How excited are you currently about Civ7? [vol 3 - January/February 25]

[thecrazyscot]

There are some game decisions where opinions are incompatible (civ switching vs not civ switching, for example), and perhaps selfishly I hope fans who disagree with my preference end up disappointed. Not out of malicious intent, but simply due to the incompatible nature of the disagreement, and as a long time civ fan I do wish that other longtime fans were not getting disappointed for the next civ game as it will be a long wait until the next one.

Then there are decisions which I care little about or have little impact on what I find important. And in that case I hope fans who are missing something important to them (but not to me) get what they are hoping for. For example: I don't really care that Britain is not on the game at release. But clearly a lot of fans do, so for their sake I hope it comes quickly. Same for map tacks and lots of other things.

I also think that quality of life things which are important to some but not others end up making the game better for everyone (just like accessibility upgrades to buildings or software make it a better experience for everyone on the whole). So we should all support the return of quality of life changes and additional UI polishing because it improves the overall experience even if it is not super important to you personally.

 

[aelf]

In a perfect world, I'd be happy for everyone to get what they want. Not if they act like they always deserve it while pooh-poohing others being given what they want, though.

 

[TheGrayFox]

You see, your last sentence confirms to me that what you're looking for is what you want represented while you don't care about what others want. So I feel very justified in feeling happy Britain is not in.

In a perfect world, I'd be happy for everyone to get what they want. Not if they act like they always deserve it while pooh-poohing others being given what they want, though.

Who was specifically asking for Ibn Batttuta and Machiavelli in a Civ game?

Also you seem to be mistaken, I have no problem when more obscure leaders and civs are chosen, just not when they come at the expense of the largest and most influential empires on earth, traditional heads of states being leaders, and series staples like England/Britain being excluded. Of course this would be an assumption on my end but I'd expect more fans would feel similar to I do than specifically wanted Buganda or Hawaii to be included. Which might explain why leader/civ choice at launch is such a common complaint

 

[stealth_nsk]

Is no one seriously talking about the Commander units abuse that only players can maneuver/exploit but AI most definitely can not? Already seen some youtubers collect their dying units to then immediately redeploy on the other side so they can retreat. Civ7 AI is not going to be that sophisticated to do something like that.

Why should I concern? High difficulty levels challenge me with bonuses for AI, while I try to win using smarts, that's the whole idea.

 

[AD1730]

Why should I concern? High difficulty levels challenge me with bonuses for AI, while I try to win using smarts, that's the whole idea.

It's the sort of gamey thing that just feels wrong though. It doesn't really have much to do with planning or strategy.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It's the sort of gamey thing that just feels wrong though. It doesn't really have much to do with planning or strategy.

I don't like micromanagement around commander, I totally agree here. But I don't bother if AI could handle it

 

[Civciv5]

In light of recent events I would like to lower my excitement rating. If that were possible, because it was already zero.

The deliberate omission of the English or British civilization, the largest empire in history which started the Industrial Revolution (while including civilizations like Buganda, of which I had never even heard before they announced it), is definite proof the developers are so greedy to the point they excluded the civ just so they could sell it as a DLC.
I have no hope whatsoever for the future of the franchise.

 

[Calico Jack]

In light of recent events I would like to lower my excitement rating. If that were possible, because it was already zero.

The deliberate omission of the English or British civilization, the largest empire in history which started the Industrial Revolution (while including civilizations like Buganda, of which I had never even heard before they announced it), is definite proof the developers are so greedy to the point they excluded the civ just so they could sell it as a DLC.
I have no hope whatsoever for the future of the franchise.

Here, here.

 

[gunnergoz]

The more I see previews of C7, the more I think I'm going to enjoy it. As I've gotten older, my attention span and patience have suffered and consequently my tendency to engage in long duration activities like films and games has withered. I'm hopeful that C7 has enough new ideas and is well enough executed to perhaps sustain my attention and focus longer than other hobbies and pastimes. So far I'm really impressed with the care and thought put into the game. We'll see soon enough.

 

[kaspergm]

You see, your last sentence confirms to me that what you're looking for is what you want represented while you don't care about what others want. So I feel very justified in feeling happy Britain is not in.

Wow, I actually think this comment is really petty.

