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

[Krikkit1]

Build An Empire To Stand The Test Of Time has been the tagline since Civ1. It might even have been that for the board game that inspired it.

Now we have Build An Empire That Will Get Deleted Twice By Developer Fiat And Replaced Off Screen.

Are you seriously going to try and pretend that doen’t conpletely change the core identity and mechanics of the game? Or that isn’t the source of thr majority of the fan backlash that is so plainly evident both in sales, reviews and player count.

The empire doesn't get Deleted. If they removed all your settlements buildings wonders, units, etc. and then dumped you into the Advanced start for the next Age that would be Deleting.

Your buildings become obsolete but they are still there
Your Cities become obsolete (towns), but they are still there.
Your Towns and improvements are unchanged (they get a chance for a new specialization)
Your civ bonuses get changed
Your government becomes obsolete (policy slots lost)
etc.

How they frame it (with narrative events and Marketing) is a massive impact (and they could have done it a Lot better)

 

[MutilationWave]

I really enjoyed workers myself. I understand many view workers as introducing a lot of micromanagement and frequently there were very obvious decisions to make with them, but in my own odd way I enjoyed that level of detail. It was enjoyable shuffling them around the map and watching them labor away on projects.

I enjoyed them, like many things, in antiquity. I enjoyed building roads exactly where I wanted for logistics purposes. Personally though I'm overall glad they're gone.

I think introducing a unit like the civil engineer from 6, but from the beginning of the game, would be fun to place roads where we want. Eventually canals, dams, tunnels too maybe?

 

[Rambo919]

It's still a turn-based empire builder based around civilisations and the semi-realistic avatars that lead them, so yes, I can argue, if it was at all relevant to this tangent for me. However, I completely respect that people have different opinions on a) how important specific mechanics are and b) how this translates into a game's identity.

We're not going to change each others' minds. That's fine - agree to disagree.

I'm saying that your Falllout 76 example is an example of a publisher chasing a trend. That isn't what happened with Civ VII. That's all I'm saying, and all I'm interested in saying at this point.

With that logic taken to it's ultimate end eventually you end up with "it's software that works that is called Civ so it's a Civ game". All you have to do is keep switching out parts and calling it the same thing in between iterations.

The problem perhaps is many people have a completely different view from you it seems of what makes a CIv game a CIv game.... because you approach it subjectively rather than objectively and assume everyone else does as well.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Civ switching is really just a matter of perspective. Every Civ game you have gotten access to different units and buildings as you progress through the game. You always need to use your imagination to get your head around how someone like Rome now has machine guns.

I have no problem with using the identity of different civs to build upon your current civ, and you might even take that as far as using a new civ to replace your old one, in terms of it's cultural identity.

I think most people accept however that the implementation of civ switching is too harsh, there is too hard a line between ages and your current and previous civ. I would be very much up for something that feels smoother and more organic. For instance absorbing qualities of nearby civilisations to build something unique, eventually creating your own customised culture based on your actions and choices. The way Firaxis have opted to implement this is, like everything else I describe in this game: CRUDE.

I agree and would go a little further and say that Civ 7 is a game that features civ switching that is enjoyed by some people but has not caught the fancy of many, some because they don't like civ switching as implemented (of which some of whom believe that they would never enjoy any version of civ switching), some because of a myriad of other things they dislike about the game in its current state. Many people like to believe that their reason for disliking a game is the "one big reason" everyone else dislikes it, but the history of Civ says otherwise. Each successful version of Civ has found a new audience that enjoys the game either because of or despite changes from prior versions.

Personally, I think that Civ went off the rails with the release of Civ 3 and assigning bonuses to Civs based on their real world name. This isn't the way the original Civ game was designed. YOU were supposed to decide if your Civ became a naval power, an army of fierce mounted warriors, a peaceful science-oriented civ, etc. That came out of playing the map and the circumstances you found yourself in and the way you wanted to develop your civ. It wasn't supposed to be because you chose to be Great Britain, or the Mongols, or Korea and got a benefit based on that name that had NOTHING to do with anything you had done in the game. That was complete repudiation of everything the Civ series had stood for up until that point. And yet, the Civ series survived and I even managed to enjoy Civ 5 to the tune of 1000s of hours played even though it was no longer really a "Civ" game.

