I quit for now

[masterbuilder]

I really wanted to like Civ 7, I tried.
I have come to expect that new Civ games are not really enjoyable until at least a year's worth of patches have been released. I get it, Civ games are complicated and difficult to make and balance. I understand that changes to the gameplay have to be made to make the game relevant for the future. I have no issue with that, I was looking forward to it and I think that Firaxis is roughly on the right track.
However, Civ 7 is just unacceptable. I feel that the minimum of playability (if there is such a word) has not been achieved before release. There are so many big and small issues that suck the joy out of this game as it is now that I won't continue to play for the time being.
I never thought I would join the choir of gamers complaining about being used/abused as Beta testers (I am a patient man) but f****** hell Firaxis, you have taken this much to far. I have played Civilization for roughly 10.000 hours since Civ II and maybe I am just an old fart but I do not remember things being this unfinished and frustrating on release ever before. I could sum up all the issues here but that has been done in other threads, you all know waht I am talking about.
I am off to give Old World or whatever a chance and will return to Civ 7 next year or the year after. Never again will I buy Civ pre-release, a lesson learned late but a lesson to remember.
Sincerely, enjoy the game everybody if you can and have the patience for it, I just can't right now.

 

[pokiehl]

I do not remember things being this unfinished and frustrating on release ever before.

I like the game, but you’re 100% correct. The game shouldn’t have been released in this state.

 

[Dreadnought]

The good news is that there's a very high likelihood that it will eventually reach the state that we are all hoping for

 

[AD1730]

You do well to speak of balance. Yes, it is hard to achive but I don't think it ever was a concern for them.
This game is way too much about stacking bonuses. Which you do from turn 0 and then you've picked your lane.

Huh? The whole purpose of the ages system and the civ switching was to achieve greater balance, among other things. I don't get this take at all.

 

[marius_kaparius]

I’m approaching the point as the original post, I wish more was being communicated about the intended UI fixes to keep some hope but I guess they are not confident in achieving those by the stated patch dates. They stated UI improvements for the first patch but the changes there were incredibly minor and if that is an indication of the speed of improvement it will likely be a year as the post states. The problem with that is I don’t know if the publisher had that kind of patience. I’m very concerned and hoping for some good news and soon.

 

[queenpea]

Huh? The whole purpose of the ages system and the civ switching was to achieve greater balance, among other things. I don't get this take at all.

I think they are referring to the leaders being separated from civs, as well as the memento system, all of which has resulted in a game structure which seems impossible to balance (or very poorly balanced at the moment).

As a side note, there are a number of Civ specific bugs at the moment (Songhai, Carthage), which make some civ military units impossibly strong.

 

[ThERat]

The good news is that there's a very high likelihood that it will eventually reach the state that we are all hoping for

Are you sure? This is merely based on the assumption that the game can be salvaged. Would that also mean, that we can play without eras? or with one continuous civ? cos that's what a lot of players want

 

[UWHabs]

I’m approaching the point as the original post, I wish more was being communicated about the intended UI fixes to keep some hope but I guess they are not confident in achieving those by the stated patch dates. They stated UI improvements for the first patch but the changes there were incredibly minor and if that is an indication of the speed of improvement it will likely be a year as the post states. The problem with that is I don’t know if the publisher had that kind of patience. I’m very concerned and hoping for some good news and soon.

I was hoping they could get more of the fixes in, all the stuff the modders have been doing. They got in a couple ASAP, but the patch was a bit light.

I've been busy so haven't gotten in games the last couple of weeks, and I am antsy to get back in, so they have done something right at least. Hopefully they can get more of those fixes in in the next couple patches and really polish off more of that, as well as get some balancing in.

I think they are referring to the leaders being separated from civs, as well as the memento system, all of which has resulted in a game structure which seems impossible to balance (or very poorly balanced at the moment).

As a side note, there are a number of Civ specific bugs at the moment (Songhai, Carthage), which make some civ military units impossibly strong.

I'm surprised at how much the memento system has taken off. Until they get the AI to pick random mementos as well, I don't think balance around that will really be easy.

