Is Civ VII most boring version?

[Siptah]

Are you asking if it's more boring than VANILLA civ 5 or 6? Or CivIII?

I think each of them and also 7 were interesting on release for some time for the novelty aspect at least. It‘s fine to be bored by any of them after 100 hours. I don‘t remember for the older ones, but it surely was the case for 5 and 6. I returned for single games when a big patch or DLC hit. And I had fun then. But otherwise the games were outplayed until larger changes happened.

I‘m not quite at that point with 7 - I can still play it without new content arriving (but this is still extra motivation to start a new game).

Yet, the comparison with vanilla civs is a bit pointless. When I decide what to play today, a vanilla civ version isn‘t a possibility. So, there‘s not really a competition for boredom between civ 7 „vanilla“ and 6 „vanilla,“ but a competition between the current (partly modded) versions that’s important for me. And civ 7 wins for the time being

 

[Leucarum]

But... you said it was "boring" playing this way. Why play a game that bores you when you can play in a way that doesn't bore you? Give it a try!

Oh, I never said I find Civ7 boring overall! It's specifically modern which is boring. The antiquity age is I think the perfect Civ experience and exploration is very close. The competitive race for legacy points before the age ends is a large part of what I like.

Maybe Civ 5 would be more fun.

As for Civ5 - it's the only game in the franchise I skipped. I just could never get into it. I tried again after 7 came out as there is clearly some influence there, but it still just feels flat to me.

 

[alireza1354]

Its a dumbified version of all previous versions. A new low.

 

[StargazingDog]

The competitive race for legacy points before the age ends is a large part of what I like.

My point is that you can also do this in modern age.

 

[reddishrecue]

I've seen less people online. What's going on?

 

[queenpea]

My point is that you can also do this in modern age.

Can I ask what difficulty you’re playing on, with which leaders and civs?

 

[queenpea]

I've seen less people online. What's going on?

Do you mean playing the game on Steam, or fewer active people on this forum?

 

[Menocchio]

It is the middle of the work week...

 

[reddishrecue]

Do you mean playing the game on Steam, or fewer active people on this forum?

Good question, I meant on Steam.

 

[reddishrecue]

It is the middle of the work week...

Even in the middle of the work week people used to login more often. There would be a few FFAs available at least.

 

[StargazingDog]

People actually play these games online?

I'm joking... but seriously, I remember playing Civ 2 & 3 (as well as Master of Orion 2) with my roommate in the same room, and the games would take forever and never finish. I can't imagine playing it with strangers online.

 

[StargazingDog]

Can I ask what difficulty you’re playing on, with which leaders and civs?

My last few games were on Sovereign, standard map size, with various leaders/civs.

My current game I went full random! Ended up with Himiko (Queen of Wa) leading the Mississippians. Just hit modern age and am now leading Siam. I chose small map size this time and I kind of regret it. It is far less interesting. I thought maybe it would make the game progress faster, but it seems to be about the same. For whatever reason, I am completely blowing away the AI this time. I have had zero wars, which is a first. I accomplished this by staying "friendly/helpful" with everyone except one (Ashoka, conqueror) and refusing all alliances. Himiko's diplomacy skills keep everyone happy despite never choosing a side. I did start with two alliances early, but those two allies went to war with each other! I stayed neutral and remained so ever since. I think my complete lack of war footing has allowed me to be very culturally and scientifically productive.

I wish I had taken more screenshots of final scores (or there was a hall of fame *grumble*). Here is my first Sovereign attempt from a few weeks ago, and I tied for score! The game still gave me the win, so I guess it defaults to the player breaking a tied score. I was actually behind by two legacy points at the end of exploration.

 

[tman2000]

Even in the middle of the work week people used to login more often. There would be a few FFAs available at least.

It’s really dawning on me what the fundamental flaws of this game are and it has to be happening with others. I was not a hater at the beginning and it took me some time to kind of really understand what the full experience of this game is like. It’s more fun when you assume more experiences are around the corner and depressingly unfun when you realize that there aren’t. The streamlining of the game cadence kills it.

It needs a bit more blending of civ abilities and ages rather than forcing everything into narrow boxes, then simplifying victory paths to the point of annoyance. I have just quit playing because exploration age started and I realized I had to deal with missionaries again.

I think there’s a way to design this kind of game where there are global effects that keep everyone in cadence without the narrow boxes. The point is for some variability so play throughs are never quite like another.

There are some bafflingly bad design decisions in this game too, some of which are widely acknowledged. Like, the maps are too small. But the devs admit that, as the default map is literally “small”. Just, why did this happen?

I thought modding could kind of improve on some of these poor design features like my better towns mod, there’s just only so much you can do.

 

[reddishrecue]

People actually play these games online?

I'm joking... but seriously, I remember playing Civ 2 & 3 (as well as Master of Orion 2) with my roommate in the same room, and the games would take forever and never finish. I can't imagine playing it with strangers online.

Lol... Well, I used to play civ 4, 5 and 6 online as well as 7 but recently online activity has kind of dropped or maybe it's the area I'm in. I feel like I have to rely more on discord and the players that I met there play other games instead.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

After playing Civ VII for 100+ hours I find it extremely boring. It is not nearly addictive as previous versions of Civilization.