 

[Gorbles]

With that logic taken to it's ultimate end eventually you end up with "it's software that works that is called Civ so it's a Civ game". All you have to do is keep switching out parts and calling it the same thing in between iterations.

The problem perhaps is many people have a completely different view from you it seems of what makes a CIv game a CIv game.... because you approach it subjectively rather than objectively and assume everyone else does as well.

Yes, this is exactly why I said that peoples' opinions will understandably differ, and I'm fine to agree to disagree because it wasn't the core point I was making.

 

[Rambo919]

How they frame it (with narrative events and Marketing) is a massive impact (and they could have done it a Lot better)

It's basically a form of post modernism where the concept of a separate civilization is being diluted on purpose. In Civ 8/9 by endgame all borders will be erased and replaced with new economic zones as "social movements" and corporations replace governments..... and I only half joke about this cause I can see it happening. Rip Civilization long live Civilization.

 

[Rambo919]

Yes, this is exactly why I said that peoples' opinions will understandably differ, and I'm fine to agree to disagree because it wasn't the core point I was making.

And your subjective opinion is that everyone else is sharing also subjective opinions.... who's line is it anyway where the points don't matter....

I honestly don't see the point in that kind of conversation, nor any conversation where by it's nature nothing gets resolved, no one edifies.... everyone just vents for the sake of venting. Why?

 

[Rambo919]

Personally, I think that Civ went off the rails with the release of Civ 3 and assigning bonuses to Civs based on their real world name. This isn't the way the original Civ game was designed. YOU were supposed to decide if your Civ became a naval power, an army of fierce mounted warriors, a peaceful science-oriented civ, etc. That came out of playing the map and the circumstances you found yourself in and the way you wanted to develop your civ. It wasn't supposed to be because you chose to be Great Britain, or the Mongols, or Korea and got a benefit based on that name that had NOTHING to do with anything you had done in the game. That was complete repudiation of everything the Civ series had stood for up until that point. And yet, the Civ series survived and I even managed to enjoy Civ 5 to the tune of 1000s of hours played even though it was no longer really a "Civ" game.

The point of the bonuses and drawbacks is each civilization is fundamentally different from one another not exactly the same but with different flavours. Civ did not stand of bland equality up till 3.... it just lacked that particular enhancement because no one got around to implementing it yet.

The switching thing would have gone down much better if they used switch trees where earlier civs become later civs based on a kind of ethnic trajectory. Rational instead of "what do I feel like being today". Something like Indo-Greek-Roman-German-etc where you gain attributes rather than poofing into something completely different.... and if they REALLY wanted to clear the board use plagues instead of poofing units away "just because".

 

[Gorbles]

And your subjective opinion is that everyone else is sharing also subjective opinions.... who's line is it anyway where the points don't matter....

I honestly don't see the point in that kind of conversation, nor any conversation where by it's nature nothing gets resolved, no one edifies.... everyone just vents for the sake of venting. Why?

I'm saying that wasn't what I wanted to discuss. I repeated my actual point in the last paragraph of this post. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[McSpank01]

Personally, I think that Civ went off the rails with the release of Civ 3 and assigning bonuses to Civs based on their real world name. This isn't the way the original Civ game was designed. YOU were supposed to decide if your Civ became a naval power, an army of fierce mounted warriors, a peaceful science-oriented civ, etc. That came out of playing the map and the circumstances you found yourself in and the way you wanted to develop your civ. It wasn't supposed to be because you chose to be Great Britain, or the Mongols, or Korea and got a benefit based on that name that had NOTHING to do with anything you had done in the game. That was complete repudiation of everything the Civ series had stood for up until that point. And yet, the Civ series survived and I even managed to enjoy Civ 5 to the tune of 1000s of hours played even though it was no longer really a "Civ" game.