 

[queenpea]

I'm surprised at how much the memento system has taken off. Until they get the AI to pick random mementos as well, I don't think balance around that will really be easy.

I haven’t touched it. The added bonuses feel like cheating to me, and the game is already too easy as is.

 

[Isca Dumnoniorum]

Are you sure? This is merely based on the assumption that the game can be salvaged. Would that also mean, that we can play without eras? or with one continuous civ? cos that's what a lot of players want

I think having game modes that remove eras and/or civ switching are very unlikely to be in the game until the end of its lifecycle, if ever. I've made my peace with that - Civ VII is a different vision from what came before and while I don't like it, I'm not going to spend the next 6-8 years wishing it were different. It wouldn't make sense for the devs to break so decisively from their vision for this iteration of the game by breaking its mechanics and balance (such as it currently is) just to give us nostalgic people a Civ 6.5 experience.

I haven’t touched it. The added bonuses feel like cheating to me, and the game is already too easy as is.

I frequently forget to choose any during game setup and still win every time so you're probably right here. I do like Imago Mundi just for the quality of life benefit of having to micromanage scouts for a smaller part of the early game.

 

[protocol7]

I do hope they fix it. It would be sad if they messed up the launch so much that the users never come and they never are able to invest in finishing it. Of course, they never should have tried to get away with that, but now that we're here I hope they pull it off.

 

[queenpea]

I do hope they fix it. It would be sad if they messed up the launch so much that the users never come and they never are able to invest in finishing it. Of course, they never should have tried to get away with that, but now that we're here I hope they pull it off.

Same! But I think it will take a certain level of focus. Though, for example, the VR version of the game that was teased (I’m still very confused by this idea so perhaps someone can enlighten me) doesn’t really instill confidence in the studio’s ability to focus on crucial issues.

Also the Civ Instagram was pushing travel packages in Normandy and the UK to experience Norman heritage? Just seems a bit off message to me.

 

[Smegger213]

I really wanted to like Civ 7, I tried.
I have come to expect that new Civ games are not really enjoyable until at least a year's worth of patches have been released. I get it, Civ games are complicated and difficult to make and balance. I understand that changes to the gameplay have to be made to make the game relevant for the future. I have no issue with that, I was looking forward to it and I think that Firaxis is roughly on the right track.
However, Civ 7 is just unacceptable. I feel that the minimum of playability (if there is such a word) has not been achieved before release. There are so many big and small issues that suck the joy out of this game as it is now that I won't continue to play for the time being.
I never thought I would join the choir of gamers complaining about being used/abused as Beta testers (I am a patient man) but f****** hell Firaxis, you have taken this much to far. I have played Civilization for roughly 10.000 hours since Civ II and maybe I am just an old fart but I do not remember things being this unfinished and frustrating on release ever before. I could sum up all the issues here but that has been done in other threads, you all know waht I am talking about.
I am off to give Old World or whatever a chance and will return to Civ 7 next year or the year after. Never again will I buy Civ pre-release, a lesson learned late but a lesson to remember.
Sincerely, enjoy the game everybody if you can and have the patience for it, I just can't right now.

I absolutely don't blame you for quitting. I am thinking of doing the same myself.
There are far too many changes that go against what sort of Civ game I want.
I cannot stand the age system, especially the jarring change at each age transition.
I also cannot stand the "leader can play any Civ mechanic". Plus the fact that Civs are locked to certain ages.
I want to start as Hatshepsut as Egypt and stick with that for the whole game.
Or I want to start as any leader and their historical Civ and stay that way for the whole game.
I want to start as a British leader, with Britain in the antiquity age etc etc etc.

I have now got 65 hours played in Civ 7. 155 hours of Civ 5, and Civ 5 is still my favourite version.
I am on my 2nd full play through of Civ 7, am up to the modern age and frankly, I am bored again. Just as I was bored in the latter stage of my first play through.
On that first play through, I got sick and tired of the garbage Religion system, and ended up wiping every other Civ off the map in the end.

So, yes, I am thinking of quitting too. I may go back to Civ 5.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I have 560 hours in Civ5, 850 hours in Civ6 and 160 hours in Civ7 already. Based on how fun it is to me and the amount of coming content/patches ahead, I expect my Civ7 hours to be much higher than Civ6 in the end.

