launch we got throughn back into the main menue at age transition. Now it at least feels part of the same game!.

Anyway would like to hear from people that, like me, has changed your opinion in a positive direction and why?

Cheers

 

[Vandlys]

At launch we got throughn back into the main menue at age transition.

What? I've been playing since launch and I was never brought to the main menu upon age transition?

 

[Head_North]

Sorry, IO perhaps missremember. I remeber being brough to some civ choice that resemmbled the main menu hearing the music from the main menu. It almost felt like "restarting" the game. But perhaps it was just similar to the main menu

 

[King Flevance]

I still haven't left a Steam review because I dont feel strongly either way. It is possible that after playing a couple 1.3.0 games I may go leave a positive review this holiday season. It is no guarantee as age transitions and legacies do still leave a lot to be desired even if 1.3.0 is everything I want along with muliple other issues. (Like no tile switching is still a huge pet peeve in the design for me.) I am feeling more excited to play lately but I need to see if that tapers off. New fixes can be exciting but they can be short lived. I probably won't know where I stand until December.

 

[kaspergm]

I've only bought the game on the recent sale. I've opened the main menu two times, looked at the leader and civ selection screen, and then everything insides me goes "Nope", and I close down the game again.

So I guess that's a no?

 

[kent77]

Long-time Civ fan here (back to the first one). I initially bounced off Civ VII pretty hard: I got to the end of the antiquity era just once, was met with the change menus and leap forward multiple centuries, and just closed the game and didn’t come back for the next 6+ months. The combo of the transition, hard-to-parse UI, and over-balanced design, just didn’t give me the fun of earlier editions.

But after patch 1.2.5 dropped, with its game-changing (!) approach to map generation, it was time to give it a second chance. I'm glad I did: I'm really enjoying it! Sure, there are aspects of the UI that I still wish were better (all kinds of info that was present in every earlier edition of Civ is now nowhere to be found), but there's no getting around that it's fun to play, especially with the expanded roster of leaders and civs. The devs have steadily been making good choices in improving the UI and leaning back into civ/leader assymmetry as well, so I believe them regarding further improvements in the pipeline, and in the meantime, I'll keep taking just one more turn...

 

[Brutus2]

I´m starting to more and more like this game and I think it really can become a great civilization entry.

I had the same frustration as everyone else with the UI at launch but I also said from day 1 that this will become the best civ entry yet. Maybe that's because the age transition, civ switching, overbuilding and leader choices don't bother me as much as others but mainly I saw all the little things they got right that will be more impactful.

Just a few things off the top of my head...

Combat

• Commanders with promotions rather than units is so much better
• Sending reinforcements to your commanders across the map.
• Grouping your units into army or fleet commanders to move across the map rather than having to move every single unit one at a time.

City Management

• Having towns that don't require as much management is great for large empires.
• I love how resources are handled with trade routes just granting all resources from that city
• Having multiple copies of the same resource is beneficial.
• I like the look of cities with Urban districts grouped together around the city center and rural districts on the outskirts rather than the previous system where you needed to place science district next to mountains and commercial district next to river and your districts ended up being all spread out and didn't look like a city.
• I prefer the way happiness and settlement limit works now
• The graphics are beautiful
• I don't miss builders at all!

I completely understand why people want to lead one civ "to stand the test of time" but I really think the game is much more fun when I'm always playing a civ that has unique units, buildings and polices that are relevant to the current era of the game.

 

[Head_North]

But after patch 1.2.5 dropped, with its game-changing (!) approach to map generation, it was time to give it a second chance. I'm glad I did: I'm really enjoying it! Sure, there are aspects of the UI that I still wish were better (all kinds of info that was present in every earlier edition of Civ is now nowhere to be found), but there's no getting around that it's fun to play, especially with the expanded roster of leaders and civs. The devs have steadily been making good choices in improving the UI and leaning back into civ/leader assymmetry as well, so I believe them regarding further improvements in the pipeline, and in the meantime, I'll keep taking just one more turn...

1.2.5 made a huge difference for me as well. Especially making it easier to what yields comes from where in the city screen. Its not perfect, but a huge improvement.

