[poll] How excited are you currently about Civ7? [vol 1 - September/October 24]

[Riconatic]

I'm suggesting the have more than 30 base civs that launch with the game so people can still have the option to feel like they are playing a single civilization through 3 eras. My observation is that will happen eventually, but through about £100 worth of DLC in addition to the base game, which is not going to be accessible for casual fans who want that experience.

You are suggesting impossible. Launch date is set and civilizations do not appear from thin air. No time to do them anymore. It is what it is.

Nothing major will change before launch in this game no matter what. Simply no time.

 

[TreVor_ish]

That's not a big "yes but", but the permanent spec is only for the current Age

Yes, it might not be an issue after all, and it can even encourage player to have only capital and bunch of towns for the first Age, for Augustus' displeasure. As I believe, cities downgrade on transition, and choosing Economy path might not be a priority for most games.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Impact of switching is unknowable. Too many variables. It's all guessing. If I were to guess? Pretty good argument can be made it hurt HK. The games will not be equivalent, though, and there's really no way to estimate the emotional impact it'll have at this point.

I tend to lean more towards negative. Unsure of scale. You create alt-history in other games, too. No EU3 or EU4 game goes anything like what's written. However your opponents retain their own in-game story, identity intact, rather than becoming something with a different identity at an arbitrary point. If you told EU Byzantine players that their state becomes the Ottomans or some kinda Mamluk Sultanate at 1650, the community reaction would be much more extreme than what we've seen from the civ community, in my estimation.

Civ is... sorta doing that. Although their game is more abstracted than the EU series from the start, I think it's a safe bet it'll have emotional impact, and I don't think it'll be positive. Those who are on the attack presently aren't really those I see impacted, the greater risk for Firaxis are the players who are interested yet see that interest wane as a consequence, often despite their sincere intention to enjoy the game.

 

[DeutschDachs]

About a 5 which is kind of crazy because I don't think I've ever been below a 10 in terms of hype for a new Civ game.

I'm just not really excited about Civ-changing and with only about 30 Civs in the base game I'm worried games are going to feel a bit repetitive with the same 10 Civs always showing up in each age. I'm sure DLC will help a lot as it always does in the Civ series.

And on the one hand it might lead to a massive roster with tons of Civs included who otherwise might not be, but on the other I'm finding it hard to get too excited about Civs because they're only there for part of the game instead of the full thing. Like if the Mississippians were in Civ 5 or 6 I would find that so cool to play with them beginning to end, but here it's just kinda "neat" with the knowledge I'll practically forget I was even playing as them by endgame

Still going to get it day one, I have hope it will exceed my tempered expectations

 

[stealth_nsk]

Impact of switching is unknowable. Too many variables. It's all guessing. If I were to guess? Pretty good argument can be made it hurt HK. The games will not be equivalent, though, and there's really no way to estimate the emotional impact it'll have at this point.

I tend to lean more towards negative. Unsure of scale. You create alt-history in other games, too. No EU3 or EU4 game goes anything like what's written. However your opponents retain their own in-game story, identity intact, rather than becoming something with a different identity at an arbitrary point. If you told EU Byzantine players that their state becomes the Ottomans or some kinda Mamluk Sultanate at 1650, the community reaction would be much more extreme than what we've seen from the civ community, in my estimation.

Civ is... sorta doing that. Although their game is more abstracted than the EU series from the start, I think it's a safe bet it'll have emotional impact, and I don't think it'll be positive. Those who are on the attack presently aren't really those I see impacted, the greater risk for Firaxis are the players who are interested yet see that interest wane as a consequence, often despite their sincere intention to enjoy the game.

Well, on the scale of strategy-simulation (like Sims games), EU games are much further to simulation end than Civilization. It always was like this and Civ7 is not an exception. Civ5 was heavily criticized for backstabber AI who tried to provide challenge instead of roleplay.

I understand there are people who enjoy historical simulation a lot (and loving EU could be an indicator) and for those players Civ7 changes should be felt as a downgrade. But that's exactly about positioning. Firaxis tries to make Civ7 more interesting as a strategic game. They want to address snowballing, they want to address balance between civilizations of different eras, they want to address boring late game. And they are ready to sacrifice some piece of simulation quality to achieve this.

So, it's like this to me. Civ7 shifts a bit more from simulation to strategy and on this way it will probably lose some fans, but probably gain some as well. Especially if multiplayer really will be significantly better, as a lot of people with more "strategic" preferences enjoy competitive multiplayer.

EDIT: HK is a different beast, they made a lot of sacrifices with really questionable outcome. For example, just focusing on recognizable leaders instead of nameless abominations and using leader names everywhere instead of civ names (which go away quite fast) would improve the game image a lot.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

You are suggesting impossible. Launch date is set and civilizations do not appear from thin air. No time to do them anymore. It is what it is.

Nothing major will change before launch in this game no matter what. Simply no time.

You are right, but the compromise there is that we get some free civ drops to fill out the unfinished launch civilizations post release. If everyone had a clear through line that was identifiable as a civilization like India and China I would be happy that's a complete game.

That's also unrealistic because the execs at 2k have got to have next years ferrari, so thats why I'm resigned to my 0 on this poll

 

[agonistes]

I voted 0, but not out of 'hate'. I think the game could be fun for many current civ fans.

