Have you made peace with Civ 7?

[UWHabs]

That's surely just a case of saving on the costs of modeling, rigging, animating and voicing another leader (especially since all five are linked to 2K and Firaxis trying to sell us something extra on release).

Personally, I'd take half the leaders and twice the personas for 20% more civs - especially in an edition of the game where leaders & civs are unlinked, so it really doesn't matter if I'm playing Ben Franklin or a Professor Machiavelli.

I don't know if I would go half the leaders and twice the personas necessarily. I do like seeing different leaders each game, I would hate if Machiavelli was in every game I played. But I would easily trade like 5 leaders if we got a second persona for everyone else in the game, for example. And certainly where we are now with the game, I still have maybe 5 or 10 leaders/personas that I haven't fully played through yet, so I'm not desperate for more leaders. But would definitely like them to bulk out the civs rosters more in the near term. I really don't think they need packs that give 2 leaders and 4 civs - give me like 1 leader, 1 persona, and 6 civs.

 

[TomSpren]

I'm one of the weird ones. I haven't enjoyed a Civ game as much as this since Civ 4. It may be that I'm in my 40's now and I live a boring life.

 

[pjotroos]

I don't know if I would go half the leaders and twice the personas necessarily. I do like seeing different leaders each game, I would hate if Machiavelli was in every game I played. But I would easily trade like 5 leaders if we got a second persona for everyone else in the game, for example. And certainly where we are now with the game, I still have maybe 5 or 10 leaders/personas that I haven't fully played through yet, so I'm not desperate for more leaders. But would definitely like them to bulk out the civs rosters more in the near term. I really don't think they need packs that give 2 leaders and 4 civs - give me like 1 leader, 1 persona, and 6 civs.

I'm just not convinced different leaders do that much for me, when they have exactly one voice line across the whole game if you don't go to war with them. Otherwise it's all a bunch of grunts and nods. I heard others praise voice acting for Blackbeard, but I wouldn't know, even though I had him in my last game - we were allied from early on, and therefore we didn't talk at all past "hello".

 

[kaspergm]

I think there's a technical limitation. Leaders are quite expensive in production, so with the number of civs released for CIv7, the ratio of 1 leader per 2 civs seems like compromise.

That's not a technical limitation, that's an economical one. And yes, I am aware of the issue that shifting civs each era forces a larger number of civs and consequently a larger number of leaders. But that does not change the fact that it was a bad design choice, quite on the opposite, that is exactly one of the reasons why it was a bad design choice.

 

[AD1730]

That's not a technical limitation, that's an economical one. And yes, I am aware of the issue that shifting civs each era forces a larger number of civs and consequently a larger number of leaders. But that does not change the fact that it was a bad design choice, quite on the opposite, that is exactly one of the reasons why it was a bad design choice.

I’ve never accepted the economic excuse. Other games regularly have high-resolution characters with different voice actors. Firaxis just chooses not to do it.

 

[Gorbles]

I’ve never accepted the economic excuse. Other games regularly have high-resolution characters with different voice actors. Firaxis just chooses not to do it.

Firaxis have a set budget. Pretty much all projects do. The games you're referencing will either have lower costs in other areas, a higher overall budget, or both.

You're right in that Firaxis will have a choice in how to design things (in preprod, generally - way ahead of implementation) in order to scope out costs, etc. But that constraint is downstream of the set budget, and the other things they determine it needs to be used on.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Personas are a way to decimate development effort - they reuse models, animations, voices, etc. everything except gameplay mechanics and a couple of colors. They are not replacing leaders, they are kind of additional content.

I think in terms of content they are referred to as different leaders though. When they said upon launch, we'd be getting close to about 24 leaders, it was more like 19 leaders with 5 personas, so yeah that was a little disappointing.
That's not to say I hate the idea of personas, I liked the idea and how many were implemented in Civ 6, I just think they made a few too many of them upon launch. To me it was better received as additional content at the end of the dev cycle for the game when not many new additional leaders or civs would be designed.
As for Civ 7 separate Ashoka and Frederick personas would be the only ones I'd keep.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think in terms of content they are referred to as different leaders though. When they said upon launch, we'd be getting close to about 24 leaders, it was more like 19 leaders with 5 personas, so yeah that was a little disappointing.
That's not to say I hate the idea of personas, I liked the idea and how many were implemented in Civ 6, I just think they made a few too many of them upon launch. To me it was better received as additional content at the end of the dev cycle for the game when not many new additional leaders or civs would be designed.
As for Civ 7 separate Ashoka and Frederick personas would be the only ones I'd keep.

Well, from gameplay perspective they are almost like leaders (except being unable to face other persona in the same game). But in terms of production costs and their potential to be replaced with full leaders, that's a lot of difference.

 

[MutilationWave]

As for Civ 7 separate Ashoka and Frederick personas would be the only ones I'd keep.

Revolutionary Napoleon is pretty good since the rework.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

To answer the question in the title, I have been enjoying Civ 7 enough to play it regularly since the July update with some caveats. I turn off the crises because they are repetitive and the legacies for the first two ages because I prefer those sections of the game to be freeform.

 

[Siptah]

I turn off the [...] legacies for the first two ages because I prefer those sections of the game to be freeform.

I haven't tried this yet, but I'm curious: does it also mean that you don't get any legacy points to spend at age transition? If so, that would tone down the game's pace quite a lot, and make it more even between the player (who choses their benefits well) and the AI (who doesn't), I would think.

 

[McSpank01]

I was optimistic about the game on release, as I figured out that the game stopped being fun the longer you get into it, I pretty much dropped it and went back to 6.

I pop back in every now and again to see if the updates have fixed the game, and for the most part it is improved. However I think it’s still a long way from being a great game.

Ages are still a huge problem, in the way they break momentum and force you into tediously resetting everything. Exploration and modern still have lots of issues and I don’t find them fun, they don’t fulfil the promise of what they should be.

I’m also really let down that the game ends when it does and I lose enthusiasm knowing there is no info age, no opportunity to build advanced tech stuff. That just gnaws at me as I play and makes me wanna give up.

I’m optimistic the game will improve, I liked the message that they want to expand out how to complete legacy paths, that would make a huge difference to the game I think. They will add an info age eventually.

The question is whether I wait that long for it to sort itself out

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I haven't tried this yet, but I'm curious: does it also mean that you don't get any legacy points to spend at age transition? If so, that would tone down the game's pace quite a lot, and make it more even between the player (who choses their benefits well) and the AI (who doesn't), I would think.

Yes, you don't get any legacy points to spend in the next age, but it doesn't really level the playing field.

Here's why: there's nothing to speed progress towards the end of the age. So you max out the tech and civic trees long before the age ends. Then you hit the future techs and future civics a bunch of times and accrue a bunch of trait points to spend. And that gives you an advantage instead.

In my experience, that's more true for Exploration than Antiquity. Antiquity still ends pretty quickly after I finish the tech and civic trees, but I often get them done with only 50% of the Exploration Age passed, and I get a ton of trait points going into the Modern Age.