I'm clicking the "retire" button on Civ VII

[Rambo919]

"Depressed" is the most succint description of my Civ morale right now (but only in the realm of civ, otherwise my life is going great rn )

I have complained about a lot of things regarding civ6, which I haven't ultimately liked very much, but I have always admitted its objectively a good game with a coherent design that satisfied most people, just not my personal taste. The vibe of a community as a whole was uplifting. Civ5 had a terrible launch with a lot of chaos, but its core gameplay loop was strong enough for it to have a massive army of supporters full of optimism and energy, it ended up being fantastic.

Civ7 seems to be... lost. Not necessarily as in "broken beyond repair", there have been games with even worse reception on release which then slowly become excellent (No Man's Sky is probably the most spectacular example of this). But as in "literally lost its path in the forest and its future is very uncertain". It was born of marriage between the fundamental misunderstanding of the fanbase and a very messy developmental process, with the two probably being interwined. And now it's a messed up child of this dysfunctional marriage and it's trying to figure out what's wrong with its life and what kind of help should it get, while the time is passing quickly and opportunities are passing by,

Basically my opinion is they never understood what they did wrong with Civ6 so they don't understand how they miss the whole point of what makes a Civ game Civ with Civ7. The writing already was on the wall in the way that Civ6 was never actually a finished product IF they were going for single player and moddable.... which is both kinda mandatory for anything even trying to profess being a Civ game. The way they completely stopped caring about whether or not the AI even vaguely understands new features as they are being added should have told everyone enough about future trends.

Civ7 is a Civ-like at best it's not really a Civ game. They are throwing mud and other things against the wall trying to please the LCD demographics at the expense of actually creating something great.... but somehow want to hold total creative control at the same time... as if that has EVER actually worked for anything. This is like the stupid but pretty girl at the party trying to convince everyone she is a theoretical physicist.... because she theoretically does physics.

Or they know what they are doing and it's all on purpose whispers my tinfoil hat tendencies.... but who really knows at this point.

RIP new Civ games.... 3, 4 and 5 each has a mods that are effectively continuing their development so 6+ really does not matter to me anymore. I initially was rather annoyed with 5 but the VP devs are doing an outstanding job with it.

 

[Daigotsu Max]

I think they're in a bind because the age transition would work better with much more civs, so you could have smoother transitions (like India and China are a few that can, at the moment) but they're so busy fixing the little things they're not making progress on DLC elements, so they're fiddling with systems but the game isn't really moving forward, just smoothing edges. I remember many of us were surprised when it shipped with 10/10/10 civs. I feel it's hampered the game ever since, with only a handful added.

 

[Gen.Washington]

I'm in the same boat, I've been trying civ 7 every couple of weeks since launch (I was a glazer at first) but this last patch left a bad taste in my mouth. The changes it made were all positive but it really hit home how long I'll have to wait for the game to be fun for me. We can pet the scout dog before we can have 12 player games in single player...

 

[Gen.Washington]

Well, we're not making it easy for them either, are we? When we don't like their decisions, we tell them what we want. And when they give us what we want, we critisize them for not sticking to their initial vision.

Ok I'm just (half) joking here. I get that OP did not call for the changes that have been added. But I can't help but feel we're putting them in a bit of a "damn if you do, damned if you don't" position here.

Having a coherent vision is better than half a vision and half community direction. The game feels to be in limbo rn.

 

[Gorbles]

Having a coherent vision is better than half a vision and half community direction. The game feels to be in limbo rn.

They had a coherent vision. It hasn't proven very popular, despite how much I enjoy it personally.

So how is having a coherent vision better? Open to @Verified_Confection_Being's thoughts as well (or anyone's, really).

 

[Disgustipated]

We can pet the scout dog before we can have 12 player games in single player...

Unfortunately it seems they have sacrificed performance for graphics. The game is already sluggish on me with even standard size maps. I hate to see how turn times will be on larger maps. Although I think one of my mods might cause some slowdown. I forgot to disable them for this patch, they already caused slowdown when I installed them. But I really like to see things like actual values on policy cards.

