Overall impression (poll)

What is your overall impression of the game?

  • It looks great!

    Votes: 65 19.1%
  • It looks great mostly, but some things could've been done better

    Votes: 105 30.9%
  • 50/50 good/bad

    Votes: 56 16.5%
  • It looks bad mostly, but has some great elements

    Votes: 37 10.9%
  • It looks bad.

    Votes: 49 14.4%
  • I don't have an opinion yet and prefer to wait for more info

    Votes: 28 8.2%

  • Total voters
    340
I'm happy with what I've seen so far. I didn't have a wish list for Civ VII other than improving some game mechanics because Civ VI pretty much has most of everything I desired. If I want traditional Civ then I will play IV, V or VI. If I want something different I'll play VII.
 
The units, structures and terrain look very good. They've sort of split the difference between Civ 5 and Civ 6, and I think that works pretty well. I like how the districts blend together to make the city look cohesive.

What I'm seeing of the leader graphics looks less successful; it looks like they got caught halfway between stylized and photorealistic, and I don't think it works that well. However, I get the impression that this isn't a very important part of the game.

It's a little bit disappointing that the big new feature for Civ 7 is essentially yoinked right out of Humankind. But if it plays well, that's all that matters.
 
My main concern is the bad aspects of Civ VI they didn't get rid of, such as policy cards. I can not believe they kept that horrible chore of a system that grinds the game to a halt every few turns as you have to pick the optimal set of half a dozen cards out of a deck of several dozen to use for... just the next few turns until you have to do it all over again.

I think they did simplify the system though. Here is a screenshot of the government screen. Now, granted it is very early game. But you can see that there are only 2 cards available and only 1 slot. So there are not dozens of cards that you have to optimize. Also, there are not military, economic, diplomatic and wild card slots, only 1 slot type.

1724197398980.png
 
I have not played Humankind, and based on everything I've heard, probably won't. Civ Evolutions look very cool to me, and I'm excited for them. Agree that it'd be ncie to be able to turn that switch off if you so choose, but given how this video looked today, I think that might be like turning Districts off in Civ6.

Honestly the only thing that made me cock my head was the leader screen graphics, but that's far from a dealbreaker and I'm sure I'll get used to it.

Meanwhile, elevations and navigable rivers are exciting, more organic city growth looks great. I mostly like the leader options we're seeing so far and can live with the ones I don't (ahem, Napoleon again...) The world looks gorgeous, especially with the uniqueness of the building designs. It was a small thing, but if I heard correctly in the video Hatshepsut created a district by building a granary. I like the sound of that - a strict improvement on how it works in Civ6. I'm curious how, exactly, towns become cities in this one, since from some of the screenshots it appears that maybe there's something akin to a settler charge that moves it from one status to another, but maybe it can happen either organically or by choice.

Gwendoline Christie is an excellent narrator choice, too. Overall I'm very happy and excited for what we saw today.
 
Looks great - but I have a few concerns. Too early to say if it should've been done better but that's what I clicked because I don't know enough about how the civ switching mechanic will play.

  • Graphics are amazing. Video compression doesn't allow us to see the full detail - can't wait to see it in-game myself. Love the city art styles in particular. They look like sprawling cities. I absolutely love how each culture has it's own style.
  • Map improvements are fantastic - navigable rivers, more verticality etc.. Not sure what Devs means about map expanding? I'm curious to find out.
  • I love the new urban planning. Feels like the a very organic system. Towns with no production queues will be great for grabbing resources where I don't need a city.
Switching Civ's (optional or not) was a surprise. While I get what the Dev team are going for - this is the part i'm unsure of. I'm concerned that this will negatively impact long lasting civilizations such as China if we need to switch to another civ. For this to work, there will need to be a larger roster of civs - imagine both a Han dynasty Civ and a Ming dynasty Civ! While I can see the (loose) connection between Hatsheput and Aksum (land of Punt) - I think it'd be really important to also have the option of Ptolemaic Egypt or Nubia as a successor. Obviously civ changes don't have to have a historic logic - Mongolia was also an option as we saw. But I hope that there will be more fitting options.
If I want to play as Mongolia I don't want to have to play another civ first. I'd rather play as a 'bare bones' civ that can't fully access my unique abilities until the appropriate period when I can become the Mongols proper. I'm sure there is a better way to represent later kingdoms & cultures before their golden ages. Not every kingdom descends from classical civilization. I'll reserve judgement until I see more.