I don't mind that each civ has a bit of a flavour, and might steer you in one direction or another in terms of the way you play the game. I do sort of agree though, that going down that route has kind of boxed Firaxis into one design of the game, where each civ has to feel unique. This has maybe already become problematic.

I would rather be doing what Civ 7 promised to do, which was build up your civ in layers. It's just that there are really only 3 layers, and that is a **** sandwich.

 

[Rambo919]

I'm saying that your Falllout 76 example is an example of a publisher chasing a trend. That isn't what happened with Civ VII. That's all I'm saying, and all I'm interested in saying at this point.

OK this makes no sense to me.... Civ7 is the result of a publisher chasing a trend as well.... goldfish memory moba players.
EDIT: to put it a different way.... no one would be angry about anything if they called Civ7 instead: Civilization Revolution 3, partly because most people currently annoyed would never have tried playing it anyway.

 

[Gorbles]

The developers have been clear in every single dev note about their design intentions. They've explained, a number of times, different approaches they considered. About how they felt they had to swing big with this one.

That makes it an intentional developer choice. I'm not aware of any similar context around FO76, though some Googling provides (unverified) claims (there could be sources, I'm doing this on my phone) that it began as a co-op / online game mode for Fallout 4. Which is at least better than management saying so, as I originally thought.

I'm not a Fallout player. Maybe I'm getting it mixed up with another title.

But certainly, "spinning an online game mode into a standalone game as a stopgap before other Bethesda titles were due to release" is also very different to Firaxis intentionally releasing a mainline Civ entry.

 

[Rambo919]

I'm not a Fallout player. Maybe I'm getting it mixed up with another title.

That might explain how it flies over your head.

The issue already appeared when it became obvious that Fallout 4 was a great looter shooter but terrible at being a Fallout game.... then with F76 they doubled down on all the parts of F4 that was anti-fallout and removed offline play..... and you can't do Fallout without offline play.... which they proved. The result is F76 is at best a spinoff that wears the clothing of Fallout... but it's not in ANY way actually Fallout.

And under Bethesda there has been so many retcons it's a common hope that they don't actually make F5 because it doesn't even exist and it's already sacrilegious to the lore. This is what happens when you allow a committee to take over an IP... they destroy it's legacy.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Personally, I think that Civ went off the rails with the release of Civ 3 and assigning bonuses to Civs based on their real world name. This isn't the way the original Civ game was designed. YOU were supposed to decide if your Civ became a naval power, an army of fierce mounted warriors, a peaceful science-oriented civ, etc. That came out of playing the map and the circumstances you found yourself in and the way you wanted to develop your civ. It wasn't supposed to be because you chose to be Great Britain, or the Mongols, or Korea and got a benefit based on that name that had NOTHING to do with anything you had done in the game. That was complete repudiation of everything the Civ series had stood for up until that point. And yet, the Civ series survived and I even managed to enjoy Civ 5 to the tune of 1000s of hours played even though it was no longer really a "Civ" game.

Interesting, I feel the complete opposite. I don't necessarily have the desire to play games like Ara and Millenium, I think, because they don't have that much flavor to their factions: unique units and unique infrastructure etc.
That being said it's not like you are forced to play by your uniques if you don't want too, it just makes it easier. Plus, there are other customizable options, like governments and religion, that you can customize and do not have to strictly go by the historical civilization with those choices.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Civ switching is really just a matter of perspective. Every Civ game you have gotten access to different units and buildings as you progress through the game. You always need to use your imagination to get your head around how someone like Rome now has machine guns.

I have no problem with using the identity of different civs to build upon your current civ, and you might even take that as far as using a new civ to replace your old one, in terms of it's cultural identity.

I think most people accept however that the implementation of civ switching is too harsh, there is too hard a line between ages and your current and previous civ. I would be very much up for something that feels smoother and more organic. For instance absorbing qualities of nearby civilisations to build something unique, eventually creating your own customised culture based on your actions and choices. The way Firaxis have opted to implement this is, like everything else I describe in this game: CRUDE.