As I mentioned before, I'm liking the game. I think part of our frustration is when the game can't do things earlier iterations of Civ could do. Like the Civ 4 system of upgrading units.

 

[Niallism]

They had a coherent vision. It hasn't proven very popular, despite how much I enjoy it personally.

So how is having a coherent vision better? Open to @Verified_Confection_Being's thoughts as well (or anyone's, really).

I don't think there's clear evidence why Civ 7 is doing so badly. It has two main problems - being released far ahead of being finished, and the change to the age system.

People like me, who like the changes but are very angry about the QA issues, are likely to say the reason for the poor reviews and sales are the bugs, lack of polish, no documentation, unfinished parts etc.

Other people are likely to say the era system.

Neither of us have any real evidence to claim which is the primary issue. Now I think about it, it's likely to be both. If one was primary, it would have become clear from public discourse, which is still very very mixed. Neither is likely to be the main issue. Either one could have been borne by an eager group of fans, but both together has caused massive damage.

 

[Gen.Washington]

I think there is plenty of evidence that the civ switching is the main issue. You can patch out bugs and QoL issues, you can't make Civ 7 feels more like Civ to people who are permanently turned off by civ switching.

 

[Kurtbob]

I remember almost quitting civ in its entirety when Civ5 came out...it was so bad...but I now have more hours played in civ 5 than any other installment...it just took quite a few patches, expansions and mods, so I'm glad I didn't give up on it or the franchise.

Im optimistic Civ VII will be great, in the end, and I am enjoying it currently, but I am itching to have more civs, leaders, etc. I am hopeful the modding community will be enthusiastic enough to create content to give the game a much needed vitality boost.

 

[Niallism]

I think there is plenty of evidence that the civ switching is the main issue. You can patch out bugs and QoL issues, you can't make Civ 7 feels more like Civ to people who are permanently turned off by civ switching.

Yes, but they haven't patched out many of those issues, have delayed DLC, and there are new issues added with every patch, such as turning off all legacy paths resulting in an unclear ending to the game that may or may not be a score victory.

I think it's unwise to be sure that one's own complaints are those of the majority. There really is very little conclusive evidence. For example, I went and looked at some reviews, and saw a mix, including one (among many) that complained about the age system, but said that their units disappearing 'for reasons' made them angry. So that's both the QA and the changes bothering them. If the change had been done better - either had more time in development to be playtested and developed, or just been documented correctly - would that user have been happy with the game? It's very hard to know.

 

[fantsu]

Unfinished game is easy to skip.
Expensive unfinished game is annoying to throw away but there is no other way.
Best thing to do is not to support Firaxis until they serve their customers instead of greedy owners.

 

[Rambo919]

Unfinished game is easy to skip.
Expensive unfinished game is annoying to throw away but there is no other way.
Best thing to do is not to support Firaxis until they serve their customers instead of greedy owners.

The problem no one is catching on to from the publisher side.... there are so many unfinished games releasing now that most people are tuning out from the start if the game releases as broken.... and don't come back later when it might be fixed.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Well that's what you get when you suddenly blow up the most important mechanic of the 30 year old game series, crucial to its identity to the point you have to change the entire serie's motto Instead of testing the new off the wall concept in some separate experimental spinoff game, where you won't delete half of your fanbase's basic motivation to play the game in the first place

This is Fallout76 all over again

 

[Gorbles]

Thing is said to be bad, thing turns out to be popular, people rationalise it by saying "they're appealing to a different audience". Thing is said to be bad, turns out to be unpopular, is seen as vindication. There are a bunch of other positions; but each time a game in this franchise comes out, this kind of split happens. It just so happens this is the first time the launch was received so negatively.

There are many posters who have said IV was the peak of Civ and it was all downhill from there. Many posters active in this subforum, in fact!

I don't really know where I'm going with this. I guess it's the pure and simple fact that experimentation is necessary for evolution. Not all experimentation will be a success, but it has to be done.

This is different from, say, management trying to cash in on a freemium model (as Fallout 76 was mentioned).

