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

[chaosprophet]

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.

Or they needed more diversity in the base game to easily add somewhat of a geographic path forward and/or backward to every civ they add later on dlcs or expansions. With the limitation of 10 civs per age, they limited 2 European civs in the base game (which is already 1/5 of the total per age for an area much smaller than 1/5 of the world). Which means some common European civs would definitely had to be cut from the usual ones for the base game, and they went with France and Germany, probably because England is somewhat in already in the form of Normandy, especially with how Britain focused the design of Normandy is.

 

[Ellye]

Around a 6 or so, I'd say.

To be honest, I disliked nearly everything I've seem so far; and I have no hope that we'll ever have decent modding support again so no new release will ever be as good as Civ4/Civ5 no matter what.

But I'm just so needy for a new decent strategy game to shake things up a bit after playing hundreds upon hundreds of hours of the same few ones that yeah, I'm looking forward for the release.

 

[thecrazyscot]

I'm ready for it to be here Itching to play now.

 

[CivLuvah]

I'm still a 5 or 6. After all the dev diaries, nothing gameplay-wise really pops out for me. The civ and leader roster we have has interesting choices though.

 

[Sherlock]

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.

I fall in that camp too.

 

[DeutschDachs]

Still a 4. Really wish they had provided more Civs as proof of concept of Civ switching. Right now there are not enough Civs per era and too many unnatural transitions.

Also not really thrilled about the new reveals. Grinding achievements to unlock content via the legends and momentos system does not really appeal to me. If it was just for cosmetics and not gameplay features it would feel better. I guess it's optional but it feels like a pretty impactful system to have as an option.

Not sure why we're adding a Filipino leader now when several more impactful nations in the game have none. Well other than marketing but it's hard to get too worked up about it when so many people are thrilled he's in. Himiko meanwhile is a weird pick to have two personas... Japanese histories barely acknowledge her existence at all

It's strange that there is no British Civ when they had the largest empire in human history and kickstarted the industrial age. Especially since they were given as an example for the Civ switching mechanic from the Normans. I'm sure they'll be one of the initial DLCs but it feels pretty bad for a Civ that has always been in the base game to become paid DLC

It just feels like a game that needs more content which makes me think it might have a rough launch akin to Civ V.

 

[friendlysavage]

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


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.

Funny enough, Civ 4 is my favorite iteration of Civ to date, and I found Civ 5 and 6 to just not be my thing at all. Aesthetics in particular, but gameplay included.

But what I've seen from Civ 7 actually seems like a lovely fix to some of my issues with those editions.

And if I want to play the best version of Civ, I can always boot up 4 any time I like. I know we'll just never see a return to that style of Civ, and I'm okay with that

 

[trev1972]

Funny enough, Civ 4 is my favorite iteration of Civ to date, and I found Civ 5 and 6 to just not be my thing at all. Aesthetics in particular, but gameplay included.

But what I've seen from Civ 7 actually seems like a lovely fix to some of my issues with those editions.

And if I want to play the best version of Civ, I can always boot up 4 any time I like. I know we'll just never see a return to that style of Civ, and I'm okay with that

One thing this thread has made me realise is just how many different things we all want out of civ its nice to see this thread has stayed so pleasant despite all the differing views btw!
Civ 4 is my fave as well by a country mile, but i probably spent more time playing civ 1 as it came out at a time when i had more leisure time.

 

[playshogi]

Today extended my personal trend of liking the game less the more I learn about it. At least I know I won't be wasting money on any edition other than the base game so as to minimize my expected loss.

 

[trev1972]

I know people will think it odd that being able to play my own country is so important to me, but - assuming Britain/England does appear in a dlc, when would that realistically be? in a year? another 2 years?
I guess nobody knows for sure, so educated guesses are great

 

[chaosprophet]

I know people will think it odd that being able to play my own country is so important to me, but - assuming Britain/England does appear in a dlc, when would that realistically be? in a year? another 2 years?
I guess nobody knows for sure, so educated guesses are great

Very likely one of the two dlcs packs that are included in the more expensive versions, likely with the first dlc pack, that is supposed to release in march.

I can understand people wanting to play their own countries, but being from a country that doesn't or very rarely is in the base game like Brazil, we are used to it.

 

[Mudkip1001]

I went from an 11 to 10 after I found out I won't be able to rename cities in base game....

