Overall impression (poll)

[tedhebert]

I love most of everything I've seen today...

As a Humankind playtester who almost never played the game once it was released, I AM wary of the civ switching...
But then I remember how MANY times I've read here in the last years about how mid to late game is dull, boring and/or inexistant in 6, and I applaud them for daring the Three Ages system with the crisis system... I have faith that they will make it work !

The art direction, music, map graphics are absolutely stunning, and I love the narrator choice...

Really can't wait to see more on the war/unit battle front though... The units seem extra large, the battles seem to happen on multiple hexes at the same time, the commanders look intriguing with the 5-6 units stacks...

WE NEED MORE INFO

 

[greenOak]

Changing civs mid game is whatever, but no workers/builders and no citizen management is a major kick in the nuts.

The changes to units and armies seem very good.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The only thing which bothers me a bit is lack of workers. While the idea of building everything from within city is really natural, workers (especially in civs up to V) provided some things to do when nothing happens. I've played some other games without workers and it often felt kind of boring. I put my hopes of Firaxis to avoid it, though.

 

[Sekou]

My views formulated from watching some of the preview videos. Cautiously optimistic. Really like the art style, map art, combat changes, no more builders and diplomacy changes. I'm not against the era/age change mechanic, per se. However, I am worried that they're trying reverse my in-game affection.

When I play Civ I'm attached to the Americans or English or Romans or whomever when I set out on a new game. I could care one whit for the leader attached to the Civ. They're just a background statistical/gameplay buff or flavor. For all intents and purposes they're gone and I AM the leader in charge. So when I saw the diplomacy screen and I'm now put to the sidelines and made to watch two leaders exchange barbs on the screen - I can't relate to that at all. That's not me up there. I want the one on one time with Gilgabro or Harrald or whomever so I can mock them, or give them a digital fistbump if they're my ally and we just reupped our alliance or whatnot.

In the end, though, this is still Firaxis. They've made numerous Genre-defining (TM) games over and over and I've been with the franchise since the OG. There's no game franchise I've spent more time with or adored more than Civ. in the end, they're allowed the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Satai Casimir]

Changing civs mid game is whatever, but no workers/builders and no citizen management is a major kick in the nuts.

The changes to units and armies seem very good.

I could not agree more.

I enjoy the micro management aspect of the game - it gives me the feeling of being able to control my civilisation in the way I wish. I am very disappointed by this change.

I think they've also introduced a city cap (like Humankind). Another "no" for me as I loved the ability to create vast sprawling empires. Civ switching is also a "no". I hated it in Humankind.

This may be the first civ game I have not bought since Civ2, but, I aim to keep an open mind. I'm going to wait before I pre-order (assuming I buy it at all).

The game feels very much like Humankind. Why copy something that was not a success and which, it would appear, that a lot of people on here didn't like? It's not as if the Civ team haven't been able to see the feedback...

 

[Roald Amundsen]

This looks quite promising. My humble opinion is that Civ4 was the pinnacle of the series, being a culmination of game design from 1-4. Civ 5 and 6 introduced 1upt which is ok, but it radically changes the game and does not match well with the old mechanics from civ1-4, which these games seem too dependant on. Civ 7, it seems to me, are taking bold steps in new directions, releasing itself from the shackles of civ 1-4, and my hope is that civ 7 could prove to be what this series really needs.

The three era structure has the potential to fix late game slog, victory condition boredom, AI helplessness and the general pacing of the game. It could also amplify meaningful choices, difficulty and depth. I think by far this feature will be the biggest game changer for 7. And, if pulled of, a very good one. I also like the appeal of being able to play just 1 era as a complete game. I really like that they finally ditched the leader screens, which takes me out of the game and most of the time feel very intrusive.

My biggest fear for this game is that AI will still be unable to compete and feel non-aggressive (however I believe the new era structure can help remedy this, it will be like playing the starting turns of civ 6 three times lol). Another fear is that it will feature too many different systems just "tacked on" like in civ 6. Civ 6 seemed to hav a philosophy of "more choices=better." To me "meaningful choices," are much more interesting. These choices usually emerge imo from simpler, interactive systems, with tradeoffs and buffs. For now, my favorite 4x game is Old World, which I find extremely elegant game design. Almost all choices seem meaningful and are often agonizing when playing on higher difficulties. Also, it has managed to rid itself of the end-game-state-victory curse that has riddled civ since civ3.

Edit: Oh one more thing! High hopes for Technology specialization. This was a concept I hoped for in Civ 6. Very curious to see how it's omplemented. Now we only need to ditch the "one of each wonder"-paradigm.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

It's like as if you people have never even tasted "Alt History" stuff like C2C or CK3 -

We're CIV fanatics, not C2C or CK3 fanatics....

 

[Noble Zarkon]

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.

If that's the case it will be a real shame, the policy cards were great although it needed a bit of fine tuning.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

So far, I really only have two concerns:

1. It looks like indigenous American civilizations may be forced to transition to the countries that colonized them "for historical accuracy's sake"
2. The looks to end in the mid 20th century now, which would be a massive disappointment for me, as I've been banging on the drum that civilization should be depicted having an explicit future, way beyond the times we live in now. Please, none of this "End Of History"-nonsense

Otherwise, I'm actually more tempted to pre-order than I was before the reveal (though it's still something I won't do out of principle)

 

[SupremacyKing2]

The looks to end in the mid 20th century now, which would be a massive disappointment for me, as I've been banging on the drum that civilization should be depicted having an explicit future way beyond the times we live in now. Please, none of this "End Of History"-nonsense

I could see Firaxis doing an expansion pack that adds a future era. In fact, the era system seems perfect for expansions since each era is designed almost like a standalone game with its own leaders, civs, legacy traits, victory conditions, resources etc. So Firaxis could design new eras with new leaders, new civs, etc and slot the era into the game pretty easily.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

But then I remember how MANY times I've read here in the last years about how mid to late game is dull, boring and/or inexistant in 6, and I applaud them for daring the Three Ages system with the crisis system... I have faith that they will make it work !