 

[user746383]

Maybe they could have made a popular game and added eras and civ switching as a scenario or expansion special mode to see if people liked it?

 

[Gorbles]

The way Ages were designed was a fundamental shake-up, and intended as such.

Sometimes you have to swing big. Maybe they won't ever again. Maybe they will and they'll get it "right". Impossible to say.

I'm still in the camp of the state of the game on release really working against any chance these mechanics had of working out in terms of popular perception. Considering how polished VI looked on release, the difference couldn't be more stark.

 

[user746383]

Yeah I agree with you. It’s hard to tell if it’s just weird incomplete features and missing UI or something more fundamental.

I was just trying to think of easier ways to test it, given the reception for Humankind and everything. Using civ6 as a base with a “total conversion” switching expansion might have been a safer play and still let them know what people thought, without also all the incompleteness problems.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

The way Ages were designed was a fundamental shake-up, and intended as such.

Sometimes you have to swing big. Maybe they won't ever again. Maybe they will and they'll get it "right". Impossible to say.

I'm still in the camp of the state of the game on release really working against any chance these mechanics had of working out in terms of popular perception. Considering how polished VI looked on release, the difference couldn't be more stark.

What I find interesting at the mo is the similarities between the launch of Civ VII and Stellaris 4.0.

Both have been bugging and under baked on release. But for me, Civ VII has changed it's DNA as to being unrecognisable and unpalatable - it doesn't matter if it's bug free, I'm still not buying it.

But with Stellaris, I'm still enjoying it despite the bugs to try out the new systems which feel like the have potential.

So I can understand totally why those who enjoy the fundamentals of Civ VII are still enjoying the game. But Civ VII is a totally different beast to me, and I'm not sure I can ever fully get across the feelings I have about it. The words aren't quite right and are going to sound way overblown for the minimal impact it has on my life, but it's some combination or relation to betrayal, disgust, melancholy and general disappointment. Maybe ennui? But I don't really know what that is besides general dissatisfaction with being french, but thats kind of how I feel about being a Civ fan right now. It's so disappointing it's made me feel french.

 

[Rambo919]

Thing is said to be bad, thing turns out to be popular, people rationalise it by saying "they're appealing to a different audience". Thing is said to be bad, turns out to be unpopular, is seen as vindication. There are a bunch of other positions; but each time a game in this franchise comes out, this kind of split happens. It just so happens this is the first time the launch was received so negatively.

There are many posters who have said IV was the peak of Civ and it was all downhill from there. Many posters active in this subforum, in fact!

I don't really know where I'm going with this. I guess it's the pure and simple fact that experimentation is necessary for evolution. Not all experimentation will be a success, but it has to be done.

This is different from, say, management trying to cash in on a freemium model (as Fallout 76 was mentioned).

There is a difference between experimentation.... and doing something but calling it something else.

Civ7 is not just a "evolved" Civ game.... it is something else pretending to be a Civ game copying elements from it and riding on the brand recognition.

Civ5 was still very much Civ.... even Civ6.... but not Civ7. You cannot compromise on core mechanics this way and pretend it's still the same thing. The same thing happened with Command and Conquer 4.... whatever else it was it was worst at being a C&C game to the point where people still try to pretend it never happened.... Civ7 will likely be that for Civ.

 

[Rambo919]

The way Ages were designed was a fundamental shake-up, and intended as such.

Sometimes you have to swing big. Maybe they won't ever again. Maybe they will and they'll get it "right". Impossible to say.

I'm still in the camp of the state of the game on release really working against any chance these mechanics had of working out in terms of popular perception. Considering how polished VI looked on release, the difference couldn't be more stark.

It's not a shakeup... it's a rejection of what Civ fundamentally is. Same thing with civ switching midgame. You are not taking a single empire from rock tech to rocket tech anymore you are building a multicultural group of people that can be all things to all others.

CIv7 is a deconstruction work of "nu religion" more than an evolution of something. People just don't understand this is why it angers them so much or are too scared to say it publicly. It is the dismantling of what was rather than an improvement on it.