• 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
Just goes to show taste is subjective. Civ5 would make my shortlist of ugliest games ever made. :D
Same. I genuinely don't know how people can look at it without getting a migraine
 
Zero.

The game doesn't appeal to me at all due to its complete abandonment of its original ethos to 'build a civilization to stand the test of time'.
Instead it has somehow morphed into 'build a civilization to magically transform into another civilization that may or may not be historically related to them or make sense in general, and then do so again at another point in time for some arbitrary reason.'

Frankly, I doubt I will ever buy the game under any circumstances due to the core mechanic of arbitrary and forced civ swapping.
Fair enough, but for an oldhead like me, civ switching is the greatest thing they've added to the franchise in over a decade. I'd probably sit this one out if they didn't make a change like that tbh
 
My initial optimism when I heard they were shaking things up with civ-switching has been steadily dropping as we see more and more. But I was still relatively neutral until I saw the Legends and Mementos dev diary, which gave me the clearest insight yet into what sort of game they are trying to create. So its down to 1 for me now, while I wait for the actual game to come out in hopes that I'm wrong.
 
Clearly we all like different things from the game

I love earth maps, about half my games are on Europe/World maps and when not playing those I like gigantic maps, civ 6 maps felt too small for me.

I am not sure how true it is but I have read that maps are getting even smaller and that there will be no earth map.

I am also struggling to see how TSL maps would work even with the inevitable maps from the communities fantastic modders.

I also tend to play England a heck of a lot as it's my home nation. They don't appear to be in the game.

With all that in mind, I.am struggling to find anything I have seen thus far that makes me want to play the game.

It feels as if choices in how to play have been reduced in exchange for a curated experience in a smaller world.

But I think perhaps it is just me being too old, I hated the idea of vampires etc in a civ game for example but they apparently went down well.

It makes sense for the developers to go this way, old people such as myself who play on earth maps and get engrossed in recreating a different world history (such as playing India and reverse colonising the world) are probably a very small market. They want to appeal to the largest audience possible, who probably dont care about TSL, or the size of the maps, or the historic scenarios. Even though i understand the direction the game is going it is hard to not feel really disappointed as civ is the only game i ever buy.
 
Last edited:
I keep putting myself at a 9 because I haven't preordered yet, but I'm probably at a 10 in terms of hype. From changing Civ abilities to increased focus on city planning to reduced micromanagement with traders and builders to all of the mechanics that generally create narrative opportunities (big things like Legacy Paths and Crises and Civ Switching and even little things like war names,) this Civ game addresses pretty much anything I would have wanted from a new Civ on a mechanical level. I'd like some more Civilizations, sure, but with the work that goes into them and how much I like what's already there, I'm willing to pay a bit extra or even do some coding on my own time for my most wanted (most of which were never base game contenders anyways)
 
As my name implies, this one goes to 11!

OK, I voted an 8. I do appreciate the approach the team has taken and the mix of old and new. There are so many things that look good and feel like they will be fun to mess around with, and quite a lot of variety and various paths to learn about.

Sadly, my guess is the combat AI will suck as much as in VI, since there is no indication it was a priority other than pre-battle pathing via Commanders. (And the fact they never bothered to fix the horrendous lack of units late game in VI either, or something as simple as killing a barb sitting at the edge of an AI city for 150 turns. Or scouting 4 hexes from the capital for a Goody Hut. But I digress.) Not a deal-breaker as I do enjoy sandbox-type Civ games in many ways. I just hope that Modders rush in, V and VI needed so much help from day one.
 
9 to 10

Played civ since Civ I. Have watched these forums for years and it’s like we are stuck in a weird ground hog day time loop. Theres always the collection of long term players absolutely furious about some such thing that someone is doing wrong and has absolutely RUINED the franchise.

I guess for me, the team at Firaxsis is so seasoned now and the vision so well articulated that even with the new civ game problems that always exist they are going to get this to its best possible form in the end. I love that journey, the patches, the changes, the improvements and additions.

Every version of Civ has had the same snowballing problem and other than reveling in my dominance of the late game there’s never been much of an early game like challenge in a Modern era. I’m starting to believe that with Eras in this iteration it might be possible. I’ll be shocked if the AI is any good to start but I have more faith because of the simplifications made, like era unit upgrades, tech trees with less contrived branching, and commanders that a late game WW2 is possible that wont just be a cakewalk of tanks versus spearman.