Honestly the era system with the crises and the civ switching might be a genius way to solve the mid to late game boredom. It reminds me of how students in school are told to break up large projects into smaller ones. That is what Firaxis has done with civ. So instead of that one big, long game that starts to drag towards the middle, we now have 3 games that "reset" things to keep the game fresh. The Exploration Era and the Modern Era will feel like starting a new civ game so there will be that renewed excitement. And when an era starts to drag a bit, you head into a crisis which shakes things up. And then when you start a new era, it is like starting a new civ game, you pick a civ/leader, the map expands to provide more exploration opportunities, new minor powers to interact with and when that era starts to drag, you head into a new crisis that shakes things up.

Really can't wait to see more on the war/unit battle front though... The units seem extra large, the battles seem to happen on multiple hexes at the same time, the commanders look intriguing with the 5-6 units stacks...

Watching the Quill18 video on combat and commanders, we see units fight one at a time just like civ6. And there does not appear to be tactical turns like in HK. So I think combat is turn based and works like in civ6. You simply unpack your "stack" around your commander when you are ready to fight but battles occur over a few strategic turns, like in civ6. The combat and commanders system might be my favorite new feature in civ7. I definitely want to see more info on that.

 

[GIO888]

Don't like the Civ-switching idea.

It reminds of Humankind in ways that I don't like. I played Humankind I think twice, and that was enough.

Let's hope all the other fun-looking stuff compensates...

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Generally, I’m willing to play the game and give it a shot. The preorder costs are way too expensive though, and the number of personas/civs that might be locked behind an edition of the game is concerning

Given that i’m among the most vocal against the civ switching mechanic, Im guessing you can figure that I’m most likely considering this game to look a little bad atm

 

[Lazy sweeper]

The only thing I liked was navigable rivers.

So it seems they got that?



I am also pleasantly impressed by the various screenshots with increasing/decreasing heights in the landscape.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Generally, I’m willing to play the game and give it a shot. The preorder costs are way too expensive though, and the number of personas/civs that might be locked behind an edition of the game is concerning

Given that i’m among the most vocal against the civ switching mechanic, Im guessing you can figure that I’m most likely considering this game to look a little bad atm

HK has that connecting things also.

I never connected and never will. It means Vanilla stuff will be forever locked behind an Internet connection.
I'm not willing to do that. I've read Napoleon leader might be stuck behind some weird stuff and don't like it.
I'd rather pay a single DLC upgrade and have nothing to do with 'social' interaction.
God's know who that for.

I'm not saying it's inherently bad, bc most of these upgrades are labelled as free upgrades, you just have to give in some sort of connection details???
It's bad when these free upgrades are forever locked behind these timed events, and this leads to some people having access to some unique leaders etc,
and others that may have the only fault of being late to the party, being stuck with Vanilla. This is the case with HK, then it might give some advantages
like customization, connecting with devs, and other good stuff I might be missing. But frankly I payed HK full and never got a single DLC, I am stuck with Vanilla,
and I don't like to see that someone has more content than me bc they played some live events. It xxxx me off... at least give everyone the same stuff after a while...
It's what people do with power that makes them good or bad...

 

[thecrazyscot]

The UI looks like some nonsense Web 2.0 set up. If I wanted to play earlier Civ graphics, I can just fire up, you know, the other Civ games.

Given how visually busy the map is, it's kind of a relief to have a restrained UI that doesn't contribute to more eye strain.

 

[Leucarum]

I think the ages are going to end up being a biggest deal rather than civ switching. It definitely sounds like we get 3 interconnected games and some serious anti-snowballing mechanics.

So many questions. What happens if someone's eliminated in the antiquity age? How much stuff is carried over? Will it feel artificial?

 

[Mudokon Pop]

So far, I really only have two concerns:

1. It looks like indigenous American civilizations may be forced to transition to the countries that colonized them "for historical accuracy's sake"

I share the exact same concern.

 

[ConquestCola]

I was just thinking that the UI looks pretty nice.

Despite complaints I made, I've got to admit that the game looks fantastic. I have carefully considered my vote for this poll and I have decided on the "wait for more info" option, after waiting to cast a vote for about a day. My knee-jerk reactions to games often don't match my opinions of a game in the long run. So part of my reason for my vote is just giving the devs a decent chance, but part of it is knowing my first impressions are often wrong. If I stuck with my first impressions too tenaciously, I never would have gotten into the 4X genre to begin with. But now, it's almost all I play.

 

[DCParry]

Given how visually busy the map is, it's kind of a relief to have a restrained UI that doesn't contribute to more eye strain.

I can see what you are saying, I definitely think there is clutter to be cleaned up.

Look, the map is gorgeous (although I find the fog of war a bit much), I love the building system.

Leader animations are crap. Some people didn't like the stylized nature of Civ 6, and that's completely reasonable. Civ has traditionally not been a high graphical game, and the farther you move from stylized representations, the more obvious the questionable graphics get. At first, I found the humankind jokes a bit much, but thinking more about it, the actual style and graphics are painfully similar. The leader presentations are awkward and stilted, and I am sort of reminded of when HoMM tried to make the jump to 3D and it looked like trash.