I love everything else that I've seen.
 
My initial impression was extremely mixed. I loved everything except the civ switching mechanism which I was horrified of.

But then after thinking about it and realizing it's going to be a) Most probably easy to disable via mod or options and b) Quite possibly much more fun than in Humankind c) Possibly amazing with all mod civs to fill historical transitions...

I think I may love it. As long as Firaxis is not going to do the idiotic thing of being stubborn about civ switching and making it specifically impossible to mod and refusing us to give an option to customize or disable it - then everything else looks great for me. They seem to have gone to aim directly at some fundamental problems with civ5-6 such as 1UPT, endgame dynamics, snowballing, micromanagement etc.
 
I can live with changing civs. This seems like it will be less often and more meaningful than Humankind. I just hope the civ changing is logical and rational, and not presenting you with ahistorical and random choices. Choices must be meaningful to keep Civ's greatness up.
 
Good things:

1. Graphics - that's a huge relief because it's exactly what I was hoping for. Looking more realistic while still being vibrant and pretty. Different looks for different cultures. Everything is beautiful - units, cities, buildings, leaders and the map. Lovely.
2. Cities have districts, good feature carried over. And they look more realistic/organic than in Civ VI which is a relief.
3. It seems units can be grouped into armies (possibly led by a commander?), but still fight as 1UPT. Possible clone of Humankind's system, which would be great.
4. Leaders speak in their native languages! Augustus' Latin sounds good. Fantastic thing when it comes to immersion and I always loved it in Civ V. I also like the leaders are interacting on the screen when conducting diplomacy.
5. Independent peoples that can be interacted with (another clone of Humankind's feature).
6. Navigable rivers and rivers flowing through the hexes instead of between them (a feature I was hoping for since they announced Civ V).
7. best Roman emperor (Augustus) as leader, good choice ;)

Bad things:

1. civs changing in time. That's the most disliked feature from Humankind to me. I disliked that idea since Humankind's devs announced it and all my fears were realized when they released it. When I play a Civ game - I like to guide my chosen civilization through the entire game - since ancient times to modern, no matter how ahistorical that is. I also like to compete with predetermined civs I chose (I never played against random AI civs in any Civ game I played in the last two decades). For example if I play as Romans, I like to compete against the Greeks and Egyptians, and when I play as America I like to compete against Russians and French. This new system seems to ruin it, because I won't be able to determine against which civ I will compete in every age.
At least it seems we'll have the ability to continue as the previous civ, but that's a choice for the player (possible with some penalty or lack of additional useful features, "punishing" those who did not transition to some other civ). The AI will probably be free to morph into any civ they please (unless there will be some option to prevent it in the game setup). All of this create the same problems that exist in Humankind and greatly reduce my satisfaction. Since there will be no way to play as "modern" civs early in the game - diversity of early age will be reduced. We will see the same ancient civs over and over again, just like we see it in Humankind (the same set of few cities as capitals for the entire game, no matter what civs appear later on). We will witness strange evolution - Romans becoming Japanese, Mauryans becoming Spanish (unless there will be an option to force AI to keep more historical transitions). It breaks the immersion to me. And what if I would like to play as Americans, but someone will pick it first? Will the city names change in time? Or will we see AI Americans in modern age with Egyptian city names and Waset as their capital?
I always liked the idea of giving players as many ways to customize their game as they want and disliked the idea of forcing me to use features I dislike. That's why I still hope for a custom setup option for an "old-style" gameplay, but since it looks the civs will be restricted to their own ages (like they are in Humankind) and overall excitement of devs when they were talking about it - it seems it'll be unlikely. If so - I hope the modders will step in and bring the old Civ style back somehow.

2. only three ages seems a bit disappointing, especially that the glimpse of the tech tree we saw looks rather small (it seems every tech will be able to reach "mastery" which essentially doubles the tech tree, but I would still prefer a larger tree than that.

3. wonders occupying the entire hex. I disliked this feature in Civ VI, but I noticed it's quite popular, so no suprise it's here. To me it creates problems with cities looking bad when they have few oversized wonders spread around the entire area and require unrealistic planning ahead (I have to keep this hex empty for a future wonder, especially if wonders will have placing requirements).