I trust Ed. He designed some very complicated beautiful systems for Civ 6 that he completely scrapped in favor of a simpler design like districts. That’s hard for a designer to do to really consider their baby and say maybe this is too much. Another example is workers and citizen management which haven’t changed fundamentally since Civ 1. For Ed to take a risk and completely revamp that is a testament to his teams willingness to slaughter any sacred cow. Funny I thought of workers changes before Civ switching, the golden calf of sacred cows!

In the famous words of SpongeBob, “I’m ready! I’m ready! I’m ready!”.
 
Same. I genuinely don't know how people can look at it without getting a migraine
Our perceptions change perhaps?
I remember when i first played civ 4 i was blown away by the appearance as it felt such an upgrade over civ 3/2/1

But when i recently watched a lets play game, it looked quite dated. It is still my fave version of the game
9 to 10

Played civ since Civ I. Have watched these forums for years and it’s like we are stuck in a weird ground hog day time loop. Theres always the collection of long term players absolutely furious about some such thing that someone is doing wrong and has absolutely RUINED the franchise.

I guess for me, the team at Firaxsis is so seasoned now and the vision so well articulated that even with the new civ game problems that always exist they are going to get this to its best possible form in the end. I love that journey, the patches, the changes, the improvements and additions.

Every version of Civ has had the same snowballing problem and other than reveling in my dominance of the late game there’s never been much of an early game like challenge in a Modern era. I’m starting to believe that with Eras in this iteration it might be possible. I’ll be shocked if the AI is any good to start but I have more faith because of the simplifications made, like era unit upgrades, tech trees with less contrived branching, and commanders that a late game WW2 is possible that wont just be a cakewalk of tanks versus spearman.

I trust Ed. He designed some very complicated beautiful systems for Civ 6 that he completely scrapped in favor of a simpler design like districts. That’s hard for a designer to do to really consider their baby and say maybe this is too much. Another example is workers and citizen management which haven’t changed fundamentally since Civ 1. For Ed to take a risk and completely revamp that is a testament to his teams willingness to slaughter any sacred cow. Funny I thought of workers changes before Civ switching, the golden calf of sacred cows!

In the famous words of SpongeBob, “I’m ready! I’m ready! I’m ready!”.

That is fair, i guess you felt civ 5 and civ 6 were improvements over previous games. In which case i can see why it feels like a loop where people are initially unhappy then realise the game is great

For myself civ 6 didn't feel as good as civ 4, not because of hexes, but because the world felt smaller and the map options didn't seem as extensive (i haven't played for a while, i am going from memory so please correct me if wrong)
I also did not like the fantasy elements of the DLC and remember being unimpressed with the world congress which felt silly. Overall It felt more like a board game and less like a sandbox.

So while i got enjoyment from 6, i 'only' put a thousand hours into it before i stopped playing, as opposed to 3 or 4 times that in 4.

TLDR, civ gaming for a while has been moving in a way that i am too old and crusty to enjoy. The changes in civ 7 have accelerated that movement dramatically.
 
If I'm being honest the little incremental stuff still has me far more excited than the sweeping changes. No workers and commanders are the two things which have sold me on Civ7 the most.

I'm glad they made a bunch of big changes. Eras are a great idea, though I'm expecting the Exploration era will need a rework of its mechanics to have as much staying power as the other two. Leader mixing-matching is also amazing... I just wished they'd stopped there and not gone with civ switching...

I also doubt they will have stopped snowballing. Even if the rubberbanding approaches can prevent you outright winning in earlier age(s), you can still cripple your opponents to the stage where it isn't a competition, And crises will probably be handled better by players than AI further weakening the challenge overall.
 
If I assume Civ VII has simultaneous turns for multiplayer and stable multiplayer in general, it's 10/10 for me. If I assume it doesn't, it's probably 6/10 as I'll get burnt out very fast if I won't be able to play with my friends from other countries.

Lack of communication on multiplayer leaves me skeptical tbh, so I think I'll pick 7/10.

Edit: Firaxis community manager confirmed on Reddit that simultaneous turns are a thing! So I'm changing to 10 :)
 
Last edited:
Still a big fat zero.

I don't really give any credence to Firaxis' 33/33/33 claim anymore. I could see it being true up until (and including) civ4. There's before and after civ5. I think civ5 was good, but it was a big step away from the original franchise. Firaxis should have taken the good from civ5, but turn it a bit around towards the original again. Civ6 was an even farther step away of the franchise, and finally civ7 has basicly nothing to do with civ1-4 anymore. Firaxis have a funny way of spotting the same problems that I see with previous games, but they unfortunately find catastrophically bad solutions that I hate.

