Is Civ 7 as a strategy game less deep than previous Civs?

[Cywil]

The poll is moving towards "too soon to tell" so let me say why I asked originally.

I'm almost sure (sorry for my confidence) that the devs HAVE to decrease the game's strategy depth. They're aiming for casual players, especially for console casual players. Civ 7 has to surpass Civ 6 sales. That's important for the franchise next iterations fate. So that's important for me as a fan too.

In my opinion casual players can't value the game's strategy depth. They prefer good looking, insta-rewarding, easy to win games. And they don't spend hundreds of hours playing Civ.

What in Civ 7 would matter for casual players? They love a creating/choosing character/civ moment especially and in Civ 7 they get 3 times per game the chance to do it. That's why civ switching is so important for the game's financial success. Remember Humankind - great sales numbers but diminishing players number massively?

Let's talk about builders because we all understand the problem. According to Steam stats less than 90% of Civ 6 owners/players built at least 6 improvements during single playthrough. It means more than 10% of Civ 6 owners/players - even if they used an initial free builder - didn't build a second builder probably. Why? I don't know but I expect casual players gave up after one or two hours of playing and didn't care.

And about builders let's hear Civ 7 producer:

“The choice to make a builder and have three charges and build three improvements Ed didn’t find all that interesting. It was just busy work for the player,” Shirk says.

The same Ed who (developing Civ 6) found the choice to make a builder and have three charges and build three improvements interesting.

I can imagine in 7-8 years from now the same Ed (developing Civ 8) will not find the choice to switch civ interesting maybe

 

[Professor Phobo]

Builder charge management was such a pain. I know I want to put a lumbermill on that tile. Let me click the button to do it. I've made the decision already!

 

[Zaarin]

I'm almost sure (sorry for my confidence) that the devs HAVE to decrease the game's strategy depth. They're aiming for casual players, especially for console casual players. Civ 7 has to surpass Civ 6 sales. That's important for the franchise next iterations fate. So that's important for me as a fan too.

In my opinion casual players can't value the game's strategy depth.

What a load of elitism. And the same kind of elitism old fans sulk about every time a new game is released.

 

[Thormodr]

Some things have been streamlined and simplified. Many Civs start out simpler and then get more complex. Also, having the AI actually understand the mechanics and game systems would be nice for once. I quite enjoyed Civ VI but that was not one of its strengths.

Time will tell when we see actual gameplay videos whether they cut the fingernails too close to the quick.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

This. This is the difference between strategy and management (micromanagement even in this case).


Anyone want to the archaeology work and dig up threads from those that complained Civilization 2, Civilization 3, Civilization 4, Civilization 5, and Civilization 6 were doomed to be dumbed down version of their predecessors? Same thing for Colonization 2 vs Colonization, or Beyond Earth vs Alpha Centauri? I definitely remember those threads existing prior to the release of most of these games.

Of course, it's possible that this time is the exception. But I think it's more likely that we're biased to overestimate the loss of strategy that arise from game elements we've known about for years being removed, while underestimating the gain in strategic depth that will come from game elements we don't know about or fully understand yet.

Well I will say this though--almost certainly, the original release will be pretty barebones compared to a full expansion older game (which will be filled with more mechanics, whether for good or ill). So I'm sure it will seem simplified at first.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Maybe. That's quite a different argument than you've been making previously though.

Also, complexity =/= strategy. Chess and go have exceptional non-complex rules/mechanics by the standards of modern gaming (PC or Board), but I wouldn't want to argue they lack strategy. Dwarf Fortress or Oxygen Not Included are immensely complex games (and the latter at least very fun!) but don't have all that much strategic depth going for them. Which is fine, because they're really about management rather than strategy per se.

Oh, I think you're mistaking me for the OP. That's not my argument, I don't think the strategy will be lessened because of workers or anything like that.

I'm just throwing in my useless two cents that the game might seem a little empty at first becaue of the less amount of "stuff" in there. I think that's fine, and maybe even necessary if everything plays as differently as it seems.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

It is way too early to tell. But civ7 appears to get rid of a lot of micromanagement. That is encouraging. Hopefully, it indicates that players will spend more time on actual strategy and less time on just managing stuff. And the game does appear to introduce new opportunities for making strategic decisions from choosing how to expand the tiles around your cities, where to place buildings in districts, what ratio of towns to cities, using influence to convert independent powers, whether to go for masteries or not in the tech and civic trees, what leader upgrades to get, what army commander promotions to get, what units to stack with your army commander, how many army commanders to have, what legacy paths to pursue each age, what legacy traits to choose when changing ages, what crisis cards to pick, what civ to pick when moving to next age etc...

So I would say that there is a lot of potential for civ7 to have deep strategy. But, we don't know if those decisions will be interesting or not. It could be that expert players will gravitate towards a few choices that are always best.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Maybe, we don't know if the stuff that's not been talked about yet has been removed, changed, or kept the same. I think CIv4->5 did feel a little empty at the start (especially the complete lack of religion IIRC?), but I can't say I remember the same feeling from 5->6.

Yeah we have no idea if the game is for the filthy unwashed casuals if we don't even know what the rules are yet. heh, jk

 

[thecrazyscot]

The poll is moving towards "too soon to tell" so let me say why I asked originally.

I'm almost sure (sorry for my confidence) that the devs HAVE to decrease the game's strategy depth. They're aiming for casual players, especially for console casual players. Civ 7 has to surpass Civ 6 sales. That's important for the franchise next iterations fate. So that's important for me as a fan too.