This is exactly the problem. Civ Rev didn’t get a fraction of the reaction Civ 76 is getting because a) It wasn’t replacing the core game with something clearly the maiority of tbe fanbase didn’t want, and b) it showed your Civ evolving not by resetting it off screen but by giving you a new trait each era.

The empire doesn't get Deleted. If they removed all your settlements buildings wonders, units, etc. and then dumped you into the Advanced start for the next Age that would be Deleting.

Your buildings become obsolete but they are still there
Your Cities become obsolete (towns), but they are still there.
Your Towns and improvements are unchanged (they get a chance for a new specialization)
Your civ bonuses get changed
Your government becomes obsolete (policy slots lost)
etc.

How they frame it (with narrative events and Marketing) is a massive impact (and they could have done it a Lot better)

If I am in the middle of a war do my units magically teleport away, get replaced, possibly deleted?

That alone is ridiculous. Your list of resets is making my point for me

With that logic taken to it's ultimate end eventually you end up with "it's software that works that is called Civ so it's a Civ game". All you have to do is keep switching out parts and calling it the same thing in between iterations.

The problem perhaps is many people have a completely different view from you it seems of what makes a CIv game a CIv game.... because you approach it subjectively rather than objectively and assume everyone else does as well.

And your subjective opinion is that everyone else is sharing also subjective opinions.... who's line is it anyway where the points don't matter....

I honestly don't see the point in that kind of conversation, nor any conversation where by it's nature nothing gets resolved, no one edifies.... everyone just vents for the sake of venting. Why?

This is someone declaring victory and going home because they can’t actually form an argument.

The developers have been clear in every single dev note about their design intentions. They've explained, a number of times, different approaches they considered. About how they felt they had to swing big with this one.

That makes it an intentional developer choice. I'm not aware of any similar context around FO76, though some Googling provides (unverified) claims (there could be sources, I'm doing this on my phone) that it began as a co-op / online game mode for Fallout 4. Which is at least better than management saying so, as I originally thought.

I'm not a Fallout player. Maybe I'm getting it mixed up with another title.

But certainly, "spinning an online game mode into a standalone game as a stopgap before other Bethesda titles were due to release" is also very different to Firaxis intentionally releasing a mainline Civ entry.

Wait…you never played Fallout, yet you feel like you can make an *objective* statement that an analogy between what happened with Fallout 76 and what is happening now with Civ76 is false?

 

[Gorbles]

That might explain how it flies over your head.

No, I understood the point being made. Once again, I feel like I disagree. I don't understand why it's so controversial.

Wait…you never played Fallout, yet you feel like you can make an *objective* statement that an analogy between what happened with Fallout 76 and what is happening now with Civ76 is false?

Do I gave to play CoD to know it's an FPS mostly set in the modern day?

Do critics of Civ VII have to play Civ VII? Many of them on this forum don't!

What a strange prerequisite.

My point was just that there is different rationale behind each decision. That's all. Feel free to disagree. Or take it to PM with me, whichever you prefer. I'm offline for a few hours regardless

 

[Rambo919]

No, I understood the point being made. Once again, I feel like I disagree. I don't understand why it's so controversial.

It's a matter of the sacred and the profane.

Firaxis has profaned the sacred.

It's the same as it is every time that an adaption disrespects the source material. People pretend to not understand why everyone is so upset.... but they don't really listen to what they are told. And I am tired of this stupid thread going nowhere..... let it all burn. I will stick to my spoon and fork, you use your stupid spork.

 

[MutilationWave]

I agree and would go a little further and say that Civ 7 is a game that features civ switching that is enjoyed by some people but has not caught the fancy of many, some because they don't like civ switching as implemented (of which some of whom believe that they would never enjoy any version of civ switching), some because of a myriad of other things they dislike about the game in its current state. Many people like to believe that their reason for disliking a game is the "one big reason" everyone else dislikes it, but the history of Civ says otherwise. Each successful version of Civ has found a new audience that enjoys the game either because of or despite changes from prior versions.