 

[trev1972]

Very likely one of the two dlcs packs that are included in the more expensive versions, likely with the first dlc pack, that is supposed to release in march.

I can understand people wanting to play their own countries, but being from a country that doesn't or very rarely is in the base game like Brazil, we are used to it.

Thanks, and fair point.

 

[Sherlock]

Still a 4. Really wish they had provided more Civs as proof of concept of Civ switching. Right now there are not enough Civs per era and too many unnatural transitions.

Also not really thrilled about the new reveals. Grinding achievements to unlock content via the legends and momentos system does not really appeal to me. If it was just for cosmetics and not gameplay features it would feel better. I guess it's optional but it feels like a pretty impactful system to have as an option.

Not sure why we're adding a Filipino leader now when several more impactful nations in the game have none. Well other than marketing but it's hard to get too worked up about it when so many people are thrilled he's in. Himiko meanwhile is a weird pick to have two personas... Japanese histories barely acknowledge her existence at all

It's strange that there is no British Civ when they had the largest empire in human history and kickstarted the industrial age. Especially since they were given as an example for the Civ switching mechanic from the Normans. I'm sure they'll be one of the initial DLCs but it feels pretty bad for a Civ that has always been in the base game to become paid DLC

It just feels like a game that needs more content which makes me think it might have a rough launch akin to Civ V.

They're leaving out Britain so they can be sure you'll buy the DLC. This iteration of Civ is a monument to avarice.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Having watched most of the previews, it will probably surprise nobody to hear that I am now even more stoked for the game, I think it looks fab.

That said, there are some small things that I don't like, and they doubly irritate me because they seem like such easy things to get right:

- the mini map looks dreadful
- we can't rename cities (or rename anything it seems, apart from religion)
- biggest map is standard (we already knew this but still a tad annoying)
- some of the UI is lacking. I actually like much of it but there are certains screens with a lot of empty space and tiny font, seems strange
- you can't swap tiles between your settlements
- probably a few other minor niggles. Edit: ugly walls!!

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I know people will think it odd that being able to play my own country is so important to me, but - assuming Britain/England does appear in a dlc, when would that realistically be? in a year? another 2 years?
I guess nobody knows for sure, so educated guesses are great

Nope, that's not weird. And people whose nations are already in the game should keep it in mind when Australians, Canadians, etc. express a similar sentiment while hoping for an Era 4.

Britain will undoubtedly feature in one of the first two DLCs. So within 12 months, I'd say.

 

[Smellincoffee]

I went from an 11 to 10 after I found out I won't be able to rename cities in base game....

Well, that's news. What the Sid?!

 

[Sonora27]

Let's call it a 5.5.

There's a lot I've seen that I really like: the new trade system, resources, commanders for units, cities and towns, independent powers, navigable rivers, the attention to detail for Mississippians and Shawnee, and more.

There's also a lot of things I really dislike: the civ designs, the concept of civ-switching, the sharp age transitions, the new leaderscreens, the UI, and that god-awful leader roster (ESPECIALLY Ibn Battuta and Macchiavelli).

In general, I regarded the nuts and bolts mechanics of the game with a lot of appreciation while the stuff they're really marketing with abject horror. I'm getting a lot of whiplash, and it continues to grow.

Sadly, you are the minority on the civ-switching and modding for disable that is impossible. May be can stick on the older games while we will steamroll into Civ VII.

Truth is, everyone on reddit and this website absolutely love it, and anyone who objects it will be seen as an outcast.

 

[gdr_willter]

Himiko meanwhile is a weird pick to have two personas... Japanese histories barely acknowledge her existence at all

In fact, Japanese historians highly acknowledge her existence. They even researched why old Japanese records removed her from the history of the leadership of Japan, it because her existence was critically bad to strengthen the authority of the Emperor family.

 

[trev1972]

Nope, that's not weird. And people whose nations are already in the game should keep it in mind when Australians, Canadians, etc. express a similar sentiment while hoping for an Era 4.

Britain will undoubtedly feature in one of the first two DLCs. So within 12 months, I'd say.

No i get it, i have previously been spoiled by having my nation always in the game- one of my fave ever games was a tsl game on a giant map as australia btw

I know i can still boot up 4 or 5, but i think more than the civ switching i am gutted that i wont be able to play earth tsl games anymore on the latest version as a result of the changes