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

How excited are you currently about Civ7? (September/October 24)

  • 0 - Not excited at all, I hate what I've seen and will certainly never buy it

    Votes: 22 6.1%
  • 1

    Votes: 20 5.6%
  • 2

    Votes: 19 5.3%
  • 3

    Votes: 31 8.6%
  • 4

    Votes: 14 3.9%
  • 5

    Votes: 19 5.3%
  • 6

    Votes: 29 8.1%
  • 7

    Votes: 33 9.2%
  • 8

    Votes: 63 17.5%
  • 9

    Votes: 62 17.2%
  • 10 - Super excited, I love everything I've seen so far and have already pre-ordered

    Votes: 48 13.3%

  • Total voters
    360
If that was the design intent, the Civ 6 mechanic was a massive design failure. The policy cards trivialized the decision, because they could be swapped so frequently. It became "this is my highest priority for the next 2 turns, so I'll micro-manage my efficiency by swapping in this card for those 2 turns".

Civ 5's policy trees made for much more meaningful decisions, because you had to live with them the rest of the game. For many, that was too far in the other direction, especially given the struggle the dev team had in trying to balance the individual trees (something they never properly achieved).

The happy medium (for me) is policies that have a noticeable impact on the type of civilization you are building, which can only be changed gradually and infrequently, or with a significant cost (revolution). Ideally (again for me) those policies would have multi-faceted impacts, not just be +x% to this one specific thing, but I don't expect the current dev team to embrace that as they seem to prefer single effects. I'm hopeful, though, that they may at least cut down on the "you can change all policy cards every 1 to 3 turns" system of Civ 6.
Oh, I agree. Policy cards are worse then culture trees for a variety of reasons.

But the point is that their badness goes in exactly the opposite way than the one @Noble Zarkon is talking about.

Previous system had small bonuses. New system got bigger bonuses. And yet this new system is worse, because there are other factors which determine whether the system works good or not and whether the player choice is meaningful and is at all a choice instead of just following mostly the same pattern in every game.

They are trying to somewhat fix the issue with the introduction of civ-specific culture trees and traditions, and we are not yet sure what is going on with the governments. But all this has nothing to do with how big or small the bonuses are.
 
Solid 0.
The civ serie was one of the pillar of my gaming world since the beginning, but lost me at the disastrous fifth iteration when it went completely astray, and it never came back from this garbage.
That alone would make it a pass, but if you add the civ-switching, Denuvo and DLC politics, that re-nails the coffin. Not even going to test it for free.
 
Solid 0.
The civ serie was one of the pillar of my gaming world since the beginning, but lost me at the disastrous fifth iteration when it went completely astray, and it never came back from this garbage.
That alone would make it a pass, but if you add the civ-switching, Denuvo and DLC politics, that re-nails the coffin. Not even going to test it for free.
What exactly did you dislike about Civ 5 that much?
 
What exactly did you dislike about Civ 5 that much?
Everything.
The atrocious 1upt which basically ruined the game by itself due to all the consequences it had on the game as a whole (including the comical archers able to shoot over mountain range, the carpet of doom, cities being treated like units, the whole production balance and its glacial pace...). The dumb simple additive bonus that made a university in a small village just as good as a university in a sprawling metropolis. The gamey non-sensical "city-state". The idiotic AI. The general boredom. The horrible interface and its "console-like" appearance, plus the loss of all the little QoL that was present in the previous title.
It manages even to annoy me through personal preferences and pet peeves, like graphics (which I found utterly sterile and dead) and hex (I utterly despise hex).

That's the first time I was bored of a civ game barely a few hours in, while usually I spent weeks playing it.
 
Looking some disputes between the fanatics of different Civ titles is always funny.
Especially when they claim the one is the best and the others are the worst, and when they get back the exact same thing from anothers.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, Civ 5 was boring at vanilla launch. It did get better with expansions.
 
To be fair, Civ 5 was boring at vanilla launch. It did get better with expansions.
And even fully expanded, it was still one of the weakest Civ games, IMO.
 
At least Civ 5 expansions made it clearly better. Meanwhile, AI in civ 6 visibly struggles with new mechanics.

Though, maybe I just need to remind myself how good previous titles were.
I agree that G&K is probably the single best expansion in the franchise; it took a frankly horrible game and made it playable. But I don't play Civ games for the challenge so the effectiveness of the AI is not one of the metrics I judge the game on (except insofar in how personable the AI behavior is, and in that I unfortunately have to concede that Civ5 was superior--agendas were Civ6's worst idea, and I'm sorry to see them back).
 
Civ 5 was the best game of the series, IMO! ;)
For me the only thing saving it from being the weakest is the existence of Civ3, and it's a pretty close call even then. :lol:
 
For me the only thing saving it from being the weakest is the existence of Civ3, and it's a pretty close call even then. :lol:
This shows how much personal preferences matter. To me Civ3 was fantastic at its time and Civ5 with all expansions is better than Civ6 (unlike Civ6, expansions actually made Civ5 better)
 
This shows how much personal preferences matter. To me Civ3 was fantastic at its time and Civ5 with all expansions is better than Civ6 (unlike Civ6, expansions actually made Civ5 better)
I'm also fairly in camp uneven civs are the better ones. I played and enjoyed much more 3 than 4, and from my current perspective finished civ 5 is more interesting and enjoyable than finished civ 6 (although 6 was better at its release than 5 was). The exception is of course civ 1. Civ 2 > civ 1 in every aspect. And yeah, personal preferences: they probably outrun actual features by a magnitude.
 
After seeing that Spain in modern age will transform/mutate into Mexico I am really thinking not buying the game until they fix it. I bought all civs since the first (a pirate copy because it was not published in Spain and in those times internet market was not open yet) but this for me is not civ 7 is civ woke 1. I am not saying that it is a bad or good game, but for me it is not the same spirit. For me the worst is they could have done the same but allowing people to keep their civs through the ages (maybe getting less bonus). Also I find unfair that some civs get to keep their cultural roots just changing dynasties s or government types (Mauriya India, Chola India and Mughal India). I suspect that from the beginning when they had this idea, they knew that a lot of people would like it the classic way and future expansions and dlcs (maybe is wishful thinking) have already their spot in the code.
 
I am going to wait for a few youtube play alongs before buying.

I like how it looks, i like some of the ideas as well. But i am primarily a TSL player (i appreciate i may be in a minority) and it looks like TSL is dead for civ 7. Without the historic starting positions for civs i feel connected to i am not sure the immersion will be there for me.

To be fair i have been playing since civ 1 (civ 4 my favourite) and although i loved 5 and 6 i have occasionally felt the franchise has moved away from the RP aspect in recent editions.
 
Top Bottom