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

[Zaarin]

I think the ottomans should be another civ that’s expanded to 2 ages.

I'd rather take the opportunity to finally have the Seljuqs in the game. Overabundance of warmongers notwithstanding, I'll take Alp Arslan, too.

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

Do we know the release time yet?

 

[Trengilly]

Yes, I think 'mechanics first' players will probably be a lot more excited than 'immersion first' players.

I felt 6 had taken a further step towards board game mechanics to be honest, and although I still clocked 300+ hours on it, it was my least played iteration

I'm absolutely a 'mechanics first' player . . . and while my excitement was a 9 back in December, its faded down to perhaps a 3 now.

I initially liked the 'board game mechanics' of Civ 6 . . . but was very frustrated by how unbalanced the mechanics were. Crazy chopping and most strategies for quick wins meant actually avoiding building things or engaging with core mechanics. I hoped Civ 6 would get more balance fixes but instead it got layers and layers of new unbalanced systems and OP civilizations/leaders.

I was initially really excited about Civ 7 because it looked like there was a real design intent to tighten up all the game systems. And I actually love the idea of Three Ages and Civ Switching. I wanted to get back into Civilization.

But the gameplay reveals and stuff we've been seeing from content creators has shattered my hopes. Between Leader/Civ/Momento combinations there seems to be little balance and the AI is clearly not where I would like it to be. I've also found the unique systems for Exploration and Modern ages lackluster. Religion looks very tedious and the Treasure Fleet system doesn't excite me (perhaps if there was piracy or more active naval warfare it would be better). And Modern seems to be mostly collecting artifacts and optimizing railroads.

The crisis system seems like it could use more fleshing out and something to make it more reactive and engaging. Just picking the least negative policy card and then adjusting to counter the effects isn't that engaging. Crisis should be a big event that you look forward to and make gameplay strategies around.

Civ 7 feels like its following in the Civ 6 mode of providing a fun sandbox where you play with a bunch of crazy systems and use exploits to break the game or otherwise dominate an AI that is just kind of going through the motions.

But that's a me problem. I'm very old school and would prefer a hardcore strategy game. 'Mechanics First' for me needs to be tightly integrated and balanced systems that you work to master. I'm not really interested in a casual 4x empire builder.

I'll keep following along and look forward to seeing how the reception to Civ 7 goes. Perhaps with more information once its out, I'll warm up to it again.

 

[GrayingGamer]

I'm absolutely a 'mechanics first' player . . .

I'm an immersion-first player, but I agree with most of your points. Often the two overlap - if an AI can't handle the various systems, and players are incentivized to use exploits and cheese tactics, the immersion is certainly broken.

I think I'm tired of the board game aesthetic - I'm ready for someone to make a Civ-type game that utilizes a highly detailed, very zoomable map that would superficially seem to work more like an RTS map, that nonetheless focuses on player choice and pausable or turn-based progression (and not at all on the APM nonsense that dominates actual RTS). Dune: Spice Wars (which was ultimately a disappointment) got me thinking along these lines. Lots of largely untapped potential there.

 

[trev1972]

I'm absolutely a 'mechanics first' player . . . and while my excitement was a 9 back in December, its faded down to perhaps a 3 now.

I initially liked the 'board game mechanics' of Civ 6 . . . but was very frustrated by how unbalanced the mechanics were. Crazy chopping and most strategies for quick wins meant actually avoiding building things or engaging with core mechanics. I hoped Civ 6 would get more balance fixes but instead it got layers and layers of new unbalanced systems and OP civilizations/leaders.

I was initially really excited about Civ 7 because it looked like there was a real design intent to tighten up all the game systems. And I actually love the idea of Three Ages and Civ Switching. I wanted to get back into Civilization.

But the gameplay reveals and stuff we've been seeing from content creators has shattered my hopes. Between Leader/Civ/Momento combinations there seems to be little balance and the AI is clearly not where I would like it to be. I've also found the unique systems for Exploration and Modern ages lackluster. Religion looks very tedious and the Treasure Fleet system doesn't excite me (perhaps if there was piracy or more active naval warfare it would be better). And Modern seems to be mostly collecting artifacts and optimizing railroads.