Each era has 4 same goals that you must acomplish and after playing few times this becomes very boring.

I played Civ VI for 3,500+ hours, Civ 5 for 1500+ hours and I still find them interesting, each game can be unique and different. But with Civ VI there is nothing unique, it is all very strictly defined with eras and points that you are trying to collect for science, culture, military etc.

Civ VII very much dictates how you will play and what your goals will be in each era. In most cases you can easily acomplish 3 out of 4 goals, giving you big advantage over other AI players as you progress to another era.

Are you finding Civ VII interesting? Is each game unique and different compared to your last game?

Bounced off it rather quick - so yeah, safe to say I didn’t find it terribly enjoyable or engaging, the games I did play I felt I was just clicking random junk to get through turns

 

[tman2000]

Bounced off it rather quick - so yeah, safe to say I didn’t find it terribly enjoyable or engaging, the games I did play I felt I was just clicking random junk to get through turns

I’ve noticed that constantly zooming in to expand towns has become traumatically jarring and boring for me. There’s very little variety in the choices you make. Ironically, controlling builders made you feel more involved with developing your city and ended up feeling like less of a chore. Setting population to tiles was a bit repetitive, but was a good way to react strategically. Both could be automated.

Civ 7 by making it streamlined has both made the player feel less essential to what’s happening and also somehow made it feel like more of a chore.

 

[Taefin]

I’ve noticed that constantly zooming in to expand towns has become traumatically jarring and boring for me. There’s very little variety in the choices you make. Ironically, controlling builders made you feel more involved with developing your city and ended up feeling like less of a chore. Setting population to tiles was a bit repetitive, but was a good way to react strategically. Both could be automated.

Civ 7 by making it streamlined has both made the player feel less essential to what’s happening and also somehow made it feel like more of a chore.

I’m finding the new pop placement mechanic to be a vast improvement in terms of pain. Compared to early game civ 6, it feels similar, but later on, it’s so nice to avoid managing builders and pop placement in every city, and instead manage growth events in only 5-10 settlements at a time. I also love how the new settlement limit allows late game settlements to grow according to the same curve as early settlements, rather than needing to produce builders whose cost has increased all game.

At some point I start just placing random specialists, when the game is already decided and fish are exploding pops, but before that growth events feel like meaningful and relatively quick choices.

 

[tman2000]

I also love how the new settlement limit allows late game settlements to grow according to the same curve as early settlements, rather than needing to produce builders whose cost has increased all game.

This is forced design. They could limit your settlements even more and the game would be even less tedious. There's a balance where the things you are doing have meaning, but you don't have to keep doing it once it doesn't matter. That's why there was automation.

At some point I start just placing random specialists, when the game is already decided and fish are exploding pops, but before that growth events feel like meaningful and relatively quick choices.

Can't be automated...

 

[Taefin]

This is forced design. They could limit your settlements even more and the game would be even less tedious. There's a balance where the things you are doing have meaning, but you don't have to keep doing it once it doesn't matter. That's why there was automation.

I see 6 and 7 using different alternatives to allowing unlimited settlements to all develop as fast as your first settlement.

I prefer 7 creating a yield-based penalty for exceeding the limit vs 6 just making it progressively less fun/rewarding to add each new city. Both are “forced designs” in that they prevent unlimited expansion.

But in 7, every time I increase the limit I can add a settlement that is just as quick and fun to develop as any others. In 6, the optimal play is to keep expanding past when each new settlements becomes more tedious than I can enjoy.

I want to focus on a few actions at a time (developing a new town until it specializes) vs many actions that all drag on for hours of play (24 turns for a builder, 24 turns for a campus) and force me to remember what I did hours ago after each step.

 

[tman2000]

I see 6 and 7 using different alternatives to allowing unlimited settlements to all develop as fast as your first settlement.

I prefer 7 creating a yield-based penalty for exceeding the limit vs 6 just making it progressively less fun/rewarding to add each new city. Both are “forced designs” in that they prevent unlimited expansion.

But in 7, every time I increase the limit I can add a settlement that is just as quick and fun to develop as any others. In 6, the optimal play is to keep expanding past when each new settlements becomes more tedious than I can enjoy.

I want to focus on a few actions at a time (developing a new town until it specializes) vs many actions that all drag on for hours of play (24 turns for a builder, 24 turns for a campus) and force me to remember what I did hours ago after each step.

I find the "developing a new town until it specializes" to be mind-numbingly repetitive after the first few times. I need to have something to manage, but certainly what is being managed has to feel meaningful so it's not a chore. This is why I made a mod for more powerful towns, since the distribution of specializations you choose is entirely a result of the geographic and geopolitical circumstances of each random world. The game isn't forcing you into a cadence so you just have the right scale of task to do at any given time - which turns out to be repetitive and dumb - instead the task should scale to the circumstances you face, which should be randomized in the map generation, and is controlled via what map size or game speed or difficulty you choose.

Edit: I shouldn't say "dumb". This is just a litigating of opinions after all. By "dumb" I mean it more literally, as in not smart. As in the range of choices when growing a town are pretty repetitive and limited and somewhat "solved".