Is Civ VII most boring version?

[Aldebarazan]

I think it is too early to tell. For instance, I found the vanilla Civ6 version quite bland, but with Rise and Fall and Gathering Storms it is a masterpiece.
Civ2 is also boring, except it has the legendary WWII mod.
Civ5 was the best one straight out of the box.

Civ7 has already went through many changes since I played pre-release.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

I think it is too early to tell. For instance, I found the vanilla Civ6 version quite bland, but with Rise and Fall and Gathering Storms it is a masterpiece.
Civ2 is also boring, except it has the legendary WWII mod.
Civ5 was the best one straight out of the box.

Civ7 has already went through many changes since I played pre-release.

Both of those games had many more concurrent players

This is not the same situation.

I genuinely can’t recall an iteration of Civ that turned me off within the first 300 turns so much as this one

 

[youngsteve]

Both of those games had many more concurrent players

This is not the same situation.

I genuinely can’t recall an iteration of Civ that turned me off within the first 300 turns so much as this one

So true. Civ 5 seems to have pulled away now, & is in the bottom end of the top 100 games played on Steam, whilst this game cannot even reach that. People keep going on about Civ 6 poor start but that was still in the mddle of the top 100 games when it was doing bad, this version is at a different level. Reminds me very much of Imperator Rome. Sold well, had shocking start, & although Paradox piled in resources & money, making it a lot better game, they couldn't save it. I don't feel Take 2 are going to be as generous as Paradox were.

 

[jgsb2001]

I play on a Mac and I was excited to finally be a day-one player of a Civ game, but I'm disappointed. It's too different - ages, civ switching, UI. I can't get into the game yet.
I'll come back in a year or so after updates and the DLC gets worked out. After all, I paid a lot for the founders edition.
I do like the look of the game, the chosen civilizations, and most all of the leader choices. It is just that Civ VII feels and plays too different from 4, 5, and 6 right now.

 

[Menocchio]

So true. Civ 5 seems to have pulled away now, & is in the bottom end of the top 100 games played on Steam, whilst this game cannot even reach that. People keep going on about Civ 6 poor start but that was still in the mddle of the top 100 games when it was doing bad, this version is at a different level. Reminds me very much of Imperator Rome. Sold well, had shocking start, & although Paradox piled in resources & money, making it a lot better game, they couldn't save it. I don't feel Take 2 are going to be as generous as Paradox were.

Do we really gain anything by being "certain" that the developers will or will not continue development, though? I still don't see any point in beating this on and on, over and over again.

 

[Taefin]

The way I see it, is those who buy DLC pay 50-100% more for 5-10% more content to subsidize the large market who can only stomach/afford the going rate of games for the past 20 years. It seems like everyone wins, vs charging $90 for the full game for everyone and getting only half the sales.

 

[reddishrecue]

I got to play civilization 7 with Carthage and I guess its quality. Even though there's few people on its worth playing. I feel like I got my money's worth and with the new trade patch, things are looking up.

 

[Fredric Drum]

It's boring and predictable, lacks continuity, maps are bad, UI is bad and so on, and I paid for the deluxe platinum premium whatever edition, I despair at my stupidity. I'm really old enough to know better.

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm enjoying the game, but some decisions are baffling. I feel the need to rant about it here. It's such a small thing that doesn't impact gameplay, perhaps that's why the game shipped without it. I'm talking about any indicator when you quicksave (not to mention the continue button not continuing from the most recent save but that has been fixed). It strikes me as shoddy workmanship. And yes as I mention, it doesn't really affect gameplay, but it makes the developers look amateurish. How your game looks matters. It's like a bunch of kids designed that feature. They supposedly fixed the quicksave, but the problem is the indicator is still quite easy to miss, and there's no audible indicator of quicksaving. I hope they can at least add an audible indicator in the future. It's obvious this game was rushed out the door, and is not what I consider a finished state.

I still have issues with the notifications in the bottom right. Something doesn't seem right. I think they tried to make them less intrusive, problem is I tend to ignore them entirely, and some of those messages are quite important.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I'm talking about any indicator when you quicksave

When you quicksave the menu disappearing is the indication I guess, a noise would be good but you probably don't want any more than that for a quicksave.

 

[Fluffball]

It is boring on so many levels. AI is useless and no challenge even with its massive bonuses at higher levels.

This is amplified by the fact you aren't ever really competing against the AI so the fact it has massive bonuses means nothing as it can never actually get ahead in any meaningful fashion.

I have read the defense of the legacy path system which says they are guidance and what you will be doing anyway, which I think is the only reason the AI actually managed to do any of them at all.

The leaders and civs are bland and not actually many of them. We apparently have hundreds of possible combinations to add variety which is just marketing spin to hide the small number and then as you keep changing civs you don't feel any attachment to them.

There is actually very little design or content with essentially just re-skins from previous eras. The only era with any real changes (the last era) is over before you get to see/use/unlock many of them.