The crisis system seems like it could use more fleshing out and something to make it more reactive and engaging. Just picking the least negative policy card and then adjusting to counter the effects isn't that engaging. Crisis should be a big event that you look forward to and make gameplay strategies around.

Civ 7 feels like its following in the Civ 6 mode of providing a fun sandbox where you play with a bunch of crazy systems and use exploits to break the game or otherwise dominate an AI that is just kind of going through the motions.

But that's a me problem. I'm very old school and would prefer a hardcore strategy game. 'Mechanics First' for me needs to be tightly integrated and balanced systems that you work to master. I'm not really interested in a casual 4x empire builder.

I'll keep following along and look forward to seeing how the reception to Civ 7 goes. Perhaps with more information once its out, I'll warm up to it again.

Good post, as an immersion first player a lot of these issues you mentioned matter to me as well. For example playing against an incompetent AI is immersion breaking. I haven't played civ 6 for a good while but i remember they would keep ancient units in the modern age rather than upgrading them? It was certainly immersion breaking to send a rock band to a city and see their muskets etc.

The 'fixes' for that (such as auto upgrading units) suggest to me that rather than actually fixing the ai to be competent- they have looked to simplify things for the AI.

I do want a sandbox game, with as many options in how to play as possible (such as my tsl games, or games with lots of islands for naval games) but i also want opponents that form a challenge - without simply giving them huge combat/production/science bonuses.

 

[Riker13]

This will be the first Civilization game I have not got on day of release and I have played them all, not excited at all about Civ 7 don't like the changing of the civs I'm an old timer stuck in my ways. I expect I will get it when all dlc's are out and it's modded.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Surprised this thread died down so close to release. I'd like to update my 10 to a 8 or 9.

I've been trying to defend the devs all over the place on this forum as I have been playing since civ 3 when I was like 5 and I'm very hyped, but I'm overhyped and can't help but remember how not quite disappointing? but barebones civ 5 and 6 felt on release. Did I still play the living hell out of them for a solid 2 months? Yes, but I wish they held me in longer at launch. And as much as I support the dev's choice to not include Great Britain... it does sadden me, I love the Napoleonic era. Half the reason I gave it a 10 beforehand and I've been following the news so close is I've just been looking for a game to play obsessively for like a year now since I hoped back off the guild wars 2 mmo train. I will say it does look more feature complete than 5 and 6 did so I'm hopeful, just trying to soften my expectations up a little. Maybe the new DLC coming in ~<2 months will keep me playing for a while longer on launch.

(I will still be getting founders edition )

I'm very excited as well, but also have tempered my expectations. Despite what some have said here, Civ6 had a great launch. It was great fun from the get-go even if there were some rough edges. I hope Civ7 will be the same - excited for the new mechanics, what they are now and the potential they have in the future - while still knowing not everything will be perfect at launch.

Also, I personally think there are unrealistic expectations for how much Civ fans "should" play a release in order for it to be successful. If you play Civ7 for a solid 2 months after release, then step away for months or even years and come back to it later, what's wrong with that? If you end up playing "only" 200 hours of Civ7, what's wrong with that? It's a game and a hobby - it's not supposed to be your exclusive activity for any extended period of time.

 

[trev1972]

I'm very excited as well, but also have tempered my expectations. Despite what some have said here, Civ6 had a great launch. It was great fun from the get-go even if there were some rough edges. I hope Civ7 will be the same - excited for the new mechanics, what they are now and the potential they have in the future - while still knowing not everything will be perfect at launch.

Also, I personally think there are unrealistic expectations for how much Civ fans "should" play a release in order for it to be successful. If you play Civ7 for a solid 2 months after release, then step away for months or even years and come back to it later, what's wrong with that? If you end up playing "only" 200 hours of Civ7, what's wrong with that? It's a game and a hobby - it's not supposed to be your exclusive activity for any extended period of time.

Yep to be fair 300 hours play is my moneys worth even if i didnt enjoy 6 as much as previous titles.
I can only speak personally, while i have plenty of hobbies, the only PC game i play is civ, i am not really a 'gamer'. So on civ 4 for example i clocked up thousands of hours playing it.

