friendlysavage
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 27
Same. I genuinely don't know how people can look at it without getting a migraineJust goes to show taste is subjective. Civ5 would make my shortlist of ugliest games ever made.![]()
Same. I genuinely don't know how people can look at it without getting a migraineJust goes to show taste is subjective. Civ5 would make my shortlist of ugliest games ever made.![]()
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 tbhZero.
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.
Our perceptions change perhaps?Same. I genuinely don't know how people can look at it without getting a migraine
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!”.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
You assume that all civ1-4 players are here and voting. Anyway, the generation part wasn't even point of my post.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 a reasonable and probable conclusion can be drawn from the mere absence of members, when the possibilities are myriad.You assume that all civ1-4 players are here and voting. Anyway, the generation part wasn't even point of my post.