But to each its own. With radical changes it's totally understandable that some players who like previous versions aren't happy with Civ7.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I think having game modes that remove eras and/or civ switching are very unlikely to be in the game until the end of its lifecycle, if ever. I've made my peace with that - Civ VII is a different vision from what came before and while I don't like it, I'm not going to spend the next 6-8 years wishing it were different. It wouldn't make sense for the devs to break so decisively from their vision for this iteration of the game by breaking its mechanics and balance (such as it currently is) just to give us nostalgic people a Civ 6.5 experience.

Why wouldn’t it make sense if their new vision completely flopped among fans? They’re a company that wants to sell a produce, if their new design choices are what is keeping many fans away than I’d expect they’ll start slowly walking back some of the changes many fans didn’t like

 

[Isca Dumnoniorum]

Why wouldn’t it make sense if their new vision completely flopped among fans? They’re a company that wants to sell a produce, if their new design choices are what is keeping many fans away than I’d expect they’ll start slowly walking back some of the changes many fans didn’t like

The features we're talking about them unpicking are fundamental to this game's design; it would be like them removing districts from Civ VI. There are already 30+ civs and the game's systems and economies are built around the two resets - I'm not a game developer but it doesn't sound easy, quick or cheap to retool and rebalance all of that to fit the pre-Civ VII setup. While I'm not a game developer, I am an accountant and I can tell you a company would only embark on an expensive exercise like that if they thought they'd make a positive return on it (i.e. they'd win or win back more customers than they'd alienate by changing the design to something you or I would prefer and the (edit: cost) extra income outweighed the investment required to make the changes).

Whether "many" fans were put off from buying the game at all (or will be put off from buying DLC and future content) due to ages and civ switching is only really of relevance if Firaxis has lost more fans than they've gained from other changes they've made. I don't think we have the data to say whether that's the case at this early stage of the game's release. In any event, if sales are down relative to previous titles or Firaxis' targets, you'd need to determine whether the causes are the ages and civ switching and not the change in art style, bad reviews/complaints about the UI, questionable DLC timing or any other factor(s) that people have raised here and elsewhere.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Why wouldn’t it make sense if their new vision completely flopped among fans? They’re a company that wants to sell a produce, if their new design choices are what is keeping many fans away than I’d expect they’ll start slowly walking back some of the changes many fans didn’t like

Hm. They've spent years working on this idea. They've launched with a mixed reaction and disappointing sales, but let's not pretend it has been catastrophic. Plenty of people have bought it, plenty of people like it. Proving the current reaction is a wholesale rejection of the vision is nigh on impossible, so what are they more likely to do, rip up the vision completely or try to make the best of it? They could do more damage to their reputation if they rip it up than if they get on with making it better.

 

[Siptah]

In any event, if sales are down relative to previous titles or Firaxis' targets, you'd need to determine whether the causes are the ages and civ switching and not the change in art style, bad reviews/complaints about the UI, questionable DLC timing or any other factor(s) that people have raised here and elsewhere.

This is a good post! I just want to add that even if sales are below expectations (which seems not unlikely, at least), it doesn't indicate an outright flop. There are many levels between a worldwide hit that exceeds all expectations (such as VI) and a flop. For example, a solid game with a solid fanbase

 

[stealth_nsk]

Yep, Civ5 also had revolutionary changes and a terrible start, but it went really well later.

 

[j51]

The series did need a refresh/new direction and these aren’t the changes I would have made necessarily. That said I’ve played every Civ and I’m really enjoying the game! Maybe the most at release since IV. Certainly way more than VI.

I really hope they stick with this and fix the UI thoroughly and quickly and create a preserve your civ name/aesthetics option for the people who want that. (I don’t but other longe long time fans who miss it should have it.)

The modular age system actually has massive potential for building really cool scenarios, but they need to improve all these QoL problems first and release the mod tools.

Sadly it looks like the publisher/business side forced the game to an early release and that’s why it’s in this state. I just hope it didn’t permanently hurt it.