In my opinion casual players can't value the game's strategy depth. They prefer good looking, insta-rewarding, easy to win games. And they don't spend hundreds of hours playing Civ.

I don't think you understand people who play console games at all.

 

[IdiotStyle]

I think it's too early to say because we didn't play the game, but even too early because it's the base game. comparing it to other base games like CIV 6 base and civ V base would be better, meaning in either you wouldn't get either religion or diplo. I think for a base game, this bodes well for replayability so far that they kept so many features of finished civ 6 like weather or leader personnas.

 

[Haig]

I don't know, but I know that I haven't been as excited for a Civilization game ever, and I've played them all (except II !).

I think the game looks amazing and founds a very good core that can be expanded with more details in expansions.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

The poll is moving towards "too soon to tell" so let me say why I asked originally.

I'm almost sure (sorry for my confidence) that the devs HAVE to decrease the game's strategy depth. They're aiming for casual players, especially for console casual players. Civ 7 has to surpass Civ 6 sales. That's important for the franchise next iterations fate. So that's important for me as a fan too.

In my opinion casual players can't value the game's strategy depth. They prefer good looking, insta-rewarding, easy to win games. And they don't spend hundreds of hours playing Civ.

What in Civ 7 would matter for casual players? They love a creating/choosing character/civ moment especially and in Civ 7 they get 3 times per game the chance to do it. That's why civ switching is so important for the game's financial success. Remember Humankind - great sales numbers but diminishing players number massively?

Let's talk about builders because we all understand the problem. According to Steam stats less than 90% of Civ 6 owners/players built at least 6 improvements during single playthrough. It means more than 10% of Civ 6 owners/players - even if they used an initial free builder - didn't build a second builder probably. Why? I don't know but I expect casual players gave up after one or two hours of playing and didn't care.

And about builders let's hear Civ 7 producer:

“The choice to make a builder and have three charges and build three improvements Ed didn’t find all that interesting. It was just busy work for the player,” Shirk says.

The same Ed who (developing Civ 6) found the choice to make a builder and have three charges and build three improvements interesting.

I can imagine in 7-8 years from now the same Ed (developing Civ 8) will not find the choice to switch civ interesting maybe

Respectfully, it seems like you have already made up your mind that civ7 will be "dumbed down" to appeal to casual players. And yes, the game will likely be more accessible to new players. That is a good thing IMO. But I don't think we can say that it will be dumbed down in terms of strategy. As I mentioned in my previous post, civ7 appears to have a lot of potential for good strategy from how to expand cities, picking promotions for army commanders, choosing a legacy path, responding to crises, choosing what to build in cities, acquiring resources, interacting with independent powers, etc... I would not call that dumbed down. So yes, it is too early to tell if the game will have less strategy. It will really depend on how meaningful the strategic choices actually are.

And in regards to getting rid of builders, it was busy work. I am glad they got rid of it. The game should have less busy work. That does not mean the game is being dumbed down for casual players unless you think that micromanagement equals deep strategy. But it does not.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I do hate this rhetoric that games are being dumbed down for "casuals", or worse, console casuals

I see no basis for it, a no reason to believe that Civ VII is being designed as anything other than a complex strategy game.

 

[Vizkan]

The console fear mongering is strange to me. I double dipped on civ 6 and have it on both pc and playstation. It's the same game either way, only the controls and interface change. I don't see why civ 7 would need to be casualized for consoles when civ 6 didn't need to be.

 

[Kev1916]

I do hate this rhetoric that games are being dumbed down for "casuals", or worse, console casuals

I see no basis for it, a no reason to believe that Civ VII is being designed as anything other than a complex strategy game.

Sigh Eh no basis? , this is the first "Civ" game released on all Multi platforms on launch .... Think about it

 

[Professor Phobo]

Sigh Eh no basis? , this is the first "Civ" game released on all Multi platforms on launch .... Think about it

Consoles and PC games, aside from some niche titles like Escape from Tarkov, have hit design parity for like...fifteen years now?

 

[Kev1916]

The console fear mongering is strange to me. I double dipped on civ 6 and have it on both pc and playstation. It's the same game either way, only the controls and interface change. I don't see why civ 7 would need to be casualized for consoles when civ 6 didn't need to be.

Is there mods for playstation Civ6?

 

[moondog385]

I see no reason to assume why this would be the case. Lots of cool mechanics at play and that's just what we've seen so far.

 

[Kev1916]

Consoles and PC games, aside from some niche titles like Escape from Tarkov, have hit design parity for like...fifteen years now?

No sure I understand , a game designed for all platforms at launch with smaller features and a three games in one, with limited MP , Mmm

Civ 6 was it cross-play ? Civ 7 ?

Why is "civ" being punt out as three games in one , if not to attract (and nothing wrong with that for perhaps increased sales ) a more casual, less time, less of a complex

strategy game​

 

[Professor Phobo]

None of those conclusions are supported by anything we know about the game. Three eras with changing rulesets could quite easily make the game the most daunting entry in the franchise to master we've seen so far - you have to learn three separate metas!

Being available on consoles for cross play says precisely nothing about the underlying complexity of a game.* Console/PC parity has been the norm for quite some time. Many strategy games are available on console without any degradation in design. We're not talking about adapting to the SNES or something.

*Except for control inputs; something like Tarkov needs so many more keybinds than a controller has available, for example. But you can do pretty much anything in Civilization by clicking on it. A console player won't have as many hotkeys, but that just means they play slower, not that they have fewer options.