Maps are always predictable and the same, seemingly as a consequence of the DL mechanic.

I complete epic/huge/long era games it the time I would beat quick games in previous versions so you quickly have seen and done everything.

As I have mentioned in other posts ,once I knew what was doing i found myself doing exactly the same thing in every game no matter what leader/civ/victory/difficulty i was playing with the only real difference being as I realised how easy and no-brainer the game is I even stopped trying to optimise as I could wipe the floor with the game by just cruising, even on diety.

There was no more to see, no more challenge, no more improvement, no more optimisation or better strategies to work out...what is the point in improving when it is already a walk in the park.

 

[bbbt]

Unfortunately I'm starting to think so. I'm on game 5, and I've completely lost interest by the modern era. It's feels like a chore more than fun.

I really like the idea of the ages in theory, but really dislike the way they are essentially just the same base game three times - resend merchants, rebuild the same buildings with different names, etc.

Maybe hoping for fundamental game mechanics to change between ages was a little ambitious. But like a lot about the game, this just feels time/resource constrained in development. Like they went with the same mechanics with different art three times because that required the least developer time.

I think at this point I find this forum more engaging than the actual game...

 

[Gori the Grey]

We aim to please.

 

[Fluffball]

It is boring on so many levels. AI is useless and no challenge even with its massive bonuses at higher levels.

This is amplified by the fact you aren't ever really competing against the AI so the fact it has massive bonuses means nothing as it can never actually get ahead in any meaningful fashion.

I have read the defense of the legacy path system which says they are guidance and what you will be doing anyway, which I think is the only reason the AI actually managed to do any of them at all.

The leaders and civs are bland and not actually many of them. We apparently have hundreds of possible combinations to add variety which is just marketing spin to hide the small number and then as you keep changing civs you don't feel any attachment to them.

There is actually very little design or content with essentially just re-skins from previous eras. The only era with any real changes (the last era) is over before you get to see/use/unlock many of them.

Maps are always predictable and the same, seemingly as a consequence of the DL mechanic.

I complete epic/huge/long era games it the time I would beat quick games in previous versions so you quickly have seen and done everything.

As I have mentioned in other posts ,once I knew what was doing i found myself doing exactly the same thing in every game no matter what leader/civ/victory/difficulty i was playing with the only real difference being as I realised how easy and no-brainer the game is I even stopped trying to optimise as I could wipe the floor with the game by just cruising, even on diety.

There was no more to see, no more challenge, no more improvement, no more optimisation or better strategies to work out...what is the point in improving when it is already a walk in the park.

 

[Disgustipated]

I know one thing that would make it more interesting. If any city states/IP's could actually survive in the modern age. It's so frustrating. Why even have city states if they can't ever exist?

 

[MutilationWave]

It is boring on so many levels. AI is useless and no challenge even with its massive bonuses at higher levels.

This is amplified by the fact you aren't ever really competing against the AI so the fact it has massive bonuses means nothing as it can never actually get ahead in any meaningful fashion.

I have read the defense of the legacy path system which says they are guidance and what you will be doing anyway, which I think is the only reason the AI actually managed to do any of them at all.

The leaders and civs are bland and not actually many of them. We apparently have hundreds of possible combinations to add variety which is just marketing spin to hide the small number and then as you keep changing civs you don't feel any attachment to them.

There is actually very little design or content with essentially just re-skins from previous eras. The only era with any real changes (the last era) is over before you get to see/use/unlock many of them.

Maps are always predictable and the same, seemingly as a consequence of the DL mechanic.

I complete epic/huge/long era games it the time I would beat quick games in previous versions so you quickly have seen and done everything.

As I have mentioned in other posts ,once I knew what was doing i found myself doing exactly the same thing in every game no matter what leader/civ/victory/difficulty i was playing with the only real difference being as I realised how easy and no-brainer the game is I even stopped trying to optimise as I could wipe the floor with the game by just cruising, even on diety.

There was no more to see, no more challenge, no more improvement, no more optimisation or better strategies to work out...what is the point in improving when it is already a walk in the park.

Is this meta commentary on the sameness of the game?

 

[Leucarum]

I know one thing that would make it more interesting. If any city states/IP's could actually survive in the modern age. It's so frustrating. Why even have city states if they can't ever exist?

I found they have been more likely to survive lately... Last game played a modern to completion as I didn't have Machiavelli's mementos unlocked, and at least 8 were alive at the end of modern!

 

[protocol7]

That’s strange, for me since the latest patch every civ goes on an IP murder spree at the start of every era.

 

[sixty4half]

That’s strange, for me since the latest patch every civ goes on an IP murder spree at the start of every era.

Yep. I've been sending fully packed Army and Navy commanders to the sites of former Suzs on T1 of each age. I just surround them with units so the AI can't take the campsite.

 

[aelf]

IPs in Modern Age are pathetic. They get killed by a few starting units. They're not much better in Exploration and only pose any sort of threat in Antiquity.

Their strength needs to be tweaked for sure.