For what it's worth, I think all @TheGrayFox has been arguing is that Civ used to be about representing the big civilizations that formed world history, and that Civ7 has clearly shifted completely away from that focus. I think that's inarguably true. One can approve or disapprove of this shift depending on taste and priorities, but that the shift has happened seems an indisputable fact, and to deny it seems ... Anyway, I don't think the developers have excluded Britain in order to monitize the game even further and sell more DLC. I just think they have been painted up into a corner by the design decision they did for the game. Again, whether it's a good or bad design decision is a matter of taste, but personally I'm sorry to see the game suffering by so many absurd elements in an attempt of making something meaningful out of a design choice and then in the end still not really getting their because the ends are just too far from each other to reach each other with the resources at hand.

 

[AD1730]

Anyway, I don't think the developers have excluded Britain in order to monitize the game even further and sell more DLC.

But, one has to acknowledge the reality that failure to include Britain/England would only create further skepticism around Firaxis' DLC policy. If they didn't expect a negative reaction to this, they are out of touch.

To me, it's just a massive unforced error and only fuels more criticism of other "unworthy" civ choices. So, instead of talking about how it's cool that Buganda is in the game, we're discussing how they are taking another civ's spot.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

They haven't excluded England. Fair enough if you don't like what they've chosen to do with them, but an important part of England's history is in the game. Perhaps they simply thought people would be more excited by this representation, who knows.

 

[Calico Jack]

They haven't excluded England. Fair enough if you don't like what they've chosen to do with them, but an important part of England's history is in the game. Perhaps they simply thought people would be more excited by this representation, who knows.

Please do not dance around this - England has been excluded. The Normans were one chapter of England's long and storied history, but they certainly don't represent England in Civilisation.

 

[TheGrayFox]

They haven't excluded England. Fair enough if you don't like what they've chosen to do with them, but an important part of England's history is in the game. Perhaps they simply thought people would be more excited by this representation, who knows.

Now this is a fair point but I think it was obviously a miscalculation on Firaxis part that they would sell us "Civ layering" using English history as an example and then not actually include England/Britain proper but instead only give us the Normans as their sole representation in an Age themed around intercontinental exploration that they feel oddly out of place in.

 

[Ebon-Hawke-]

Please do not dance around this - England has been excluded. The Normans were one chapter of England's long and storied history, but they certainly don't represent England in Civilisation.

I think the devs fully thought between Normans and America there was enough representation for the anglosphere. If you only have 10 modern era civs and include Britain and the US they pretty much fill the same industrial and expansionist niche do they not? Again I think it boils down to maybe they should have just included 12 civs per age at launch and not gross negligence on the devs part.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Now this is a fair point but I think it was obviously a miscalculation on Firaxis

It could well turn out to be.

 

[Calico Jack]

I think the devs fully thought between Normans and America there was enough representation for the anglosphere. If you only have 10 modern era civs and include Britain and the US they pretty much fill the same industrial and expansionist niche do they not?

Not at all. Two very different countries and even a cursory glance at their history will show that they certainly wouldn't need to fill the same 'niche', from a mechanical perspective - nor should they.

 

[aelf]

Wow, I actually think this comment is really petty.

For what it's worth, I think all @TheGrayFox has been arguing is that Civ used to be about representing the big civilizations that formed world history, and that Civ7 has clearly shifted completely away from that focus. I think that's inarguably true. One can approve or disapprove of this shift depending on taste and priorities, but that the shift has happened seems an indisputable fact, and to deny it seems ... Anyway, I don't think the developers have excluded Britain in order to monitize the game even further and sell more DLC. I just think they have been painted up into a corner by the design decision they did for the game. Again, whether it's a good or bad design decision is a matter of taste, but personally I'm sorry to see the game suffering by so many absurd elements in an attempt of making something meaningful out of a design choice and then in the end still not really getting their because the ends are just too far from each other to reach each other with the resources at hand.

Not inarguable. I have no doubt Britain will be in at some point. But when people complain about the lack of Euro representation at launch while dismissing other civ inclusions or even whining about DEI, I have zero sympathy.

I'd actually encourage those who outraged by this not to buy the game ever. Call it woke or an attempt at cynical monetization. Don't buy it. I'm actually excited to see which side will prevail in the end.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Please do not dance around this - England has been excluded. The Normans were one chapter of England's long and storied history, but they certainly don't represent England in Civilisation.

Well, as an Englishman, I disagree.

I think the omission of an English leader, whilst we have 2.5 US ones, is certainly a bit odd.

 

[Calico Jack]

Well, as an Englishman, I disagree.

And as an Englishman, that's a bizarre and rather sad stance to be taking.