Alas, for me, the franchise continues to head in a direction that I do not find appealing. But I might recommend it to others.

 

[Disgustipated]

I've been negative about a few things on this game, but I do want to give one piece of positive news about this game, with the modern age ending when it does, at least we won't have a GDR or a XCom unit this time around.

Let's just hope they don't decide to put in vampires again.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I've been negative about a few things on this game, but I do want to give one piece of positive news about this game, with the modern age ending when it does, at least we won't have a GDR or a XCom unit this time around.

Let's just hope they don't decide to put in vampires again.

I actually want both of those ideas expanded upon and refined for extra content. I thought they all had really solid potential for MP mode. Mind, I think that sort of content should be added, optionally, after the devs have implemented all the historical ideas they wanted to.

EDIT: Also I'm waiting to see some non-Persia antiquity reveals. Norse, Tonga/Samoa, Silla/Yamatai, Wagadu. Then my interest/excitement will jump from, maybe a 4-5, to definitely a 9-10.

 

[chaosprophet]

I've been negative about a few things on this game, but I do want to give one piece of positive news about this game, with the modern age ending when it does, at least we won't have a GDR or a XCom unit this time around.

We don't actually know where the modern age ends so far, it is mostly speculation.

 

[NickTheGreek!]

6 right now, i preordered CIV 6 and played it on release. Imo CIV games take a while to mature and be great so i will wait this time and buy it later on sale (at least thats the plan at the moment).... Or get more excited as we get closer to release and just splurge and buy the founders edition

 

[Savoir10]

I was truly hyped for the new game, a hard 9. Then when I found out the price in Australia, my enthusiasm waned slightly to a 6. Then Denuvo reared it's ugly head and I'm now a soft 3. I'll wait and see. I'm a little disheartened to be honest.

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

So excited. Civ switching seems great to me. Civ 5 and 6 weren’t great till expansions. I like that the min maxing rush has been removed, curious to see how the era score plays out.
It appears like we are getting 3 games in one. Very curious to see how the exploration era works, seems like there will be more of an exploration and trade game.

Never play with all the Civs, stick to my 6 or so favs or so
So far most look fun in the base game and will always look forward to more

 

[Naokaukodem]

seems like there will be more of an exploration and trade game.

Yes I forgot that in my "review" earlier in this thread, Exploration Age simulated is under pros to me also, always militated for that sort of things. Now we have to wait for Civ8 to see hopefully a true rise & fall of civilizations in standard games.

 

[Stomper66]

It's a bit of a statement to not have a single northern European civ in the Antiquity Age on launch. Gauls? Britons? Germanics? Huns? It's going to feel very silly going to nations like Britain, France, Germany and Russia with the ancient civs announced. I wouldn't be surprised if Normandy and Spain are the only European exploration age civs as well, and those civs were concentrated wholly or largely in the Mediterranean. I think that for a game that should reflect real life history, a lot of the famous civilisations in the western world are going to be evidently absent on launch, but I think that was probably the agenda all along. I'm going down to a 5.

 

[Isengardtom]

I’m pretty excited - will go for a 9
Haven’t preordered yet though

 

[j51]

It's a bit of a statement to not have a single northern European civ in the Antiquity Age on launch. Gauls? Britons? Germanics? Huns? It's going to feel very silly going to nations like Britain, France, Germany and Russia with the ancient civs announced. I wouldn't be surprised if Normandy and Spain are the only European exploration age civs as well, and those civs were concentrated wholly or largely in the Mediterranean. I think that for a game that should reflect real life history, a lot of the famous civilisations in the western world are going to be evidently absent on launch, but I think that was probably the agenda all along. I'm going down to a 5.

I think they know people will buy them as DLC. I’d expect Goths (because of Theodoric’s mausoleum being a wonder) and a Central European exploration civ to come with the dlc packs next year.

 

[Zaarin]

It's a bit of a statement to not have a single northern European civ in the Antiquity Age on launch. Gauls? Britons? Germanics? Huns?

...since when are the Huns Northern European? At any rate, Britons would be a waste of a civ slot IMO; they're much better suited for an Independent People. (Same with Huns IMO. Attila can be a leader without the Huns. It would be nice to see the Scythians back.) We already know the Goths are coming and probably soon; we'll get Gauls sooner or later. Personally I'd be fine with Antiquity Europe being Greece, Rome, and Goths; Europe was a backwater in Antiquity and those three civs can lead into anywhere in Europe.

 

[j51]

...since when are the Huns Northern European? At any rate, Britons would be a waste of a civ slot IMO; they're much better suited for an Independent People. (Same with Huns IMO. Attila can be a leader without the Huns. It would be nice to see the Scythians back.) We already know the Goths are coming and probably soon; we'll get Gauls sooner or later. Personally I'd be fine with Antiquity Europe being Greece, Rome, and Goths; Europe was a backwater in Antiquity and those three civs can lead into anywhere in Europe.

I mostly agree with this but the Gauls are so much fun!

 

[Zaarin]

I mostly agree with this but the Gauls are so much fun!

I like the Gauls as well. Just from a perspective of civ-switching, they don't open any new doors so I'd consider them lower priority.