TheGhostEnthusiast
King
I would like to amend my score to an 11, if allowed. Gameplay and the final bits of news are absolutely wonderful.
How excited are you currently about Civ7? [vol 3 - January/February 25]
- Thread starter kaspergm
- Start date
Dreadnought
Deity
Still not terribly excited for this game. I very much despise the civ switching mechanic. Leader choice is bizarre at best or self-servingly dogmatic at worst. Nation choice as well seems strange. Industry and trade do seem interesting, and age switching is actually a decent idea but seems clumsily implemented.
Maybe it's just me but Civilization as a series especially with 6 has tread towards genericism in order to appeal to a broader market (like all things eventually do, looking at D&D5e as another example). Unfortunately that means this game is probably not designed for me, and so I do not have much interest in buying it unless it goes deeply on sale. I was a huge fan of Civ3/4, played a lot of 5, but haven't played 6 in 4 years.
Maybe it's just me but Civilization as a series especially with 6 has tread towards genericism in order to appeal to a broader market (like all things eventually do, looking at D&D5e as another example). Unfortunately that means this game is probably not designed for me, and so I do not have much interest in buying it unless it goes deeply on sale. I was a huge fan of Civ3/4, played a lot of 5, but haven't played 6 in 4 years.
Seek
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,761
Why so?
For me watching the gameplay has changed my 8 to a 9
Edit: I love how dynamic the game is looking to be. After the static civ 6 I welcome this with open arms.
queenpea
Emperor
I’m happy for you! I’m currently struggling with the randomized leader/civ combinations. Just a bit shocked. I was pretty much over my initial anxiety about cov switching, and now it’s back.Why so?
For me watching the gameplay has changed my 8 to a 9
Edit: I love how dynamic the game is looking to be. After the static civ 6 I welcome this with open arms.
Seek
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,761
I see.. I guess I always just saw the civs/leaders as very abstract so it doesn't seem so different from earlier iterations of the series.
I mentioned elsewhere, but I think the default is for random civs and leaders at setup. So perhaps if these were manually set at the beginning of the game it would help?
That, and the UI is awful. For me, the city sprawl and the UI ruin how nice the map itself looks.
This is anecdotal, but it seems like those who really liked 5, but not 6, are more likely to dislike this iteration. I know I fall in that camp, and it appears to be the case with many others in that same demographic too.
Dreadnought
Deity
This is very interesting! I too am part of this group
Mr Jon of Cheam
Emperor
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,358
I suppose it makes sense since both VI and VII are fully Ed Beach games, whereas launch V was not.
I'm not sure if I quite fit though, I haven't got a clear favourite.
That makes sense, i loved 1-4, really liked 5, did not like 6 and really do not like what i have seen of 7
Seek
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,761
Huh, I really like it, it has a nice 19th century Gothic (?) aesthetic, and I love all the little ornamentations. I hated the blandness of civ 6's UI, which looked so plastic.
That being said, the utility of the city screen and building placement UI is atrocious lol - just give me the base info so I can decide without all the handholding!
I fall into this demographic (thousands of hours in 5 and only a couple hundred in 6) and couldn't be more excited to see an about face from all the issues I saw with civ 6: The map looks good again (though scaling is a little off), the game seems more dynamic than 5 even, and there doesn't seem to be the awful invisible cost scaling here.
Trav'ling Canuck
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2018
- Messages
- 3,378
This is me, too. As much as I like some of the innovations, like civ-switching, the game is giving me vibes that they took the things I disliked about Civ 6 and amplified them. Hope I'm wrong.
Again, more likely. I never made a causative claim or made bold claims about effect size. It just seems like there is a general trend. Outside of these forums, it has held up with in my discussions with friends. Those of us who loved 5 and disliked 6 generally aren't excited about this one. There are exceptions of course.
If you see civs/leaders as abstract i can see why you love the shaking up of things.
I know prehistoric America makes no sense and that it isnt 'realistic', but i play civ as a roleplaying game / sandbox simulator - so the leader/civ and starting position matter to me, if i am playing England? i will want to recreate the dominance of the Royal Navy and colonise far off lands while my navy keeps neighbours at bay, if playing Germany i will boot up a European map and try to dominate Europe, China? Become an economic super power and dominate Asia on a world map.. you get the idea
The idea of playing a boardgame as Napoleon, leader of the Egyptians- who ends up leader of the Indians just turns me off completely... I felt the same way about the world congress in civ 6 as it felt like arbitrary modifiers with no relation to world history
Anyway, i am boring even myself now, so i will shut up, i am just really disappointed as i was excited before the initial reveal, but now realise i simply wont be able to play the type of games i enjoy.
Dreadnought
Deity
Yeah, this also rubbed me the wrong way. They practically designed that age with Britain in mind and they don't have them as a civ. They are either incredibly dense in their design philosophies, or this is a blatant DLC money grab.
Yeah, this one move probably took me from waiting to buy it at a steep markdown in a few years to never buying it out of principle. Just completely ridiculous on so many levels and I can't support it.
j51
Blue Star Cadet
I haven’t watched much of the drops today, but I can say I loved 1, 2, 4 and 5 and only liked 3 after the Conquests expansion. As for 6 I loved it before Rise and Fall and then felt that all the additional features it and Gathering Storm added just weighed the game down. That plus the interminable wait for some essential civs (Inca, Mali, Ottomans, Byzantium, Babylonia, Maya) really soured my experience of 6 and I ended up playing it less in the long run.
To me, Civ 7 looks a lot more fresh than 6. It’s trying new things and seems to have cut some of the feature bloat. I honestly hope they spend the immediate future pumping out the more essential civs in DLC and filling in gaps in the world and timeline. I’d much rather have a nice historically sensible roster before they go and experiment more with the gameplay. Except expanding religion. That looks like it’s got room to grow.
To me, Civ 7 looks a lot more fresh than 6. It’s trying new things and seems to have cut some of the feature bloat. I honestly hope they spend the immediate future pumping out the more essential civs in DLC and filling in gaps in the world and timeline. I’d much rather have a nice historically sensible roster before they go and experiment more with the gameplay. Except expanding religion. That looks like it’s got room to grow.
Captain Lime
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2016
- Messages
- 34
Feels like I'm the odd man out: I adored civ 6 despite it's flaws, and once I played it I felt that civ 5 was drab and lifeless by comparison. But civ switching just throws me so much. I think the idea behind it was that people are playing against and as leaders rather than as civilizations, which isn't really how I play civ. I'm playing against another leader of another civilization, but I am the leader of my civilization. I can choose certain abilities based on what leader I want to be, but I've ultimately been playing it from a first person perspective. Maybe the changes to the leader screen - this sort of playacting theatrical style we've seen - will help reframe it to be more third person? Unclear.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
