I quit for now

[stealth_nsk]

This game is what it is; it doesn't matter what they do with expansions/DLC/whatever this time. It's a fundamentally different game from every other Civ and you're either someone that's ok with it and future add-ons will add more to your experience, or you don't like it and no matter what they add it isn't going to change the problem you have with civ/age switching.

I don't think it works this way. One feature rarely makes the game unplayable, so I think the people who will not play the game no matter what are quite small minority. Most people who dislike age switching are likely to still play the game and could enjoy it (although a bit less than they would with a hypothetical less revolutionary game).

 

[NowhereMan80]

I don't think it works this way. One feature rarely makes the game unplayable, so I think the people who will not play the game no matter what are quite small minority. Most people who dislike age switching are likely to still play the game and could enjoy it (although a bit less than they would with a hypothetical less revolutionary game).

Just because it's rare doesn't mean this isn't one of those situations.

It feels like a completely different game with those 2 changes. It just does. A segment of the audience is going to be fine with that, and a segment of the audience is going to find it unacceptable. People flipped out about the 1UPT change and this is a LOT more significant than that was. And in this instance it's not the "quite small minority" you're making it out to be.

 

[VGT]

so I think the people who will not play the game no matter what are quite small minority

For me launch week concurrent players peak compared to civ6 says otherwise. I know, I know those numbers might be different because of many other reasons that are already discussed back and forth in other topics. But I wouldn't call it minority. I might be in my own bubble, but on my Steam account I have couple of friends dedicated to this franchise and so far there is not a single person owning civ7 while all of them had 1k+ hours in civ6 and/or civ5.

 

[misesfan]

It feels like a completely different game with those 2 changes. It just does. A segment of the audience is going to be fine with that, and a segment of the audience is going to find it unacceptable. People flipped out about the 1UPT change and this is a LOT more significant than that was. And in this instance it's not the "quite small minority" you're making it out to be.

It absolutely feels like a different game with the civ switch and age reset. It's more of a deckbuilding game than anything else. Since deckbuilding mechanics are mobile friendly, I can see why they want to cash in on that market. But it doesnt feel like civ. And yes, since more than half the people who bought the game wouldnt recommend it, its definitely not a small minority.

 

[Menocchio]

It absolutely feels like a different game with the civ switch and age reset. It's more of a deckbuilding game than anything else. Since deckbuilding mechanics are mobile friendly, I can see why they want to cash in on that market. But it doesnt feel like civ. And yes, since more than half the people who bought the game wouldnt recommend it, its definitely not a small minority.

*Roughly half of the people who bought the game on Steam and chose to review it, to be more accurate.

 

[Taefin]

My most compelling reasons against the civ switching is how some civ bonuses don’t work well with existing for only part of the game (excellent point 4 pages ago about Khmer and Russia).

My most recent reason I am enjoying it are for the narrative ups and downs between crises and starting a new era with a new civ. It feels similar to Old World, inheriting and working your way out a crisis when your storied leader dies and leaves a fractuous empire in the hands of their young heir. Even though it’s not leaders that are switching, I enjoy planning out and telling a story around how I am going to use my new bonuses, restored productivity after the crisis, and often increased settlement cap to make a play at changing the world’s balance of power in my favor.

 

[James_Champagne]

I agree that the disasters in this game are INSANE. In the first game I played (which, I admit, I still haven't completed yet), I had the disaster intensity set to normal, figuring it would kind of be like CIV VI. Big mistake . . . there were two volcanos near the southern border of my city that kept exploding constantly, sometimes every 5-10 turns. And even when they finally went dormant, they would become active again a few turns later, which drove me crazy (I recall the dormant volcanos springing back to life was also something that bothered me in CIV VI).

 

[Pokarnor]

It's too late now to try to re-balance things around such a mechanic, but I think what they should have done is made it so civ-unique abilities and bonuses persist through the ages. This would solve the "Khmer dilemma" posited earlier in the thread and give the player a greater sense of continuity and a stronger feeling that their later age civs are actually descended in some sense from the civs you played in earlier ages. Then again maybe that would have conflicted too strongly with their vision of essentially having three games in one with significant rubberbanding, but I think I would have preferred that.

 

[Thormodr]

It's too late now to try to re-balance things around such a mechanic, but I think what they should have done is made it so civ-unique abilities and bonuses persist through the ages. This would solve the "Khmer dilemma" posited earlier in the thread and give the player a greater sense of continuity and a stronger feeling that their later age civs are actually descended in some sense from the civs you played in earlier ages. Then again maybe that would have conflicted too strongly with their vision of essentially having three games in one with significant rubberbanding, but I think I would have preferred that.