Personally, I think that Civ went off the rails with the release of Civ 3 and assigning bonuses to Civs based on their real world name. This isn't the way the original Civ game was designed. YOU were supposed to decide if your Civ became a naval power, an army of fierce mounted warriors, a peaceful science-oriented civ, etc. That came out of playing the map and the circumstances you found yourself in and the way you wanted to develop your civ. It wasn't supposed to be because you chose to be Great Britain, or the Mongols, or Korea and got a benefit based on that name that had NOTHING to do with anything you had done in the game. That was complete repudiation of everything the Civ series had stood for up until that point. And yet, the Civ series survived and I even managed to enjoy Civ 5 to the tune of 1000s of hours played even though it was no longer really a "Civ" game.

Nobody in the replies are getting the sarcasm/satire. Well done!

 

[Krikkit1]

If I am in the middle of a war do my units magically teleport away, get replaced, possibly deleted?

That alone is ridiculous. Your list of resets is making my point for me

The unit teleport is definitely the worst discontinuity... I would change how units specifically are handled so that

Late Age (70%,80%,90% Age completion): Military units not in friendly territory cost additional Maintenance (+20%, +50%, +100%) and reduced Healing (-1,-3,-5)
**so you want to move them back**

On Transition:
Every Unit you have at the end of the age adds a small lump sum Gold & more Gold limit to the carry over

Units aren’t deleted instead they become “Obsolete”/”Ceremonial”:
Upgrading an “Obsolete” units to Tier 1 costs about the same as buying a Tier 1 (But you get a fixed number of free upgrades.. 5 per age? So 10 and 15?….Free upgrades in excess of unit number give free Infantry units.)
Obsolete units could also be disbanded at home for small amount of: Gold, Sci, Culture, Food, Happiness, or Influence (?Depending on Government?)

No Unit Teleport: Except Commanders who get to Choose the Settlement/Water District to they will start the next Age in. (Carrying any units they have)
(this means while you do have to retreat Commanders from the Front, you get a chance to reposition your forces)

**Choosing where it goes should also apply to the Exploration Cog**

You should get to make a New Greeting to all the empires you already know… allowing a chance for a diplomatic reconfiguration
If the Age ended with 2 players at war, then if either of them gives the Negative greeting, they are still at War, but War Support is reset and choosing the Negative greeting gives the other player some War Support (if they both choose Negative then it balances out with Neutral War Support)


This way there is still that reconfiguration/rebalancing but
Units you built give you some benefit
Units don't randomly get Teleported (only commanders get Teleported and not Randomly)
Wars don't end unless both sides are OK with it ending.

 

[Arcaian]

With that logic taken to it's ultimate end eventually you end up with "it's software that works that is called Civ so it's a Civ game". All you have to do is keep switching out parts and calling it the same thing in between iterations.

The problem perhaps is many people have a completely different view from you it seems of what makes a CIv game a CIv game.... because you approach it subjectively rather than objectively and assume everyone else does as well.

There is no objective definition of what makes a Civ game a Civ game, and your pretending to be an authority on the issue is a pretty transparent attempt to make your subjective position into "the objective position". There's a cluster of things that are going to be most frequently associated with Civ by the people who play it - 4x, historical connections, big brash leaders, going from the start of history to the space race, etc, but no one aspect of this definitively makes or breaks a game being a civ game. There's no way to define "civ game" that isn't either entirely arbitrary, or subject to being Ship of Theseus'd away, because that's how definitions have to work for subjective concepts. I have played and loved civ since Civ 3, and I really enjoy Civ 7 - and it feels far more civ-like to me than competitors like Humankind. That does not make the game objectively more or less civ-like for anyone except me, but you also cannot tell me that I am somehow incorrectly perceiving the civ-like qualities of Civ 7, because this is all based on subjective feelings.