 

[Sekou]

I have been giving it another go with 1.3 and am too finding sparks of hope in this game. The one big change that has me encouraged and walking back from the ledge was the Continuity option for Age Transitions. (Same goes for this Crisis system). This makes the game hue more to what I consider to be "Civ". Ideally I want Transitions gone, but I realize from a game and design engine that may not be possible. The map changes have been nice. Now exploration age feels more "roomy" in that you're not all battling it out over the same collection of offshore lands between two continents. The addition of extra CS types is a plus as well. The Influence system is still solid and could be utilized in many more interactions to really flesh it out.

Going forward, assuming Transitions won't go away (and I'm coming to peace with that) just focus on providing the player more agency and strategic options.

I hope they get the ship righted, as it were. Civ is too dear to me for Firaxis to fail.

 

[Kurtbob]

Im probably not the audience that this question is directed at since I've enjoyed the game since day 1, and believe it gets better and better with each update.

However, I do want to say that when I heard the news prior to release of ages being implemented, I was truthfully shaken and nervous about it. I've been a long time civ fan (its my game...nothing eats away my time like this series has) and im used to big changes in each itinerary, but ages was something else...I laughed out loud at myself for feeling the deep reaction welling out me when I heard of the changes.

However hesitant, I bought the game pre-release. Its had a rocky start (so did Civ5 if anyone remembers), but playing it, you just know its oozing with potential. The foundation is there. I enjoy ages. I love love the changes/additions to trade, commanders, uniques, and how much less micromanagement there is. I actually finish games (civ5 and civ6, I usually cant stand the end game due to the tedium and quit before finishing).

I've made peace very early on, which surprises me considering my very emotional reaction (for me anyways) on hearing the news of ages before the game came out. Can't wait to see where Civ7 goes from here

 

[timmychompchomp]

I've only bought the game on the recent sale. I've opened the main menu two times, looked at the leader and civ selection screen, and then everything insides me goes "Nope", and I close down the game again.

So I guess that's a no?

Why, if I may ask?

 

[Lebo44]

I started out as a skeptic and didn't like the game with all the new changes. It took some mental adjustment to appreciate its strengths. Once I realized it leans more toward being a tactical experience rather than a strategic one (unlike Civ 1 - 5), I adapted my playstyle and now I find it genuinely enjoyable. Compared to Civ 6, Civ 7 involves far less micromanagement and feels more elegant in nearly every aspect (aside from the age transitions).

Beyond that, I believe the game’s true potential has only been unlocked in 50% or less so far. Features like legacy paths, era specific victories, a 4th age, improved UI, narratives and a map/scenario editor could greatly improve the game further. Patch 1.2.5 already demonstrated how even small adjustments to UI and map generation can significantly enhance the overall experience.

 

[tman2000]

I've replayed a bit with the new free patch and still hate the game. It just boils down to starting location and resources, and the city upgrade meta. Anything else and you're just underperforming. By the time anything happens the age is already over.

The cadence of the ages, the repetitive tech trees, and the interruption of age change ruins the core civ experience entirely. All the of cool in theory unique civ features become pointless and give little to no satisfaction.

Teach's ability to poach ships is one exception and is pretty cool, though. This is the sort of wild unique ability all civs should have. That and something fundamental about the cadence of an age has to change. I'd go so far as to say soft age transition is necessary at this point, and tech trees that bridge ages as well.

EDIT: maybe military tech defines the age (along with age specific stuff like ocean going vessels or industry), while religious and cultural tech bridges ages, where civ switch does not need to occur just at age transition, but you can do it at least once at some point in an age. I think this might smooth the edges and make the cadence work better.

 

[Starwars]

For me, there was quite a lot of stuff that made me not get the game at release. It was a mix of mechanics that didn't appeal to me (such as the civ switching for example), the pricing and DLC stuff (still not a fan), and that the general reactions were just not great.

Ended up getting the game on a whim when the 1.2.5 patch was out. Was still pretty sour with the pricing and all that to be honest, did not have great expectations. But, while the game has plenty of problems, some of them really core to the game experience unfortunately, I've had a lot more fun than I thought I would with the game. It's difficult to compare to games that you have more hours in, plus that have gone through the patching+DLC process, but I'd rather play VII than VI or V right now (coming from an old school civ player, my fav is IV).

It's unfortunate that the game is in such a rough shape with some of the most basic things (UI being a glaring example), but there's a lot to like about the game in my opinion and it has a lot of potential.

 

[disjointaccount]

Im probably not the audience that this question is directed at since I've enjoyed the game since day 1, and believe it gets better and better with each update.