 

[Professor Phobo]

In terms of excitement, I need it in my veins like, today.

 

[CivKirk64]

This is my 5th Civ Launch, probably 3rd I'd have my hands on right at launch, not waiting for a birthday/Christmas to get a copy. I watched my friend play a SNES port of Civ (I), ran out to ask my parents about getting my own copy and discovered Civ 2 was already out and got the Gold edition. Didn't play it for long before reading in a magazine that III was about to release & blow my mind. Probably got that for Christmas the same year. IV I bought 2 copies one for me and one for my brother and I think we only ever got like 1 live game to actually work. 4 is currently my favorite, I sunk so much time into it I can't imagine what I could have accomplished doing soemthing else instead (maybe built a rocket? )

For playtime, I checked for fun and was surprised to see for V I had only at about 480 hours, not surprised its my least played though, it is my least favourite. VI for comparison is sitting in 800 somewhere and this should factor in the fact that I have significantly less time to spend gaming. I don't think I have a number, nor would I know how I would find it now, but if I were to guess, I played III and IV in my school days and each is probably closer to 1500-2000 or more.

All this to say that it feels like to me that VII is the most complete version we've ever seen at launch, we can see the holes though, but even so, everything I've seen so far has me extremely excited. I just want to get into it now, this is the version designed for my tastes. Hype level still 11

 

[Lord Shadow]

I'm very excited as well, but also have tempered my expectations. Despite what some have said here, Civ6 had a great launch. It was great fun from the get-go even if there were some rough edges. I hope Civ7 will be the same - excited for the new mechanics, what they are now and the potential they have in the future - while still knowing not everything will be perfect at launch.

Also, I personally think there are unrealistic expectations for how much Civ fans "should" play a release in order for it to be successful. If you play Civ7 for a solid 2 months after release, then step away for months or even years and come back to it later, what's wrong with that? If you end up playing "only" 200 hours of Civ7, what's wrong with that? It's a game and a hobby - it's not supposed to be your exclusive activity for any extended period of time.

Oh yeah, that's bound to be highly variable. There's bound to be wild amplitude between focused young gamers with copious free time, and older adults with kids and/or many responsibilities.

Most of us invariably drift towards the latter as we age. The earlier Civs caught us younger, freer and more impressionable, and unfortunately that awe is very difficult, if not impossible, to reproduce in our older, likely more experienced selves.

After loving Colonization and a stint in Civ2, the PSX version of all variants, I played a chunk of Civ3 and Civ4, which I even modded to some extent. But those metrics weren't recorded in the pre-Steam days. I played Civ5 for 77.5 hours, CivBE for 34.7 hours (twice that if we count SDK modding) and Civ6 for 92.9 hours (add half that again in modding time). With any luck, Civ7 will reach Civ6 figures, but games holding my interest in the hundreds of hours at this point in life are virtually unheard of. That's the realm of thoroughly multiplayer games, and I'm way past that age or inclination.

Combine that with an interest in many games and genres, in a time where the PC gaming market is monumentally larger than it was two decades ago... There is just not enough time. Why put a thousand hours into a game when the novelty has worn off by hour 100? If a game remains interesting, novel and non-repetitive hundreds of hours in for you, blessed be your youth.

I'm talking like a jaded 60-year-old. I'm 38, but having gamed for 35 of those years, I've experienced myriad formulae, structures and mechanics across vast amounts of games. It's hard to find something impressive and engaging anywhere near as long as someone considerably younger could.

 

[Bast]

I'm excited for the game again and will be getting it. I want to see more civs and leaders but I love what they've done with the game and it'll be a great edition of the series. I've played 2, 3, 4 and 6. The more I watch stuff about 7, the more I'm impressed.

 

[Sprenk]

I'm one of those civ fans who "moves on" when a new Civ iteration comes out, because, after spending 1500+ hours on one version, I'm ready for a change. And I am one of those (apparently typical?) Civ players who start hundreds of games for every game I actually finish. So I'm excited for the ages system because it seems to offer some hope that the whole game will be more interesting--not just the sweet, sweet first 100 turns.