It's made for a new generation and if they like it, then that's fine - I'm just out of the entire franchise and that makes me sad.
 
Still a big fat zero.

I don't really give any credence to Firaxis' 33/33/33 claim anymore. I could see it being true up until (and including) civ4. There's before and after civ5. I think civ5 was good, but it was a big step away from the original franchise. Firaxis should have taken the good from civ5, but turn it a bit around towards the original again. Civ6 was an even farther step away of the franchise, and finally civ7 has basicly nothing to do with civ1-4 anymore. Firaxis have a funny way of spotting the same problems that I see with previous games, but they unfortunately find catastrophically bad solutions that I hate.

It's made for a new generation and if they like it, then that's fine - I'm just out of the entire franchise and that makes me sad.
I don't think it has anything to do with generations. This very forum has a lot of people who, like me, started with Civ1 in early 90s and are still very interested in Civ7.

It's not about age it's just some people like those changes, some don't.
 
Agreed with stealth. I've been playing since civ 2, am nearing forty now. Liked some changes and disliked some as the games released, but overall still a lot into in every new civ release since. But 7 may be the most excited I am about a new civ in a long while. Really interested in the changes they made.
 
I don't think it has anything to do with generations. This very forum has a lot of people who, like me, started with Civ1 in early 90s and are still very interested in Civ7.

It's not about age it's just some people like those changes, some don't.
That's what I would call anecdotal and irrelevant. If you look back at the earlier games pre-release, then you could see multiple pages with posts from the same day about the games. Now we have posts dating back to sunday for civ7. This forum is slowly dying because the platform of old-school forums are dying. That's the new generation and they use steam, reddit, x, tiktok, facebook etc.... not a forum.
 
That's what I would call anecdotal and irrelevant. If you look back at the earlier games pre-release, then you could see multiple pages with posts from the same day about the games. Now we have posts dating back to sunday for civ7. This forum is slowly dying because the platform of old-school forums are dying. That's the new generation and they use steam, reddit, x, tiktok, facebook etc.... not a forum.
This has nothing to do with my point. It's not about whether new generation uses the forum, it's about whether the old generation likes Civ7.

If anything, your post proves my point. If we're mostly old players here, and 60% of votes are 8+, it means Civ7 is not "made for a new generation"
 
As an elder millennial, I've been around since Civ1, but only a true fan since Civ2. Though I fell in love with Colonization before I did with Civ.

I estimate my excitement for Civ7 around 7.5, rounding up to 8. Call it cautiously optimistic.

I've been increasingly worried about AI competence ever since the inception of 1UPT, which on the surface looked like a great change, but practically speaking crippled the AI's ability to project threatening force. Even though the issue can be said to have been perceived even in the Civ5 era, CivBE did little to address it, and compounded the challenge problem with complicated, AI-unfriendly systems. Civ6 made amends to some extent, but not enough given the continued (if slightly lessened) iron-fist rule of 1UPT.

Civ7 brings hope with its (re-)implementation of armies, which should far more easily pathfind through the usual Civ landscape.

If there's anything else I'm skeptical about is the premature end to the timeline. But at the same time, I'd wager Firaxis has something up their sleeve for the post-launch cycle.

Overall, from where I'm standing, Civ4 was the peak of the pre-1UPT era, and Civ6 the peak of 1UPT. I'm fairly confident Civ7 will at the very least be on the same level.


PS: I do not think nor see how Civ7 could be "made for the new generation". What does that even mean?
 
This has nothing to do with my point. It's not about whether new generation uses the forum, it's about whether the old generation likes Civ7.

If anything, your post proves my point. If we're mostly old players here, and 60% of votes are 8+, it means Civ7 is not "made for a new generation"
You assume that all civ1-4 players are here and voting. Anyway, the generation part wasn't even point of my post.
 
You assume that all civ1-4 players are here and voting. Anyway, the generation part wasn't even point of my post.
You assume a reasonable and probable conclusion can be drawn from the mere absence of members, when the possibilities are myriad.

They can be any shade between silent advocates to silent detractors to people who may not even game anymore, at this point in life. And the distribution of that pie chart is anyone's guess.
 
Top Bottom