Hopefully Modders will be able to make extensive changes. Vox Populi saved 5. Maybe they can save 7?

 

[ThichN]

It's too late now to try to re-balance things around such a mechanic, but I think what they should have done is made it so civ-unique abilities and bonuses persist through the ages. This would solve the "Khmer dilemma" posited earlier in the thread and give the player a greater sense of continuity and a stronger feeling that their later age civs are actually descended in some sense from the civs you played in earlier ages. Then again maybe that would have conflicted too strongly with their vision of essentially having three games in one with significant rubberbanding, but I think I would have preferred that.

1. Ageless quarters/buildings persist

2. Each civ has a load of unique policies that can be slotted in (called "traditions") which persist through the ages. So, you can use your ancient civ traditions in the modern era.

Facts are fun!

 

[Thormodr]

1. Ageless quarters/buildings persist

2. Each civ has a load of unique policies that can be slotted in (called "traditions") which persist through the ages. So, you can use your ancient civ traditions in the modern era.

Facts are fun!

Facts are fun. Too bad the game isn't.

 

[ThichN]

Facts are fun. Too bad the game isn't.

To quote one of the greatest minds of our generation: "Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like uh, your opinion, man."

 

[Taefin]

It's too late now to try to re-balance things around such a mechanic, but I think what they should have done is made it so civ-unique abilities and bonuses persist through the ages. This would solve the "Khmer dilemma" posited earlier in the thread and give the player a greater sense of continuity and a stronger feeling that their later age civs are actually descended in some sense from the civs you played in earlier ages. Then again maybe that would have conflicted too strongly with their vision of essentially having three games in one with significant rubberbanding, but I think I would have preferred that.

I think Khmer is unique in how much it feels like the flood and districts bonuses should persist, maybe they could be tied to the baray, which should need to be placed on a river.

 

[King Flevance]

I have not yet reviewed the game on Steam but I wouldn't recommend it currently, if I had to review it. It has bad UI problems not only neglecting access to info but even being misleading, city connections are broken, you cannot rename cities or units, and age transitions are jarring and do feel disconnected. For me, these are major problems. I also have a longer list of small issues that adds up. My play has slowed tremendously lately due to these problems.

I do eagerly await the patch next week but am frustrated at the quality of product delivered for the cost.

I do enjoy it but that enjoyment is starting to fade as the flaws are really starting to feel more pronounced. The upcoming patch may help ease it. But I will say I have very high hopes for this design. Which is why I have waited to review. My review will be based on letting this wave of patches roll out.

 

[civlateintothenights]

I don't think it works this way. One feature rarely makes the game unplayable, so I think the people who will not play the game no matter what are quite small minority. Most people who dislike age switching are likely to still play the game and could enjoy it (although a bit less than they would with a hypothetical less revolutionary game).

Don't think it's that small of a minority... Last I checked, Civ 7 is the 83rd best seller on Steam, and the reviews are going down about a percent a week. It's very likely this game is going to hit "mostly negative" status which would torpedo prospective buyers thinking about getting it.

Civ has always been a sandbox 4x - but that sandbox has been massive in scope - like an actual beach. This one is just a playground sandbox, and frankly - there's better things (games) to play with outside of this sandbox.

 

[Yzman]

Facts are fun. Too bad the game isn't.

Except it is. At least my play time indicates it is.

 

[Thormodr]

Except it is. At least my play time indicates it is.

Time spent doing something and how fun it is are two separate things. Anyway, glad you are enjoying it. Many people are not.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I don't think it works this way. One feature rarely makes the game unplayable, so I think the people who will not play the game no matter what are quite small minority. Most people who dislike age switching are likely to still play the game and could enjoy it (although a bit less than they would with a hypothetical less revolutionary game).

You don’t think it works this way but yet that peak player counts and assumed sales figures kind of speak for themselves. Even if players who dislike ages/Civ switching eventually give the game a chance, chances are it will only be after dramatic sale/reduction of price. This isn’t what 2k or Firaxis want

 

[AD1730]

You don’t think it works this way but yet that peak player counts and assumed sales figures kind of speak for themselves. Even if players who dislike ages/Civ switching eventually give the game a chance, chances are it will only be after dramatic sale/reduction of price. This isn’t what 2k or Firaxis want

Plus you have time value of money, inflation, etc.

 

[stealth_nsk]

You don’t think it works this way but yet that peak player counts and assumed sales figures kind of speak for themselves. Even if players who dislike ages/Civ switching eventually give the game a chance, chances are it will only be after dramatic sale/reduction of price. This isn’t what 2k or Firaxis want

We have entire thread about interpreting this data and it's better to discuss there. I don't see how this data says anything like this.