However, I do want to say that when I heard the news prior to release of ages being implemented, I was truthfully shaken and nervous about it. I've been a long time civ fan (its my game...nothing eats away my time like this series has) and im used to big changes in each itinerary, but ages was something else...I laughed out loud at myself for feeling the deep reaction welling out me when I heard of the changes.

However hesitant, I bought the game pre-release. Its had a rocky start (so did Civ5 if anyone remembers), but playing it, you just know its oozing with potential. The foundation is there. I enjoy ages. I love love the changes/additions to trade, commanders, uniques, and how much less micromanagement there is. I actually finish games (civ5 and civ6, I usually cant stand the end game due to the tedium and quit before finishing).

I've made peace very early on, which surprises me considering my very emotional reaction (for me anyways) on hearing the news of ages before the game came out. Can't wait to see where Civ7 goes from here

This is pretty much my experience. I was very sceptical about the civ switching but saw enough other good stuff in the game to go for it.


Within 3 or 4 games I realised not only did I not mind civ switching, I really liked the depth that came with the mixing and matching of civs' and leaders' kits. And all the other improvements are great - all the streamlining (combat especially) really hits the sweet spot of removing busywork without losing much, if any, depth. The game wasn't perfect at launch, and still isn't now, but I've been enjoying it all along. It's come a long way and I'm looking forward to whatever's next, because everything we've gotten so far has left me confident Firaxis know what they're doing.

 

[NorthLondoner]

Didn't quite get it at first and didn't play much. Coming back to it now though am having a lot of fun mixing/matching leaders & civs and seeing how your empire changes and develops through the ages through culture switching. Would be dull to go back to a 'one civ through the ages' mode like civs 1-6 now.

 

[Bootstrapbilly]

Initially I wasnt a fan of civ switching on announcement and did feel it was clunky at launch, but I also felt there was a lot of potential and the things that I did have gripes with seemed addressable - unlike with civ 6 which i enjoyed playing but never came to like the art style.

Each patch makes the game feel better - one example I think goes really underlooked is the improved sound design for various actions, techs and environments. As more civs and leaders are added (especially antiquity) the diversity of the game feels better. I still tend to favour historical paths but have enjoyed the sandboxyness of setting up your own civ narratives in civ switching. I recently completed a Persia, Bulgaria, Buganda game and the narrative I had was that Persia became more Bulgarian as I began training horses over immortals and settling in a northern mountainous region, Bulgaria then took on a Buganda identity by capturing most of the Songhai led by Amina by the end of exploration.
I haven't yet been able to put in the hours to think of really maxing out strategic synergies.


I still think there are areas for improvement for civ 7, mechanics like religions, great works and ideologies arent as fleshed out, cities can sprawl too much and planning overbuilding doesnt feel as consequential, music gets a bit repetitive with a lack of ambient tracks and some of the launch civs are a bit bland (as they are in civ V and civ VI But these seem addressable as expansions, mods or updates so the future feels bright.

 

[Skojardu]

I got it after I saw a glowing review of the Tides of Power freebie and I have been struck by how similar it feels to the Endless Legend 2 beta that I admitedly bounced off of. There are some annoying things, like how you have an additional popup come up after you have a narrative event, and although it is realistic, I still have to get used to hills having directionality when it comes to unit movement and fighting. I've only played around in Antiquity so far.

 

[kaspergm]

Why, if I may ask?

I have a really REALLY REALLY strong dislike for the whole mix-and-match leader/civ system. The fact that you can have leaders from a completely different civ and age lead a civilization completely kills immersion for me, and is what completely turned me off Civ7 in the first place. It doesn't help that I also have a pretty strong dislike for many of the leaders chosen for the game as well as the leader graphics in general. So each time I see the leader icons, I just completely lose any will I may have had to try the game.

 

[disjointaccount]

I have a really REALLY REALLY strong dislike for the whole mix-and-match leader/civ system. The fact that you can have leaders from a completely different civ and age lead a civilization completely kills immersion for me, and is what completely turned me off Civ7 in the first place. It doesn't help that I also have a pretty strong dislike for many of the leaders chosen for the game as well as the leader graphics in general. So each time I see the leader icons, I just completely lose any will I may have had to try the game.

I'm asking this sincerely, so if it comes off cheeky/rude, I apologise; it is a genuine question.
Did you find previous civ games, where Lincoln could enter a war with Kupe and Julius Caesar, to be historically immersive?