• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

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

How excited are you currently about Civ7? (January/February 25)

  • 0 - Not excited at all, I hate what I've seen and will certainly never buy it

    Votes: 23 7.8%
  • 1

    Votes: 19 6.5%
  • 2

    Votes: 14 4.8%
  • 3

    Votes: 15 5.1%
  • 4

    Votes: 16 5.5%
  • 5

    Votes: 14 4.8%
  • 6

    Votes: 21 7.2%
  • 7

    Votes: 15 5.1%
  • 8

    Votes: 39 13.3%
  • 9

    Votes: 39 13.3%
  • 10 - Super excited, I love everything I've seen so far and have already pre-ordered

    Votes: 78 26.6%

  • Total voters
    293
Went from a 3 to 2

I really dislike the decision to purposefully choose non-heads of states as leader, I'm disappointed with final civ roster for launch, and the livestreams really did nothing to assuage my worries or grips about more contentious changes like ages, crisises, or civ swapping.
 
1 for me. I'd say I started out at a 3 because I immediately did not like the civ switching and age mechanics. They are just not what I want in a Civ game. The only new mechanics that I have seen that I like are the commanders and navigable rivers. Everything else for me is a net negative. At this point, the more they show the less I like. I'm not going to rule out ever getting the game, but it will likely need to be at a sharp discount and will be years away at this point.
 
1 for me. I'd say I started out at a 3 because I immediately did not like the civ switching and age mechanics. They are just not what I want in a Civ game. The only new mechanics that I have seen that I like are the commanders and navigable rivers. Everything else for me is a net negative. At this point, the more they show the less I like. I'm not going to rule out ever getting the game, but it will likely need to be at a sharp discount and will be years away at this point.
While it's not all negative for me, I also nicked myself from a 4 to a 3, because what I have seen since the last vote - namely many of the leader choices and the victory mechanisms - mostly counts in the negative direction for me. I'm not inherently against civ switching, but I don't like the way it's implemented, I'm pretty strongly against the none-leader-leaders, particularly when they are chosen over obvious actual leader candidates, and the game just don't inspires me from what I've seen in the videos.
 
Last edited:
Well it's not all negative for me, I also nicked myself from a 4 to a 3, because what I have seen since the last vote - namely many of the leader choices and the victory mechanisms - mostly counts in the negative direction for me. I'm not inherently against civ switching, but I don't like the way it's implemented, I'm pretty strongly against the none-leader-leaders, particularly when they are chosen over obvious actual leader candidates, and the game just don't inspires me from what I've seen in the videos.
I don't like the detached leader system, but I am frustrated that they aren't even using it to its fullest capacity. To me, a leader like Bolivar would be perfect for this system. Also, it would allow for someone like Skanderbeg, whose civ wouldn't normally make the roster, but he's nowhere to be found yet.
 
Big no (1) for me, some nice additions that are overwhelmed by so many red flags. Also I truly don't like overclogged map (which is sad, because the terrain itself is pretty) that makes me almost uncomfortable when looking at it.
 
I'm on 9, this Civ is doing a lot of this I always wanted to see in a civ game. The American/French bias in leaders coupled with posible lack of mesoamerican or latin american leader is keeping me from going 10.
 
I am amazed to find my interest is basically … zero.

I’ve been following along, and there is obviously lots of great stuff in Civ 7. Production value is of course amazing. Lots of fantastic quality of life improvements. Yes, some really big changes to the core gameplay, but at a really high level they seem like really clever ways to recast key parts of the game.

I also think that essentially ‘resetting’ the game via Eras is probably a good way to ensure the gameplay stays interesting all the way through. I don’t think it’s the only solution - eg Civ could have used something like the catch up mechanics in board games like 7Wonders that let trailing players sort of make high risk gambles to get back into the game - but the Era or chapter approach works too.

So, all really good, right?

Yeah. Really good. But there are three things that, the more I look at it, just leave me uninterested.

First, there just seems to be too much scripted content. The thing I like about Civ is how all this complexity emerges from the game playing out this somewhat simple rules and economies turn by turn against a random map. All the scripted content under cuts that.

Second, while I don’t mind the idea of Civ swapping and Eras in general, they at its being implemented seems to lose the feeling of playing a people through time. I honestly think it just comes down to not having the entire tech tree visible at once, and instead only ever seeing chunks of it, and not having some option to keep a previous Civs name or something like that. No issue with the mechanics, just the presentation, but it I’m surprised to find that really matters for me.

Third, and this is the biggest issue, the mechanics seem to have doubled down on the whole ‘no trade-offs, play as you wish’ approach that Civ 6 adopted at the end. I really loved the way in Civ 6 that various options gave you ‘spikey’ trade-offs, and economies were so counter-intuitive. eg if you wanted to be good at war, you didn’t need science and hammers, you needed faith; if you wanted scientific superiority then you needed culture; you could have a science alliance with another Civ, so you got some extra science while you focused on a different victory, and could then still war with them via spies and religion; if you had oceans but not mountains, you pushed harbours not campuses, and had to manage a weaker production queue, and so on and so on. But then, over time, all the choices were tweaked to be the same, and everything was streamlined. Build campuses everywhere. Pick a victory type, and just pick the governments designed for that victory build everything that that has the same blue or purple or white or red colour.

It feels like choices in Civ 7 are much the same. Governments don’t have differences; policies are always two bad +one good (and you just optimise to avoid the bass); everything just does more of x with no trade-offs or situational changes. The only trade offs are opportunity costs, ie if I do this, I don’t do this other thing, and so the game play won’t be a constantly changing puzzle, it will just demand that you focus on your win condition as much as possible - except, you can probably win without doing that, so you have room to muck around with other mechanics etc but none of that will actually change any outcomes in the game.

I’m not too worried. Still hoping the game feels better when played and is more nuanced that it appears so far, or if not it gets better via expansions. Or if not, I can still play Civ 6 (or 5 or 4) or something from paradox, or just play some cool board games with mates.

Surprised I’m not pumped about Civ 7. Probably won’t buy it. But still love Civ, and really hope other people love Civ 7 and it’s a big hit!
 
Voted 1 in the last two polls. I'm slowly starting to sway though.

I'm going with 0 now.

No chance I buy this game.
 
I've gone up from a 3 to a 5, but that's primarily because the civ-fever is getting to me. To be quite honest, I disagree with a lot of the decisions made when making this game. I still think civ switching is stupid.

While I think civ-switching is dumb, I've gotten to a point where I've accepted it. Maybe it's a stage of grief. I hate it but I am interested in what they can do with it.

I predict my score will only go up if another poll comes out... not because I like what they've made per se, but because Civ is civ, and its so hard for me to not get excited for a Civ game.
 
I'm glad for those who are not excited that the devs have been very transparent about about the changes they're making so you don't end up buying the game just because it's Civ and end up really unhappy with it.
 
Voted a 2 but that is probably too low given that I have enjoyed the off the wall leader and civ picks. The changes to the mechanics are sadly off-putting enough that I won't be buying the game at launch or maybe ever.
 
While I think civ-switching is dumb, I've gotten to a point where I've accepted it. Maybe it's a stage of grief. I hate it but I am interested in what they can do with it.
I hated it at first as well, but slowly came around as I started liking what they were doing with it to include a broader roster of civs and some interesting choices that would have been difficult with the traditional Civ model (like the Mississippians and breaking up India).
 
8 would be a lie, as I consume every bit of released content almost instantly, if I have the opportunity to do so. So 9 it is for me.

Still slightly worried about sound & animation design. (arrows & bombers in the livestreams didn't inspire me to say the least)
 
Top Bottom