Also, I'm really glad they separated the leaders from the civs, because it offers far more possibilities for interesting builds. The replayability shoots out the roof.

And, watching the best of the YouTubers' gameplays, the game just looks really, really fun. Lots of choice, lots to think about. Definitely seems like a proper Civ game. Can't wait!

 

[Acken]

I can echo some of this for sure even though I still want a game with enough depth to not feel it is solved in a couple playthrough. Civ5, my favourite in the series caught me while at university with a lot of free time. Now more than a decade later with 2 kids and a full time job the issue isn't money but time where I can only squeeze 2 to 3hr maximum per day and that's by sacrificing some sleep hours. Reaching my civ5 hour count at 3K hours would take me 3 years of doing this everyday

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Only thing slightly dampening my enthusiasm is the number of videos already where streamers are absolutely crushing Deity. I mean, I fully expected this, but I was still hoping it would be harder than it currently looks.

On the plus, all the bonus stacking possibilities do look really fun, multiplayer with my group is going to be great.

 

[cabelhigh12]

Ive been playing a lot of Civ 4 again, and man I just wish the new games would have AI that actually knew how to play. Theres so much dynamism in the AI that 5,6, and probably 7 are missing. Seeing all the broken builds is fun in the Big Number Gets Bigger sorta way, but whats the point if the enemy does put up any aort of fight

 

[reddishrecue]

I'm excited about that stream they're having on February 8th I think where they will be on multiplayer. I cant wait to watch it before I play the actual game. Both very exciting dates, the release and the multiplayer stream.

 

[Deggial]

I am sitting on the currently least chosen score of 7 (only equivalent to 3).
There seem to be very few Civfanatics in this "cautiously optimistic" state.

I look forward to:
- The new art style. The miniature/diorama look and feel is sooooo nice!
- Experience gaining commanders and with them the replaceability of the common soldiers. A sad, harsh reality.
- Actually the age mechanic with civ switching (I'm weird, I know!) and because of this mechanic the ...
- ... huge and now more evenly distributed variety of unique units/improvements/buildings/great people. Gone are the times of OP early civilizations.
- The very well thought out choice of leader abilities, which seem to be very much in line with the real people that the leaders represent.

I am concerned about:
- The new art style. It will be much harder to read the map than in Civ6. But I think I will learn to do it.
- The lack of rock-paper-scissors combat logic. Yeah, that mechanic might be ... gamey. But I'm going to play a game, aren't I? And I like my spear men to counter the horsmen sweeping through my archers. But I get it, it's easier for the AI. I just hope that the AI improvements (which seem to exist, according to some previews) will justify the omission.
- The flaws of the UI. Also according to some previews, there seems to be a lot of missing information. And unexplained empty spaces that require scrollbars where there should be none. Fortunately, the developers have already confirmed that they are open to criticism and willing to improve the UI.

In conclusion, there is light and there is shadow.
But apparently only a few setbacks are baked into the game. The only thing that won't change is the combat.
The UI will improve, as will my ability to read the map.

Therefore a 7.
Cautiously optimistic.

Oh.
And last weekend I pre-ordered the game.
Now it's too late, there's no going back.

 

[Acken]

I am sitting on the currently least chosen score of 7 (only equivalent to 3).
There seem to be very few Civfanatics in this "cautiously optimistic" state.

Welcome to the club then I'm cautious for different reasons though:
* Looks too easy (aka bad AI and lackluster balance)
* The whole distant lands mechanics making distant land civs second class citizen
* Not enough "good terrain" emphasis. Resources look like a bonus that you can live without. You seem to be incentivized to take as much land as possible by your limit rather than specific good land. The base yields all look very similar with techs and buildings boosting it.

 

[ehecatzin]

* Not enough "good terrain" emphasis. Resources look like a bonus that you can live without. You seem to be incentivized to take as much land as possible by your limit rather than specific good land. The base yields all look very similar with techs and buildings boosting it

I think that the "good terrain" too look for now are navigatable rivers. I'd love to see more biomes that change how we construct cities,to emphasise more "good" terrains.