4. borders look as ugly as in Civ VI. They are too angled, too unrealistic, sticking to the straight hex lines too much. I prefer Civ IV/Civ V borders which are more soft, more reacting to the terrain, more realistic and more pleasing to look at. A minor complaint, but still a complaint.


Overall - it's a 50/50 so far. While I love some elements - that one feature (changing of civs, civs locked to eras) kills the excitement. I didn't like it in Humankind at all, it's unlikely I will like it in Civ VII.
Note that they seem to make a point of having each age be potentially standalone with victory conditions so you could for example play Greeks vs Romans in antiquity as a complete game; and the next day play US vs Russia in the last era.

Of course each game would be shorter and you wouldn’t get the full arc of history, but in a way it’s more realistic and could scratch that itch …
 
I give Firaxis a lot of credit for trying something new and fresh, and I have decades of faith in them that tells me to give them a chance rather than scream about how it's already doomed and hopeless.

I think there's a lot of potential here and it'll be a day one purchase for me. Not even worried about it, honestly.
 
I still think that it should still be a choice to switch. I don't think it will be and am a bit bummed that's the direction they went in...but as long as leader bonuses are just as or more significant as civ bonuses then maybe this works. If its just a costume change that makes it easier to balance than big whoop.

I worry more about dictating the story of the game too much and how the notoriously bad AI will react. The weird "end of the age" mechanic is not explained well and I could see those events being repetitive. I also KNOW the AI will be hopeless when choosing civs and reacting to these forced changes. To be honest, I'm more ok with players being forced to change their identity civ throughout time but I struggle with how the AI will respond. I also think that not having a fixed path for the AI is a major issue that WILL have to be fixed. Like they'll just have to make a simplified path for some of the civs that don't have solid representative throughout the ages. I can't think of a scenario where I would want to play in a field of computer-generated civs that are changing their identity and related bonuses twice throughout the game! In MP I almost think it'd be fun but for SP? Jesus that sounds so annoying...

Upon more thinking...we're talking about only 2 switches here. HK had a ton more but with only 3 eras I think they could find some kind of balance. And I really think that reforming this in an expansion pack to make it a choice would be a lot more fun. What are the ramifications bonus-wise of Egyptians making it to the modern age? Does your game change if you "return" to being Rome to face the militarism in the modern age? That's the best I could come up with but we'll have to see. I won't write it off since I know I'll probably be actually playing the game years from now once these initial oddities are ironed out!
 
City sprawling and civ switching.

I’m not buying this game. First time ever I’m not interested in a new Civilization game.
 
My most loved thing:
The change in artstyle and art direction. Absolutely fantastic, I'd just slim down a little how the units look like but otherwise it's a 10/10. Great job

My most hated thing:
The Humankind-like switcharoo of civilizations during Era change. That's just a big no. Can't see myself getting used to it... hope there's still time for some extra tweaking in game design.
 
If it just weren't for the requirement to change Civs every era I would probably be doing figurative cartwheels through my house. I was grinning from ear to ear before that news. There was a lot of really cool looking features and graphical details. I wasn't really a big fan of districts because of how disjointed they appeared from the rest of the city. This fixes that. Navigable rivers look great. The geography and cities adapting onto it looks awesome. There's some great cultural flair in units and buildings. I'm excited for the narrator and Christopher Tin's return.

Really more positive stuff than negative overall, it's just the nature of the civ switch is killing me...
 
I worry more about dictating the story of the game too much and how the notoriously bad AI will react. The weird "end of the age" mechanic is not explained well and I could see those events being repetitive. I also KNOW the AI will be hopeless when choosing civs and reacting to these forced changes. To be honest, I'm more ok with players being forced to change their identity civ throughout time but I struggle with how the AI will respond.

Also, how will the AI handle the crisis mechanic? I bet the human will figure out how to survive the crises better than the AI. By the time, we get to the modern era, we may find the AI weakened by the crises. This could really help the human and make the game less challenging.
 
The changing civs and any leaders for any civ is of course controversial so far. Hopefully it plays well. If it is kind of meh, for me what will make up for it is if they actually correct from Civ VI having a strong ai and fixing ai diplomacy.
 
Back
Top Bottom